[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77872-77969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9749]



[[Page 77871]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 86 and 600



Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve 
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 77872]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8257-5]
RIN 2060-AN14


Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve 
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
changes to the methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates 
that are posted on window stickers of all new cars and light trucks 
sold in the United States. This final rule will greatly improve the EPA 
fuel economy estimates to more accurately inform consumers about the 
fuel economy they can expect to achieve in the real world. The new test 
methods take into account several important factors that affect fuel 
economy in the real world, but are missing from the existing fuel 
economy tests. Key among these factors are high speeds, aggressive 
accelerations and decelerations, the use of air conditioning, and 
operation in cold temperatures. Under the new methods, the city miles 
per gallon (mpg) estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will 
drop by about 12 percent on average relative to today's estimates, and 
city mpg estimates for some vehicles will drop by as much as 30 
percent. The highway mpg estimates for most vehicles will drop on 
average by about 8 percent, with some estimates dropping by as much as 
25 percent relative to today's estimates. These changes will take 
effect starting with 2008 model year vehicles, available at dealers in 
2007. We also are adopting a new fuel economy label design with a new 
look and updated information that should be more useful to prospective 
car buyers. The new label features more prominent fuel cost 
information, an easy-to-use graphic for comparing the fuel economy of 
different vehicles, clearer text, and a Web site address for more 
information. Manufacturers will be phasing in the new design during the 
2008 model year. Finally, for the first time we are requiring fuel 
economy labeling of certain passenger vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 
lbs gross vehicle weight rating. Because of the Department of 
Transportation's recent regulation that brings medium-duty passenger 
vehicles into the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program starting in 
2011, EPA is now statutorily obligated to include these vehicles in the 
fuel economy labeling program. Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a 
subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight 
that includes large sport utility vehicles and vans, but not pickup 
trucks. Vehicle manufacturers are required to post fuel economy labels 
on medium-duty passenger vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 26, 2007. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734) 
214-4636; E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#620410070c010a4c100d0007101611220712034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e58397808b868dcb978a8780979196a5809584cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.\1\ Regulated categories and entities include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
         Category             NAICS Codes a        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................  336111, 336112.....  Motor vehicle
                                                 manufacturers.
Industry.................  81112, 811198,       Commercial importers of
                            54154.               vehicles and vehicle
                                                 components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To 
determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person 
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
    1. Revised Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy 
Estimates
    2. New Labeling Requirement for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design
    4. New Vehicle Class Categories and Definitions
    5. Test Procedure Modifications
    C. Why is EPA Taking This Action?
    1. Energy Policy Act of 2005
    2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual Driving Experience
    3. Representing Real-World Conditions on the Fuel Economy Tests
    D. When Will the New Requirements Take Effect?
    1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
    2. Implementation of New Label Design
    3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy Labeling Methods
    F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact CAFE Standards or Test 
Procedures
    G. Public Participation
II. New Test Methods and Calculation Procedures for Fuel Economy 
Labels
    A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Methodology

[[Page 77873]]

    1. Overview of Public Comments on the 5-Cycle Methodology
    2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology From Proposal
    B. Derivation of the MPG-Based Methodology
    C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel Economy Label Values
    D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
    E. Implementation of the New Fuel Economy Methods
    1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for 2011 and Later Model 
Years
    2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Label Estimates
    3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
    A. Background
    B. Label Size and Orientation
    C. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
    D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
    E. ``Your Mileage Will Vary'' Statement
    F. Environmental Information Statement
    G. Government Logos and Web site Link
    H. Temporary Transitional Statement
    I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis
    J. Labeling Requirements for Dual Fueled Vehicles
    K. Addition of Final Regulatory Specifications for Label Content 
and Design
IV. Testing Provisions
    A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From 
Certain Emission Tests
    1. Diesel Vehicles
    2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
    B. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures
    1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and Highway Segments
    2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP
    3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing Provisions
V. Projected Cost Impacts
    A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles Into Fuel Economy Label 
Calculations
    1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through 2010 Model Years (MY)
    2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years
    3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden
    B. Revised Label Format and New Information Included
    C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06, and Cold FTP 
Tests
    D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing
    E. Fees
    F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate
VI. Implementation and Other Provisions
    A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable Vehicles
    B. Fuel Economy Ranges for Comparable Fuel Economy Graphic
    C. Temporary Option To Add ``Old Method'' City and Highway 
Estimates on Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle Labels
    D. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a 
Metric
    E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel Economy Calculator
    F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel Costs
    G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy 
Booklet
VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations
    A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    B. Energy Policy Act of 2005
    C. Other Statutes and Regulations
    1. Automobile Disclosure Act
    2. Internal Revenue Code
    3. Clean Air Act
    4. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005
    5. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy 
Advertising for New Vehicles
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

    This final rule has three key elements. First, we are finalizing 
changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fuel economy 
testing and calculation procedures so that the miles per gallon (mpg) 
estimates for passenger cars and light-duty trucks will better reflect 
what consumers achieve in the real-world. Second, we are updating the 
fuel economy window sticker that appears on all new cars and light 
trucks sold in the U.S., which will make the window sticker more useful 
and understandable to consumers. Third, for the first time we are 
requiring fuel economy labeling of certain passenger vehicles between 
8,500 and 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), such as the 
largest sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and passenger vans.
    This final rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
published on February 1, 2006.\2\ In the NPRM, we proposed changes to 
the testing and calculation procedures used to calculate the fuel 
economy estimates that appear on window stickers that are posted on all 
new cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The NPRM also 
proposed changes to the fuel economy label design and content. We 
received comments on the NPRM from a wide variety of stakeholders, 
including the automobile manufacturing industry, environmental groups, 
consumer organizations, state governments, and the general public. 
These comments are available for public viewing in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. Docket content can be viewed and/or downloaded at http://www.regulations.gov.\3\ Our responses to these comments are detailed in 
the Response to Comments document, which is available in the public 
docket and on our Web site.\4\ In this section of the final rule we 
describe some background information and provide a brief description of 
the content, timing, and rationale for the final program. For 
additional background and details regarding the proposal, readers 
should consult the NPRM and related documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006), Available in the public 
docket and on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm.
    \3\ Enter the docket i.d. number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169) in the 
Keyword field and choose ``All Documents (Open and Closed for 
Comment).''
    \4\ See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm or 
http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    With this final rule, EPA is helping car buyers make more informed 
decisions when considering a vehicle's fuel economy. Fuel economy, or 
gas mileage, continues to be a major area of public interest for 
several reasons. Passenger vehicles account for approximately 40 
percent of all U.S. oil consumption. Finally, the more miles a car gets 
per gallon of gasoline, the more money the owner saves on fuel costs. 
With consumers' renewed interest in fuel savings due to higher gasoline 
prices, providing mileage estimates that more closely reflect real-
world driving has once again become important for consumers who 
comparison-shop.
    The EPA fuel economy estimates have appeared on the window stickers 
of all new cars and light trucks since the late 1970's and are well-
recognized by consumers. The window sticker displays two fuel economy 
estimates: One for city driving and one for highway driving. These 
estimates, in units of miles per gallon, essentially serve two 
purposes: (1) To provide consumers with a basis on which to compare the 
fuel economy of different vehicles, and (2) to provide consumers with a 
reasonable estimate of the fuel economy they can expect to achieve. 
While the EPA fuel economy estimates have generally been a useful tool 
for comparing the relative fuel economy of different vehicles, they 
have been less useful for predicting the fuel economy that consumers 
can reasonably expect to achieve in the real world. Consumers need to 
be provided with accurate,

[[Page 77874]]

easily understandable, and relevant information regarding the fuel 
economy of new vehicles. This final rule improves the information 
provided to consumers regarding the fuel economy of new vehicles.
    The city fuel economy estimate is currently based on the Federal 
Test Procedure (FTP), which was designed to measure a vehicle's 
tailpipe emissions under urban driving conditions. The driving cycle 
used for the FTP was developed in the mid-1960's to represent home-to-
work commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of the tests used to 
determine emissions compliance today. The FTP includes a series of 
accelerations, decelerations, and idling (such as at stop lights). It 
also includes starting the vehicle after it has been parked for an 
extended period of time (called a ``cold start''), as well as a start 
on a warmed-up engine (called a ``hot start''). The total distance 
covered by the FTP is about 11 miles and the average speed is about 21 
mph, with a maximum speed of about 56 mph.
    The highway fuel economy estimate is currently based on the Highway 
Fuel Economy Test (HFET), which was developed by EPA in 1974 and was 
designed to represent a mix of interstate highway and rural driving. It 
consists of relatively constant higher-speed driving, with no engine 
starts or idling time. The HFET covers a distance of about 10 miles, at 
an average speed of 49 mph and a top speed of about 60 mph.
    A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy estimates is that the 
underlying test and calculation procedures do not fully represent 
current real-world driving conditions. Some of the key limitations are 
that the highway test has a top speed of only 60 miles per hour, both 
the city and highway tests are run at mild climatic conditions (75 
[deg]F), both tests have mild acceleration rates, and neither test is 
run with the use of fuel-consuming accessories, such as air 
conditioning. Over the past few years, there have been several 
independent studies comparing EPA's fuel economy estimates to the real-
world experience of consumers. These studies confirm that there is 
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy, and provide 
substantial evidence that EPA's mileage ratings often overestimate 
real-world fuel economy. Although these studies differ in a number of 
variables, including their test methods, driving conditions, and fuel 
economy measurement techniques, they indicate that EPA's approach to 
estimating fuel economy needs to be improved to better represent some 
key real-world fuel economy impacts.
    The methods used today for calculating the city and highway mpg 
estimates have been in place since the 1970's, and the results of these 
methods were adjusted only once in the mid-1980's to bring them closer 
to consumer's expectations.\5\ Since that time, there have been many 
changes affecting the way Americans drive--speed limits are higher, 
road congestion has increased, vehicle performance has increased, 
vehicle technologies have changed markedly, and more vehicles are 
equipped with energy-consuming accessories like air conditioning. Our 
analysis shows that these changes, along with several other factors, 
again indicate a need to revise the testing and calculation procedures 
underlying the fuel economy window sticker estimates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling procedures 
that were applicable to 1985 and alter model year vehicles. Based on 
in-use fuel economy data collected at the time, it was evident that 
the fuel economy estimates needed to be adjusted downward in order 
to more accurately reflect consumers' average fuel economy 
experience. The city values (based on the raw FTP test data) were 
adjusted downward by 10 percent and the highway values (likewise 
based on the raw highway test data) were adjusted downward by 22 
percent. See 49 FR 13832 (April 6, 1984).
    \6\ See the Technical Support Document and ``Vehicle Fuel 
Economy Labeling and the Effect of Cold Temperature, Air-
Conditioning Usage and Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,'' by 
Eldert Bontekoe and Richard A. Rykowski, 2005. These are available 
in the public docket for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the new fuel economy estimates will provide car buyers 
with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of different 
vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy varies from 
driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as different 
driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of accessories, loads, 
weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different drivers of the same 
vehicle will experience different fuel economy as these and other 
factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a ``perfect'' fuel 
economy test that will provide accurate real-world fuel economy 
estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there will always be 
consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy. The EPA 
estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers, 
particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to 
another. Nevertheless, we do believe that the new fuel economy test 
methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate 
estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world. Under 
the new methods, the city mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most 
vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average relative to today's 
estimates. City estimates for some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles, 
including gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, will decrease by 20 to 30 
percent. The highway mpg estimates for most vehicles will drop on 
average by about 8 percent, with some estimates dropping by as much as 
25 percent relative to today's estimates.
    While the inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual 
real-world driving behavior and conditions, it is essential that our 
fuel economy estimates continue to be derived primarily from 
controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. Because the test is 
controlled and repeatable, an EPA fuel economy estimate can be used for 
comparison of different vehicle models and types. In other words, when 
consumers are shopping for a car, they can be sure that the fuel 
economy estimates were measured using a ``common yardstick''--that is 
the same test run under the exact same set of conditions, making the 
fuel economy estimates a fair comparison from vehicle-to-vehicle. While 
some organizations have issued their own fuel economy estimates based 
on real-world driving, such an approach introduces a wide number of 
often uncontrollable variables--different drivers, driving patterns, 
weather conditions, temperatures, etc.--that make repeatable tests 
impossible. Our new fuel economy test methods are more representative 
of real-world conditions than the current fuel economy tests--yet we 
retain our practice of relying on controlled, repeatable, laboratory 
tests. EPA and manufacturers test over 1,250 vehicle models annually 
and every test is run under an identical range of conditions and under 
a precise driver's trace, which assures that the result will be the 
same for an individual vehicle model no matter when and where the 
laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature, road grade, 
driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the result of the 
test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy on a trip-to-
trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result. Therefore, a 
repeatable test provides a level playing field for all vehicles, which 
is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one vehicle to another. 
Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm the values achieved 
by the manufacturers' testing, and this can only be achieved with a 
highly repeatable test or set of tests.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to revise 
the fuel economy labeling methods to better reflect a variety of real-
world factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of

[[Page 77875]]

the 2005 Energy Policy Act directs EPA to ``* * * update or revise the 
adjustment factors in [certain sections of the fuel economy labeling 
regulations] to take into consideration higher speed limits, faster 
acceleration rates, variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, 
shorter city test cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use 
of other fuel depleting features.'' This final rule fully addresses 
this statutory requirement. Section VII contains a detailed analysis of 
the statute and regulations.

B. What Requirements Are We Adopting?

    This final rule establishes new methods for determining the city 
and highway fuel economy estimates for the sole purpose of fuel economy 
labeling by incorporating fuel economy results over a broader range of 
driving conditions. The new methodology will result in EPA fuel economy 
estimates that better approximate the miles per gallon that consumers 
achieve in real-world driving. These changes include some revisions to 
existing test procedures. In addition, we are revising the format and 
content of the fuel economy label to make the information more useful 
and easily understandable to consumers. The new rule also requires that 
medium-duty passenger vehicles (a subset of vehicles 8,500 to 10,000 
lbs gross vehicle weight) have fuel economy labels. We also are 
finalizing minor changes related to the fuel economy information 
program, including revising the comparable vehicle classes and adding a 
new provision for the electronic distribution of the annual Fuel 
Economy Guide. An overview of each of these requirements follows, with 
additional detail provided in subsequent sections of this final rule.
1. Revised Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy 
Estimates
    This final rule revises the test methods by which the city and 
highway fuel economy estimates are calculated. We are replacing the 
current method, established in 1984, of adjusting the city (FTP) test 
result downward by 10 percent and the highway (HFET) test result 
downward by 22 percent. Instead, we are finalizing the proposed 
approach that incorporates additional test methods that address factors 
that impact fuel economy but that are missing from today's tests--
specifically, higher speeds, more aggressive driving (e.g., higher 
acceleration rates), the use of air conditioning, and the effect of 
cold temperature and other factors.
    Since 1984 when we last updated the fuel economy estimate 
methodology, EPA has established several new test cycles for emissions 
certification. EPA had become concerned that the FTP omitted many 
critical driving modes and conditions that existed in actual use, and 
that emissions could be substantially higher during these driving modes 
compared to the FTP.\7\ Manufacturers frequently designed their 
vehicles' emission control systems to meet the specified FTP test 
conditions, often neglecting emissions control over other driving 
conditions, resulting in higher real-world emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Emissions from driving modes not reflected on EPA test 
procedures became known as ``off-cycle'' emissions, meaning that 
they occurred during driving conditions not typically encountered 
over EPA's emission test cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The need for action to address off-cycle emissions was recognized 
by Congress in the passage of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Section 206(h) required EPA to study 
and revise as necessary the test procedures used to measure emissions, 
taking into consideration the actual current driving conditions under 
which motor vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel, 
temperature, acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA 
required EPA to establish emission standards for carbon monoxide under 
cold (20[deg]F) temperature conditions.
    In 1992, EPA published rules implementing the 202(j) cold 
temperature testing requirement, acknowledging that the ambient 
temperature conditions of the FTP test (run between 68 and 86 [deg]F) 
did not represent the full range of ambient temperature conditions that 
exist across the United States and that cold temperature had different 
emissions effects on different vehicle designs.\8\ EPA's cold 
temperature emission regulations required manufacturers to conduct FTP 
testing at 20 [deg]F. By promulgating this new test procedure and 
associated carbon monoxide emission standard, EPA sought to encourage 
manufacturers to employ better emission control strategies that would 
improve ambient air quality across a wider range of in-use temperature 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 57 FR 31888 (July 17, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA requirement, EPA published a 
report in 1993 which concluded that the FTP cycle did not represent the 
full range of urban driving conditions that could impact the in-use 
driving emission levels.\9\ Consequently, EPA promulgated a rule in 
1996 that established two new test procedures, with associated emission 
standards, that addressed certain shortcomings with the current FTP. 
Known as the ``Supplemental FTP,'' or ``SFTP,'' these procedures, 
similar to the cold temperature FTP, encouraged the use of the better 
emission controls across a wider range of in-use driving conditions in 
order to improve ambient air quality.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test Procedure 
Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
    \10\ See 61 FR 54852 (October 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the SFTP test cycles, the US06, was designed to address high 
speed, aggressive driving behavior (with more severe acceleration 
rates) and rapid and frequent speed fluctuations. The US06 test 
contains both lower-speed city driving and higher-speed highway driving 
modes. Its top speed is 80 mph, and average speed is 48 mph. The top 
acceleration rate exceeds 8 mph per second. The other SFTP test, the 
SC03, was designed to address air-conditioner operation under a full 
simulation of high temperature (95 [deg]F), high sun-load, and high 
humidity. The SC03 drive cycle was designed to represent driving 
immediately following a vehicle startup, and rapid and frequent speed 
fluctuations. Its top speed is about 55 mph and average speed is 22 
mph. The top acceleration rate is about 5 mph per second.
    The basis for the SFTP rulemaking was a study of real-world driving 
in four cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and Los Angeles, where 
driving activity was measured on instrumented vehicles as well as by 
chase cars.\11\ At that time, it was found that 18 percent of the 
driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the speed/acceleration 
distribution of the FTP drive schedule. More recent real-world driving 
activity data indicates that driving has become even more aggressive 
than it was in 1992. Recent real-world activity data collected in 
California and Kansas City found that about 28 percent of driving 
(vehicle miles traveled) is at speeds greater than 60 mph. Further, 
about 33 percent of recent real-world driving falls outside of the FTP/
HFET speed and acceleration activity region. This is based on extensive 
chase car studies in California and instrumented vehicle studies in 
Kansas City.\12\ Our assessment of these

[[Page 77876]]

recent real-world driving activity studies is described in detail in 
the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These studies were not designed to produce results that 
would be representative of driving behaviors throughout the U.S. 
Nonetheless, they were the best and most current data upon which to 
base design of the new test cycles.
    \12\ A ``chase car'' study is a study in which driving behavior 
is recorded by an instrumented vehicle that follows vehicles on the 
road to record the behavior of the followed vehicle. In some cases 
the chase car is equipped with a laser rangefinder to enable the 
data collection systems to accurately determine the speed of the 
chased vehicle relative to the chase car. An instrumented vehicle 
study is a study in which data is collected from customer vehicles 
where the customer has agreed to allow their vehicle to be equipped 
with data collection instrumentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone do not fully capture the 
broad range of real-world driving conditions; indeed, this has already 
been conclusively demonstrated by the research that led to the revision 
of the FTP for emission test purposes. In order for EPA's fuel economy 
tests to be more representative of key aspects of real-world driving, 
it is critical that we consider the test conditions represented by 
these additional emission tests. The additional test methods will bring 
into the fuel economy estimates the test results from the five 
emissions tests in place today: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP. 
Thus, we refer to this as the ``5-cycle'' method. The five test 
procedures that make up the 5-cycle method and some of their key 
characteristics are summarized in the table below.

                              Table I-1.--Characteristics of the Fuel Economy and Emission Tests of the 5-Cycle Methodology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Avg speed   Max speed   Max accel
                 Test                     Designed to represent      (mph)       (mph)     (mph/sec)     Ambient conditions            Primary use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Test Procedure (FTP)..........  Urban stop-and-go                 21          58         3.3  75 [deg]F...............  Emissions & fuel economy
                                         driving from 1970's.                                                                    testing.
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET)......  Rural driving...........          48          60         3.3  75 [deg]F...............  Fuel economy testing.
US06..................................  High speeds and                   48          80         8.5  75 [deg]F...............  Emissions testing.
                                         aggressive driving.
SC03..................................  Air conditioner                   22          55         5.1  95 [deg]F & 40% relative  Emissions testing.
                                         operation.                                                    humidity.
Cold FTP..............................  Cold temperature                  21          58         3.3  20 [deg]F...............  Emissions testing.
                                         operation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new requirements, rather than basing the city mpg 
estimate solely on the adjusted FTP test result, and the highway mpg 
estimate solely on the adjusted HFET test result, each estimate will be 
based on a ``composite'' calculation of all five tests, weighting each 
appropriately to arrive at new city and highway mpg estimates. The new 
city and highway estimates will each be calculated according to 
separate city and highway ``5-cycle'' formulae that are based on fuel 
economy results over these five tests. The conditions represented by 
each test will be ``weighted'' according to how frequently those 
conditions occur over average real-world city or highway driving. For 
example, we have derived weightings to represent driving cycle effects, 
trip length, air conditioner compressor-on usage (it is the activity of 
the compressor that most significantly affects emissions and fuel 
economy), and operation over various temperatures. This methodology is 
described in detail in Section II and in the Technical Support 
Document.
    We also are finalizing a downward adjustment to account for effects 
that are not reflected in our existing five test cycles. There are many 
factors that impact fuel economy, but are difficult to account for in 
the test cell on the dynamometer. These include roadway roughness, road 
grade (hills), wind, low tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice, 
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicle loads (e.g., trailers, 
cargo, multiple passengers), and others. We need to account for these 
factors in our new fuel economy calculation methods, as they will lower 
a driver's fuel economy beyond those factors represented by our 
existing test cycles. We are finalizing a 9.5 percent downward 
adjustment to account for these non-dynamometer effects, based on 
detailed analyses of the impacts of each of these factors using the 
most recent technical information and studies available. Additional 
detail regarding this factor can be found in Section II and in the 
Technical Support Document.
    Because the 5-cycle method is inherently vehicle-specific, the 
difference between today's label values and the new fuel economy 
estimates may vary significantly from vehicle to vehicle. In general, 
however, the new approach will result in city fuel economy estimates 
that are about 8 to 15 percent lower than today's labels for the 
majority of conventional vehicles. The city mpg estimates for the 
manufacturers of most vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average 
relative to today's estimates. For vehicles that achieve generally 
better fuel economy, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new 
city estimates will be about 20 to 30 percent lower than today's 
labels. The new highway fuel economy estimates will be about 5 to 15 
percent lower for the majority of vehicles, including most hybrids. The 
highway mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will drop 
on average by about 8 percent, with estimates for most hybrid vehicles 
dropping by 10 to 20 percent relative to today's estimates.
    This final rule will greatly improve the EPA fuel economy 
estimates, so that they come closer to the fuel economy that consumers 
achieve in the real world. However, these are still estimates, and even 
with the improved fuel economy test methods we are finalizing today, 
some consumers will continue to get fuel economy that is higher or 
lower than the new estimates. No single test or set of tests can ever 
account for the wide variety of conditions experienced by every driver.
2. New Labeling Requirement for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    Based on the public comments and on specific events that have 
transpired since the NPRM was published, we are finalizing in this rule 
a fuel economy labeling program for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles 
(MDPVs), a subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR.
    MDPVs were first defined in the regulation that put in place the 
``Tier 2'' emission standards and gasoline sulfur controls.\13\ This 
newly-defined class of vehicles includes SUVs and passenger vans 
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR, but excludes large pick-up trucks. 
The specific regulatory definition was designed to capture in the 
light-duty vehicle emissions

[[Page 77877]]

program some of the heavy-duty vehicles that are designed and used 
predominantly for passenger use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is 
required to establish regulations that require a manufacturer to attach 
a label to each ``automobile'' manufactured in a model year.\14\ 
``Automobile'' is defined as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs GVWR, 
and those vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT 
determines are appropriate for inclusion in the Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy (CAFE) program.\15\ ``Automobile'' for the purposes of labeling 
also includes vehicles at no more than 8,500 lbs GVWR whether or not 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) has included those vehicles in 
the CAFE program.\16\ EPA has no authority to require labels on 
vehicles that are not automobiles, therefore EPA has no authority to 
require labeling of either vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or vehicles 
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that are not included by DOT in the 
CAFE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
    \15\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
    \16\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the time of EPA's proposal, DOT has included some vehicles 
above 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs in its CAFE program, 
beginning in model year 2011.\17\ Since these vehicles now meet the 
definition of automobile, EPA is authorized to include these vehicles 
in labeling program. This final rule requires fuel economy labels on 
these MDPVs beginning in model year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design
    We are adopting a new fuel economy label format that is easier to 
read, has improved graphic design, and contains information that should 
be more useful to prospective car buyers. The final label design 
reflects input from the public comments received and from market 
testing of prototype label designs conducted via a series of focus 
groups. In addition to displaying revised city and highway mpg 
estimates, the new label features the following items:
    <bullet> A new layout featuring an updated fuel pump graphic, a 
prominent heading, and prominent government logos;
    <bullet> More prominent estimated annual fuel cost information, 
including the addition of the basis for the estimated annual fuel cost 
(dollars per gallon and miles driven per year);
    <bullet> An easy-to-use graphic that allows quick comparison of the 
labeled vehicle with other vehicles in its class;
    <bullet> A simplified statement noting that ``Your mileage will 
vary'';
    <bullet> A link to the EPA/DOE Web site www.fueleconomy.gov; and,
    <bullet> A transition statement noting that the mpg estimates are 
the result of new EPA methods beginning with the 2008 models (for 
inclusion on labels of model year 2008 and 2009 vehicles only).

Details about the label design and content are found in Section III. An 
example label is shown below (actual size of the label is required by 
statute to be 4.5 inches tall by 7 inches wide).

[[Page 77878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.017

4. New Vehicle Class Categories and Definitions
    EPCA requires that the label contain ``the range of fuel economy of 
comparable automobiles of all manufacturers.'' \18\ EPA regulations 
define what constitutes ``comparable automobiles.'' We proposed and are 
finalizing changes to the vehicle class categories to better reflect 
the current vehicle market and to allow consumers to make more 
appropriate fuel economy comparisons. Specifically, we are finalizing 
our proposal to add the vehicle class categories of ``Sport Utility 
Vehicle'' and ``Minivan,'' with appropriate definitions, to the list of 
categories used to classify vehicles for fuel economy comparison 
purposes. We are also redefining the ``Small Pickup Truck'' class by 
increasing the weight limit criteria. Section VI contains additional 
detail on these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Test Procedure Modifications
    We are finalizing several changes to existing test procedures to 
allow the collection of appropriate fuel economy data and to ensure 
that existing test procedures better represent real-world conditions. 
Specifically, we are finalizing the following test procedure changes:
    <bullet> A revised US06 test protocol that will collect the US06 
exhaust emissions in two emissions samples (bags) in order to 
separately assess city and highway fuel economy over this test, with 
several alternative methods of determining a two-bag result allowed);
    <bullet> Mandatory operation of the heater/defroster during the 
cold temperature FTP for emissions and fuel economy testing;
    <bullet> Testing diesel vehicles on the cold temperature FTP; and
    <bullet> Requiring hybrid vehicles to perform all four phases/bags 
of the FTP.

Details regarding these changes are described in Section IV.

C. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

1. Energy Policy Act of 2005
    In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to update 
or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world 
factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act 
directs EPA to `` * * * update or revise the adjustment factors in 
[certain sections of the fuel economy labeling regulations] to take 
into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, 
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test 
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel 
depleting features.'' This final rule does take into account these 
conditions and will address this statutory requirement. The Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and other relevant statutes are discussed in greater 
detail in Section VII.
2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual Driving Experience
    First, it is important to stress that the EPA city and highway mpg 
numbers are

[[Page 77879]]

estimates--they cannot give consumers an exact indication of the fuel 
economy they will achieve. The complete range of consumer fuel economy 
experience can not be represented perfectly by any one number. Fuel 
economy varies based on a wide range of factors, some of which we have 
discussed above. There will always be consumers that achieve real-world 
fuel economy both better and worse than a given estimate.
    In recent years, there have been a number of studies, conducted by 
a variety of sources, suggesting that there is often a shortfall 
between the EPA estimates and real-world fuel economy. Several 
organizations have provided consumers with their own fuel economy 
estimates, which in some cases vary significantly from EPA's estimates. 
Each of these studies differs in its test methods, driving cycles, 
sampling of vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel economy. There are 
strengths and weaknesses of each study, which we discuss further in the 
Technical Support Document. Collectively, these studies indicate there 
are many cases where real-world fuel economy falls below the EPA 
estimates. The studies also indicate that real-world fuel economy 
varies significantly depending on the conditions under which it is 
evaluated. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, these studies reflect a wide 
range of real-world driving conditions, and show that typical fuel 
economy can be much lower than EPA's current estimates.
3. Representing Real-World Conditions on the Fuel Economy Tests
    The current city and highway fuel economy tests do not represent 
the full range of real-world driving conditions. The 1985 adjustment 
factors were designed to ensure that the fuel economy estimates across 
the vehicle fleet reflected the average impacts of a number of 
conditions not represented on the tests. However, as we noted earlier, 
many changes have occurred since then that make it once again desirable 
to reevaluate the fuel economy test methods and adjustment factors. 
Given the significant degree of variation that is apparent across 
vehicles, we believe it is important to reconsider the approach of 
``one-size-fits-all'' adjustment factors and instead move to an 
approach that more directly reflects the impacts of fuel economy on 
individual vehicle models.
    There are several key limitations in the FTP and HFET tests that 
cause them to not adequately reflect real-world driving today. First, 
most consumers understandably think ``highway'' fuel economy means the 
fuel economy you can expect under freeway driving conditions. In fact, 
the highway test has a top speed of 60 mph, since the test was 
developed more than 20 years ago to represent rural driving conditions 
at a time when the national speed limit was 55 miles per hour. The 
national speed limit has since been eliminated, many states have 
established speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and much driving 
is at even higher speeds. Recent real-world driving studies indicate 
that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at 
speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This analysis is detailed in the 
Technical Support Document.) These studies also show that 33 percent of 
real-world driving VMT falls outside the FTP/HFET speed and 
acceleration activity region. Thus, a substantial amount of high speed 
driving behavior is not captured in today's FTP or HFET tests. This is 
a weakness in our current fuel economy test procedures. Since higher 
speed driving has a negative impact on fuel economy, incorporating 
these higher speed driving conditions into the fuel economy tests would 
lower the fuel economy estimates.
    Second, the maximum acceleration rates of both the FTP and HFET 
tests are a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per second (mph/sec), 
considerably lower than the maximum acceleration rates seen in real-
world driving. Recent real-world driving studies indicate that maximum 
acceleration rates are as high as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant 
activity occurs beyond 3.3 mph/sec. (This analysis is detailed in the 
Technical Support Document.) At the time these tests were first 
developed, the real-world accelerations were higher than 3.3 mph/sec, 
but the test cycle's acceleration rates were limited to accommodate the 
mechanical limitation of the dynamometer test equipment. These 
constraints no longer exist with today's dynamometers, so we now have 
the ability to incorporate higher maximum acceleration rates that more 
closely reflect those of actual driving. As with high speed driving, 
higher acceleration rates have a negative impact on fuel economy; thus, 
if these higher accelerations were factored into our fuel economy 
methods, the estimates would be lower.
    The maximum deceleration rate of the FTP and HFET tests is 
important to consider as well, because it relates to the regenerative 
breaking effect of hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and HFET tests 
include a mild maximum deceleration rate of -3.3 mph/sec; yet in recent 
real-world driving rates as high as -11 to -17 mph/sec were recorded. 
(This analysis is detailed in the Technical Support Document.) Under 
higher deceleration rates, the effects of regenerative breaking for 
hybrid electric vehicles are diminished, thereby lowering fuel economy. 
In this regard, today's FTP and HFET tests result in a higher fuel 
economy for hybrid vehicles than is achieved under typical driving 
conditions.
    Third, both the FTP and HFET tests are run at mild ambient 
conditions (approximately 75 [deg]F), while real-world driving occurs 
at a wide range of ambient temperatures. Moderate conditions tend to be 
optimal for achieving good fuel economy, and fuel economy is lower at 
temperatures colder or warmer than the 75 [deg]F test temperature. Only 
about 20 percent of VMT occurs between 70 and 80 [deg]F, approximately 
15 percent of VMT occurs at temperatures above 80 [deg]F, and 65 
percent occurs below 70 [deg]F. (This analysis is detailed in the 
Technical Support Document.) Moreover, neither the FTP nor HFET tests 
are run with accessories operating, such as air conditioners, heaters, 
or defrosters. These accessories, most notably air conditioning, can 
have a significant impact on a vehicle's fuel economy.
    Finally, there are many factors that affect fuel economy that 
cannot be replicated on dynamometer test cycles in a laboratory. These 
include road grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g., tire pressure), 
snow/ice, precipitation, fuel effects, and others. It is not possible 
to develop a test cycle that captures the full range of factors 
impacting fuel economy. However, it is clear that the FTP and HFET 
tests alone are missing some important elements of real-world driving. 
All of these factors can reduce fuel economy. This largely explains why 
our current estimates often do not reflect consumers' real-world fuel 
economy experience.

D. When Will the New Requirements Take Effect?

1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
    We want the public to benefit from the improved information 
provided by the new fuel economy estimates as soon as possible. 
Therefore, these new regulations take effect with the 2008 model year 
vehicles, which will be available for sale at dealers in 2007. We 
believe this is the earliest possible date for implementation. 
Manufacturers can legally begin selling 2008 models as early as January 
2, 2007. However, we are phasing in the new test methods in order to 
provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time to plan for increased 
fuel economy testing necessitated by the 5-cycle approach.

[[Page 77880]]

    For the first three model years (2008 through 2010), we provide 
manufacturers with the option of deriving the 5-cycle fuel economy 
using a scale of adjustments based on an analysis of data developed 
from the 5-cycle method. This approach, called the ``mpg-based'' 
method, incorporates the effects of higher speed/aggressive driving, 
air conditioning use, and colder temperatures, but less directly than 
the 5-cycle vehicle-specific method.\19\ The mpg-based adjustments were 
derived by applying the 5-cycle formulae to a data set of recent fuel 
economy test data, and developing a regression line through the data. 
(See Section II for a full description of this approach). These 
adjustments differ based on the mpg a vehicle obtains over the FTP 
(City) or HFET (Highway) tests. In other words, every vehicle with the 
same mpg on the FTP test receives the same adjustment for its city fuel 
economy label. Likewise, every vehicle with the same mpg on the HFET 
test will receive the same adjustment for its highway fuel economy 
label. This method of adjustment would not require any testing beyond 
the FTP/HFET tests already performed today, thus, it can be implemented 
sooner than the 5-cycle approach as an interim improvement to our fuel 
economy test methods. However, during this time frame, manufacturers 
may optionally choose to run full 5-cycle testing for any of their 
vehicle models.\20\ The phase-in will provide consumers with more 
accurate estimates as soon as possible, while allowing the industry the 
necessary lead time to prepare for the necessary testing under the 5-
cycle approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The ``mpg-based'' method is termed the ``derived 5-cycle'' 
approach in the regulatory text.
    \20\ Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally use the 5-cycle 
approach prior to the 2011 model year must use that approach to 
determine both city and highway label estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting with the 2011 model year, the 5-cycle approach will be 
required. Under this approach, the manufacturers will be required to 
implement vehicle-specific 5-cycle testing across some portion of their 
fleet. The manufacturers will use the emission certification test 
results over the five test procedures to calculate 5-cycle city and 
highway fuel economy values. However, we are finalizing criteria as 
proposed that will allow continued use of the mpg-based adjustments in 
cases where we can predict with reasonable certainty that the fuel 
economy results under the mpg-based approach will not differ 
significantly from the results achieved by the 5-cycle method. These 
criteria and the methodology by which vehicles are selected for 5-cycle 
testing in the 2011 and later model years are described in detail in 
Section II.
2. Implementation of New Label Design
    In order to allow manufacturers to transition to the new label 
format, we are allowing use of the new label format to be optional 
until September 1, 2007. This date aligns with the date manufacturers 
must place National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) crash 
test ratings on the vehicle pricing labels of all vehicles manufactured 
as of that date. The September 1, 2007 date allows manufacturers to 
redesign their vehicle pricing labels only once to incorporate two new 
federal labeling requirements. However, we encourage manufacturers to 
implement the new label format as quickly as possible such that the 
majority of 2008 vehicles on dealer lots exhibit the new label format. 
All 2008 model year vehicles must use the new methods to calculate fuel 
economy estimates. Labels on all 2008 models will have a statement 
indicating that the fuel economy estimates are based on new methods.
3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    The requirement for MDPVs to be labeled with city and highway fuel 
economy estimates begins with the 2011 model year. EPA does not have 
the authority to require labeling of MDPVs sooner because of our 
authority is linked to NHTSA's determination of CAFE standards for 
vehicles over 8,500 lbs GVWR.\21\ However, we encourage manufacturers 
to voluntarily label these vehicles sooner, if at all possible. Many 
vehicles in the MDPV category have counterpart models below 8,500 lbs 
GVWR, and these vehicles receive fuel economy labels today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908, 32901(a)(3)(B), and Section VII for a 
detailed explanation of EPA's legal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy Labeling Methods

    In the proposal, we expressed an interest in ensuring that the new 
methods continue to reflect real-world fuel economy into the future, 
and we encouraged stakeholders to submit data that would inform future 
analysis and potential changes to the methodology. We believe it is 
critical to ensure that the fuel economy methods are periodically 
evaluated. We are committed to evaluating the 5-cycle method every 
several years (e.g., five years) to ensure that it appropriately 
accounts for advancements in vehicle technology, changes in driving 
patterns, and any new data collected on in-use fuel economy. We also 
remain open to reviewing any valid test data indicating that any of our 
assumptions were inappropriate for a specific vehicle and considering 
modifications to the 5-cycle formulae overall to account for these 
differences. In the public comments, some stakeholders expressed an 
interest in conducting studies of in-use fuel economy. We welcome 
stakeholders to submit any such future data for use in our periodic 
evaluation of the fuel economy test methods.
    We are also committed to offering technical guidance to any 
stakeholder interested in undertaking an in-use testing and data-
collection program. By seeking our technical input up front, 
stakeholders can better ensure that the data is collected in a way that 
is ultimately best-suited to evaluate potential changes to the 
methodology. However, we note that collecting in-use fuel economy data 
alone can only indicate whether or not the 5-cycle estimates are 
accurate; it would not provide the information needed to actually 
improve the 5-cycle equations. The 5-cycle approach is based on 
emission test results over the five test cycles and on the weighting of 
a number of factors based on their average impact across all U.S. 
driving. Data on in-use fuel economy alone, without complementary 
driving behavior and activity data representative of the fleet, is 
insufficient to initiate changes that may be appropriate to the 5-cycle 
weighting factors.
    Finally, several commenters suggested that EPA conduct an 
evaluation of the 5-cycle method prior to model year 2011, when the 5-
cycle method becomes required. If appropriate data is submitted prior 
to the end of 2008, we would plan to review it in a timely manner. If 
such data suggests that changes to the 5-cycle approach are necessary, 
we would plan to issue a separate rulemaking to address changes to the 
methodology, providing adequate lead time to the industry to comply.

F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact CAFE Standards or Test Procedures

    This final rule does not alter the FTP and HFET driving cycles, the 
measurement techniques, or the calculation methods used to determine 
CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE for passenger automobiles be determined 
from the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that 
give comparable results), which are the city and highway tests of 
today, with a few small adjustments for minor procedural changes that 
have occurred since

[[Page 77881]]

1975.\22\ This final rule will not impact the CAFE calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Public Participation

    A wide variety of interested parties participated in the rulemaking 
process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided 
opportunity for public comment following the proposal published on 
February 1, 2006.\23\ We held a public hearing on the proposal in 
Romulus, Michigan on March 3, 2006. At that hearing, oral comments on 
the proposal were received and recorded. A written comment period 
remained open until April 3, 2006. Comments and hearing testimony have 
been placed in the docket for this rule. We considered these comments 
in developing the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have prepared a detailed Response to Comments document, which 
describes the comments we received on the proposal and our response to 
each of these comments. The Response to Comments is available in the 
docket for this rule and on the EPA Web site.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ or http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. New Test Methods and Calculation Procedures for Fuel Economy Labels

    The current fuel economy label values are based on measured fuel 
economy over city and highway driving cycles, which are then adjusted 
downward by 10 and 22 percent, respectively, to account for a variety 
of factors not addressed in EPA's vehicle test procedures. These 
adjustments are intended to account for differences between the way 
vehicles are driven on the road and over the test cycles. Such 
differences include air conditioning use, higher speeds, more 
aggressive accelerations and decelerations, widely varying ambient 
temperature and humidity, varying trip lengths, wind, precipitation, 
rough road conditions, hills, etc. The purpose of the new methods is to 
expand the basis for the fuel economy labels to include actual vehicle 
testing over a wider range of driving patterns and ambient conditions 
than is currently covered by the city (FTP) and highway (HFET) fuel 
economy tests.
    For example, vehicles in the real world are often driven more 
aggressively and at higher speeds than is represented in the FTP and 
HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the US06 
test cycle into the fuel economy label values will make the label 
values more realistic. Drivers often use air conditioning in warm, 
humid conditions, while the air conditioner is turned off during the 
FTP and HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the 
SC03 test cycle into the fuel economy label values will reflect the 
added fuel needed to operate the air conditioning system. Vehicles also 
often are driven at temperatures below 75[deg]F, at which the FTP and 
HFET tests are performed. The incorporation of measured fuel economy 
over the cold temperature FTP test into the fuel economy label values 
will reflect the additional fuel needed to start up a cold engine at 
colder temperatures.
    The new vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach to calculating fuel 
economy labels will incorporate estimates of the fuel efficiency of 
each vehicle during high speed, aggressive driving, air conditioning 
operation and cold temperatures into each vehicle's fuel economy label. 
It will combine measured fuel economy over the two current fuel economy 
tests, the FTP and HFET, as well as that over the US06, SC03 and cold 
FTP tests into estimates of city and highway fuel economy for labeling 
purposes. The test results from each cycle (and in some cases, portions 
of cycles or emission ``bags'')\25\ will be weighted to represent the 
contribution of each cycle's attributes to onroad driving and fuel 
consumption. The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach will eliminate the 
need to account for the effect of aggressive driving, air conditioning 
use and colder temperatures on fuel economy through generic factors (as 
done today) which may not appropriately reflect that particular 
vehicle's sensitivity to these factors. A generic adjustment is still 
necessary to account for factors not addressed by any of the five 
dynamometer tests (e.g., road grade, wind, low tire pressure, gasoline 
quality, etc.). The derivation of this adjustment factor is discussed 
further below and in Chapter III of the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the 
regulations as the ``cold start'' test and the ``hot start'' test. 
Each of these parts is divided into two periods, or ``phases'': a 
``transient'' phase and a ``stabilized'' phase. Because the 
stabilized phase of the hot start test is assumed to be identical to 
the stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold start 
stabilized phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called 
``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the 
exhaust samples are collected. The phases are run in the following 
order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2), 
and hot start transient (Bag 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests are only performed on 
a sub-set of new vehicle configurations, and only for emissions 
compliance purposes. In contrast, for fuel economy purposes, FTP and 
HFET tests are performed on many more vehicle configurations. In order 
to minimize the number of additional US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests 
resulting from the new testing and calculation procedures, we are 
allowing manufacturers to estimate the fuel economy over these three 
tests for vehicle configurations that are not normally tested for 
emissions compliance purposes, using the fuel economy measurements that 
are normally available. This is currently done on a more limited basis 
for both the FTP and HFET, and is referred to as analytically derived 
fuel economy (ADFE).\26\ This method uses test data to determine the 
sensitivity of fuel economy to various vehicle parameters, and once 
these relationships are well established, we will issue guidance that 
provides manufacturers with the appropriate equations to use. We 
believe that these provisions are designed to represent a reasonable 
balance between the need for accurate fuel economy data and the need to 
contain the cost of testing for both industry and EPA, where we 
reasonably believe that actual testing would not produce a 
significantly different result. We always retain the right to order 
actual confirmatory testing where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA's current policy for analytically derived fuel economy 
estimates for the FTP and HFET tests is contained in the EPA 
memorandum entitled, ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy 
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,'' March 11, 2004, CCD-04-06 (LDV/
LDT). This memorandum is issued under 40 CFR 600.006-89(e), which 
allows manufacturers to use analytical methods to determine fuel 
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also are finalizing the proposed provisions that allow 
manufacturers to use the interim approach to fuel economy label 
estimation, the ``mpg-based'' approach described below, when the 
available 5-cycle fuel economy data indicate that a vehicle test 
group's 5-cycle fuel economy is very close to that estimated by the 
mpg-based curve. The mpg-based method will also be used to determine 
label values for MDPVs that become mandatory with the 2011 model year, 
as discussed further in Section II.E.2.
    Even with these provisions, we expect that some manufacturers will 
have to perform some additional US06, SC03, or cold FTP tests to 
address differences in vehicle designs which are not covered by the 
analytical derivation methodology. Other manufacturers may voluntarily 
choose to perform additional tests voluntarily to improve accuracy over 
the analytical derivation methodology, especially in cases where

[[Page 77882]]

manufacturers have worked to improve fuel efficiency over the new test 
cycle conditions (e.g., during cold temperatures or with air 
conditioning on). Depending on how manufacturers choose to apply this 
method, this additional testing could prompt the construction or 
modification of test facilities. (Test burden and cost issues are 
discussed further in Section V of this preamble.) Therefore, in order 
to allow sufficient lead-time for the construction of these facilities, 
we are finalizing the proposed provisions that allow manufacturers the 
option of using an interim set of adjustments through the 2010 model 
year. These interim adjustments are not vehicle-specific, but instead 
reflect the effects of high speeds, hard accelerations, air 
conditioning use, and cold temperatures, etc., on the average vehicle. 
The vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach becomes mandatory with the 2011 
model year. However, a manufacturer can voluntarily use the 5-cycle 
method prior to the 2011 model year for any vehicle model.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally use the 5-cycle 
approach prior to the 2011 model year must use that approach to 
determine both city and highway label estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interim set of adjustments is termed the ``mpg-based'' 
approach. (See Figure II-1 for a graphical depiction of these 
adjustments.) The mpg-based approach is a sliding scale of adjustments 
which varies according to a vehicle's measured fuel economy over the 
FTP and HFET tests. The mpg-based adjustments were developed from 
applying the 5-cycle formulae to 615 recent model year vehicles and 
determining the average difference between the 5-cycle and current city 
and highway fuel economies.\28\ Thus, because the data used to develop 
the mpg-based adjustments were derived from 5-cycle fuel economies, the 
mpg-based adjustments include the effects of high speeds, aggressive 
driving, air conditioning, and colder temperatures. However, they do so 
based on the impact of these factors on the average vehicle, not the 
individual vehicle, which is the case with the 5-cycle formulae. For 
example, for vehicles with fuel economy of 20-30 mpg over the FTP 
(i.e., city) test, the mpg-based approach would adjust the city fuel 
economy downward by 20-22 percent (or 4 to 7 mpg), versus today's 
single 10 percent downward adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label 
values under the mpg-based approach tend to be about 11 percent lower 
on average than today's label values. For vehicles with fuel economy of 
25-35 mpg over the HFET (i.e., highway) test, the mpg-based approach 
would adjust the highway fuel economy downward by about 28 percent (or 
7 to 10 mpg), versus today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, 
highway fuel economy label values under the mpg-based approach would 
tend to be about 8 percent lower than today's label values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Our database consists of 615 vehicles spanning the 2003 to 
2006 model years. For these vehicles we have emission and/or fuel 
economy test data on all five test procedures. Additionally, 
manufacturers assisted with the development of this database by 
submitting detailed fuel economy data for the three phases (or 
``bags'') of the FTP and the Cold FTP (EPA requires that they submit 
only the composite emissions and fuel economy data for certification 
or fuel economy labeling). The database includes data from 14 hybrid 
vehicles and one diesel vehicle, and represents all types of 
vehicles from all major manufacturers and most smaller 
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that both approaches utilize the 5-cycle fuel economy 
formulae in some fashion, it is useful to begin this section with a 
description of how the fuel economy measured over the 5 test cycles are 
combined to represent city and highway fuel economy. Then we will 
describe how the fleet-average formulae for the mpg-based approach were 
derived from these 5-cycle fuel economy estimates. Finally, we compare 
fuel economy label results from both the 5-cycle and mpg-based methods 
to onroad fuel economy data from a variety of sources.
    Under the new methods, we are replacing the 0.90 and 0.78 
adjustment factors for city and highway fuel economy, respectively, 
with new factors which are not simply constants. For model years 2008-
2010, a manufacturer has the option of using two distinct methodologies 
to calculate the city and highway fuel economy values for any specific 
vehicle. One approach is called the mpg-based method, since the city 
and highway label values are based on the fuel economy (or mpg) 
measured over the FTP and HFET, respectively. The other approach is 
called the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, since the city and 
highway label values are based on the test results of five test cycles, 
the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP. Both approaches also include an 
additional downward adjustment to represent effects not reflected in 
our existing laboratory dynamometer testing. Beginning with the 2011 
model year, manufacturers are required to use the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle method, but may still use the mpg-based approach on vehicles most 
sensitive to the new test conditions. Under the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle approach, the fuel economy measurements over the 5 dynamometer 
test cycles will all be performed on (or estimated for) a specific 
vehicle in the current model year. The mpg-based approach uses historic 
fuel economy data over the 5 test cycles to estimate a fleet-wide 
average relationship between (1) FTP fuel economy and 5-cycle city fuel 
economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle highway fuel economy. 
Under the mpg-based approach, a specific vehicle's city and highway 
fuel economy labels are based on this fleet-wide average relationship, 
as opposed to that vehicle's own results over the 5 test cycles. In 
other words, under the mpg-based approach every vehicle with the same 
fuel economy over the FTP test will receive the same city fuel economy 
label value. Likewise, every vehicle with the same fuel economy over 
the HFET test will receive the same highway fuel economy label value. 
This is illustrated further in Section II.B below. Below we present the 
specific equations under the two approaches which would be used to 
convert fuel economies measured over the dynamometer cycles into city 
and highway fuel economy values.

A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Methodology

    The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach bases a vehicle's fuel 
economy label values on fuel economy measurements over five test 
cycles: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP. These measurements are 
combined based on detailed estimates, or ``weightings,'' of how and 
when vehicles are driven, as well as under what ambient conditions. The 
5-cycle formulae are derived from extensive data on real-world driving 
conditions, such as driving activity, temperatures, air conditioner 
operation, trip length, and other factors. We refer readers to the 
Technical Support Document for a detailed description of the 
development of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae.
1. Overview of Public Comments on the 5-Cycle Methodology
    Of those commenters addressing the 5-cycle formulae, most commented 
on the thoroughness of the analyses which supported the various cycle 
weighting factors (also called coefficients) included in the formulae. 
However, Honda, and to some extent Environmental Defense, criticized 
several aspects of the 5-cycle formulae. These comments are addressed 
in detail in the Response to Comments document. Overall, the key 
criticisms included:
    (1) The 5-cycle formulae had not been validated for individual 
vehicles. In particular, these commenters claimed that the 5-cycle 
coefficients assume that all vehicles respond the same to various

[[Page 77883]]

changes in driving pattern and ambient conditions;
    (2) The three new test cycles represent extreme conditions, and;
    (3) The 5-cycle method could penalize advanced fuel efficient 
technologies.

We present a summary of our responses to these three concerns below. 
Additional detail can be found in the Response to Comments Document.
    First, all of the approaches to calculating label values involve 
relationships between driving activity or ambient conditions and fuel 
consumption. These relationships are never exact for each and every 
vehicle. The 5-cycle formulae utilize more vehicle-specific fuel 
consumption data than the mpg-based and current label approaches. 
Therefore, the 5-cycle approach is based on fewer assumptions regarding 
how individual vehicles react to temperature, soak time, low and high 
speed driving, aggressive driving, idling, air conditioning, etc. The 
5-cycle method, by incorporating additional data from the three newer 
test cycles, improves our ability to estimate fuel economy outside of 
the conditions evaluated by the FTP and HFET tests. We provide examples 
and a detailed description of this analysis in the Technical Support 
Document.
    Second, Honda states that the three new tests address vehicle 
conditions that are so extreme that their use in the above types of 
interpolations is actually worse than simply assuming that all vehicles 
have the same response to the conditions being addressed by the three 
tests. However, none of the available data indicates that this is the 
case, and Honda did not provide data to support their claim. All of the 
driving conditions addressed by the three tests clearly occur in-use. 
Our detailed analysis of recent real-world driving activity studies is 
contained in the Technical Support Document and Response to Comments 
document. In particular, use of fuel economy data over the cold FTP at 
20 [deg]F improves our ability to estimate fuel economy at 50 [deg]F, 
compared to projecting fuel economy at 50 [deg]F solely using the FTP 
test data at 75 [deg]F. This analysis is detailed in the Technical 
Support Document as well.
    Third, Honda states that these aspects of the 5-cycle formulae 
might actually penalize advanced fuel-efficient technology relative to 
conventional technology vehicles. Our comparisons of 5-cycle fuel 
economy for hybrids fall in the range of onroad fuel economy estimates 
developed by various organizations (see Section II of the Technical 
Support Document). It is true that the 5-cycle formulae decrease the 
fuel economy of some hybrid vehicles more than conventional vehicles, 
compared to the current label approach. However, this is easily 
explained by the way that current hybrid technology works under various 
operational and ambient conditions. For example, many current hybrid 
engine shut-off strategies cease to operate when the heater is turned 
on at cold temperatures. The current label approach assumes that any 
engine shut-off strategies operating over the FTP and HFET tests always 
operate in in-use. This is clearly not correct. Thus, some additional 
adjustment to current hybrid vehicle fuel economy is to be expected. 
Available data on hybrid fuel economy outside of the conditions 
addressed by the FTP and HFET confirm the impact of the 5-cycle 
formulae. We expect that future hybrid technology will significantly 
improve fuel economy over real-world conditions outside the FTP and 
HFET tests. Such improvements in real-world fuel economy will be 
reflected under the new 5-cycle estimates.
2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology From Proposal
    We received very few comments that provided new data with which to 
modify the proposed methodology. However, based on a few comments and 
new data we obtained, the methodology we are finalizing differs from 
the proposed methodology in three ways. First, we reevaluated an 
assumption with respect to the effect of ambient temperature on running 
fuel use. This reduced the weighting factor for cold temperature 
running fuel use. Second, we obtained new vehicle trip length data from 
extensive vehicle monitoring ongoing in Atlanta. This increased our 
estimate of trip length during city driving, which then reduced the 
contribution of start fuel use to average fuel consumption during city 
driving. Third, we updated our analyses based on the Federal Highway 
Administration's release of 2004 fuel economy estimates and revised 
2003 fuel economy estimates. This analysis, along with addressing 
public comments, decreased the non-dynamometer adjustment factor 
slightly. Readers are referred to the Technical Support Document for 
detailed discussions of the analyses noted briefly below.
    In response to Honda's comments regarding the assumptions involved 
in developing the 5-cycle formulae, we reevaluated our assumption 
regarding the effect of ambient temperature on running fuel use. This 
was the one area where the relationship in the proposed 5-cycle formula 
was based on a simple assumption of linearity and not on the results of 
actual vehicle testing. We performed an analysis of running fuel use of 
several vehicles tested at 20 [deg]F, 50 [deg]F, and 75 [deg]F and 
determined that the effect was non-linear. Using the new relationship 
reduced the city and highway formulae's weighting of running fuel use 
at 20 [deg]F from 0.30 to 0.18.
    Since the time of the proposal, we also obtained vehicle trip data 
from extensive vehicle monitoring which is ongoing in Atlanta. Across a 
total of 668,000 vehicle trips, the average trip length was found to be 
7.25 miles. This is 20 percent longer than found in Atlanta in the 
early 1990's. When we extrapolate this increase to the results of other 
studies performed in the early 1990's, we determined that a more 
reasonable estimate of trip length during city driving would be 4.1 
miles, as opposed to the 3.5 mile estimate proposed in the 5-cycle city 
fuel economy formulae. This effectively reduces the contribution of 
start fuel use in the estimation of city fuel economy.
    Also, since the proposal, the Federal Highway Administration 
published onroad fuel economy estimates for 2004, as well as a revised 
onroad fuel economy estimate for 2003. These estimates are roughly 3% 
lower than those contained in their 2003 report, which was the basis of 
our proposal. At the same time, Honda correctly pointed out that we had 
inappropriately assumed that the changes in FTP and HFET test 
procedures implemented with the Supplemental FTP rule increased 
measured fuel economy by 3%. These changes, plus other minor 
adjustments, led us to revise the factor for non-dynamometer effects 
from 0.89 to 0.905 (meaning that this factor further reduces both city 
and highway estimates by 9.5 percent). Detailed discussion and analyses 
of the non-dynamometer factor can be found in Section 5.0 of the 
Response to Comments document and Chapter III of the Technical Support 
Document.
    With these revisions, under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, 
the city fuel economy value will be calculated as follows:

[[Page 77884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.000

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.001

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.002

Where:

Bag y FE<INF>x</INF> = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75 [deg] or 20 [deg]F.

For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag FTP the 
calculation for start fuel consumption is somewhat different:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.003

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.004

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.005

Likewise,

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.006

Where:

US06 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test.

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag 75 [deg]F FTP 
will substitute the fuel economy over Bag 4 for Bag 2 in the 
appropriate places in the above equation (except in the case of the 
cold FTP, where hybrids, like conventional vehicles, will run a 3-bag 
test). The resulting equation for hybrid vehicles thus becomes:

[[Page 77885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.007

    Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle formula, the highway fuel 
economy value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.008

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.009

and,

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.010

where the various symbols have the same definitions as described 
under the formula for the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy 
value.

    For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag 75 [deg]F 
FTP the highway fuel economy is calculated using the following 
equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.011

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.012

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.013

and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.014


[[Page 77886]]


and,

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.015

Where:

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the Highway 
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.

    Additional equations are necessary in the unusual cases where a 
manufacturer test a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle using a 2-bag FTP; 
these equations are detailed in the Technical Support Document.

B. Derivation of the MPG-Based Methodology

    Although the 5-cycle vehicle-specific method will be optionally 
available to manufacturers starting with the 2008 model year, it is the 
mpg-based approach that will be more widely utilized for the 2008 
through 2010 model years. Starting with the 2011 model year the mpg-
based approach may continue to be used where test data demonstrates 
that the 5-cycle method is unlikely to produce significantly different 
results. The mpg-based method applies an adjustment to a vehicle's FTP 
or HFET test result based on that vehicle's measured fuel economy on 
the FTP or HFET.
    The mpg-based adjustments were developed from applying the 5-cycle 
formulae to fuel economy data from 615 recent model year vehicles and 
determining the average relationship between the 5-cycle city and 
highway fuel economy values and FTP and HFET fuel economy values. Thus, 
because the data used to develop the average adjustments were derived 
from 5-cycle fuel economies, the mpg-based adjustments include the 
effect of high speeds, aggressive driving, air conditioning, and colder 
temperatures. However, they do so based on the impact of these factors 
on the average vehicle and do not reflect the fuel economy actually 
achieved during these types of driving by individual vehicles, which is 
the case with the 5-cycle formulae. As indicated by a comparison of the 
fuel economy label values developed using the mpg-based and 5-cycle 
approaches (see Figures II-1 and II-2), these ``fleet-average'' 
adjustments are reasonably accurate for most vehicles.
    For example, for vehicles with FTP fuel economy ranging from 20 to 
30 mpg, the mpg-based approach will adjust the FTP fuel economy result 
downward by 20-22 percent (i.e., by 4 to 7 mpg), versus today's 10 
percent downward adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label values under 
the mpg-based approach will tend to be about 10-12 percent lower than 
today's label values. For vehicles with HFET fuel economy in the range 
of 25 to 35 mpg the mpg-based approach on average will adjust the HFET 
fuel economy downward by 28 percent (i.e., by 7 to 10 mpg), versus 
today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, highway fuel economy 
label values under the mpg-based approach will tend to be about 8 
percent lower than today's label values.
    The characteristics of the mpg-based equations can be seen in 
Figures II-1 and II-2 below. The 5-cycle fuel economies for 615 recent 
model year vehicles are represented by the individual data points on 
the charts. Hybrid vehicles are represented by large squares on the 
charts. The mpg-based fuel economy curve, represented by the regression 
line on the chart, was developed from these data. The horizontal axis 
is the measured FTP fuel economy.
    Under the mpg-based approach, the city fuel economy value will be 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.016

Where:

FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the FTP 
test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75[deg]F. This value is 
normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle models included in 
the ``model type'' vehicle grouping as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.

[[Page 77887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.018

    Likewise, the highway fuel economy value will be calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.019

Where:

HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test. This 
value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle models 
included in the ``model type'' vehicle grouping as defined in 40 CFR 
600.002-93.

[[Page 77888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.020

    These equations differ from those that we proposed in two ways. 
First, as described above, we have modified the 5-cycle fuel economy 
formulae slightly based on additional information received since the 
proposal. Second, we have added 192 additional vehicles to our 5-cycle 
fuel economy database. The mpg-based equations developed for the 
proposal were based on 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003 to 
2005 model year vehicles, whereas the mpg-based equations shown above 
were based on 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 615 2003 to 2006 model 
year vehicles. The net effect of these two changes is that the city and 
highway fuel economy adjustments to the FTP and HFET fuel economy 
values are a few percent smaller than those based on the proposed mpg-
based equations.
    As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations were developed from the 
5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 615 2003-2006 model year vehicles. 
In order to keep the mpg-based equations up-to-date and reflecting 
changes in vehicle technology, EPA will update these equations 
periodically using the same methodology, but no more frequently than on 
an annual basis. We will update the mpg-based equations periodically, 
especially if we determine that doing so would significantly change the 
label results, using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy 
estimates for the previous three or more model years. These revised 
mpg-based equations will be issued through the publication of an EPA 
guidance document. The final regulations contain the equations that are 
applicable to 2008 model year vehicles, as well as the components of 
the equations to be utilized for future model year vehicles.
    We plan to update the mpg-based curves periodically using all of 
the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the previous three or 
more model years. We proposed that these revised mpg-based equations 
would be issued through the publication of an EPA guidance document 
which would be released by January 1 of the calendar year prior to the 
model year to which the equations first apply. We suggested in the 
proposal that this meant, for example, that mpg equations for the 2012 
year would be published prior to January 1 of 2011. However, we now 
recognize that the model year for many manufacturers can begin almost a 
full year before the start of the identically-named calendar year 
(i.e., the 2012 model year can begin on January 2, 2011). Manufacturers 
commented that issuing guidance applicable to a given model year 
potentially mere days or weeks from the start of that model year for 
some vehicle lines did not provide adequate lead time. We agree, and we 
are finalizing regulations that require EPA to issue guidance regarding 
revisions to the equations by no later than July 1 of the calendar year 
prior to the earliest start of the model year that starts in the 
following calendar year. In other words, for new equations to be 
applicable to the 2010 model year (which can begin as early as January 
2, 2009), EPA must issue guidance prior to July 1, 2008.

C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel Economy Label Values

    The impact of the new methodology on city and highway fuel economy 
label values was assessed using the same database of 615 recent model 
year vehicles used to develop the mpg-based adjustments discussed 
above. It is important to realize that these are projections based on 
historical data, and that the actual impacts on fuel economy label 
values will be dependent upon how a given vehicle performs over the 
specific tests. Figures II-3 and II-4 show, for city and highway fuel 
economy, respectively, how the label values would change under the 5-
cycle

[[Page 77889]]

method for each vehicle in the 615-vehicle database. Figures II-5 and 
II-6 show, for city and highway fuel economy, respectively, the 
distributions of the percent change in label values relative to the 
current labels. More than 90 percent of the vehicles would have new 
city label values that are from 8 to 15 percent lower than their 
current label values. Figure II-3 also shows that the new city label 
values for most hybrid vehicles will be between 20 and 30 percent lower 
than today's city label values. Figure II-4 shows that about 90 percent 
of the vehicles in the database, including most hybrids, would have new 
highway label estimates that are from 5 to 15 percent lower than 
today's current highway estimates. Under the current method all 
vehicles would receive the same adjustment to account for the variety 
of factors now accounted for by the new methodology. Under the 5-cycle 
method vehicles receive differing ``adjustments'' relative to the 
current label values based on each vehicle's response to the five 
tests. Table II-1 presents the average results of this comparison for 
all 615 vehicles, as well as various sub-sets of vehicles.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.021


[[Page 77890]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.023


[[Page 77891]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.024


                                     Table II-1.--Effect of 5-Cycle Formulae on City and Highway Fuel Economy Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     City                           Highway                         Combined*
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Percent                          Percent                          Percent
                                                        Current    5-Cycle     change    Current    5-Cycle     change    Current    5-Cycle     change
                                                         (mpg)      (mpg)    (percent)    (mpg)      (mpg)    (percent)    (mpg)      (mpg)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrids..............................................       42.7       33.0      -22.3       42.8       36.9      -12.9       42.6       35.0      -17.1
Diesel (1 vehicle)...................................       26.2       23.4      -10.7       35.3       32.0       -9.3       29.6       27.6       -6.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Conventional Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Highest FE........................................       30.9       26.9      -12.9       36.6       34.0       -6.9       33.2       30.5       -8.0
12 Lowest FE.........................................       10.2        9.5       -6.9       14.8       14.8       -0.2       11.9       11.9        0.4
Average..............................................       18.6       16.5      -10.8       24.6       22.8       -7.4       20.9       19.6      -6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively. Combined fuel economy for 5-cycle MPG is based on
  weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively (discussed further in Chapter II.C of the Technical Support Document).

    As can be seen from Table II-1, use of the 5-cycle formulae will 
reduce both current city and highway fuel economy label values. For 
conventional vehicles, city and highway fuel economy values will be 
reduced an average of 10.8 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. The 
reduction in city fuel economy label values for conventional vehicles 
with higher than average fuel economy will be slightly higher than 
average (-12.9%), while the reduction for conventional vehicles with 
lower than average fuel economy will typically be slightly lower than 
average (-6.9%). The reduction in highway fuel economy for conventional 
vehicles varies less around the average in the same way that it does 
for city fuel economy. Vehicles with higher than average fuel economy 
will typically experience a reduction in the highway label value 
similar to all conventional vehicles, while vehicles with lower than 
average fuel economy at the other end of the spectrum will, on average, 
see little to no change in their highway label value (or possibly a 
modest increase in some cases). Again, this is explained by each 
vehicle's fuel economy response to the new test cycles, and some 
vehicles are more sensitive to the new test conditions than others.
    The impact on hybrid vehicles will be greater, averaging a 22.3 
percent reduction for city fuel economy and 12.9 percent for highway 
fuel economy.\29\ This greater impact occurs primarily because a number 
of the fuel efficient aspects of hybrid vehicles produce their maximum 
benefit under conditions akin to the FTP and HFET tests, and are 
somewhat less beneficial during aggressive driving, colder ambient 
temperatures and when the air conditioner is turned on. However, these 
vehicles will still remain among the top fuel economy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The database of 615 vehicles includes 14 hybrid vehicles. 
All the hybrid models available as of the 2006 model year are 
represented in the database: Honda Insight, Honda Civic, Honda 
Accord, Toyota Prius, Toyota Highlander/Lexus RX400h, Ford Escape/
Mercury Mariner, and Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is one diesel vehicle in our 5-cycle fuel economy database. 
The

[[Page 77892]]

impact of the 5-cycle formulae on this one diesel is very similar to 
that for the average conventional, gasoline-fueled vehicle.
    The impact of the mpg-based formulae will be very similar on 
average to those shown in Table II-1 above for conventional vehicles. 
This is not surprising, since the mpg-based formulae are based 
essentially on the average results of the 5-cycle formulae. However, 
the mpg-based formulae will increase the city fuel economy of hybrid 
vehicles slightly, as indicated in Table II-2. This occurs because 
there are only 14 hybrid vehicles in the database, compared to 601 
gasoline-fueled, conventional vehicles. The mpg-based regression of 
city fuel economy, therefore, represents essentially the impact of the 
5-cycle formulae on conventional vehicles, which is less than that for 
hybrids. The mpg-based regression of highway fuel economy is 
essentially the same for conventional and hybrid vehicles.

                Table II-2.--Effect of MPG-Based Formulae on Conventional and Hybrid Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     City                                 Highway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent                                Percent
                                      Current     MPG-based      change      Current     MPG-based      change
                                       (mpg)        (mpg)      (percent)      (mpg)        (mpg)      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional......................         18.6         16.5        -10.9         24.6         22.7         -7.8
Hybrids...........................         42.7         35.1        -16.7         42.8         38.4         -9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II-3 summarizes the projected impact of the new methods (5-
cycle and mpg-based) relative to the current label values of the 615 
vehicle database.

                          Table II-3.--Effect of New Methods on Fuel Economy Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          City fuel economy estimate           Highway fuel economy estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current      5-Cycle     MPG- based    Current      5-Cycle     MPG- based
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Vehicles:
    MPG...........................         18.6         16.5         16.5         24.6         22.8         22.7
    Percent Change................  ...........       -10.8%       -10.9%  ...........        -7.4%        -7.8%
Hybrid Vehicles:
    MPG...........................         42.7         32.4         35.1         42.8         36.7         38.4
    Percent Change................  ...........       -23.6%       -16.7%  ...........       -13.2%        -9.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to looking at the overall change in fuel economy 
estimates for all vehicles in the database, we also focused on those 
manufacturers responsible for the majority of sales in the U.S. This 
approach may better reflect the changes likely to be seen by the 
majority of consumers. In effect, Table II-3 above includes vehicles by 
Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce in the percent change, and these vehicles 
are weighted equally with cars made by GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and 
other top-selling manufacturers. According to Autodata Corporation, the 
seven manufacturers with the greatest U.S. market share account for 
more than 90 percent of U.S. sales. Table II-4 shows these 
manufacturers, their 2005 U.S. market share, and the average percent 
change in city and highway fuel economy estimates for each of these 
manufacturers as represented in our database. As can be seen in the 
table, the city mpg estimates for these manufacturers will drop by 
about 12 percent on average relative to today's estimates, and highway 
estimates will drop by about 8 percent on average. It is important to 
note, however, that these estimates are not intended to represent or 
include the entirety of a manufacturer's product line, and should not 
be interpreted as such. These estimates are derived from our database 
of 615 test vehicles for which data on all five emission and fuel 
economy test procedures is available, and because of differing ways in 
which manufacturers test their vehicles and submit data to EPA, the 
database may not reflect the range of makes and models similarly across 
manufacturers.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The database spreadsheet is available in the public docket 
for review.

              Table II.-4.--Effect of New Methods on Fuel Economy Estimates for Major Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Average change  Average change
                                                                     2005 U.S.     in city fuel     in highway
                          Manufacturer                             market share       economy      fuel economy
                                                                    (percent)*       estimate        estimate
                                                                                     (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors..................................................            25.9             -10             -11
Ford Motor Co...................................................            17.9             -12             -10
DaimlerChrysler.................................................            14.9             -10             -11
Toyota..........................................................            13.7             -11              -7
Honda...........................................................             8.9             -13              -7

[[Page 77893]]

 
Nissan..........................................................             6.1             -11              -7
Hyundai.........................................................             2.9             -13              -8
Average.........................................................  ..............             -12             -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: Autodata Corp., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.

D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates

    In the proposal, we compared fuel economy label values based on the 
current, mpg-based, and 5-cycle formulae to estimates of onroad fuel 
economy developed by a number of organizations. In the short time since 
the proposal, little new data has become available. Also, as described 
above, we are finalizing only minor changes to the proposed mpg-based 
and 5-cycle formulae. Thus, overall, the relative comparisons described 
in the proposal remain largely unchanged. We describe these generally 
below, and refer the reader to Chapter II of the Technical Support 
Document for a detailed description of these comparisons.
    We begin with a comparison of 5-cycle fuel economy values with the 
fleetwide fuel economy estimates developed by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA). There are several differences in these two 
estimates. First, we do not have fuel economy data for all vehicles 
sold over the past 20-30 years over all five test procedures. 
Therefore, we cannot develop a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate for the 
current onroad fleet directly. Instead, we compare 5-cycle fuel economy 
values to the current label values for the vehicles for which we have 
5-cycle fuel economy data, and then extrapolate this relationship to 
the rest of the vehicle fleet. Also, the FHWA light truck class 
includes vehicles above 8,500 pound GVWR. The fuel economy estimated 
for this class therefore requires adjustment to be comparable to EPA's 
light-duty truck class. We also make this comparison for cars and light 
trucks combined, in order to avoid differences in the ways that FHWA 
categorizes vehicles.
    Since the NPRM, FHWA has published onroad fuel economy estimates 
for the 2004 vehicle fleet and updated their estimates for 2003. FHWA's 
estimates of light truck fuel economy onroad are almost 20 percent 
lower than their previous estimate for the 2002-2003 fleets. After 
adjusting for the difference in light truck categories, FHWA data 
indicate that combined car and light truck fuel economy averaged 19.7-
19.9 mpg during 2003 and 2004. Extrapolating the fuel economy label 
estimates from the 615 vehicles in our certification database to the 
entire fleet produces an average combined fuel economy of 19.9 mpg. 
This close match-up is not surprising, given that the value of the 
factor representing effects not simulated during the dynamometer tests 
(e.g., wind, road grade, etc.) was set using the FHWA estimates of 
onroad fuel economy.
    Next, several governmental and non-governmental organizations 
perform their own fuel economy assessments. Of these, the American 
Automobile Association (AAA) and Consumer Report have tested the 
greatest number of vehicles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has 
recently begun a program where drivers can submit their own fuel 
economy measurements via the Internet. Argonne National Laboratory 
(ANL) has also been operating an extensive hybrid demonstration project 
for a few years as part of DOE's Freedom Car project.
    Each of these estimates of onroad fuel economy has their relative 
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the non-governmental 
organization testing include the fact that the vehicles are tested on 
actual roads, usually in traffic and under real environmental 
conditions. The primary weaknesses of this testing are:
    (1) The driving patterns involved are not typically published, so 
they may or may not be representative of average U.S. driving,
    (2) Vehicles are tested throughout the year, so some vehicles are 
tested in hot weather and others in cold weather, and some under 
moderate conditions, thus leading to results that are not comparable 
across vehicles and that may not reflect average U.S. driving, and
    (3) In some cases, the actual test procedures used to measure the 
volume of fuel consumed during the test are not described, leaving some 
doubt as to their accuracy. Still, because of the public interest in 
these estimates, we have compared them to our mpg-based and 5-cycle 
label estimates.
    We updated our comparison of mpg-based and 5-cycle fuel economy 
estimates to Consumer Report's fuel economy estimates for 2000-2005 
model year vehicles which were also in our 5-cycle database. We were 
also able to match 70 of these vehicles with those in our 5-cycle fuel 
economy database.\31\ As in the NPRM, we focused on Consumer Report's 
combined fuel economy, which is a harmonic average of its fuel economy 
measurements for city driving, highway driving, and a 150-mile trip. On 
average, the mpg-based combined fuel economy values are 3 percent 
higher than those of Consumer Report, while the 5-cycle fuel economy 
values are 2% higher than those of Consumer Report. Thus, there is an 
excellent match between the composite mpg-based fuel economy and the 
Consumer Report combined fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In the NPRM, we identified 151 vehicles which were both 
tested by Consumer Reports and in our certification database. 
However, many of these matching vehicles were not from the same 
model year.

[[Page 77894]]



             Table II-5.--Consumer Reports and Current EPA and MPG-Based Fuel Economy: 303 Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Consumer       Current EPA label             MPG-based
                                                   reports   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                -------------              Difference*                Difference
                                                     MPG          MPG       (percent)       MPG       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City...........................................         14.2         20.4          -30         18.0          -21
Highway........................................         29.3         26.9            9         24.7           19
Combined.......................................         20.7         22.9           -9         21.2           -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II-6 presents the same comparisons, except that it includes 
the 5-cycle estimates and only includes the 70 matched vehicles.

                                    Table II-6.--CR and Current EPA, 5-Cycle and MPG-Based Fuel Economy: 70 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Consumer       Current EPA label              5-cycle                  MPG-based
                                                                 reports   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              -------------              Difference*                Difference                Difference
                                                                   MPG          MPG        (percent)      MPG       (percent)       MPG       (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City.........................................................         14.3         20.4          -30         18.0          -21         17.8          -20
Highway......................................................         29.3         26.4           11         24.3           21         24.1           22
Combined.....................................................         20.6         22.7           -9         21.0           -2         20.9           -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also updated our comparison to onroad fuel economy as estimated 
by AAA.\32\ We were able to match 61 out of the 163 vehicles from their 
2004 report to vehicles in our 5-cycle certification database. This is 
lower than the 98 models which we matched in the analysis described in 
the NPRM due to the use of a more stringent criterion that the vehicles 
match in terms of model year. As AAA only develops a single fuel 
economy estimate for each vehicle (i.e., no separate city or highway 
estimates), we compared their estimates to combined fuel economy values 
using the mpg-based and 5-cycle formulae. On average, the mpg-based 
combined fuel economy values exceeded those of AAA by 6.7%, while the 
5-cycle fuel economy values exceeded those of AAA by 6.1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ AAA Auto Guide: 2004 New Cars and Trucks. AAA Publishing, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We obtained a recent compilation of consumer's onroad fuel economy 
estimates which have been submitted to the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory's ``Your MPG'' database. Unlike Consumer Report and AAA, 
drivers submit their own estimates of onroad fuel economy and city/
highway driving split to the YourMPG Web site. The strength of this 
type of data is the fact that the vehicle is being operated by the 
owner or regular driver in typical use. The weaknesses are the unknown 
representativeness of the sample, the unknown nature of the technique 
used by the owner/driver to measure fuel economy and the unknown time 
period over which fuel economy is generally assessed (e.g., a couple of 
tanks full or the past year). The database now contains 8180 estimates 
of fuel economy for 4192 vehicles, compared to 2544 estimates of fuel 
economy for 1794 vehicles at the time of the NPRM. The database does 
not provide sufficiently precise vehicle descriptions to match vehicles 
to those in our 5-cycle database. Thus, we limit our comparison to the 
mpg-based method. We combined the mpg-based city and highway label 
values using each driver's estimate of the percentage of their driving 
that was in city or highway conditions. If a driver did not provide an 
estimate of the breakdown of their driving pattern, we assumed that 
their driving was 43 percent city and 57 percent highway in terms of 
miles driven (not time driven).
    Diesels appear to perform better onroad than gasoline vehicles 
compared to their current or mpg-based label values. Onroad fuel 
economy by diesels in the YourMPG database exceeded the current label 
combined label values by 4.3 percent. In contrast, conventional 
gasoline vehicles fell short of their current combined label values by 
1.4 percent.

                      Table II-7. --YourMPG Versus Current and MPG-Based Label Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of                  Current     Difference   MPG-based    Difference
           Vehicle type              estimates     YourMPG       label      (percent)      label      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional gasoline.............         7330         23.8         24.1         -1.4         21.7          9.1
High MPG Conventional Gasoline*...          680         35.1         35.8         -1.7         31.6         11.2
Hybrid Gasoline...................          520         43.2         47.1         -8.2         40.5          6.3
Diesel............................          221         41.8         40.1          4.3         35.3        18.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined EPA Label fuel economy value of 32 mpg or greater, representing about the top 10% fuel economy
  conventional vehicles.

    We also performed similar comparisons of EPA label and various 
onroad fuel economy estimates focusing specifically on hybrids and high 
fuel economy conventional vehicles. In the NPRM, we did this analysis 
for hybrids. However, we received some comments that highlighting the 
impact on hybrid vehicles specifically was misleading. The reason given 
was that, if hybrids performed differently on the road compared to 
their label values, it was

[[Page 77895]]

due to their relatively high fuel economy and not because of their 
hybrid technology. However, we found that the relationship between mpg-
based and 5-cycle label values and the onroad fuel economy estimates 
for conventional vehicles with relatively high fuel economy is 
consistently more similar to that of lower fuel economy conventional 
vehicles than to hybrids.
    There is a significant degree of scatter in the various estimates 
of onroad hybrid fuel economy. Those from DOE's FreedomCar program, 
Consumer Report and Edmunds \33\ tend to be much lower than those from 
YourMPG and AAA. EPA's Kansas City data, although not representative of 
the entire country, tends to fall in between these other two sets of 
onroad hybrid estimates. The 5-cycle combined label values tend to be 
in line with the lower set of estimates. The mpg-based label values 
tend to be somewhat higher than the lower set of estimates, but well 
below those of YourMPG and AAA. As described in the NPRM, the fuel 
economy of hybrids is more sensitive to driving patterns and ambient 
conditions than conventional vehicles. The scatter in the various 
onroad fuel economy estimates for hybrids likely reflects this fact, as 
each estimate is based on a unique set of driving activity and ambient 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See www.edmunds.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the mpg-based and 5-cycle fuel economy label values 
compare favorably with estimates of onroad fuel economy made by other 
organizations. However, lack of detailed knowledge of the driving 
conditions and test procedures behind many of the latter estimates 
prevents systematic comparisons, especially involving individual 
weighting factors in the 5-cycle formulae.

E. Implementation of the New Fuel Economy Methods

1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for 2011 and Later Model Years
    In addition to finalizing the mpg-based adjustments for the 2008-
2010 model years, as mentioned above, we are finalizing as proposed 
selection criteria for the continued use of this method for 2011 and 
later model years. These criteria will indicate for a given vehicle 
test group whether the full 5-cycle testing would result in 
significantly different fuel economy label values than the mpg-based 
approach. If not, then those vehicles could use the mpg-based method 
rather than the 5-cycle method. This approach is designed to avoid 
additional test burden where the fuel economy label values would not be 
significantly different under the 5-cycle method.
    Each year, manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with federal 
emission standards by performing tests over all five test procedures. 
The vehicles on which these tests are performed are known as ``emission 
data vehicles'', which are selected to represent the ``worst-case'' 
emitting vehicle in a group of vehicles, known as a ``test group'', 
which share common engine and emission control designs.\34\ EPA issues 
certificates of emission conformity for each test group of vehicles in 
each model year. Thus, for each test group, there exists a set of 
official certification test data from all five test cycles--FTP, HFET, 
US06, SC03 and Cold FTP. The fuel economy measured from these official 
certification tests can be inserted into the 5-cycle city and highway 
formulae to determine city and highway fuel economy values. Since FTP 
and HFET testing is included in the official certification data, the 
mpg-based city and highway fuel economy values can also be determined. 
Thus, for each emission data vehicle, the 5-cycle city and highway fuel 
economy values then can be compared to the mpg-based city and highway 
fuel economy values. We believe that it is reasonable to allow 
continued use of the mpg-based line when the available 5-cycle fuel 
economy data (from emissions certification) indicates that the mpg-
based fuel economy determined from the official FTP and HFET tests 
performed for the test group are similar enough to the 5-cycle fuel 
economy determined from the official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP 
tests for that same test group. In that case, the manufacturer can use 
the mpg-based method for all model types covered under the EPA 
certificate of conformity that is represented by the 5-cycle data 
submitted to represent those vehicles. The manufacturer will not need 
to conduct 5-cycle testing for fuel economy labeling for these model 
types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The ``emission data vehicle'' is the test vehicle chosen to 
represent a ``test group'' for emission certification purposes. A 
``test group'' is made up of vehicles that share common combustion 
cycle, engine type, fuel type, fuel metering system, catalyst 
construction and precious metal content, engine displacement, number 
and arrangement of cylinders, and emission standards. The emission 
data vehicle is required to be the vehicle within the test group 
that is expected to be worst-case for exhaust emissions. In general 
the criteria that cause the emission data vehicle to be worst-case 
for emissions will also cause it to be worst-case for fuel economy 
(e.g., it will be the heaviest vehicle in the test group, with an 
automatic transmission, four-wheel drive, etc.). In general, the 
FTP, HFET, US06 and SC03 are performed on the emission data vehicle 
to demonstrate that the test group complies with the federal 
emission standards. The Cold FTP is performed on the worst-case 
vehicle within a durability group, which represents a larger group 
of vehicles, including those covered in the test group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accomplish this, we defined the lower bound of a tolerance band 
around the mpg-based line as the criteria for whether the mpg-based 
line could be used or whether 5-cycle testing would be required for 
further vehicle models within a test group. As proposed, we are 
finalizing four and five percent as the tolerance bands for the city 
and highway mpg lines, respectively. Mathematically, the tolerance line 
is defined by Y x mpg-based fuel economy, where Y is 0.96 for city fuel 
economy and 0.95 for highway fuel economy. In other words, if the 5-
cycle city fuel economy value is greater than or equal to 0.96 times 
the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle model types covered 
under the certificate of conformity for that test group are eligible to 
use the mpg-based method to determine both city and highway fuel 
economy label estimates. Similarly, when the 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy is greater than or equal to 0.95 times the mpg-based highway 
fuel economy, all vehicle model types covered under the certificate of 
conformity in that test group are required to use the vehicle-specific 
5-cycle approach. This can be done using analytically derived fuel 
economy estimates, when appropriate. This approach is appropriate 
because those vehicles with a 5-cycle value above the mpg-based line 
that used the mpg-based line would simply be reducing their fuel 
economy down to the average level, even though the 5-cycle data 
indicated better than average performance was likely for that vehicle 
group. Because of the better-than-average performance, we expect that 
most manufacturers will want to do complete 5-cycle testing for 
vehicles likely to be significantly above the mpg-based line.
    This approach is illustrated in the Figures II-7 and II-8, below. 
The black squares in these figures represent situations where the mpg 
line does not do a good job (based on the tolerance criteria as shown 
by the dashed line) of predicting the 5-cycle fuel economy. Those 
vehicles with black squares in the two charts below may not use the 
mpg-based approach, but instead must perform additional testing to 
achieve better fuel economy estimates. Note that these charts do not 
show the entire range of FTP and HFET fuel economy on the x-axis, and 
thus do not show all those vehicles ``passing'' or ``failing'' the city 
or highway criteria. For the purpose of illustrating this concept it 
helps to isolate the FTP range from 20 to 30 mpg and the HFET range 
from 30 to 40 mpg.

[[Page 77896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.026

    If the 5-cycle city fuel economy falls below the mpg-based city 
fuel economy by more than four percent (i.e., below the tolerance 
line), but the 5-cycle highway fuel economy does not fall below the 
mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent (i.e., above 
the tolerance line), all the vehicle configurations represented by the 
emission data vehicle are required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach for both city and highway fuel economy, since fuel economy 
values for all five cycles are important in estimating 5-cycle city 
fuel economy. However, if the 5-cycle highway fuel economy is less than 
the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent (i.e., 
below the tolerance line), but the 5-cycle city fuel economy is not 
more than four percent lower than the mpg-based city fuel economy 
(i.e., above the tolerance line), all the vehicle configurations 
represented by the emission data vehicle will use the mpg-based 
approach to estimate the city fuel economy label. For the highway label 
in

[[Page 77897]]

this case, all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission 
data vehicle may use an approximate 5-cycle formula. This formula 
includes vehicle-specific fuel economy measurements for the FTP, HFET 
and US06 tests, but the SC03 and cold FTP test values may be estimated 
based on relationships developed from other vehicles. This is 
appropriate because the impact of the cold FTP test on highway fuel 
economy in the 5-cycle formula is not vehicle-specific, but estimated 
(or modeled) based on known relationships. Also the impact of the SC03 
test on highway fuel economy is very small, particularly compared to 
that for the US06 test.
    The criteria for use of the mpg-based approach in model year 2011 
and later (5-cycle city fuel economy above four percent and 5-cycle 
highway fuel economy above five percent) are based on the balance of 
three factors. First, we designed them to be sufficiently large so that 
typical test-to-test variability would not cause a test group to fail 
the criteria. This may be a greater concern for the highway fuel 
economy comparison, due to the dominance of the US06 fuel economy 
(which inherently has greater test-to-test variability than the other 
tests) in the 5-cycle formula. Second, we want to minimize the 
potential error in the fuel economy label. Label fuel economy values 
are rounded to the nearest whole mpg. Thus, we felt it important to 
keep the difference between the 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy 
values within roughly one mpg, if possible. In other words, if the 
difference between the two methods is less than 1 mpg, then the two 
methods would produce the same label value. If the difference is more 
than 1 mpg then we would expect the 5-cycle method to result in a 
different label value, and thus it is more important to trigger the 
requirement for additional testing. Third, we want to avoid requiring 
additional fuel economy testing that will have little to no impact on 
the label values.
    The four percent tolerance band for city fuel economy is equivalent 
to roughly 0.6-0.7 mpg on average. Due to the contribution of a number 
of independent fuel economy measurements in the 5-cycle city formula, 
the effect of test to test variability should be much lower than four 
percent. Based on the 5-cycle test results of 615 recent model year 
vehicles, we estimate that about 96 percent of test groups would fall 
above the four percent tolerance line. Thus, we believe that this 
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
    The five percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy is 
equivalent to roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is slightly higher 
than the typical error associated with rounding. However, due to the 
dominant contribution of the US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle highway 
formula, and the fact that this test tends to have relatively high 
variability, we are concerned that test-to-test variability could be on 
the order of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle highway formula. We estimate 
that about 87 percent of test groups would fall above the five percent 
tolerance line. Thus, again, we believe that this criterion adequately 
satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
    Overall, allowing the continued use of the mpg-based approach in 
this way will reduce the number of additional SC03 and cold FTP tests 
by about 96 percent and reduce the number of additional US06 tests by 
about 87 percent. Moreover, this significant reduction in test burden 
is achieved with no significant impact on the fuel economy estimate.
2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Label Estimates
    As noted in Section I, we are finalizing in this rule a fuel 
economy labeling program for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), a 
subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR. MDPVs were first 
defined in the regulation that put in place the ``Tier 2'' emission 
standards.\35\ This newly-defined class of vehicles includes SUVs and 
passenger vans between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR, but excludes large 
pick-up trucks. The specific regulatory definition was designed to 
capture in the Tier 2 vehicle emissions program those vehicles that are 
designed predominantly for passenger use.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000).
    \36\ This is the regulatory definition of Medium-Duty Passenger 
Vehicle, found in 40 CFR 86.1803-01: Medium-duty passenger vehicle 
(MDPV) means any heavy-duty vehicle (as defined in this subpart) 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds 
that is designed primarily for the transportation of persons. The 
MDPV definition does not include any vehicle which:
    (1) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
    (2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
    (3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of 
the driver's seat; or
    (4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up 
truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A 
covered box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment 
will be considered an open cargo area for purposes of this 
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is 
required to establish regulations that require a manufacturer to attach 
a label to each ``automobile'' manufactured in a model year.\37\ 
``Automobile'' is defined as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs GVWR, 
and those vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT 
determines are appropriate for inclusion in the CAFE program.\38\ 
``Automobile'' for the purposes of labeling also includes vehicles at 
no more than 8,500 lbs GVWR whether or not DOT has included those 
vehicles in the CAFE program.\39\ EPA has no authority to require 
labels on vehicles that are not automobiles, therefore EPA has no 
authority to require labeling of either vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, 
or vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that are not included by 
DOT in the CAFE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
    \38\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
    \39\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the time of EPA's proposal, DOT has included some vehicles 
above 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs in its CAFE program, 
beginning in model year 2011.\40\ Since these vehicles now meet the 
definition of automobile, EPA is authorized to include these vehicles 
in the labeling program. EPA is now requiring fuel economy labels on 
MDPVs (as defined in the CAFE program), beginning with model year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDPVs are currently subject to emission standards that apply on the 
existing Federal Test Procedure, and many also undergo emission testing 
on the current Highway Fuel Economy Test due to requirements in 
California. Beginning with the 2011 model year, manufacturers will be 
routinely testing MDPVs over the FTP and the HFET tests in order to 
comply with the CAFE program. However, MDPVs are not today subject to 
all of the additional emission tests we are utilizing for the 5-cycle 
method.\41\ Specifically, MDPVs are not subject to the 1996 SFTP 
regulations.\42\ The SFTP regulations include the US06 and SC03 test 
procedures, both of which are necessary elements of the 5-cycle fuel 
economy methodology. These two test cycles represent high speed and 
aggressive driving (US06), and impacts of air conditioner operation 
(SC03). We do not believe it is appropriate to require SFTP testing for 
MDPVs for fuel economy purposes alone, but we are not prepared at this 
time to establish SFTP standards

[[Page 77898]]

for MDPVs. In the Tier 2 regulations, we acknowledged that MDPVs were 
not covered by SFTP requirements, and we specifically noted that SFTP 
emission standards would be addressed in a future regulation.\43\ We 
believe that the appropriate time to consider 5-cycle fuel economy 
testing for MDPVs is during or after development of appropriate SFTP 
emission standards for MDPVs. We plan to address SFTP emission 
standards for MDPVs in the near future. At that time, we will also 
assess the appropriateness of 5-cycle fuel economy testing for MDPVs. 
However, we are finalizing a program that requires MDPVs to use the 
mpg-based adjustments to calculate fuel economy estimates. The database 
of 615 vehicles used to generate the mpg-based adjustments includes 
vehicles similar in many respects to existing MDPVs, with similar FTP 
and HFET fuel economy as measured today. For example, the database 
includes models of the Chevrolet Suburban below 8,500 lbs GVWR, which 
are very similar to the versions of the same vehicle that is above 
8,500 lbs GVWR and classified as an MDPV. Additionally, because the 
mpg-based adjustment is essentially the average relationship between 
FTP and HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle fuel economy results, we believe 
that the resulting label values for MDPVs will be an adequate 
representation. The mpg-based approach does not require testing beyond 
what will be required to meet the CAFE program in model year 2011. 
Manufacturers will simply take their FTP and HFET test results 
(conducted for the CAFE program) and apply them to the mpg-based 
equation to determine their fuel economy label values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ MDPVs are currently required under the Tier 2 program to 
meet a carbon monoxide standard on the cold FTP test; compliance 
with this standard is being phased in over the 2008 and 2009 model 
years.
    \42\ See 61 FR 54852 (Oct. 22, 1996).
    \43\ See 65 FR 6789 (Feb. 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
    When a vehicle is required to generate data from all five test 
cycles, there are multiple ways for the manufacturer to accomplish 
this. One way would be to perform the three additional tests--the US06, 
SC03, and cold FTP tests (the FTP and HFET would be performed under 
current and future requirements). The other way is to estimate fuel 
economy values over the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests analytically 
(i.e., analytically derived fuel economy, or ADFE) from testing of a 
similar vehicle over these three cycles. Under this method, 
manufacturers will be allowed to estimate the effect of differences in 
inertia test weight, road load horsepower, and N/V ratio (the ratio of 
engine revolutions to vehicle speed when the vehicle is in its highest 
gear) on fuel economy, and use these estimates to calculate predicted 
fuel economy over the three new fuel economy test cycles. A procedure 
to estimate the effect of these three vehicle parameters on FTP and 
HFET fuel economy has already been developed.\44\ We plan to work with 
manufacturers to appropriately analytically derive fuel economy for the 
US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests, or otherwise utilize data for these 
tests already available from certification vehicles. We will implement 
these estimation procedures using agency guidance, as is currently done 
for FTP and HFET fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. EPA Memorandum ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel 
Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later,'' CCD-04-06 (LDVLDT), 
March 11, 2004. Available in the public docket for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content

A. Background

    We proposed to update the design of the fuel economy label to 
better convey its information to the public. We took comment on four 
alternative label designs. We received overwhelming public support for 
revamping the label and numerous constructive comments for enhancing 
the final label content. Based on these public comments, we developed 
additional alternatives for how information might be presented on the 
label. We gauged consumer reaction to these alternatives by conducting 
a series of focus groups in five cities across the country. These 
groups provided valuable feedback which we used to establish the final 
label. The docket to this rule includes the final report entitled 
``Fuel Economy Focus Groups--Phase Two Findings'' that contains details 
about the focus groups.
    The label format and content we are finalizing today reflects input 
from the public comments and focus group research. The modern design of 
this label more effectively communicates fuel economy estimates and 
related information to the customer. Section I of this preamble 
provides a graphic of the new fuel economy label and key considerations 
that went into developing its final design. This section presents the 
specific elements on the final label.
    We plan to conduct public outreach and education to increase 
consumer awareness of the new label's design and content. We believe 
that we can increase consumer comprehension by jointly-sponsoring an 
outreach campaign with car dealers and other interested stakeholders 
that could include explanatory materials, such as a brochure that 
dealers could distribute to customers.

B. Label Size and Orientation

    Although we proposed to maintain the label's size at 7 inches by 
4.5 inches, we experimented with its orientation. Two of the four 
alternative labels proposed were positioned vertically (portrait), and 
two horizontally (landscape) as today's label. Public comments highly 
supported one of the vertically oriented versions (identified in the 
proposed rule as ``Alternative 4.'' \45\ The commenters that provided 
reasons for this preference indicated that the new look, along with the 
graphically presented comparison information, helped convey the fuel 
economy information desired by the customer, discussed further in 
Section III.C below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Note that the NPRM contained four label alternatives, 
printed in the Appendix to the proposed regulations on pages 5510-
5513, labeled Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4. These same labels were 
posted on EPA's Web site, but in a slightly different order and with 
different nomenclature (Label A, B, C, and D). In the following 
discussion we refer to the labels printed in the NPRM and use that 
nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some automakers expressed concerns with the vertical label 
orientation. Their primary apprehension was that the new Department of 
Transportation--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety 
rating label, required on price stickers (``Monroney'' label) of all 
cars produced on or after September 1, 2007,\46\ competes for space 
with the fuel economy label. Some manufacturers had already redesigned 
their price stickers to accommodate the safety rating label beside a 
horizontally positioned fuel economy label. These companies stated that 
because the price sticker contains a great deal of information, 
changing the fuel economy label orientation would be difficult from a 
graphic design standpoint. One manufacturer commented that it had 
already printed stock price stickers containing horizontally oriented 
fuel economy labels and would bear an added cost of redesigning and 
reprinting the stickers if EPA required the vertical label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 71 FR 53572 (Sept. 12, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To consider further the above comment, we tested both horizontal 
and vertical versions of the label (Figure III-1) with the focus 
groups. While the focus groups expressed a slight preference for the 
vertical orientation, this preference was not strongly held. Some 
participants remarked that the vertical label was easier to read ``top 
to bottom''; however, a contrasting observation made in many of the 
focus groups was that on the vertical label the text within the gray 
area of the fuel pump was more difficult to read. [Insert photo Figure 
III-1: Preliminary vertical

[[Page 77899]]

and horizontal designs for focus group review.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.027

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Although public comments indicated a preference for the vertical 
orientation, the primary reasons given were more relevant to the design 
elements (particularly the gray ``watermark'' fuel pump design with 
information it its ``window'' and the bar graphic showing comparable 
fuel economy) rather than the label orientation itself. Therefore, in 
order to address both the consumers' needs and the automakers' 
concerns, our final label contains the new design elements supported by 
public comments and its appearance is oriented horizontally. The label 
size remains unchanged from the current label, at 7'' wide by 4.5'' 
high, and the final layout incorporates several important changes

[[Page 77900]]

to improve legibility and consumers' understanding of the label 
information.

C. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

    We proposed two contrasting depictions comparing a particular 
vehicle's fuel economy to that of all other vehicles in its class: a 
text statement and a graphic depiction (Figure III-2). On three of the 
proposed labels, we specified separate city and highway comparable fuel 
economy information on the bottom half of the label in a text 
statement, similar to the current label. On one of the vertically 
oriented labels (Alternative 4) we proposed a graphical bar scale that 
indicated where the vehicle's combined fuel economy would fall compared 
to all other vehicles in its class.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.028

    Public commenters strongly favored the graphical version, many 
noting that it was similar to the Federal Trade Commission's 
EnergyGuide ratings placed on new appliances.
    One industry comment suggested that the graphical way of presenting 
comparable fuel economy highlighted a weakness in the comparable 
vehicle class designations. Automakers expressed concern that ``the 
graphic representation may portray a significant volume of sales as 
having low fuel economy, even though many consumers would be shopping 
in only subgroups of EPA's classes.'' They recommended that EPA retain 
its current text portrayal of comparable fuel economy, but if 
significant comments were to favor the graphic design, they asked to 
work with EPA and through additional focus groups to develop a design 
that addresses their competitive concerns. Although their concerns were 
directed at the graphic, the underlying issue is EPA's comparable class 
designations. A separate discussion of comparable classes is in Section 
VI.F.
    We also tested these representations of comparable fuel economy 
with the focus groups and they responded positively to the graphic 
version of combined fuel economy. Participants indicated that they were 
more likely to use this information, since it was much more clearly 
displayed in the graphical version. Many participants commented further 
that the range of combined fuel economy was more useful than the city/
highway ranges of the verbal text.
    One commenter stated that the within-class graphic did not provide 
enough context for consumers because many people do not shop within a 
single class, but instead may be simultaneously considering a variety 
of types of vehicles (for example, SUVs or minivans). The commenter 
suggested an alternate version of this graphic containing a bar scale 
that represents the fuel economy range of all vehicles, with the range 
of the specific vehicle class embedded in the overall range. We tested 
this alternative with the focus groups, along with an enhanced graphic, 
similar to the one proposed in the Alternative 4 label. These 
alternatives are shown in Figure III-3.

[[Page 77901]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.029

    The focus groups slightly preferred Option 1 because of its 
simplicity, many participants noting that they already knew which class 
of vehicles they would be considering. Others preferring Option 2 
mentioned that it could influence some people to reconsider vehicles 
with higher fuel economy. Although some participants thought the added 
fuel economy range in Option 2 was useful, many thought it was too much 
information or were confused by what it represents.
    Because public comment and focus group reaction has been positive, 
we are finalizing a comparable fuel economy graphic similar to Option 1 
(Figure III-3). This graphic shows the range of fuel economy for the 
comparable class of vehicles and indicates where the specific vehicle 
falls on that range. The focus groups comprehended it easily at a 
glance, an important consideration given how briefly most viewers look 
at the labels on dealer lots. We recognize that the added information 
provided by revealing the fuel economy range of all vehicles may be 
valuable to some, but because of clarity and ease of comprehension, we 
are finalizing the simpler within-class graphic. Those desiring more 
detailed information about comparable fuel economy can find it on the 
Fuel Economy Guide and at http://www.fueleconomy.gov, referenced at the 
bottom of the label.

D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost

    We proposed to elevate the visibility of the estimated annual fuel 
cost information by increasing its size and location on the label 
(Figure III-4, Option 1). Additionally, we proposed to include further 
information on which the estimated annual fuel costs are determined--
specifically the number of miles driven per year and the price of fuel 
per gallon. (This information is currently optional on the label, but 
manufacturers typically do not include it). Public commenters and focus 
group participants responded favorably to these changes.
    One commenter suggested that a single cost estimate would not match 
most drivers' experiences, and that a cost range would be more valuable 
for those who drove more exclusively under city or highway conditions. 
To explore this comment, we developed an option that showed three 
separate fuel cost estimates (Figure III-4, Option 2):
    (1) Combined estimate based on a mix of city and highway driving;
    (2) City estimate based on all city driving; and
    (3) Highway estimate based on all highway driving.
    Both options were tested with the focus groups.

[[Page 77902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.030

    The focus groups had mixed reactions to these options, but slightly 
preferred Option 1 because it was simpler and provided all of the vital 
information. Others thought that the combined estimate would be more 
accurate, since they did not drive exclusively in either city or 
highway conditions. Alternatively, those that preferred seeing the 
added city/highway fuel costs did so because they did drive under one 
condition more often than another; others simply preferred having more 
information.
    We are finalizing Option 1 based on positive response from both 
public commenters and focus groups. While the option to include 
separate city and highway annual fuel costs may provide additional 
useful information for some consumers, others may disregard it 
altogether because of its complexity. Furthermore, there is enough 
information provided on the simpler graphic that a person could 
determine their own customized fuel cost estimate by modifying one or 
more parameters (e.g. mpg, dollars-per-gallon, or miles-per-year).
    As explained in further detail in Section III.I, the estimated 
annual fuel cost is determined using a weighted combination of 
estimated city and highway fuel economy values. Currently the combined 
fuel economy is based on a weighting of 55% city mpg and 45% highway 
mpg. We proposed changing the weighting to 43% city mpg and 57% highway 
mpg, but as discussed in Section III.I we are not finalizing this as 
proposed, choosing instead to retain the 55/45 weighting factors.

E. ``Your mileage will vary'' Statement

    We proposed to include a statement on the label stating, ``Your 
actual mileage can vary significantly depending on how you drive and 
maintain your vehicle and other factors.'' This statement reinforces to 
customers that the mpg values are estimates only and that drivers will 
experience different fuel economy depending on many factors. Most 
commenters favored some sort of disclaimer statement and provided a 
number of suggestions. Some proposed that the statement both highlight 
the inexact nature of the estimate and educate consumers on which 
factors may lead to improved fuel economy. Others suggested that the 
statement distinguish between factors that drivers could and could not 
control. We tested three alternative versions with the focus groups: a 
slight modification to the proposed version, one having a list of fuel 
economy tips, and the other simply pointing to a Web site where one 
could find the tips. These are shown in Figure III-5.

[[Page 77903]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.031

    The focus group reaction was divided uniformly between the three 
options provided. Some liked seeing the more-detailed tips, while 
others preferred the Web link, since the list of tips was incomplete. 
Some thought that fewer details coupled with a Web link would be 
appropriate.
    All factors that impact fuel economy cannot be listed on the fuel 
economy label because they are too numerous. Our proposed statement was 
designed to capture two of the biggest categories that drivers can 
control: Driving style and vehicle maintenance, with a blanket ``and 
other factors'' clause added. ``How you drive'' covers such factors 
such as speed, acceleration, use of air conditioning, braking, and 
driving predominantly in either city or highway conditions. ``How you 
maintain your vehicle'' covers factors like tire pressure, oil changes, 
tune-ups, and other maintenance. Both of these categories include 
factors that the driver can control in most cases.
    The focus groups generally thought that the ``other factors'' 
clause was unnecessary. To increase the likelihood that consumers will 
read and understand the message that fuel economy will vary, we believe 
that a simpler statement is preferable. We considered adding the Web 
address to the statement in order to reflect the desire within the 
focus groups for access to more detailed information. However, in 
designing the final label format, we realized that it would be 
redundant because it is located directly above the identical Web site 
that is provided at the bottom right border of the label. Therefore, we 
are finalizing a statement that states, ``Your actual mileage will vary 
depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle,'' to be located 
near the Web address at the bottom of the label.

F. Environmental Information Statement

    Historically, EPA has rated fuel economy and emissions from 0-10 on 
the Green Vehicle Guide Web site (www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/). We 
sought comment on allowing companies to voluntarily include EPA air 
pollution and/or greenhouse gas ratings on the fuel economy label. 
While auto manufacturers supported alerting consumers to these issues, 
they did not favor adding emissions ratings to the label, because they 
may dilute the fuel economy information. Another comment from the auto 
industry was that the emissions factors and weights associated with the 
ratings presented in the Green Vehicle Guide are subjective and 
debatable. Thus, they recommended that we continue to present 
environmental ratings on the web, where there is ample space for 
elaboration.
    One environmental group did not support rating a vehicle's 
greenhouse gas emissions from 0-10 because the scale was ``too 
coarse,'' but recommended that we instead educate consumers on how 
their vehicle choice impacts the environment. Two different 
environmental groups favored mandating both greenhouse gas and smog 
scores on the label. One of these groups disagreed with the auto 
manufacturers, stating that there was ample space on the label to 
present the scores without interfering with fuel economy information. 
The other group further suggested that we compare these scores 
numerically and graphically to all vehicles, as in the NPRM, and that 
we include an official EPA ``Seal of Approval'' to the most 
environmentally benign vehicles. Because some comments suggested 
further improvements to our method for calculating these scores, and 
because a clear preference for how to present this information did not 
emerge from the comments, we are not finalizing provisions for 
including this information on the label at this time. We remain open to 
suggestions for a voluntary environmental labeling program that could 
be implemented in the future.
    To further consider those comments suggesting that we instead 
educate consumers on the relation of fuel economy and environmental and 
societal issues, we tested the following ``environmental statement'' 
with the focus groups: ``Buying a vehicle with better fuel economy 
helps protect the environment and reduces dependence on oil.'' Focus 
groups were strongly divided on this statement. Some asserted that it 
was ``preachy'' and ``stating the obvious,'' while others argued that 
it was consistent with EPA's mission and, even if obvious, addressed a 
concern felt by most of the population.
    We are finalizing a label design that does not incorporate an 
environmental statement. While we agree that it is important to make a 
connection between a vehicle's fuel efficiency and the environment, we 
agree with focus group comments that most consumers already recognize 
this relationship. Additionally, since most of the new label space is 
utilized by statutorily-required information, a practical concern was 
that we would not be able to add this statement without creating a 
``fine print'' look. However, both the Fuel Economy Guide and the 
www.fueleconomy.gov Web site (referenced on the label) include details

[[Page 77904]]

about the impact of fuel economy on the environment, for consumers 
wishing to explore these issues further.

G. Government Logos and Web Site Link

    We proposed to include prominent EPA and DOE logos on the label and 
a prominent reference to ``EPA'' on the label title. These changes 
reflect earlier market research indicating that people were unaware of 
the fuel economy estimates' origin, and that knowing the government was 
the source of this information added to its credibility. Since public 
commenters and focus groups responded favorably to this proposal, the 
final label design includes the government logos at the bottom and 
``EPA Fuel Economy Estimates'' in the title.
    We also proposed to require placement of the jointly-sponsored EPA-
DOE Web site www.fueleconomy.gov on the label. Since commenters and 
focus group members reacted positively to adding a web link, we are 
finalizing this requirement.

H. Temporary Transitional Statement

    We asked commenters if the label should include transitional 
language indicating that the estimates are based on new methods. Such a 
statement could help customers understand why the fuel economy 
estimates are lower, especially when 2007 models having current fuel 
economy estimates are on dealer lots with 2008 models having new 
estimates. Commenters generally responded positively. Automakers 
suggested a brief statement, while another commenter suggested slightly 
longer wording. We tested the following transitional statement with the 
focus groups: ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 
2008 models.'' The meaning of this sentence was generally clear to the 
groups. A few participants wondered what the ``new EPA methods'' were, 
but determined after some discussion that the Web site provided on the 
label may give further explanation. We are finalizing this transitional 
statement for inclusion on the final fuel economy label.
    We asked the groups how long this statement should be retained, and 
responses varied widely, from one year to the duration of an average 
consumer's vehicle purchase cycle. We believe that the transitional 
statement should be used while both the old and the new label formats 
appear simultaneously on vehicles on dealer lots. When all vehicles on 
the lot have labels with the new format (estimates based on new 
methods), there will be less potential for confusion. By the time 2010 
models can be offered for sale (as early as January 2, 2009), all new 
vehicles on dealer lots will have the new label format and the 
transitional statement will no longer be necessary. Therefore, we are 
requiring the transition statement on the labels of all 2008 and 2009 
model year vehicles.

I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis

    For calculating the combined fuel economy displayed on the label 
(and also factored into the estimated annual fuel cost calculation), we 
proposed a weighting of 43% city and 57% highway. Currently this value 
is based on a 55% city/45% highway weighting. The 43/57 weighting was 
based on the new 5-cycle method and reflects average miles driven (not 
time spent) at speeds below and above 45 mph respectively, based on 
existing data for on-road driving patterns. This analysis is detailed 
in the Technical Support Document. We received comments that the 43/57 
split was not intuitive to most drivers and that consumers may think 
more in terms of the percent of time they spend driving in city or 
highway conditions, rather than in percent of distance traveled. Some 
commenters suggested a simple 50/50 split, which is more intuitive to 
car buyers; others suggested retaining the 55/45 split since it is 
closer to the intuitive 50/50 split.
    The basis for the 43/57 city-highway weighting as used to assess 5-
cycle fuel economy fleetwide is discussed in the Technical Support 
Document. The issue for the label is how best to convey the fuel 
economy information most relevant to consumers and which city/highway 
weighting supports that purpose.
    We agree with the comments that a 43/57 split based on distance is 
not intuitive to consumers. We considered the suggested 50/50 split, 
since likely most consumers think of ``combined'' fuel economy as an 
equal mix of city and highway driving. The 55/45 split was used 
historically to determine combined fuel economy since it is consistent 
with the statutory requirements for determining fuel economy for CAFE 
standards and the Gas Guzzler tax.\47\ Thus, since it will remain the 
required weighting for the Gas Guzzler tax that appears on the label 
for applicable vehicles, it is most consistent to continue using the 
55/45 split for combined fuel economy as well. We do not want to cause 
consumer confusion by using different city/highway weightings to 
calculate different numbers appearing on the label. Therefore, we are 
finalizing that a 55/45 weighting be used to calculate the combined 
fuel economy displayed on the label and used to calculate the estimated 
annual fuel costs. This decision does not impact the underlying city/
highway split used analytically to determine fleetwide composite 5-
cycle fuel economy, as discussed in the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) and 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Labeling Requirements for Dual Fueled Vehicles

    Flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) (also called dual-fueled or bi-
fueled vehicles) are vehicles that can operate either on gasoline or 
diesel fuel, or on an alternative fuel such as ethanol or methanol. 
Currently, for FFVs, manufacturers may voluntarily include the fuel 
economy estimates (and estimated annual fuel costs) for the alternative 
fuel on the label. This is part of the EPCA statute which requires that 
for dual fueled vehicles, the label must:
    ``(A) indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on 
gasoline or diesel fuel;
    (B) clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile;
    (C) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be 
operated; and
    (D) contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional 
information required by subsection (c)(2) of this section is published 
and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See, 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current labeling requirements for dual-fueled vehicles are 
consistent with these EPCA requirements. We did not propose changes to 
these requirements, and we did not seek comment on the topic. However, 
EPA received a late public comment from several environmental and 
consumer groups urging EPA to require manufacturers to include for FFVs 
the fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of both gasoline and 
E85 (mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).
    Historically, the EPA did not require fuel economy on the label for 
ethanol FFVs, because a vast majority of these vehicles operated on 
gasoline only, since ethanol was not widely available, and many owners 
were unaware they were driving an FFV. However, in recent months there 
has been a sharp increase in national interest in alternatives to 
fossil-based fuels, flexible-fueled vehicles, and ethanol in 
particular. With increased awareness and availability of these 
vehicles, the late comment suggested that the label be required to not 
only display separate gasoline and E85 fuel economy and annual cost 
estimates, but also to provide EPA smog and greenhouse gas

[[Page 77905]]

scores and the ratio of ethanol to gasoline (which is not always 85:15) 
on the label. These additions would help alert customers that although 
the fuel economy of dual fuel models may be lower than gasoline-only 
models, they are still reducing environmental impact by using alcohol 
fuel.
    Since we did not request comments on this topic, we are not 
finalizing requirements today that differ from the current regulations. 
However, we agree that it is important to provide consumers with 
complete fuel economy information on alternatively fueled vehicles, 
particularly in light of the rising sale of flex-fueled vehicles and a 
developing E85 fuel infrastructure. We agree that it is important for 
consumers to understand that fuel economy on E85 is typically about 20% 
to 30% lower than on gasoline, due to the lower energy density of 
E85.\49\ Consumers can view the gasoline and E85 estimates of all FFVs 
in the Fuel Economy Guide and on the www.fueleconomy.gov Web site. We 
reiterate that manufacturers may voluntarily include the E85 (or other 
alternative fuel) mpg and estimated annual fuel costs on the label 
today, and we strongly encourage them to do so. The final label design 
includes a placeholder for such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Based on fuel economies of gasoline and E85 reported in the 
Model Year 2006 Fuel Economy Guide, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not finalizing a requirement today, because we believe the 
issue (for manufacturers to display E85 fuel economy information on the 
label in addition to gasoline) deserves a more carefully considered 
approach. The label design we are finalizing was developed based on 
extensive public comments and focus group input. None of the options 
considered included E85 fuel economy information. Before requiring the 
inclusion of E85 fuel economy for FFVs, there are many questions we 
would consider for the design and placement of this information, such 
as: (1) How to clearly present E85 mpg relative to gasoline; (2) how to 
educate consumers that E85 helps reduce greenhouse gases and reduce oil 
consumption; (3) how to best convey estimated annual fuel costs of E85 
(particularly given the volatility of E85 prices across the country), 
and (4) how to graphically depict comparable class fuel economy for E85 
in addition to gasoline. In the next year, EPA will evaluate its legal 
authority to require manufacturers to include E85 fuel economy on the 
label. If we determine that we have statutory authority, we would then 
plan to work with interested stakeholders to assess how best to present 
E85 fuel economy information on the label. We welcome the input of 
stakeholders in this process, and we look forward to suggestions on how 
to best convey both the fuel economy and environmental benefit 
information on E85 relative to gasoline.

K. Addition of Final Regulatory Specifications for Label Content and 
Design

    We proposed ``placeholder'' regulatory text that specifies the 
label content and design, knowing that the final label design would 
depend on the outcome of both the public comments and the focus group 
research. The final regulations contain the details for the format and 
content of the label.

IV. Testing Provisions

A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From Certain 
Emission Tests

    Certain vehicles are currently exempt from some of the emission 
tests that we are including in the 5-cycle method.\50\ These vehicles 
include diesel vehicles and alternative-fueled vehicles. In order to 
update the fuel economy methods for these vehicles, we proposed 
additional provisions and are finalizing them in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 86.1810(i)(4) and 
40 CFR 86.1811-04(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Diesel Vehicles
    Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently subject to Cold FTP emission 
standards and thus do not have a 20 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) FTP (i.e., Cold 
FTP) fuel economy result to use in the 5-cycle formulae. Therefore, we 
proposed that beginning with the 2008 model year for certification 
diesel vehicles, a Cold FTP be performed for the purpose of collecting 
fuel economy data.
    Accordingly, we also proposed and requested comments on winter-
grade diesel fuel specifications for use during the Cold FTP test. 
Specifically, we proposed the use of a <greek-i>1-D (winter-grade) 
diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for 
Diesel Fuel Oils,'' \51\ and that complies with 40 CFR Part 80,\52\ 
where the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent. We 
further proposed the use of a manufacturer-specified diesel fuel, with 
EPA approval, in lieu of a conventional diesel fuel under the alternate 
test procedure provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94, where the level of 
kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent. Since we did not receive 
any comments regarding the winter-grade diesel fuel specification, we 
are finalizing these provisions as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ASTM International Specification D975-04C ``Standard 
Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels'' (November 1, 2005) describes 
the seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of 
diesel engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM 
Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is the direct 
responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-
Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.
    \52\ 40 CFR Part 80--Control of Air Pollution from New Motor 
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle Standards and Highway 
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation 
of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway 
Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we did receive comments regarding requiring the Cold FTP 
for diesel vehicles. The auto industry cited the potential for major 
laboratory retrofitting, which required additional lead time, and 
suggested that EPA not require diesels to perform the Cold FTP until 
the 2011 model year. They further suggested that Cold FTP testing for 
diesels be optional in the 2008-2010 model years.
    We have evaluated the comments regarding additional lead time for 
laboratory retrofitting to perform the Cold FTP test for diesel 
vehicles and believe they have merit. To accommodate Cold FTP testing 
of diesel vehicles, manufacturers may need to add a heated flame 
ionization detection (FID) system, including heated probes, lines and 
filters. Some manufacturers may need to further modify their facilities 
for site specific designs and configurations, such as additional 
insulation to prevent water condensation in the sampling system or 
modifying the length of the exhaust collection hoses.
    As a result, we are changing the provisions for requiring Cold FTP 
diesel testing from the proposal, as follows. First, we are providing 
additional lead time by extending the requirement for Cold FTP diesel 
testing from the 2008 model year to the 2011 model year. This will 
allow manufacturers additional lead time to address any facility 
modifications. Second, we will not require the measurement of 
particulate matter (PM) during the Cold FTP diesel test, since PM is 
not part of the fuel economy carbon balance calculation, and thus has 
no impact on fuel economy. Third, for manufacturers voluntarily using 
the 5-cycle method during the 2008-2010 model years, fuel economy over 
the Cold FTP may be reported based on carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon 
dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) measurements only, excluding the hydrocarbon 
(HC). Based on limited existing data showing that HC makes up a 
negligible fraction of the total cold fuel economy results (less than 
0.1%), the

[[Page 77906]]

measure of HC will not be required during the 2008-2010 model years. 
This interim provision is another way to address manufacturers' concern 
about lead time for diesel cold testing facility upgrades, as measuring 
HC at cold temperatures requires the use of a heated FID, which many 
manufacturers do not have in existing cold facilities. In the 2011 
model year and beyond, manufacturers will be required to conduct and 
report the results from the Cold FTP diesel testing, including the CO, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, and HC measurements.
2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
    There are two types of alternative-fueled vehicles: (1) Flexible-
fuel vehicles (FFVs; also known as dual-fueled, bi-fueled, or multi-
fueled vehicles) that can operate on gasoline or diesel and/or some 
alternative fuel (e.g., ethanol or methanol), and (2) dedicated 
alternative fueled vehicles that operate only on the alternative fuel 
(e.g., such as compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles).
    FFVs are subject to the SFTP (which includes the US06 and SC03 
tests) and Cold CO emission standards and test requirements, but only 
when operating on gasoline. Thus, we proposed that the fuel economy 
label values of FFVs when operating on gasoline be determined using the 
same mpg-based or 5-cycle approaches applicable to gasoline vehicles 
and thus additional testing for US06, SC03 and Cold FTP while operating 
on the alternative fuel would not be required. Although the fuel 
economy values when operating on an alternative fuel are not required 
to be reported on the label, manufacturers may voluntarily include 
these values on the label and they are also reported in the annual Fuel 
Economy Guide. In addition, the mpg-based and 5-cycle approaches only 
use fuel economy values measured in terms of miles per gallon of 
gasoline or diesel fuel. Thus, we proposed an approach to specify how 
manufacturers of FFVs must determine and report the fuel economy label 
values when the vehicle is operated on an alternative fuel. We proposed 
that the city and highway fuel economy label values must reflect the 
same adjustment factors relative to FTP and HFET fuel economy, 
respectively, developed using the applicable mpg-based or 5-cycle 
approach for gasoline. Specifically, the city and highway fuel economy 
values when the FFV is operated on gasoline would be used to calculate 
the mpg-based or 5-cycle approach (whichever applicable). Then, the 
city and highway fuel economy values calculated from the mpg-based or 
5-cycle approach would be divided by the city and highway fuel economy 
during FFV gasoline operation to determine a ratio. This ratio would 
then be applied to the city and highway fuel economy values when the 
FFV is operated on an alternative fuel. This would allow the 
manufacturer to determine a mpg-based or 5-cycle, alternative fuel 
equivalent value for the purpose of voluntary labeling and Fuel Economy 
Guide reporting purposes.
    For example, assume that the measured FTP and HFET fuel economy is 
24 and 32 mpg, respectively, for an FFV operating on gasoline, and 18 
mpg and 26 mpg, respectively, for a FFV operating on the alternative 
fuel. Using the measured gasoline values and the mpg-based 
approach,\53\ we can calculate the city and highway fuel economy, as 
shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Section II contains a derivation of these equations. This 
method for determining the fuel economy label values for FFVs can be 
used when the city and highway values are determined by either the 
mpg-based method or the 5-cycle method, whichever is applicable. In 
this example we demonstrate the use of the mpg-based method.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.032

    The resulting city and highway label values for the FFV when 
operating on gasoline are 19 mpg and 23 mpg, respectively. We divide 
these values (19 and 23 mpg) by the measured city and highway fuel 
economy values, 24 and 32 mpg, during FFV gasoline operation to 
determine the ratios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.033

    For this example, the ratios would be 0.826 (e.g., 19 mpg divided 
by 24 mpg) for the city ratio and 0.719 (23 mpg divided by 32 mpg) for 
the highway ratio. To calculate the mpg-based city and highway fuel 
economy values for an FFV operating on alternative fuel (for voluntary 
inclusion on the label or in the Fuel Economy Guide,) multiply the 
measured values (18 mpg and 26 mpg) by their respective ratios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.034

    The estimates reported on the label and in the Fuel economy guide 
would be 15 mpg (e.g., 18 mpg times 0.826, the city ratio from gasoline 
operation) for the city fuel economy and 19 mpg (e.g., 26 mpg times 
0.719, the highway ratio from gasoline operation) for the highway fuel 
economy. This can also be done using the 5-cycle approach, as 
applicable.
    We did not receive any comments on the proposed label methods for 
FFVs

[[Page 77907]]

and, as such, we are finalizing the provisions as stated in the 
proposal.
    Manufacturers of FFVs may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at 
their discretion for reporting fuel economy when operating on the 
alternative fuel. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be 
required to conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures on the 
alternative fuel and use both the 5-cycle city and highway calculation 
methods to determine fuel economy label. In addition, for Cold FTP 
testing under the 5-cycle approach, the use of a manufacturer-specified 
alternative fuel, with EPA approval, will be used under the alternate 
test procedure provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94. As stated above, 
manufacturers will report these values in the annual Fuel Economy Guide 
and may voluntarily include these values on the label.
    Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles are also exempt from the SFTP 
and Cold FTP emission standards. As a result, these vehicles will not 
have the SFTP and Cold FTP fuel economy data needed to determine 5-
cycle fuel economy values. We proposed that manufacturers of dedicated 
alternative-fueled vehicles be able to use the mpg-based approach in 
the 2011 model year and beyond, as well as during the 2008-2010 model 
years, in order to avoid conducting additional tests for fuel economy 
reasons only. Further, since the mpg-based approach uses fuel economy 
values measured in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline or diesel 
fuel, the fuel economy of dedicated alternative fuel vehicles must be 
expressed in terms of its gasoline equivalent prior to using the mpg-
based formula. Currently, all dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles 
express fuel economy values in terms of a gasoline equivalent.\54\ For 
this case, we proposed that the fuel economy values for a dedicated 
alternative vehicle expressed in gasoline equivalents are directly 
determined using the mpg-based approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Sec.  600.113-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not receive any comments on the proposed provisions for 
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles and, as such, we are finalizing 
the provisions as stated above.
    Finally, we proposed that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-
fueled vehicles may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at their 
discretion. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be required 
to conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures on the alternative 
fuel, and then convert all the alternative fuel values into gasoline 
equivalents prior to use in the 5-cycle formulae for city and highway 
label values. Because dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are not 
subject to the Cold FTP test procedures today, there is no cold test 
fuel specification for alternative fuel (e.g., CNG or E85). Thus, if a 
manufacturer wishes to do 5-cycle testing, it would need to request EPA 
approval of the cold test fuel under the special test procedure 
provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94.
    We did not receive any comments on the proposed provisions for 
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles to optionally use the 5-cycle 
approach and, as such, we are finalizing the provisions as stated in 
the proposal.

B. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures

    To ensure that the 5-cycle method is more reflective of real-world 
operating conditions, there are a few procedural changes that need to 
be made to certain existing emission tests procedures. First, we 
proposed procedural changes in the US06 tests, as described below. 
Second, we sought comment on the issue of requiring manufacturers to 
run the heater and/or defroster during the cold FTP test. Third, we 
proposed to codify the existing practice of requiring four-phase FTP 
measurements for gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.
1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and Highway Segments
    The US06 driving schedule contains elements of both city and 
highway driving, yet the exhaust sample is collected in only one 
sample, or ``bag.'' In order to more accurately reflect the city 
portion of the driving schedule into the city fuel economy estimate, 
and the highway portion of the driving schedule into the highway fuel 
economy estimate, we proposed a revised test protocol that would 
require collecting the exhaust sample into two bags. This has the 
benefit of more accurately capturing how a vehicle's fuel economy would 
be impacted over the various types of driving reflected in the driving 
schedule.
    We undertook a test program to determine the technical feasibility 
of splitting the US06 exhaust sample in two bags, and whether it would 
impact emissions results for compliance purposes. We evaluated the 
effects of conducting a US06 split-phase (i.e., two bag) emissions test 
versus the current US06 single-phase (one bag) emission test on ten 
vehicles at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 
(NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. Based on this evaluation, the US06 split-phase 
sampling methodology was shown to be feasible for fuel economy purposes 
and required only initial software reprogramming for the revised 
sampling periods and minimal hardware changes to enable the emissions 
analyzers to perform US06 split-phase emission testing. In addition, 
creating a US06 split-phase sampling period did not result in any 
significant difference in criteria pollutant emissions results. The 
full report on this US06 split phase evaluation program is available in 
the docket.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Mitcham, A. & Fernandez, A., ``Feasibility of Revising the 
US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase Sampling Test Procedure'' U.S. 
EPA, Office of Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments from the auto industry that the costs of 
collecting US06 exhaust emissions into two bags are substantial, but 
they did not provide any cost data to substantiate this claim. Further, 
the auto industry claimed that there will be decreased accuracy and 
increased variability if the US06 test is split into two phases, yet 
they did not provide additional data or analysis to support this claim. 
Finally, the auto industry claimed that significant software changes 
and lead time would be required to implement the two-phase bag software 
for diesel vehicles due to necessary one-phase PM sample collection 
systems for diesels, integrated real-time total hydrocarbon (THC) data 
collection for fuel economy calculations, and the alignment with 
methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) bag measurements for compliance with the 
emission standard. The auto industry recommended that we allow the use 
of alternative methods of determining the US06 city and highway fuel 
economy in lieu of conducting a two-bag US06 test. One suggested method 
was to use second-by-second data over a one-bag US06 test, either from 
modal bench analyzers or via On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) data stream 
information, to determine the city portion and highway portion and 
develop a two-bag US06 fuel economy calculation. Finally, it was 
suggested that we allow some flexibility for future methods that may be 
developed to measure or derive the city and highway US06 fuel 
economies.
    While we continue to believe the two-bag US06 measurement proposed 
is a valid approach that will not lead to significant differences in 
emission results, we also believe that the alternative approaches 
suggested by the auto industry could yield technically valid results 
and thus have merit. As a result of the comments, we have revised the 
proposal and are finalizing the requirements below for the two-bag US06 
measurement.
    For the 2008 through 2010 model years, those manufacturers choosing 
to

[[Page 77908]]

use the 5-cycle approach must either conduct the two-bag US06 test or 
determine two-bag results from a one-bag test using an alternative 
method (as discussed below). For the 2011 model year and beyond, for 
all certified test groups, the two-bag US06 must be conducted or data 
supplied in two-bag US06 format.
    To determine US06 two-bag fuel economy, manufacturers may use 
alternate test methods in lieu of conducting an actual two-bag US06. 
Such alternate test methods include: (1) Conducting a one-bag US06 and 
using emissions analyzer modal data to determine the appropriate ratio 
of city and highway operation; or (2) conducting a one-bag US06 and 
using OBD fuel rate (e.g., grams of fuel per second) data to determine 
the appropriate ratio of city and highway operation over the one-bag 
US06. Additionally, the manufacturers may use other methods based on 
good engineering judgment, with EPA review and approval, as long as 
these methods achieve equivalent or better, technically valid results 
based on manufacturer submitted data. For the case of conducting a one-
bag US06 and using the emissions analyzer modal or OBD fuel rate data, 
the ratio of city and highway operation over the one-bag US06 is 
applied to the CO, CO<INF>2</INF> and HC results in order to determine 
the city and highway US06 fuel economy values, constituting a 
``virtual'' two-bag US06. However, this option only applies for 
determining the city and highway US06 fuel economy and, thus, is not 
applicable for determining US06 emissions. The requirements for 
conducting a two-bag US06 and the options for alternately measuring or 
deriving the two-bag US06 outlined above are applicable to both 
gasoline and diesel vehicles.
2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP
    The current Cold FTP conducted at 20 [deg]F includes the option to 
use the heater and/or defroster.\56\ While we understand that some 
manufacturers today are using the heater and/or the defroster during 
the Cold FTP, it is not mandatory and therefore subject to inconsistent 
usage across manufacturers and vehicle lines. We expect that, in the 
real-world, it would be highly unusual for drivers not to use the 
heater/defroster when the temperature is cold, including at 20 [deg]F 
experienced during the Cold FTP. In order to more closely reflect real 
world operation, and to ensure a level playing field across 
manufacturers and vehicle lines when performing this test, we sought 
comment on requiring manufacturers to operate the heater and/or 
defroster during the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 40 CFR 86.230-94(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM, we conducted a test program through the 
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) that measured the impacts of heater 
and defroster operation on fuel economy for three vehicles during a 20 
[deg]F Cold FTP. We compared the fuel economy results with heater/
defroster operational to the results of the heater/defroster non-
operational on each vehicle. The Cold FTP fuel economy with the heater/
defroster on was significantly lower than that with the heater/
defroster off, ranging from -6.0 percent (~1 mile per gallon lower on a 
non-hybrid vehicle) to -17.9 percent (~8 miles per gallon lower on a 
hybrid vehicle). We did not observe a significant impact on CO or other 
measured emissions as a result of the use of the heater/defroster on 
the Cold FTP. The results of this test program indicated that different 
vehicles were impacted more than others, indicating that it is 
important to capture the impact on fuel economy of heater and defroster 
use during cold conditions. The full report of this test program is 
contained in the docket.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ``VOC/PM Cold 
Temperature Characterization and Interior Climate Control Emissions/
Fuel Economy Impact; Final Report Volume II.'' Prepared for U.S. EPA 
under contract 68-C-05-018, SwRI Project No. 03.11382.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The auto industry commented that the heater/defroster requirement 
should be deferred until we have a better understanding of real-world 
operation of heater/defroster systems. Some manufacturers suggested 
that there is a far smaller impact on fuel economy due to defroster/
heater operation than EPA estimates in the proposal based on the SwRI 
test program, but they provided no data to support this claim.
    Several state and environmental organizations supported the 
requirement to use the heater/defroster on the Cold FTP test and 
recommended that we develop a standardized methodology based on 
realistic usage patterns. One commenter also cited the level playing 
field aspect, noting that manufacturers who choose to use more 
realistic test conditions may be penalized relative to those who do 
not.
    We believe, as we stated in the proposal, that it is important to 
reflect the heater/defroster operation in our fuel economy test 
procedures since heater/defroster operation can have an additional 
impact on fuel economy,\58\ these accessories are used in the real-
world at cold temperatures including 20 [deg]F, and it is necessary to 
maintain a level playing field across manufacturers to prevent gaming 
of the test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ``VOC/PM Cold 
Temperature Chracterization and Interior Climate Control Emissions/
Fuel Economy Impact: Final Report Volume II.'' Prepared for U.S. EPA 
under contract 68-C-05-018, SwRI Project No. 03.11382.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We support the need for the heater/defroster test procedure to 
reflect real world operation. However, we believe that a standardized 
test protocol must be implemented as soon as possible so that this 
real-world impact is taken into account in the new fuel economy test 
methods. There are many approaches for how the heater and defroster 
usage could be incorporated into the Cold FTP test procedures, 
including specifying appropriate fan speed settings, timing of turning 
on the heater/defroster during the test, and accounting for various 
vehicle climate control designs. Therefore, we sought comment on the 
methods for how heater/defroster usage could be specified in the cold 
FTP procedure.
    Specifically, we discussed a concept that started the test with the 
airflow directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow 
source set to outside air (not recirculation), and the air temperature 
set to high. Approximately 2 minutes into the test, the fan speed could 
be turned to maximum and left there for the duration of the test. This 
would mimic typical driver behavior in that we expect many drivers 
would not turn the fan to maximum until the engine is producing some 
level of heat, which most vehicles will do within a couple minutes of 
driving. The second concept involved the automatic climate control 
systems set to achieve an inside air temperature of 72[deg]F, and the 
fan speed, if independently selectable, would be operated as described 
above. The third concept related to vehicles with multiple zones 
(either driver and passenger, or front and rear) and required operating 
the controls for all zones as described above. Finally, since some 
climate control systems might not be compatible with these 
instructions, we proposed to allow a manufacturer to request the use of 
special test procedures, under 40 CFR 86.1840-01, subject to EPA 
approval.
    We received comments from the auto industry that the test protocol 
for running the heater/defroster should mimic as closely as possible 
how drivers typically operate the heater/defroster system in the real-
world. Specifically, they commented that a driver would not keep the 
fan speed at

[[Page 77909]]

maximum for 43 minutes, the effective length of the test, and that many 
electronic systems automatically bring the fan speed down as the 
vehicle warms up, and that some vehicles can not simultaneously be in 
defrost mode and have the blower off. They also commented on the 
potential impact of this operation on the stringency of existing and 
proposed emission standards (e.g., proposed Mobile Source Air Toxics 
cold hydrocarbon standards).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 60 FR 15804, ``Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Mobile Sources'' (March 29, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing mandatory heater/defroster operation during the 
Cold FTP, but with some changes to the test protocol to more closely 
reflect real world operation. Further, we are addressing issues of lead 
time with respect to applicable model years for mandatory heater/
defroster operation during the Cold FTP.
    We are revising the applicable model years for implementation of 
mandatory heater/defroster operation during the Cold FTP. For the 2008 
through 2010 model years, only those manufacturers choosing to 
optionally use the 5-cycle approach are required to operate the heater/
defroster during the Cold FTP. This will allow manufacturers time to 
fully assess any impacts related to the EPA's Mobile Source Air Toxic 
(MSAT) cold hydrocarbon proposed standards,\60\ which would also be 
determined based on the Cold FTP test. Again, we reiterate that our 
heater/defroster testing, run under a worst-case protocol, did not 
indicate an impact on emissions. However, we understand that some 
manufacturers desire additional lead time for conducting their own 
analyses to confirm these results. For the 2011 model year and beyond 
when the 5-cycle approach becomes effective, manufacturers are required 
to operate the heater/defroster during the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test protocol we are finalizing has been revised from that 
outlined in the proposal as follows. At the start of the test, manually 
controlled climate control systems will have the airflow will be 
directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow source 
set to outside air (not recirculation), the fan speed set to off or 
``low'' and the air temperature set to the hottest setting. At the 
second idle of the test (approximately two minutes into the test, 
allowing the engine to accumulate some heat) the fan speed will be set 
to maximum. At the sixth idle of the test, at approximately 505 seconds 
into the test (corresponds with the end of bag 1 and the start of bag 2 
of the Cold FTP), the fan speed setting will be reduced to the lowest 
possible setting to maintain air flow, and the temperature setting will 
remain at the hottest setting. These settings will be held for the 
remainder of the test, including the final bag following the 10 minute 
soak period. For automatic climate control systems, the manufacturer 
can manually override the system and use the provisions specified for 
manual systems, or the system selector will be set to heater or 
defroster mode and the temperature will be set to 72[deg]F for the 
duration of the test. All other aspects of heater/defroster operation 
and climate control settings during the Cold FTP discussed in the 
proposal will be finalized unchanged. For vehicles with multiple zone 
climate control systems (e.g., front and rear temperature/fan controls 
and/or separate driver/passenger temperature/fan controls), the same 
fan and temperature settings should be set and maintained for all the 
zones for both manual and automatic interior climate control systems, 
if feasible. If these settings are not feasible, manufacturers may 
request and use alternate settings, with prior agency approval, only 
for vehicles with multiple zone climate control systems. If a 
manufacturer does request alternate settings for multiple zone systems, 
at a minimum, the settings for the front passenger zone of the multiple 
zone system must follow the protocols set forth above.
    The regulations specify that the manufacturer must use good 
engineering judgment and consider potential engine control changes that 
may be directly impacted by the temperature setting on the manually 
controlled systems (e.g. has direct input to, or can directly affect, 
the engine control logic). For example, when the heater or defroster is 
engaged a system may employ such strategies as disabling of engine-off 
idling features, disabling of cylinder deactivation, or different 
engine idling speed. Also, at the 20[deg]F ambient temperature of the 
Cold FTP, it is highly unlikely that vehicles will experience any use 
of the air conditioning compressor during defroster operation and any 
fuel economy differences between heater and defroster operation would 
be related to engine control changes (e.g., engine off logic, idle 
speed changes, spark advance changes).
    We recognize that there may be unique climate control systems that 
are not addressed through these protocols. To address such systems, 
manufacturers can request in writing EPA approval of alternative 
heater/defroster test protocols/procedures.
3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing Provisions
    The FTP consists of two parts referred to as the ``cold start'' and 
the ``hot start'' portion of the test. The ``cold start'' portion is 
performed following an eight to twelve hour soak at a stable 
temperature of 72[deg]F that stabilizes the vehicle and brings the 
engine coolant temperature to a ``cold'' condition. The ``hot start'' 
portion is performed following prescribed driving sufficient to bring 
the vehicle (and engine coolant) up to full operating temperature, and 
then a ten minute soak that stabilizes the vehicle. The cold start and 
hot start are divided into two periods, or ``phases'': A ``transient'' 
phase and a ``stabilized'' phase (i.e., the vehicle is warmed up), 
which constitute what is known as the Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule (UDDS). The emissions for each of the FTP phases are collected 
in ``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the 
exhaust samples are collected. The full four phases of the FTP are 
conducted in the following order: Cold start transient phase (bag 1), 
cold start stabilized phase (bag 2), hot start transient phase (bag 3), 
and hot stabilized phase (bag 4).
    For conventional vehicles, the stabilized phase of the hot start 
test (bag 4) is assumed to be identical to the stabilized phase of the 
cold start test (bag 2). Thus, the hot stabilized phase (bag 4) is 
typically not performed for conventional vehicles and is accounted for 
in the emission and fuel economy results mathematically by including 
the cold stabilized phase (bag 2) results twice in the calculation. 
However, since hybrid-electric vehicles have dual energy sources that 
can be operated in synergistic modes, the gasoline or diesel engine is 
supplemented by the electric motor and may not be at peak, optimized 
operating temperatures during the entire FTP. Based on this, the EPA 
and manufacturers recognized that the assumption regarding the 
equivalence of the cold and hot stabilized phases, and counting the 
cold stabilized phase twice in the calculation, may not be valid for 
hybrid vehicles. Consequently, we currently require hybrid-electric 
vehicles to conduct all four phases of the FTP.
    For hybrid-electric vehicles, the emissions collection process for 
the FTP can be performed in two different ways: (1) ``4-bag procedure--
the emissions are collected in an individual bag (e.g., bag 1, bag 2, 
bag 3, and bag 4) for each phase and analyzed, a total composite 
emissions number is calculated based on the emissions in all the bags, 
and the

[[Page 77910]]

emissions numbers for each of the bags and the composite emissions are 
reported; or (2) the emissions from the cold start transient phase and 
cold start stabilized phase are collected in bag 1 and analyzed, the 
emissions from the hot start transient phase and hot start stabilized 
phase emissions are collected in bag 2 and analyzed, a composite number 
is calculated based on the emissions in both bags, and the emissions 
for both bag 1 and bag 2, and composite emissions are reported. The 
first collection method, a 4-bag FTP, and the second collection method, 
a 2-bag FTP, are similar in that the emissions are collected over the 
full four-phases of the FTP. However, the two methods differ in that 
for the 2-bag FTP, the bags are combined as follows: bag 1 is a 
combination of bag 1 and bag 2 of the 4-bag FTP, and bag 2 is a 
combination of bag 3 and bag 4 of the 4-bag FTP.
    Therefore, for the purposes of this rulemaking in relation to 
hybrid-electric vehicles, we are concerned about two distinct things: 
(1) The number of phases (e.g., four phases for hybrid-electric 
vehicles versus three phases for conventional vehicles, as described 
above) required to be conducted during the FTP and (2) the number of 
bags (e.g. two bags versus 4 bags, as described above) that the 
emissions are collected in over the FTP, in particular, for hybrid-
electric vehicles, which we want to require the full four phases for 
the FTP.
    We currently require hybrid-electric vehicles to perform the 
complete set of four phases of the FTP and referenced the existing, 
special test procedure provisions in the regulations (40 CFR 86.1840-
01) as the basis for this. Rather than continue using the special test 
procedure provisions, we proposed to develop explicit regulatory 
language to require full-four phase testing of hybrid-electric 
vehicles. Additionally, the 5-cycle formula for hybrid-electric 
vehicles requires the four phases of the FTP as inputs for these 
vehicles. Therefore, we also proposed to develop explicit regulatory 
language that requires hybrid-electric vehicles to conduct all four 
phases of the FTP for both emissions and fuel economy testing. Finally, 
we proposed to require that the emissions from the full four phases of 
the FTP be collected in individual bags (i.e., four bags; one bag for 
each phase) for all tests using the FTP, including the cold temperature 
FTP, for those vehicles defined as hybrid-electric vehicles. We also 
requested comment on the proposal, and on whether use of the phrase 
``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and identify 
vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.
    We received the following comments regarding requiring the hybrid 
electric vehicle test procedures. First, the auto industry commented 
that 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n) of our regulations, which aligns with 
California, already requires the full four phases of the FTP for 
hybrid-electric vehicles for emissions testing, and therefore suggested 
we should retain section 86.1811-04(n) as-is without further codifying 
language requiring the full four phase FTP. Second, the comments 
suggested that we also define the four-phase, two-bag FTP and four-
phase, four-bag FTP in part 600 of our regulations so that it is only 
applicable to fuel economy measurement, not for emissions measurement, 
which is contained in part 86 of our regulations. Third, the comments 
supported our proposal to extend the full four-phase FTP testing for 
hybrid vehicles to the Cold FTP. Finally, the comments cited that 
requiring four bags would force facility modifications with significant 
costs and lead time issues and identified the benefits of the four-
phase, two-bag approach, including improved accuracy and alignment with 
California. To address this, the comments recommended that we add 5-
cycle fuel economy equations for both two-bag and four-bag testing with 
appropriate bag fuel consumption weighting by theoretical distance 
traveled to ensure consistent label adjustments between two- and four-
bag data. Finally, we did not receive any comments on whether the use 
of the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and 
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.
    As a result of these comments, we have revised the proposal and are 
finalizing the requirements for hybrid electric vehicle test procedures 
as follows. First, for requiring the full, four-phase FTP testing for 
emissions, we agree that 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n) does properly reference 
the California procedures which require the full four phase FTP. In 
addition, part 600 refers back to procedures in part 86, including 40 
CFR 86.1811-04(n) which references the California procedure for four-
phase FTP testing. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop further 
language to require the full four phase FTP.
    Second, we proposed to extend the requirement for full, four phase 
FTP testing of hybrid vehicles to the Cold FTP. Upon further analysis 
of this provision, we are not finalizing this requirement. As discussed 
in Chapter III of the Final Technical Support Document, vehicles may 
not be fully warmed up during bag 2 of the Cold FTP. Thus, fuel economy 
over a bag 4 of the Cold FTP would likely be higher than that over bag 
2. Thus, vehicles tested over a 4-bag Cold FTP would likely have higher 
fuel economy per the 5-cycle formulae than those tested over a three 
bag test. This would result in inconsistent fuel economy estimates for 
conventional and hybrid vehicles. Therefore, we will continue the 
current practice of only requiring a three-bag Cold FTP for both 
conventional and hybrid vehicles.
    Third, we understand that some manufacturers may require some new 
software and additional test equipment to implement a four-phase, 4-bag 
test. In addition, since our test procedures are aligned with 
California requiring full four phase FTP testing for hybrid-electric 
vehicles, this essentially is an issue of how to divide and analyze the 
emissions results. While we are finalizing a requirement for four-phase 
FTP results, manufacturers may choose to collect the sample either in 
four bags or two bags, as discussed above. Accordingly, we are 
finalizing today an option for a 5-cycle formula that allows for four-
phase, 2-bag FTP inputs for hybrid-electric vehicles. Our analysis of 
this option in the Technical Support Document shows that there is no 
significant difference in fuel economy results from using a 2-bag 
versus 4-bag equation.
    Finally, since we did not receive any comments on whether the use 
of the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and 
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required, we 
believe this terminology is sufficient and will use ``hybrid electric 
vehicle'' in reference to the four-phase, four-bag FTP.

V. Projected Cost Impacts

    The majority of the costs of this rule are due to an increase in 
the manufacturer test burden. While manufacturers conduct tests today 
for emissions compliance and fuel economy reporting, they test a more 
limited set of vehicles than will be necessary for the fuel economy 
labeling calculations in model years 2011 and beyond. There are also 
startup costs to implement the new fuel economy reporting requirements 
beginning during the transition period from model year 2008 through 
2010.
    The final rule requires calculation of fuel economy values based on 
the 5-cycle formulae beginning with model year 2011 for some vehicle 
test groups. As discussed in detail elsewhere in this preamble, for 
model years 2008 through 2010, manufacturers may use the mpg-based 
calculation for the five-cycle fuel

[[Page 77911]]

economy values or they may conduct voluntary testing. For model years 
2011 and beyond, if the five-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
for an emission data vehicle group are below 96 percent and 95 percent 
of the mpg-based regression line, respectively, then all the vehicle 
configurations represented by the emission data vehicle (e.g., all 
vehicles within the vehicle test group) would use the 5-cycle approach. 
Vehicles within a test group falling below the city fuel economy band 
would be required to conduct US06, SC03, and Cold FTP tests; those 
falling below the 5 percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy 
values but not below the city tolerance band would be required to 
conduct US06 tests (the effects of cold temperature and air 
conditioning would be modeled). In addition, we expect that some of 
these vehicles falling below the tolerance band may be eligible to 
estimate fuel economy for a given test through the application of 
analytically derived fuel economy values. Some data are currently 
available for vehicles that have conducted all 5 tests; based on these 
data, EPA has estimated the number of vehicles for which additional 
testing would be required because they fall below the 4 and 5 percent 
tolerance bands, as discussed further in Section II.
    EPA received no comments on the overall methodology of its cost 
analysis or the general cost assumptions used in that analysis. 
However, we received comments on a number of specific proposal issues 
having cost implications, including changes to various test procedures. 
These issues are specified in Section IV and the Response to Comments 
document. The impacts of the resolution of these issues on the final 
cost analysis are summarized here and are discussed in more detail in 
the Technical Support Document.
    As in the cost study for the proposed rule, we are presenting low 
and high estimates of the economic impact for two time frames: (1) 
Model years 2008 to 2010, and (2) model year 2011 and thereafter. The 
low and high estimates of testing burden scenarios provide boundaries 
on the potential testing costs and informational startup costs.

A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles Into Fuel Economy Label 
Calculations

1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through 2010 Model Years
    We are finalizing as proposed our estimate that no additional tests 
will be required during model year (MY) 2008 through MY 2010. 
Manufacturers may simply apply the mpg-based adjustments to the same 
FTP and HFET test results that they otherwise would conduct for the 
fuel economy labeling program today (see Section II). While 
manufacturers have the option of conducting and reporting full 5-cycle 
test results, such tests are not required by this final rule, and we 
have not included this testing in our cost estimates. Manufacturers 
that voluntarily choose to conduct full 5-cycle testing would incur 
some additional testing costs, which we have not included in our cost 
estimates, since we do not have any means of predicting which 
manufacturers would choose this option, or for which vehicle models, or 
the amount of additional testing that would be performed.
2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years
    To derive low and high estimates for the number of additional tests 
required for our proposal, we used EPA data on the number of FTP/HFET, 
US06, SC03, and Cold FTP tests. Based on MY 2004 data\61\, 1,250 fuel 
economy vehicles were tested with the FTP and highway fuel economy 
tests.\62\ Data show that 330 SFTP (US06 and SC03) tests were conducted 
and 220 Cold FTP tests. Consequently, if all fuel economy vehicles were 
required to undergo full 5-cycle tests, approximately 920 additional 
SFTP tests and 1,030 Cold FTP tests would be required. EPA estimated, 
based on an analysis of our 423 vehicle dataset, that 8 percent of the 
test groups will fall outside a band approximately less than or equal 
to 96 percent of the regression for the city test and 23 percent 
outside a band approximately less than or equal to 95 percent of the 
highway regression. Taking the 2004 numbers above as a baseline, 92 
percent of the additional SC03 and Cold FTP tests otherwise required 
would be avoided for city fuel economy; 77 percent of the additional 
US06 tests would be avoided. Thus, for example, the initial estimate of 
increased testing burden for SC03 would be 8 percent of the difference 
between 1250 and 330. The low and high estimates under these 
assumptions are generated by differing estimates of the effect of 
another feature that will be available for MY 2011 and after--and 
expanded use of ADFE as an alternative to conducting vehicle tests. The 
low and high burden estimates assumes that 20 percent and 0 percent of 
the additional tests would thereby be avoided, respectively.\63\ Based 
on this analysis in our proposal, we estimated that potential increases 
in yearly testing could range as follows: 169-212 additional US06 
tests, 59-74 additional SC03 tests, and 66-82 additional Cold FTP 
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Model year 2004 certification data was the latest complete 
model year of data available at the time of the proposal. The 
certification data for model year 2005 is not significantly 
different.
    \62\ The figure is approximate because the city FTP test may be 
used and recorded primarily as a fuel economy test, an emissions 
test, or both.
    \63\ Based on EPA's current guidance to auto manufacturers on 
the use of ADFE, up to 20% of FTP/HFET tests are allowed to be 
calculated through ADFEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach is retained in the final cost analysis, with one 
adjustment. The percent falling outside the tolerance band for the city 
test and for the highway test should only count the vehicles that are 
below the tolerance band in both cases, that is, only those vehicles 
with fuel economy lower than 4 and 5 percent below the regression 
lines, respectively. With this correction, 4 percent of the test groups 
would trigger additional testing as falling below the city fuel economy 
regression tolerance and 13 percent below the highway regression 
tolerance. With the ADFE assumptions unchanged, the corrected 
additional test estimates range as follows: 96-120 additional US06 
tests; 29-37 additional SC03 tests, and 33-41 Cold FTP tests.
    Based on manufacturer comments, we have further revised the 
estimated test burden as a result of the four issues discussed in the 
following sections.
a. Fuel Economy Labeling for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    As discussed in Section I, MDPVs will be included in the labeling 
program beginning with model year 2011. This change is based on NHTSA's 
expansion of the CAFE program to include MDPVs beginning the same model 
year. As discussed in Section I, we are finalizing fuel economy test 
methods for MDPVs that will not require additional testing beyond that 
which the CAFE program will require beginning in model year 2011 (i.e., 
the FTP and HFET tests). Therefore, we are projecting no additional 
costs in this final rule to extend labeling to MDPVs.
b. Cold FTP Diesel Testing
    EPA proposed to require Cold FTP testing for light-duty diesel 
vehicles beginning with the 2008 model year. As discussed in Section 
IV, Cold FTP diesel testing is now optional until model year 2011, 
except for those manufacturers that voluntarily choose to do 5-cycle 
testing. Auto manufacturers commented that the proposed cost analysis 
neglected to account for Cold FTP diesel testing costs during MY 2008-
MY 2010. The test burdens, including capital

[[Page 77912]]

costs, were addressed in the proposal in terms of the number of tests 
estimated for MY 2011 and after. The preamble noted that eight city/
highway test pairs were conducted for the five light-duty diesel 
vehicles certified in MY 2006.
    Estimating the number of light-duty diesel vehicles certified in MY 
2011 and beyond is difficult at this point, but several manufacturers 
have announced plans to expand or introduce diesel products in this 
time frame. As a result, for the final rule cost analysis we have 
doubled the number of certified light-duty diesel test groups in MY 
2011 from five to ten. Accordingly, we have increased the estimated 
Cold FTP test volume from our proposed range of 66-82 tests and the 
corrected range of 33-41 tests to a range of 41-49 tests for the final 
rule. For the final rule, both low and high estimates for testing costs 
increase approximately $20,000 per year reflecting the increased number 
of tests under the unchanged testing cost assumptions of the proposal 
(Cold FTP facility upgrades are considered separately below). 
Additionally, the additional testing requirement is reflected in an 
increase in the corrected total capital costs (unamortized) for Cold 
FTP facilities of $770,000-$1,373,000 to a $957,000-$1,640,000 
(unamortized).
    In addition, commenters raised a number of technical issues 
regarding laboratory configurations and the difficulty of establishing 
cold test facility retrofits to accommodate diesel testing without a 
transition period. Extending the beginning of diesel cold testing 
requirement to 2011 is intended to address some of these concerns, 
particularly the lead time needed to implement laboratory 
modifications. To more fully account for the cost of these laboratory 
upgrades, we have revised the estimate by increasing capital costs by 
$55,000 for each of ten manufacturers to account for these upgrades.
c. Two-Bag US06 Measurements
    The proposal included the costs of the requirement for two-bag US06 
measurements as startup costs involving information system programming 
and validation tests, but not new facility costs. We are retaining 
these estimates for the final rule.
    As discussed in Section IV, we received comments on the costs of 
collecting US06 exhaust emissions in two bags, particularly in view of 
software changes and the lead time needed to implement two-bag 
software. In response, EPA will accept alternative methods of 
calculating two-bag data. These alternatives are available for those 
manufacturers choosing to use the 5-cycle approach in the 2008 through 
2010 model years, as well as manufacturers required to perform 5-cycle 
testing in model years 2011 and beyond. Our evaluation indicated that 
the new provisions provide ample lead time to be implemented. 
Therefore, accommodating two-bag US06 measurements would not 
significantly impact the cost analysis presented in our proposal.
d. Four-Phase FTP for Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicles
    The proposal included no additional costs for the four-phase FTP 
requirement for hybrid-electric vehicles. As discussed in Section IV, 
we received comments on costs of the proposed four-phase FTP in terms 
of lead time and installation of new hardware, software, and test 
equipment. In response to these comments, four-phase FTP testing will 
be required, but may be conducted as either a 2-bag or 4-bag 
measurement as suggested by the auto industry, as discussed in Section 
IV. Consequently, we foresee no additional cost impacts.
3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden
a. Capital Costs
    The proposal estimated a capital cost of $4 million for a facility 
able to perform 750 US06 tests a year, $9 million for an environmental 
facility able to conduct 300 to 428 SC03 tests per year, and $10 
million for an environmental facility able to conduct 300 to 428 Cold 
FTP tests per year. These costs were applied on a per-test basis to the 
increased tests required by the proposal, amortized at 7% and 
annualized over ten years. The resulting capital cost was $524,000 to 
$866,000 per year. Correcting the estimated number of new tests, 
applying the same facility costs to the increased estimate for Cold 
diesel testing, and adding the facility upgrades for Cold diesel, as 
discussed above, this capital cost has been adjusted to a low/high 
range of $375,000 to $560,000.
b. Labor and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
    The proposal included costs of $1,860 to $2,441 for running each of 
the tests, allocated between labor and O&M based on prior Information 
Collection Requests. Adjusting for the corrected and additional testing 
as discussed above, we have changed our cost estimates from a proposed 
range of $606,000-$757,000 to a range of $343,000-$424,000 for the 
final rule.
c. Startup Costs
    Startup costs are treated like capital costs, annualized over ten 
years and discounted at 7% beginning with model year 2008. The proposal 
included $3,472,000 in total information system costs, including 
reprogramming to report the new data, label design changes, plus 
$28,000 to $196,000 for information systems for the US06 split phase 
sample system. Finally, $195,000 to $651,000 was provided for 
validation testing of the US06 split phase sampling. Discounted and 
annualized, this came to $526,000 to $615,000 per year, industry-wide.
    For the final rule, we have increased our range of estimated 
startup costs to $663,000-$752,000 to account for the additional 
information systems needed to manage the increased complexity of the 
fuel economy labeling reporting system. The auto industry commented 
that existing database management systems would need to be modified to 
accommodate the changes in fuel economy labeling calculations. EPA 
proposed to apply the mpg-line label calculations (i.e., ``derived 5-
cycle'') at the vehicle test level, meaning the FTP or HFET results 
from a test vehicle would undergo the derived 5-cycle calculations to 
determine a fuel economy label value. The final rule requires applying 
the derived 5-cycle equation at the model-type rather than test level; 
however, this approach is not available for the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle label calculation option and MY 2011 requirements. Therefore, the 
cost analysis has been updated to account for this increased 
information system burden.
    Manufacturers will incur a one-time cost to upgrade their fuel 
economy data and reporting systems to account for the new fuel economy 
calculation procedures. Based on a projection of EPA's information 
development contract costs, we have increased the industry information 
startup costs (unamortized) by $933,450. This increases the annualized 
and discounted startup costs to a low/high range of $659,000 to 
$748,000 for the industry as a whole.

B. Revised Label Format and New Information Included

    This cost item was included in the startup information portion of 
the cost analysis in the proposal. No adjustments have been made in the 
final analysis.

C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06, and Cold FTP Tests

    As proposed, we do not expect capital or operating costs to 
increase due to

[[Page 77913]]

submission of additional information associated with additional tests. 
However, we do expect additional startup costs for information system 
programming. The startup burden has been modified as discussed above.

D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing

    As proposed, the final rule does not include an increase in the 
number of vehicles targeted for confirmatory testing. We are not 
revising our proposed estimation of manufacturer confirmatory testing 
under the criteria of failed or high emission levels, unexpectedly high 
fuel economy, fuel economy leader within class, and fuel economy near 
the Gas Guzzler tax threshold.

E. Fees

    The proposed rule did not include an increase in the fees to cover 
any increase in costs of issuing certificates of conformity under the 
new label rule. Instead, EPA will monitor its compliance testing and 
associated costs and, if necessary, in the future adjust the fees to 
include any new costs. We have retained this approach in the final 
rule.

F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate

    As discussed above and summarized in the table below, aggregate 
annual costs for MY 2008 through MY 2010 are estimated to range from 
$663,000-$752,000, compared with the proposed range of $526,000-
$615,000. For MY 2011 and beyond, aggregated annual costs are estimated 
to range from $1,377,000-$1,732,000 compared with the proposed range of 
$1,655,000-$2,238,000.

                                  Table 5-1--Aggregate Annual Costs to Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               MY 2008 through MY 2010      MY 2011 and after
                        Cost Element                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum      Maximum      Minimum      Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Volume (Labor, O&M)....................................           $0           $0     $343,000     $424,000
Facilities (Capital, Annualized)............................            0            0      375,000      560,000
Startup (Capital, Annualized)...............................      663,000      752,000      659,000      748,000
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................      663,000      752,000    1,381,000    1,732,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Implementation and Other Provisions

A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable Vehicles

    The EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy 
of comparable vehicles of all manufacturers.\64\ EPA's comparable class 
structure provides a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel economy to 
that of other vehicles in its class. We proposed to add separate 
classes for SUVs and minivans, which were previously included in the 
Special Purpose Vehicle category. We also proposed to modify the 
definition of ``small pickup trucks'' by increasing the weight limit 
from 4,500 pounds GVWR to 6,000 pounds GVWR. All comments on these 
proposals were favorable. Auto manufacturers suggested minor 
clarifications to the definition of minivan in order to distinguish it 
further from SUVs. We agree with these suggestions and are finalizing 
changes accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So-called ``crossover'' vehicles are those that meet the definition 
of more than one vehicle class, and thus are difficult to categorize. 
EPA currently uses discretion to assign these vehicles to a class on a 
case-by-case basis. For example, we attempt to determine which class 
assignment makes sense from a consumer perspective (e.g., is it more 
likely to be considered by consumers looking for a minivan or for an 
SUV) and what marketing segment is being targeted by the manufacturer. 
We did not propose to change how we are addressing the recent 
proliferation of ``crossover'' vehicles, but we requested comments on 
whether we should create a separate ``crossover'' class. Some public 
comments supported the creation of this class, but did not suggest how 
to define it. Auto companies were opposed to it, citing the 
difficulties in creating a meaningful class definition. Lacking such a 
definition that would clearly distinguish between a ``crossover'' 
vehicle and other vehicle classes, we are not creating a separate class 
for crossover vehicles. It should also be noted that the EPA-defined 
vehicle classes are used only to provide consumer information about 
fuel economy and serve no other regulatory purpose.
    In portraying the range of fuel economy for comparable vehicles on 
the label, several commenters noted that the comparable class structure 
does not adequately provide consumers with meaningful fuel economy 
comparisons, and that class distinctions have been blurring in recent 
years. Commenters noted that many consumers shop across classes. These 
commenters did not suggest any specific revisions to the class 
structure to address these concerns; rather, their suggestions relate 
to the presentation of the comparable class information on the label, 
which is addressed in Section III. Additionally, manufacturers 
expressed concern that the wide fuel economy ranges of some classes are 
not necessarily representative of vehicles that consumers would 
normally compare (the example they cite is the midsize class, which 
contains the Toyota Prius and the Rolls Royce Phantom). Auto 
manufactures further noted that the highest sales vehicles are 
typically near the midpoint of the range, and that vehicles at either 
end of the range (low and high fuel economy) are typically vehicles 
with low sales volume or ``niche'' vehicles. They suggest that 
consumers usually shop within subsets of the defined vehicle classes, 
and not across the entire class. To address these concerns, 
manufacturers recommended against using a graphical representation of 
the comparable class fuel economy, and that EPA should continue to use 
the text that is used today. However, they did not suggest any specific 
changes to the class structure to address these concerns.
    We believe that with the changes we are finalizing today, the 
comparable class structure generally represents the distinctions 
between vehicle types offered in the fleet today. Absent suggestions 
during the public comment period for new comparable vehicle 
classifications, we are finalizing the comparable class structure 
largely as proposed, with minor changes as discussed above. We welcome 
interested parties to continue working with EPA in the future on how to 
ensure that the comparable classes are kept current with the dynamic 
vehicle fleet. If it becomes necessary in the future to further modify 
the comparable class

[[Page 77914]]

structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking.

B. Fuel Economy Ranges for Comparable Fuel Economy Graphic

    Along with the label's new graphic of comparable fuel economy 
(Figure III.3), we proposed both how EPA would inform manufacturers of 
the within-class fuel economy ranges for the label, and how they are to 
present this information on the label if range data is not available in 
time for printing (which can occur for models introduced early in the 
year). For example, between August and September of each year, EPA 
typically issues guidance to the manufacturers specifying the fuel 
economy ranges for the comparable classes to be used on labels. Since 
we did not know the final design of the comparable fuel economy element 
at the time of the proposal, we suggested regulatory text nearly 
identical to the existing language, which requires the term ``N/A'' 
(for ``Not Applicable'') to replace actual range values when data is 
not yet available. However, since we are finalizing a graphical 
presentation of comparable fuel economy instead of regulatory text, it 
is necessary to use a different method to illustrate this information 
when the range is not yet available. Without the upper and lower range 
bounds, it is impossible to indicate where the vehicle's actual 
combined fuel economy falls on the range bar. Therefore, in cases when 
range data for the current model year is not available in time for 
printing the label, manufacturers must use the ranges of the previous 
model year. The vehicle's combined fuel economy will appear on the 
range bar relative to where it falls within the previous model year's 
range.
    Model year 2008 vehicles introduced to the public before EPA can 
determine the 2008 fuel economy ranges must be considered further, 
because the previous model year range data is based on the 2007 methods 
for determining fuel economy, and is thus not comparable to the new 
data. Therefore, until EPA issues guidance on model year 2008 
comparable class ranges, manufacturers must include the 2007 range data 
adjusted to account for the new methods. Upon issuance of this rule, we 
will provide these ``2007-adjusted'' ranges to manufacturers via 
guidance letter as soon as possible.

C. Temporary Option To Add ``Old Method'' City and Highway Estimates on 
Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle Labels

    As discussed previously, all model year 2008 vehicles are required 
to calculate the city and highway fuel economy label estimates using 
the new methods being finalized today. Some manufacturers indicated 
that they may introduce model year 2008 vehicles as early as January 2, 
2007. Consumers will then be comparing vehicles having fuel economy 
estimates based on the new methods to a large volume of model year 2007 
vehicles having estimates based on the old methods. To address this, we 
are finalizing a temporary option allowing manufacturers to add 
additional information in fine print to model year 2008 vehicle labels 
indicating what the fuel economy estimates would have been using the 
old method. In other words, all model year 2008 vehicles are still 
required to estimate the city and highway fuel economy estimates using 
the new methods, but manufacturers may optionally add--in fine print 
only--information indicating what the estimates would have been under 
the previous methods. This option is available only until June 1, 2007, 
when a more significant number of 2008 models should be available for 
sale, and, thus, there will be few model year 2007 vehicles on dealer 
lots with which to compare. This option is available for labels with 
either the old or new design.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ As discussed in Section III, the new fuel economy label 
design becomes mandatory on September 1, 2007, before which 
manufacturers may optionally use it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a Metric

    EPCA defines fuel economy as ``* * * the average number of miles 
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent 
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator* * *'' 
\66\ Thus, EPA's fuel economy labeling program has historically 
expressed fuel economy in miles per gallon (mpg). We requested comments 
on how a gallons-per-mile fuel consumption metric could be used and 
presented publicly, such as in the Fuel Economy Guide. A few 
manufacturers suggested that it may be more meaningful to express fuel 
efficiency in terms of consumption (gallons per 100 miles) than in 
terms of economy (miles per gallon), because consumption directly 
measures the amount of fuel used, a metric related to cost that 
consumers may consider when filling up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule maintains the requirement that the label must 
express the estimates in terms of fuel economy, instead of fuel 
consumption. Since historically we have expressed fuel efficiency in 
miles per gallon, it is a metric that Americans understand. Our concern 
is that without a long-term, comprehensive public awareness campaign, 
any changes to the metric could confuse the public. Some commenters 
mentioned their interest in pursuing research and public education on 
the fuel consumption metric, and we look forward to learning more in 
the future from those stakeholders exploring the issue.
    However, the labels currently provide an easy way to compare the 
fuel consumption of different vehicles. The estimated annual fuel cost 
information on the label is based on the fuel consumption metric: it is 
the dollar equivalent of the number of gallons consumed over 15,000 
miles. Thus we believe that including the estimated annual fuel cost on 
the label is a valuable metric for consumers, because it relates 
directly to fuel consumption. We are also locating the estimated annual 
fuel cost information more prominently on the new label to raise public 
awareness.

E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel Economy Calculator

    In the proposed rule, we suggested implementing a web calculator in 
which consumers could input their own customized information in order 
to estimate more accurately their expected in-use fuel economy. User-
specific information could include such factors as number of miles 
driven, mix of city and highway driving, air conditioner usage, average 
speed driven, ambient temperature, per gallon price of fuel, and 
others. We received several positive comments that a web calculator 
would be a useful tool, and could provide users with valuable insight 
on the effects of these factors on their fuel economy. Another 
commenter urged EPA to ensure that the tool would provide accurate 
results. We plan to consider further how to best design and implement a 
calculator tool, and we may seek additional input from interested 
stakeholders.

F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel Costs

    To determine the estimated annual fuel cost, we currently require 
that manufactures use the same fuels that they require or recommend to 
customers. In the proposal we did not intend to change this, but we 
inadvertently omitted the text, ``or recommended,'' from the 
parenthetical statement in the regulatory text at 600.307-08(a)(3)(iv), 
regarding the fuel type used to determine the estimated annual fuel 
cost on the label. Therefore, we are adding the words, ``or

[[Page 77915]]

recommended,'' to the regulations, which means that manufactures must 
use the fuel that they require or recommend to customers as a basis for 
the estimated annual fuel cost.

G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet

    We proposed adding language to the regulations that allows dealers 
to fulfill their requirement to provide customers with copies of the 
Fuel Economy Guide booklet by using an on-site computer.\67\ This 
method has been used on a trial basis in recent years. One commenter 
opposed this idea, citing that people are disinclined to use computers, 
and that the success of this method has been neither studied nor 
proven. However, the National Auto Dealer Association commented that 
this proposal should be finalized, because it is a more efficient, 
effective way of providing customers with this information. We agree 
that there are people who are disinclined to use computers, but we 
expect dealers who opt to provide the guide electronically to also 
provide assistance as needed to customers who want to access and/or 
print portions of the Fuel Economy Guide using the dealership's 
computer. Regulations that provide dealers with the option to provide 
the Fuel Economy Guide in this way do not relieve dealerships of the 
responsibility to make the Guide ``available to prospective buyers.'' 
\68\ We are finalizing this requirement as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
    \68\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908 (c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations

A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established 
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information, 
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on 
window stickers of all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an 
annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to 
the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's 
average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this 
compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
(CAFE) program).\69\ The responsibilities for these requirements were 
split between EPA, DOT and the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is 
responsible for establishing the test methods and calculation 
procedures for determining the fuel economy estimates to be posted on 
the window stickers and in the annual booklet (the Fuel Economy Guide), 
and for determining a manufacturer's corporate average fuel 
economy.\70\ DOT is responsible for administering the CAFE compliance 
program, including establishing standards for non-passenger automobiles 
and determining if manufacturers are complying with the applicable CAFE 
standards, and assessing any penalties as needed.\71\ DOE is 
responsible for publishing and distributing the annual fuel economy 
information booklet.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Pub. L. 94-163.
    \70\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904, 32908.
    \71\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904.
    \72\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute 
in 1976. These regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 600. The 
provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 model year, 
established test methods and procedures to calculate fuel economy 
values for labeling and CAFE purposes that used the Federal Test 
Procedure (FTP or ``city'' test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test 
(HFET or ``highway'' test) data as the basis for the calculations. At 
that time, the fundamental process for determining fuel economy was the 
same for labeling as for CAFE, except that the CAFE calculations 
combined the city and highway fuel economy into a single number.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 41 FR 38685 (Sept. 10, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, EPA's fuel economy labeling regulations require 
manufacturers to label each ``automobile'' they produce. EPCA defines 
``automobile'' in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) as:

    * * * a 4-wheeled vehicle * * * rated at--
    (A) Not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; or
    (B) More than 6,000, but less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 
weight, if the Secretary decides by regulation that--
    (i) An average fuel economy standard * * * for the vehicle is 
feasible; and
    (ii) An average fuel economy * * * for the vehicle will result 
in significant energy conservation or the vehicle is substantially 
used for the same purposes as a vehicle rated at not more than 6,000 
pounds gross vehicle weight.

Further, section 32902 authorizes DOT to set CAFE standards for 
``automobiles,'' and section 32908 authorizes EPA to set labeling 
requirements for ``automobiles.'' Specifically, section 32908 states 
that, for the purpose of section 32908, `` `automobile' includes an 
automobile rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight 
regardless of whether [DOT] has applied this chapter to the automobile 
under section 32901(a)(3)(B).'' The effect of this is to essentially 
expand EPA's labeling authority to vehicles between 6,000 and 8,500 
pounds GVWR, without the need for any finding by DOT to bring such 
vehicles into the definition of automobile under section 
32901(a)(3)(B). Therefore, based on the definition of ``automobile'' in 
EPCA, EPA's labeling regulations are required to cover (1) all vehicles 
below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and (2) those vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 
lbs GVWR that DOT has determined by regulation should be subject to 
CAFE standards under EPCA. EPA has no authority under EPCA to require 
fuel economy labeling for vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or for 
vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR where DOT has not made the 
requisite regulatory determination to apply the CAFE standards. Those 
vehicles do not meet the definition of ``automobile,'' and EPA's 
authority to require fuel economy labeling is limited to 
``automobiles.''
    The Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has recently 
determined that certain vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 GVWR will be 
considered automobiles and subject to CAFE standards starting with 
model year 2011 (see 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006)). Based on this 
determination EPA is amending its labeling regulations in this final 
rule to include these vehicles. See the discussion regarding the 
adoption of fuel economy labeling regulations for medium-duty passenger 
vehicles in Section I.C.2.
    EPCA requires manufacturers of automobiles to attach a fuel economy 
label to a prominent place on each automobile manufactured in a model 
year and also requires the dealers to maintain the label on the 
automobile.\74\ EPCA specifies minimum requirements for the information 
to be included on the fuel economy label.\75\ This final rule retains 
these items, as required:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
    \75\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The fuel economy of the automobile.
    b. The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.
    c. The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all 
manufacturers.
    d. A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to 
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles 
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year.
    e. The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the 
sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064).

[[Page 77916]]

    f. Other information required or authorized by the Administrator 
that is related to the information required [within items a. through 
d.].
    EPCA also defines ``fuel economy'' as the average number of miles 
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent 
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by EPA.\76\ Thus, this final 
rule retains the requirement to report fuel economy as miles-per-
gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA also requires EPA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing 
information that is ``simple and readily understandable.'' \77\ This 
booklet is more commonly known as the annual ``Fuel Economy Guide.'' 
EPCA further instructs DOE to publish and distribute the booklet. EPA 
is required to ``prescribe regulations requiring dealers to make the 
booklet available to prospective buyers.'' \78\ This final rule makes 
minor changes to these regulations by allowing manufacturers and 
dealers to make the Fuel Economy Guide available electronically to 
customers as an option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Energy Policy Act of 2005

    Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs EPA to 
``update or revise the adjustment factors in sections 600.209 85 and 
600.209 95, of the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 (1995) 
Fuel Economy Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles to 
take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, 
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test 
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel 
depleting features.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Pub. L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, the 5-cycle approach revises the test methods 
and procedures for calculating fuel economy, including updating and 
revising the adjustment factors, by establishing a new method to 
calculate fuel economy estimates that uses fuel economy results from 
additional test procedures combined with a changed adjustment factor. 
The mpg-based approach uses the same test methods as the current fuel 
economy program (i.e., the FTP and HFET tests), but changes the 
adjustment factors applied to those test results. These options satisfy 
EPA and the EPAct provisions as follows.
    First, the 5-cycle method directly includes the effects of higher 
speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations in temperature, and 
use of air conditioning by including fuel economy measured during tests 
that incorporate these features. The mpg-based approach also takes 
these factors into consideration, but less directly, as it incorporates 
the effects of these factors by basing the adjustment factor on an 
analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle method. Under the new 
regulations, the mpg-based approach is an interim option to establish 
an appropriate period of lead time for manufacturers. We also allow its 
continued use only where the average effects reflected under the mpg-
based adjustments (of higher speed/acceleration, air conditioning, and 
cold temperature) on a specific vehicle configuration is representative 
of those measured under actual 5-cycle testing.
    Second, we interpret the statute's reference to ``shorter city test 
cycle lengths'' to mean shorter than the current FTP cycle used to 
determine city fuel economy. We have addressed that concern by 
including updated factors for ``cold starts'' and ``hot starts'' (where 
the engine is not warmed up or has been parked for a brief amount of 
time and then restarted) in the equation for determining city fuel 
economy. This simulates shorter city test cycle lengths where a 
vehicle's engine is more frequently shut down and restarted than in the 
current FTP test. Also, the US06 and SC03 test cycles are physically 
shorter in length than the FTP (the FTP is about 11 miles in length, 
whereas the US06 is about 8 miles, and the SC03 is about 3.6 miles.)
    Third, we interpret the statutory reference to ``current reference 
fuels'' to mean the laboratory fuels used to perform the fuel economy 
tests, and that the underlying concern of Congress was that the high-
quality lab fuels would give higher fuel economy than the typical 
commercial fuel used by consumers. The quality of the laboratory test 
fuel is specified in EPA regulations for emission compliance. The test 
gasoline fuel is roughly equivalent to premium, high-octane fuel 
available at the pump. The impact of the higher-octane test fuel on 
fuel economy is less significant but there are other real-world fuel 
differences that can have a noticeable impact, as discussed in Section 
II. For instance, ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, and 
when blended with gasoline, with all other things being equal, will 
slightly lower fuel efficiency. Other seasonal variations in fuel 
composition (e.g., oxygenates in winter fuel) may also cause a slight 
reduction in fuel economy. EPA is proposing an adjustment factor to 
account for fuel differences and other fuel-depleting features as 
described further in Section II.

C. Other Statutes and Regulations

1. Automobile Disclosure Act
    The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) \80\ requires the 
affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of 
new automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, 
that is, the ``sticker price.'' Additional information, such as a list 
of any optional equipment offered or transportation charges, is also 
required.The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered 
prior to sale to a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ More commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike 
Monroney was the chief sponsor of the Act) or Price Sticker Act. See 
15 U.S.C. 1231-1233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, manufacturers and importers of new automobiles are 
required to affix a label to such vehicles with an EPA label containing 
fuel economy information.\81\ Normally, the price sticker label and EPA 
label are combined as one large label. Failure to maintain the EPA 
label on the vehicle is considered a violation of AIDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Internal Revenue Code
    EPCA requires ``Gas Guzzler'' tax information to be included on the 
fuel economy label, under 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). This code contains the 
provisions governing the administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax. It 
contains the table of applicable taxes and defines which vehicles are 
subject to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that the fuel economy to 
be used to assess the amount of tax will be the combined city and 
highway fuel economy as determined by using the procedures in place in 
1975, or procedures that give comparable results (similar to EPCA's 
requirements for determining CAFE for passenger automobiles). This 
final rule does not impact these provisions.
3. Clean Air Act
    EPCA states that fuel economy tests shall to the extent practicable 
be carried out with the emissions tests required under Section 206 of 
the Clean Air Act Sec.  32904(c). This final rule incorporates three 
additional emissions tests, required under the Clean Air Act 
regulations, for fuel economy testing, as discussed in detail in 
Section II. We are also making several changes to existing emissions 
tests. These changes are being finalized under the authority of Section 
206 of the Clean Air Act, which permits the Administrator to define, 
and to

[[Page 77917]]

revise from time to time, the test procedures used to determine 
compliance with applicable emission standards.
4. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005
    This action is expected to have no impact on the federal income tax 
credits for consumers who purchase new hybrid, diesel, dedicated 
alternative fuel, or fuel cell vehicles that meet certain eligibility 
requirements beginning on January 1, 2006 that the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) has established under Section 1341 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.\82\ IRS uses ``unadjusted'' laboratory FTP (city) fuel 
economy test values to determine tax credit eligibility for light-duty 
vehicles. Accordingly, the changes being finalized today for 
``adjusted'' fuel economy values will have no impact on the tax credit 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See Pub. L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, this action is expected to have no impact on the ``High 
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities'' regulations EPA is establishing 
under Section 1121 of the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in 
the process of developing proposed regulations to identify low emission 
and energy-efficient vehicles for the purpose of assisting states 
administering high-occupancy vehicle facility transportation plans. EPA 
anticipates that the fuel economy values used to identify these 
vehicles will be the ``unadjusted'' FTP-based fuel economy test values. 
Accordingly, the changes in this final rule are anticipated to have no 
impact on the HOV facilities program.
5. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising 
for New Vehicles
    In the mid-1970's when EPCA was passed, the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) ``took note of the dramatic increase in the number of 
fuel economy claims then being made and of the proliferation of test 
procedures then being used as the basis for such claims.'' \83\ They 
responded by promulgating regulations in 16 CFR part 259 entitled 
``Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Vehicles'' (``Fuel 
Guide''). The Fuel Guide, adopted in 1975 and subsequently revised 
twice,\84\ provides guidance to automobile manufacturers to prevent 
deceptive advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy 
information in advertising. The Fuel Guide advises vehicle 
manufacturers and dealers how to disclose the established fuel economy 
of a vehicle, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency's 
rules pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 
2996), in advertisements that make representations regarding the fuel 
economy of a new vehicle. The disclosure is tied to the claim made in 
the advertisement. If both city and highway fuel economy claims are 
made, both city and highway EPA figures should be disclosed. A claim 
regarding either city or highway fuel economy should be accompanied by 
the corresponding EPA figure. A general fuel economy claim would 
trigger disclosure of the EPA city figure, although the advertiser 
would be free to state the highway figure as well. The authority for 
the Fuel Guide is tied to the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
41-58) which, briefly stated, makes it illegal for one to engage in 
``unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See 40 FR 42003 (Sept. 10, 1975).
    \84\ See 43 FR 55747 (Nov. 29, 1978); and 60 FR 56230 (Nov. 8, 
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Pursuant to the 
terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers 
this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the 
Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the 
Technical Support Document. A copy of the analysis is available in the 
docket for this action and the analysis is summarized in Section VI of 
this document.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the 
fuel economy estimates that appear on new automobile and light truck 
(and, starting with model year 2011, medium-duty passenger vehicle) 
sticker labels. EPA currently collects this information annually as 
part of its vehicle certification and fuel economy program, and will 
continue to do so. This final rule changes some of the content of the 
information submitted. Responses to this information collection are 
mandatory to obtain the benefit of vehicle certification under Title II 
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) and as required under 
Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 
U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). Information submitted by manufacturers is held as 
confidential until the specific vehicle to which it pertains is 
available for purchase. After vehicles are available for purchase, most 
information associated with the manufacturer's application is available 
to the public. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7542(c)), all information, other than trade secret processes or 
methods, must be publicly available. Proprietary information is granted 
confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA 
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's 
Office of General Counsel.
    The projected increased cost within the three-year horizon of the 
pending information collection request is $747,830 in one-time startup 
costs, after being annualized and discounted at 7%. No increase in 
other capital costs, or in operations and maintenance or labor costs, 
are anticipated during this period. The estimated number of likely 
respondent manufacturers is 35. Responses are submitted annually by 
engine family, with the number of responses per respondent varying 
widely depending on the number of engine families being certified. 
Under the current information authorization, an average of 8.4 
responses a year are approved for each of 35 respondents requiring 
549.2 hours per response and 56.6 hours of recordkeeping at a total 
cost of $46,427 per response for an industry total of 178,109 hours and 
$14.2 million annually, including capital, operations and maintenance, 
and labor costs. This rule will increase this burden by 0 hours and 
$747,830 per year during the next three years (high estimate) for an 
industry total of $14.9 million annually.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a

[[Page 77918]]

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of business 
using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and 
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A small 
business that manufactures automobiles has a NAICS code of 336111. 
Based on Small Business Administration size standards, a small business 
for this NAICS code is defined as a manufacturer having less than 1000 
employees. Out of a total of approximately 80 automotive manufacturers 
subject to this final rule, EPA estimates that approximately 10 of 
these could be classified as small entities based on SBA size 
standards. Unlike large manufacturers with complex and diverse product 
lines, we expect that the small entities (generally these are vehicle 
importers and vehicle converters) will be able use the results of tests 
they are already conducting for emissions compliance to satisfy the 
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements. Therefore, we expect that 
these small entities will face minimal additional burden due to the new 
fuel economy labeling requirements.
    Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) have averaged about 50 
imported engine families per year for the last three model years. There 
are approximately 10 ICIs subject to this final rule. If we assume that 
the ICIs and other small entities account for five percent of the 
vehicle models for which fuel economy labels are needed (a proportion 
that is certainly an overestimate, but useful for placing an upper 
bound on the estimated cost impacts for small entities), then these 
entities must generate about 65 different fuel economy labels. Using 
the total estimated costs from Section V of this preamble, the average 
annual cost per labeled vehicle configuration is about $1,280-1,760, 
and the total annual cost for 20 small entities can be estimated to be 
$85,000-114,000. The total average annual cost for an individual 
importer or small manufacturer can therefore be estimated to be a 
maximum of $4,250-5,700. We have recently collected data on the 
currently operating small entities in the ICI and vehicle conversion 
categories; this data indicates that the average annual revenue for 
these companies is approximately $4.8 million. Therefore, the projected 
cost increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent of the average revenue for 
small importers or manufacturers. Because of the limited range of 
vehicle configurations typically offered by these small entities, we 
believe that the maximum cost for these entities will be even lower 
than the low end of the ranges shown above. Our methodology for 
estimating costs in Section V assumes that manufacturers have diverse 
product lines, and thus ultimately will need to perform some level of 
additional testing in 2011 and later model years. Using costs based on 
such an assumption will tend to overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle 
converters, who typically produce or import a single model or 
configuration.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and to 
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal 
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental 
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.
    We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to 
the private sector in any single year. We believe that this rule 
represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to achieve 
the goals

[[Page 77919]]

of the final rule. The costs are discussed in Section V and in the 
Technical Support Document. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This final rule 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal 
level and impose compliance costs only on motor vehicle manufacturers. 
Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they purchase 
and use motor vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA 
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard 
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The regulations 
do not require manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the fuel 
economy of their vehicles. The purpose of this regulation is to provide 
consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle 
purchasing decisions. Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is 
not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing 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 EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on January 26, 2007.

IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the fuel economy labeling program can be 
found in 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, 49 U.S.C. 32901-32917, and Pub. L. 109-
58.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel 
economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 11, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 86 and 600 of title 
40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
AND ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.


0
2. The table of references in Sec.  86.1(b)(1) is amended by revising 
the entry for ``ASTM D 975-04c Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel 
Oils'' to read as follows:

[[Page 77920]]

Sec.  86.1  Reference materials.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document No. and name              40 CFR part 86 reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
ASTM D 975-04c Standard Specification for   86.1910, 86.213-11.
 Diesel Fuel Oils.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
3. A new Sec.  86.158-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.158-08  Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.

    The procedures described in Sec. Sec.  86.158-08, 86.159-08, 
86.160-00, and 86.162-00 discuss the aggressive driving (US06) and air 
conditioning (SC03) elements of the Supplemental Federal Test 
Procedures (SFTP). These test procedures consist of two separable test 
elements: A sequence of vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions 
with a driving schedule (US06) that tests exhaust emissions under high 
speeds and accelerations (aggressive driving); and a sequence of 
vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions with a driving schedule 
(SC03) which includes the impacts of actual air conditioning operation. 
These test procedures (and the associated standards set forth in 
subpart S of this part) are applicable to light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks.
    (a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust emissions of THC, CO, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and CO<INF>2</INF>. For diesel-cycle 
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.110.
    (b) Each test procedure follows the vehicle preconditioning 
specified in Sec.  86.132-00.
    (c) US06 Test Cycle. The test procedure for emissions on the US06 
driving schedule (see Sec.  86.159-08) is designed to determine gaseous 
exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks while 
simulating high speed and acceleration on a chassis dynamometer 
(aggressive driving). The full test consists of preconditioning the 
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as specified in Sec.  86.132-00, 
and an engine idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after which the vehicle is 
accelerated into the US06 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted 
exhaust is collected continuously for subsequent analysis, using a 
constant volume (variable dilution) sampler or critical flow venturi 
sampler. Optionally, as specified in Sec.  86.159-08 and in part 600 of 
this chapter, a proportional part of the diluted exhaust may be 
collected continuously in two bag samples, one representing US06 City 
driving and the other representing US06 Highway driving. If two bag 
samples are collected, for petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles for 
which THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.110, the analytical system shall be configured 
to calculate THC for the US06 City phase and the US06 Highway phase as 
described in Sec.  86.159-08.
    (d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test procedure for determining exhaust 
emissions with the air conditioner operating (see Sec.  86.160-00) is 
designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions from light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks while simulating an urban trip during 
ambient conditions of 95 [deg]F, 100 grains of water/pound of dry air 
(approximately 40 percent relative humidity), and a solar heat load 
intensity of 850 W/m<SUP>2</SUP>. The full test consists of vehicle 
preconditioning (see Sec.  86.132-00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)), an 
engine key-off 10 minute soak, an engine start, and operation over the 
SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust is collected 
continuously during the engine start and the SC03 driving cycle for 
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution) 
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler.
    (e) The emission results from the aggressive driving test (Sec.  
86.159-08), air conditioning test (Sec.  86.160-00), and FTP test 
(Sec.  86.130-00 (a) through (d) and (f)) (conducted on a large single 
roll or equivalent dynamometer) are analyzed according to the 
calculation methodology in Sec.  86.164-08 and compared to the 
applicable SFTP emission standards in subpart S of this part.
    (f) These test procedures may be run in any sequence that maintains 
the applicable preconditioning elements specified in Sec.  86.132-00.


0
4. A new Sec.  86.159-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.159-08  Exhaust emission test procedures for US06 emissions.

    (a) Overview. The dynamometer operation consists of a single, 600 
second test on the US06 driving schedule, as described in appendix I, 
paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle is preconditioned in 
accordance with Sec.  86.132-00, to bring it to a warmed-up stabilized 
condition. This preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2 minute idle 
period that proceeds directly into the US06 driving schedule during 
which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are 
collected for analysis. US06 emissions may optionally be collected in 
two bag samples representing US06 City and US06 Highway emissions, as 
provided for in this section and in part 600 of this chapter. Emissions 
from seconds 0-130 and seconds 495-596 are collected in one bag to 
represent US06 City emissions, and emissions from seconds 130-495 are 
collected in a second bag to represent US06 Highway emissions. If 
engine stalling should occur during cycle operation, follow the 
provisions of Sec.  86.136-90 (engine starting and restarting). For 
gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in 
bags are analyzed for THC, CO, CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is 
sampled and analyzed continuously according to the provisions of Sec.  
86.110. Parallel bag samples of dilution air are analyzed for THC, CO, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All official US06 tests shall be 
run on a large single roll electric dynamometer, or an approved 
equivalent dynamometer configuration, that satisfies the requirements 
of Sec.  86.108-00.
    (2) Position (vehicle can be driven) the test vehicle on the 
dynamometer and restrain.
    (3) Required US06 schedule test dynamometer inertia weight class 
selections are determined by the test vehicles test weight basis and 
corresponding equivalent weight as listed in the tabular information of 
Sec.  86.129-94(a) and discussed in Sec.  86.129-00 (e) and (f).
    (4) Set the dynamometer test inertia weight and roadload horsepower 
requirements for the test vehicle according to Sec.  86.129-00 (e) and 
(f). The dynamometer's horsepower adjustment settings shall be set to 
match the force imposed during dynamometer operation with actual road 
load force at all speeds.
    (5) The vehicle speed as measured from the dynamometer rolls shall 
be used. A speed vs. time recording, as evidence of dynamometer test 
validity, shall be supplied on request of the Administrator.
    (6) The drive wheel tires may be inflated up to a gauge pressure of 
45 psi (310 kPa), or the manufacturer's recommended pressure if higher 
than 45 psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The drive wheel tire 
pressure shall be reported with the test results.
    (7) The driving distance, as measured by counting the number of 
dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, shall be determined for the 
test.

[[Page 77921]]

    (8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles may be tested 
either in a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. In 
order to test in the two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive and all-
wheel drive vehicles may have one set of drive wheels disengaged; four-
wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles which can be shifted to a two-wheel 
mode by the driver may be tested in a two-wheel drive mode of 
operation.
    (9) During dynamometer operation, a fixed speed cooling fan with a 
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000 cfm will be positioned so as to 
direct cooling air to the vehicle in an appropriate manner with the 
engine compartment cover open. In the case of vehicles with front 
engine compartments, the fan shall be positioned within 24 inches (61 
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case of vehicles with rear engine 
compartments (or if special designs make the above impractical), the 
cooling fan(s) shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air 
to maintain vehicle cooling. The Administrator may approve modified 
cooling configurations or additional cooling if necessary to 
satisfactorily perform the test. In approving requests for additional 
or modified cooling, the Administrator will consider such items as 
actual road cooling data and whether such additional cooling is needed 
to provide a representative test.
    (c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall be large enough to virtually 
eliminate water condensation in the system.
    (d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be 
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for 
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the 
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system 
adjustment.
    (e) Perform the test bench sampling sequence outlined in Sec.  
86.140-94 prior to or in conjunction with each series of exhaust 
emission measurements.
    (f) Test activities. (1) The US06 consists of a single test which 
is directly preceded by a vehicle preconditioning in accordance with 
Sec.  86.132-00. Following the vehicle preconditioning, the vehicle is 
idled for not less than one minute and not more than two minutes. The 
equivalent dynamometer mileage of the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).
    (2) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
    (i) Immediately after completion of the preconditioning, idle the 
vehicle. The idle period is not to be less than one minute or greater 
than two minutes.
    (ii) With the sample selector valves in the ``standby'' position, 
connect evacuated sample collection bags to the dilute exhaust and 
dilution air sample collection systems.
    (iii) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps, the 
temperature recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC 
analysis recorder (diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger of the 
constant volume sampler, if used, petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC 
analyzer continuous sample line should be preheated to their respective 
operating temperatures before the test begins.
    (iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set 
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
    (A) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow 
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).
    (B) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of 
diesel-cycle vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031 liters/sec).
    (C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by the venturi design.
    (v) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
    (vi) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample 
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the exhaust sample bag, 
the dilution air sample bag, turn on the petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 
THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder chart, and record 
both gas meter or flow measurement instrument readings, (if 
applicable).
    (vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting the gas flow measuring 
device, but prior to the first acceleration. Begin the first 
acceleration 5 seconds after starting the measuring device.
    (viii) Operate the vehicle according to the US06 driving schedule, 
as described in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part. Manual 
transmission vehicles shall be shifted according to the manufacturer 
recommended shift schedule, subject to review and approval by the 
Administrator. For further guidance on transmissions see Sec.  86.128-
00.
    (ix) Paragraphs (f)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) of this section apply to 
vehicles for which the manufacturer is collecting US06 City and US06 
Highway emissions for subsequent analysis according to the provisions 
of part 600 of this chapter. Vehicles for which emissions are being 
collected in a single continuous sample for subsequent analysis must be 
tested according to paragraph (x) of this section, and this paragraph 
(f)(2)(ix) will not apply.
    (A) At two seconds after the end of the deceleration which is 
scheduled to occur at 128 seconds (i.e., at 130 seconds), 
simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 City'' bags and 
samples to the ``US06 Highway'' bags and samples, switch gas flow 
measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
recorder chart if applicable) to ``standby'' mode, and start gas flow 
measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before the acceleration which is 
scheduled to occur at 136 seconds, record the measured roll or shaft 
revolutions.
    (B) At two seconds after the end of the deceleration which is 
scheduled to occur at 493 seconds (i.e., at 495 seconds), 
simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 Highway'' bags 
and samples to the ``US06 City'' bags and samples, switch off gas flow 
measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
integrator No. 2 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
recorder chart if applicable), and start gas flow measuring device No. 
1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 if 
applicable). Before the acceleration which is scheduled to occur at 500 
seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 2 
gas meter reading or flow measurement instrument. As soon as possible 
transfer the ``US06 Highway'' exhaust and dilution air bag samples to 
the analytical system and process the samples according to Sec.  
86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on 
all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample collection 
phase of the test.
    (x) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last 
deceleration (i.e., engine off at 596 seconds).
    (xi) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously 
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) and position the 
sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position. Record the measured 
roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow 
measurement instrument.
    (xii) As soon as possible, transfer the exhaust and dilution air 
bag samples (or the US06 City exhaust and dilution air bag samples, if 
applicable) to the analytical system and process the samples according 
to Sec.  86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust 
sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample 
collection phase of the test.

[[Page 77922]]

    (xiii) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the 
cooling fan, close the engine compartment cover, disconnect the exhaust 
tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle from 
dynamometer.
    (xiv) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.

0
5. A new Sec.  86.164-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.164-08  Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations.

    (a) The provisions of Sec.  86.144-94 (b) and (c) are applicable to 
this section except that the NO<INF>X</INF> humidity correction factor 
of Sec.  86.144-94(c)(7)(iv) must be modified when adjusting SC03 
environmental test cell NO<INF>X</INF> results to 100 grains of water 
according to paragraph (d) of this section. These provisions provide 
the procedures for calculating mass emission results of each regulated 
exhaust pollutant for the test schedules of FTP, US06, and SC03.
    (b) The provisions of Sec.  86.144-94(a) are applicable to this 
section. These provisions provide the procedures for determining the 
weighted mass emissions for the FTP test schedule (Y<INF>wm</INF>).
    (c)(1) When the test vehicle is equipped with air conditioning, the 
final reported test results for the SFTP composite 
(NMHC+NO<INF>X</INF>) and optional composite CO standards shall be 
computed by the following formulas.

(i) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> = 0.35(Y<INF>FTP</INF>) + 0.37(Y<INF>SC03</INF>) 
+ 0.28(Y<INF>US06</INF>)

Where:

(A) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> = Mass emissions per mile for a particular 
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP, SC03, 
and US06 schedules. Values of Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> are obtained for 
each of the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NO<INF>X</INF> and CO.
(B) Y<INF>FTP</INF> = Weighted mass emissions per mile 
(Y<INF>WM</INF>) based on the measured driving distance of the FTP 
test schedule.
(C) Y<INF>SC03</INF> = Calculated mass emissions per mile based on 
the measured driving distance of the SC03 test schedule.
(D)(1) Y<INF>US06</INF> = Calculated mass emissions per mile based 
on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule; or,
(2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.159-08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this 
chapter:
Y<INF>US06</INF> = Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the 
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 City'' phase (sampled during 
seconds 1-130 and seconds 495-596 of the US06 driving schedule) and 
the ``US06 Highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 130-495 of the 
US06 driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of 
the US06 test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NO<INF>X</INF>) = Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NMHC) + 
Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NO<INF>X</INF>)

Where:

(A) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NMHC) = results of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 
section for NMHC.
(B) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NO<INF>X</INF>) = results of paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of this section for NO<INF>X</INF>.

    (2) When the test vehicle is not equipped with air conditioning, 
the final reported test results for the SFTP composite 
(NMHC+NO<INF>X</INF>) and optional composite CO standards shall be 
computed by the following formulas.

(i) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> = 0.72(Y<INF>FTP</INF>)+0.28(Y<INF>US06</INF>)

Where:

(A) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> = Mass emissions per mile for a particular 
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP and 
US06 schedules. Values of Y<INF>WSFTP</INF> are obtained for each of 
the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NO<INF>X</INF> and CO.
(B) Y<INF>FTP</INF> = Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm) based 
on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C)(1) Y<INF>US06</INF> = Calculated mass emissions per mile based 
on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule; or,
(2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.159-08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this 
chapter:
Y<INF>US06</INF> = Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the 
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 City'' phase (sampled during 
seconds 1-130 and seconds 495-596 of the US06 driving schedule) and 
the ``US06 Highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 130-495 of the 
US06 driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of 
the US06 test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NO<INF>X</INF>) = Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NMHC) + 
Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NO<INF>X</INF>)

Where:

(A) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NMHC) = results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section for NMHC.
(B) Y<INF>WSFTP</INF>(NO<INF>X</INF>) = results of paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section for NO<INF>X</INF>.

    (d) The NO<INF>X</INF> humidity correction factor for adjusting 
NO<INF>X</INF> test results to the environmental test cell air 
conditioning ambient condition of 100 grains of water/pound of dry air 
is:

K<INF>H</INF> (100) = 0.8825/[1-0.0047(H-75)]

Where:

H = measured test humidity in grains of water/pound of dry air.

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
6. A new Sec.  86.201-11 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.201-11  General applicability.

    (a) This subpart describes procedures for determining the cold 
temperature carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from 1994 and later model 
year new gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, and 
for emissions sampling for determining fuel economy according to part 
600 of this chapter for 2011 and later model year new gasoline-fueled 
and diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
    (b) All of the provisions of this subpart are applicable to testing 
conducted at a nominal temperature of 20 [deg]F (-7 [deg]C).
    (c) The provisions that are specifically applicable to testing at 
temperatures between 25 [deg]F (-4 [deg]C) and 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) 
are specified in Sec.  86.246-94 of this subpart.

0
7. A new Sec.  86.205-11 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.205-11  Introduction; structure of this subpart.

    (a) This subpart describes the equipment required and the 
procedures to follow in order to perform gaseous exhaust emission tests 
on gasoline-fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable 
under part 600 of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks. Subpart A of this part sets forth testing requirements and test 
intervals necessary to comply with EPA certification procedures.
    (b) A section reference without a model year suffix refers to the 
section applicable for the appropriate model years.
    (c) Three topics are addressed in this subpart. Sections 86.206 
through 86.215 set forth specifications and equipment requirements; 
Sec. Sec.  86.216 through 86.226 discuss calibration methods and 
frequency; test procedures and data requirements are listed (in 
approximate order of performance) in Sec. Sec.  86.227 through 86.245.

0
8. A new Sec.  86.206-11 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.206-11  Equipment required; overview.

    This subpart contains procedures for exhaust emission tests on 
gasoline-fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable 
under part 600 of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks. Equipment required and specifications are as follows:
    (a) Exhaust emission tests. Exhaust from gasoline-fueled and 
petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable under part 600 of this 
chapter) vehicles is tested for gaseous emissions using the Constant 
Volume Sampler (CVS) concept (Sec.  86.209). Equipment necessary and 
specifications appear in Sec. Sec.  86.208 through 86.214.
    (b) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving schedule specifications. Fuel 
specifications for exhaust emission testing for gasoline-fueled and 
petroleum-fueled diesel cycle vehicles are specified in Sec.  86.213. 
Analytical gases are specified in Sec.  86.214. The EPA Urban 
Dynamometer Driving Schedule

[[Page 77923]]

(UDDS) for use in gasoline-fueled emission tests is specified in Sec.  
86.115 and Appendix I to this part.

0
9. A new Sec.  86.210-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.210-08  Exhaust gas sampling system; Diesel-cycle vehicles not 
requiring particulate emissions measurements.

    (a) General applicability. The exhaust gas sampling system 
requirements of Sec.  86.109-4 (which apply to Otto-cycle vehicles), 
also apply to diesel vehicles that are not required to undergo 
particulate measurement as allowed under Sec.  600.111-08(e) of this 
chapter, except that heated flame ionization detector (HFID), probe, 
sample lines and filters are required as described below.
    (1) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles require a heated flame 
ionization detector (HFID) (375 [deg]<plus-minus>20 [deg]F (191 
[deg]<plus-minus>11 [deg]C)) sample for total hydrocarbon (THC) 
analysis. The HFID sample must be taken directly from the diluted 
exhaust stream through a heated probe and continuously integrated 
measurement of diluted THC is required. Unless compensation for varying 
mass flow is made, a constant mass flow system must be used to ensure a 
proportional THC measurement.
    (2) For natural gas-fueled and liquefied petroleum gas-fueled 
diesel vehicles either a heated flame ionization detector (HFID) 
[375[deg]<plus-minus>20 [deg]F (191[deg]<plus-minus>11 [deg]C)] or a 
non-heated flame ionization detector may be used for hydrocarbon 
analysis.
    (3) Other sampling systems may be used if shown to yield equivalent 
or superior results and if approved in advance by the Administrator.
    (b) Component description. The components necessary for petroleum-
fueled diesel vehicle exhaust sampling shall meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) The PDP system shall conform to all of the requirements listed 
for the exhaust gas PDP-CVS (Sec.  86.109-94(a)(3)).
    (2) The CFV-CVS sample system shall conform to all of the 
requirements listed for the exhaust gas EFC sample system (Sec.  
86.109-94(a)(5)).
    (3) The THC probe (when the THC probe is required) shall be:
    (i) Installed at a point where the dilution air and exhaust are 
well mixed.
    (ii) Heated and insulated over the entire length to maintain a 375 
[deg]<plus-minus>20 [deg]F (191 [deg]<plus-minus>11 [deg]C) wall 
temperature.
    (iii) 0.19 in. (0.48 cm) minimum inside diameter.
    (4) It is intended that the THC probe be free from cold spots 
(i.e., free from spots where the probe wall temperature is less than 
355 [deg]F). This will be determined by a temperature sensor located on 
a section of the probe wall outside of the walls of the sampling 
system. The temperature sensor shall be insulated from any heating 
elements on the probe. The sensor shall have an accuracy and precision 
of <plus-minus>2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C).
    (5) The dilute exhaust gas flowing in the THC sample system shall 
be:
    (i) At 375 [deg]F<plus-minus>10 [deg]F (191 [deg]C<plus-minus>6 
[deg]C) immediately before the heated filter. This will be determined 
by a temperature sensor located immediately upstream of the filter. The 
sensor shall have an accuracy and precision of <plus-minus>2 [deg]F 
(1.1 [deg]C).
    (ii) At 375 [deg]F<plus-minus>10 [deg]F (191 [deg]C <plus-minus>6 
[deg]C) immediately before the HFID. This will be determined by a 
temperature sensor located at the exit of the heated sample line. The 
sensor shall have an accuracy and precision of <plus-minus>2 [deg]F 
(1.1 [deg]C).
    (6) It is intended that the dilute exhaust gas flowing in the THC 
sample system be between 365 [deg]F and 385 [deg]F (185 [deg]C and 197 
[deg]C).
    (7) The requirements for the continuous HC measurement system are 
as follows:
    (i) The system must use an ``overflow'' zero and span system. In 
this type of system, excess zero or span gas spills out of the probe 
when zero and span checks of the analyzer are made. The ``overflow'' 
system may also be used to calibrate the HC analyzer per Sec.  
86.1321(b), although this is not required.
    (ii) No other analyzers may draw a sample from the continuous HC 
sample probe, line or system, unless a common sample pump is used for 
all analyzers and the sample line system design reflects good 
engineering practice.
    (iii) The overflow gas flow rates into the sample line shall be at 
least 105% of the sample system flow rate.
    (iv) The overflow gases shall enter the heated sample line as close 
as practicable to the outside surface of the CVS duct or dilution 
tunnel.

0
10. Section 86.211-94 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.211-94  Exhaust gas analytical system.

    The provisions of Sec.  86.111-94 apply to this subpart, except 
that the NO<INF>X</INF> analyzer is optional. The exhaust gas 
analytical system must contain components necessary to determine 
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and 
formaldehyde. The exhaust gas analytical system is not required to 
contain components necessary for determining oxides of nitrogen.

0
11. A new Sec.  86.213-11 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.213-11  Fuel specifications.

    (a) Gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. 
Gasoline having the following specifications will be used by the 
Administrator except that the Administrator will not use gasoline 
having a sulfur specification higher than 0.0045 weight percent. 
Gasoline having the specifications set forth in the table in this 
section, or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the 
Administrator, may be used by the manufacturer except that the octane 
specification does not apply. In lieu of using gasoline having these 
specifications, the manufacturer may, for certification testing, use 
gasoline having the specifications specified in Sec.  86.113-04 
provided the cold CO emissions are not decreased. Documentation showing 
that cold CO emissions are not decreased must be maintained by the 
manufacturer and must be made available to the Administrator upon 
request. The table listing the cold CO fuel specifications described in 
the text in this section follows:

                                       Table--Cold CO Fuel Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Cold CO low octane      Cold CO high octane \1\
                Item                        ASTM test            value or range             value or range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(RON+MON)/2, min...................  D 2699................  87.8<plus-minus>.3....  92.3<plus-minus>0.5.
Sensitivity, min...................  D 2699................  7.5...................  7.5.
Distillation range:
    IBP, deg.F.....................  D 86..................  76-96.................  76-96.
    10% point, deg.F...............  D 86..................  98-118................  105-125.
    50% point, deg.F...............  D 86..................  179-214...............  195-225.
    90% point, deg.F...............  D 86..................  316-346...............  316-346.

[[Page 77924]]

 
    EP, max, deg.F.................  D 86..................  413...................  413.
Sulfur, wt. %......................  D 3120................  0.0015-0.008..........  0.0015-0.008.
Phosphorous, g/U.S gal, max........  D 3231................  0.005.................  0.005.
Lead, g/gal, max...................  ......................  0.01..................  0.01.
RVP, psi...........................  D 4953................  11.5<plus-minus>.3....  11.5<plus-minus>.3.
Hydrocarbon composition............  D 1319................
    Olefins, vol. pct..............  ......................  12.5<plus-minus>5.0...  10.0<plus-minus>5.0.
    Aromatics, vol. pct............  ......................  26.4<plus-minus>4.0...  32.0<plus-minus>4.0.
    Saturates......................  ......................  Remainder.............  Remainder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gasoline having these specifications may be used for vehicles which are designed for the use of high-octane
  premium fuel.

    (b) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks. Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing 
under part 600 of this chapter must be a winter-grade diesel fuel as 
specified in ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel 
Oils.'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  86.1) Such test fuel must 
also comply with the requirements of part 80 of this chapter. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The Administrator 
may approve the use of a different diesel test fuel, provided that the 
level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent.

0
12. A new Sec.  86.230-11 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.230-11  Test sequence: general requirements.

    (a) Sequence steps. Figure C94-1 of Sec.  86.230-94 shows the steps 
encountered as the test vehicle undergoes the procedures subsequently 
described, to determine conformity with the standards set forth.
    (b) Driving schedule. The Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) 
test procedure (see Sec.  86.115 and appendix I to this part) is used 
for vehicle preconditioning and testing.
    (c) Ambient temperature level. (1) Ambient temperature levels 
encountered by the test vehicle shall average 20 [deg] <plus-minus>5 
[deg]F (-7 [deg]C <plus-minus>2.8 [deg]C) and shall not be less than 10 
[deg]F (-14 [deg]C) nor more than 30 [deg]F (-1 [deg]C) during vehicle 
preconditioning, except for preconditioning performed in accordance 
with Sec.  86.232(a)(7), and during all emission testing.
    (2) The ambient temperature reported shall be a simple average of 
the test cell temperatures measured at constant intervals no more than 
one minute apart. Before the driving cycle may begin, the test cell 
temperature shall be 20 [deg]F <plus-minus>3 [deg]F (-7 [deg]C <plus-
minus>1.7 [deg]C) when measured in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section. The temperature may not exceed 25 [deg]F (-4 [deg]C) or 
fall below 15 [deg]F (-9 [deg]C) for more than three consecutive 
minutes during the test.
    (d) Vehicle positioning. The vehicle shall be approximately level 
during all phases of the test sequence to prevent abnormal fuel 
distribution.
    (e) Engine compartment cooling. (1) Fixed speed air cooling of the 
engine compartment with the compartment cover open shall be utilized 
during testing that is conducted by the Administrator and, optionally 
for certification testing, by the manufacturer. If a separate movable 
fan is used, it shall be squarely positioned within 12 inches (30.5 
centimeters) of the front of vehicles with front engine compartments. 
In the case of vehicles with rear engine compartments (or if special 
designs make the normal front engine positioning impractical), the 
cooling fan shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air to 
maintain vehicle cooling. The fan capacity shall normally not exceed 
5,300 cfm (2.50 cubic meters per second). If, however, the manufacturer 
showed (as provided in Sec.  86.135-94(b)) that additional cooling is 
necessary, the fan capacity may be increased or additional fans used if 
approved in advance by the Administrator. The cooling air temperature 
shall be measured at the inlet to the fan.
    (2) In lieu of using a separate fan, an air handling system that is 
integral with the test cell may be used provided comparable air 
movement is obtained. The cooling air temperature shall be measured in 
the center of a vertical plane that is located approximately 2 feet in 
front of the vehicle.
    (3) The manufacturer may use, for certification testing, 
alternative engine compartment cooling fans or systems, including those 
which provide a variable air flow, if the manufacturer has determined 
that comparable results are obtained.
    (f) Heater and defroster usage. The vehicle interior climate 
control system shall be operated with the interior heating system on 
and the air flow directed to the mode that primarily defrosts the front 
window during the test. Air conditioning controls shall be set to the 
``Off'' position. No supplemental auxiliary heat is permitted during 
the dynamometer procedure. The heater may be used at any temperature 
and fan settings during vehicle preconditioning. The manufacturer shall 
use the vehicle's controls to achieve the operation specified in this 
paragraph (f). The manufacturer shall use good engineering judgment and 
take into account engine control changes (e.g., engine-off logic, idle 
speed operation, spark advance changes) and engine control features 
that may be directly affected by the fan or temperature settings.
    (1) Manually controlled systems. (i) Prior to the first 
acceleration of the test at T=20 seconds the climate control settings 
shall be set as follows (these settings may be initiated prior to 
starting the vehicle if allowed by the vehicle's climate control 
system):
    (A) Temperature: Manually operated systems shall be set to maximum 
heat. Automatic systems optionally using the provisions of this 
paragraph (f)(1) shall be set to 72 degrees F or higher.

[[Page 77925]]

    (B) Fan speed: Full off, or if a full off position is not 
available, to the lowest available speed.
    (C) Airflow direction: Airflow directed to the front window (window 
defrost mode). Based on good engineering judgment, an alternative vent 
setting may be used if necessary to achieve the temperature and fan 
speed settings in this paragraph (f)(1).
    (D) Air source: If independently controllable, the airflow source 
control shall be set to the position which draws outside air.
    (ii) At the second idle of the test cycle, which occurs at the 
first deceleration to zero miles per hour at T=125 seconds, the fan 
speed shall be set to maximum, and, if not already set in this 
position, the airflow shall be directed fully to the front window in 
the window defrost mode. Temperature and air source settings shall 
remain as set in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. These settings shall 
be completed by T=130 seconds.
    (iii) At the sixth idle of the test cycle, which occurs at the 
deceleration to zero miles per hour at T=505 seconds, the fan speed 
shall be set to the lowest setting that maintains air flow. This 
setting shall be completed by T=510 seconds. Based on good engineering 
judgment, the manufacturer may use alternative vent and/or higher fan 
speed settings for the remainder of the test. Temperature and air 
source settings shall remain as set in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section for the remainder of the test.
    (2) Automatic systems. Automatic systems may use either the 
provisions in paragraph (f)(1) of this section or manufacturers may set 
the temperature at 72 degrees F and the air flow control to the front 
window defroster mode for the entire duration of the test.
    (3) Multiple-zone systems. For vehicles with separate driver and 
passenger controls, or for vehicles with separate controls for the 
front seating region and for the passenger region behind the driver, 
all sets of temperature and fan controls shall be set according to 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section.
    (4) Alternative test procedures. The Administrator may approve the 
use of other settings under Sec.  86.1840-01 if, for example, a 
vehicle's climate control system is not compatible with the provisions 
of this section.

0
13. A new section 86.237-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  86.237-08  Dynamometer test run, gaseous emissions.

    (a) The complete dynamometer test consists of a cold start drive of 
approximately 7.5 miles (12.1 kilometers) and a hot start drive of 
approximately 3.6 miles (5.8 kilometers).
    (b) If the preconditioned vehicle is not already on the 
dynamometer, it shall be pushed into position.
    (c) The vehicle is allowed to stand on the dynamometer during the 
ten minute time period between the cold and hot start test. The cold 
start test is divided into two periods. The first period, representing 
the cold start ``transient'' phase, terminates at the end of the 
deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 505 seconds of the driving 
schedule. The second period, representing the ``stabilized'' phase, 
consists of the remainder of the driving schedule, including engine 
shutdown. The hot start test is identical to the first part or 
transient phase of the cold start test. Therefore, the hot start test 
terminates after the first period (505 seconds) is run.
    (d) The dynamometer run consists of two tests, a cold start test, 
after a minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-hour soak according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.132, and a hot start test following the cold 
start test by 10 minutes. The vehicle shall be stored prior to the 
emission test in such a manner that precipitation (e.g., rain or dew) 
does not occur on the vehicle. The complete dynamometer test consists 
of a cold start drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km) and simulates a hot start 
drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km). The vehicle is allowed to stand on the 
dynamometer during the 10 minute time period between the cold and hot 
start tests. The cold start test is divided into two periods. The first 
period, representing the cold start ``transient'' phase, terminates at 
the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 505 seconds 
of the driving schedule. The second period, representing the 
``stabilized'' phase, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule 
including engine shutdown. The hot start test, similarly, consists of 
two periods. The first period, representing the hot start ``transient'' 
phase, terminates at the same point in driving schedule as the first 
period of the cold start test. The second period of the hot start test, 
``stabilized'' phase, is assumed to be identical to the second period 
of the cold start test. Therefore, the hot start test terminates after 
the first period (505 seconds) is run. Measurement of NO<INF>X</INF> 
and particulate matter is not required.
    (e) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
    (1) Place drive wheels of vehicle on dynamometer without starting 
engine.
    (2) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the 
cooling fan.
    (3) For all vehicles, with the sample selector valves in the 
``standby'' position, connect evacuated sample collection bags to the 
dilute exhaust and dilution air sample collection systems.
    (4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, with the sample selector valves 
in the ``standby'' position, insert fresh sample collection impingers 
into the methanol sample collection system, fresh impingers or a fresh 
cartridge into the formaldehyde sample collection system and fresh 
impingers (or a single cartridge for formaldehyde) into the dilution 
air sample collection systems for methanol and formaldehyde (background 
measurements of methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted and 
concentrations assumed to be zero for calculations in Sec.  86.144).
    (5) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps (except the 
particulate sample pump, if applicable), the temperature recorder, the 
vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC analysis recorder (diesel-cycle 
only). (The heat exchanger of the constant volume sampler, if used, 
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer continuous sample line and 
filter, methanol-fueled vehicle THC, methanol and formaldehyde sample 
lines, if applicable, should be preheated to their respective operating 
temperatures before the test begins).
    (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set 
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
    (i) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow 
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 1/sec).
    (ii) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of 
diesel-cycle and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles) flow rate is 
0.066 cfm (0.031 1/sec).
    (iii) For methanol samples, the flow rates shall be set such that 
the system meets the design criteria of Sec.  86.109 and Sec.  86.110. 
For samples in which the concentration in the primary impinger exceeds 
0.5 mg/l, it is recommended that the mass of methanol collected in the 
secondary impinger not exceed ten percent of the total mass collected. 
For samples in which the concentration in the primary impinger does not 
exceed 0.5 mg/l, analysis of the secondary impingers is not necessary.
    (iv) For formaldehyde samples, the flow rates shall be set such 
that the system meets the design criteria of Sec.  86.109 and Sec.  
86.110. For impinger samples in which the concentration of formaldehyde 
in the primary impinger exceeds 0.1 mg/l, it is recommended

[[Page 77926]]

that the mass of formaldehyde collected in the secondary impinger not 
exceed ten percent of the total mass collected. For samples in which 
the concentration in the primary impinger does not exceed 0.1 mg/l, 
analysis of the secondary impingers is not necessary.
    (7) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
    (8) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample 
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the ``transient'' 
exhaust sample bag, the ``transient'' methanol exhaust sample, the 
``transient'' formaldehyde exhaust sample, the ``transient'' dilution 
air sample bag, the ``transient'' methanol dilution air sample and the 
``transient'' formaldehyde dilution air sample (turn on the petroleum-
fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder 
chart and record both gas meter or flow measurement instrument 
readings, if applicable), turn the key on, and start cranking the 
engine.
    (9) Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place the transmission 
in gear.
    (10) Twenty seconds after the engine starts, begin the initial 
vehicle acceleration of the driving schedule.
    (11) Operate the vehicle according to the Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule (Sec.  86.115).


    Note: During particulate testing, if applicable, adjust the flow 
rate through the particulate sample probe to maintain a constant 
value within <plus-minus>5 percent of the set flow rate. Record the 
average temperature and pressure at the gas meter or flow instrument 
inlet. If the set flow rate cannot be maintained because of high 
particulate loading on the filter, the test shall be terminated. The 
test shall be rerun using a lower flow rate, or larger diameter 
filter, or both.


    (12) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 
505 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the 
``transient'' bags and samples to the ``stabilized'' bags and samples, 
switch off gas flow measuring device No. 1, switch off the No. 1 
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator, mark the petroleum-
fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart, start gas flow measuring 
device No. 2, and start the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
integrator No. 2. Before the acceleration which is scheduled to occur 
at 510 seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and reset 
the counter or switch to a second counter. As soon as possible transfer 
the ``transient'' exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical 
system and process the samples according to Sec.  86.140 obtaining a 
stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on all analyzers within 20 
minutes of the end of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain 
methanol and formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 
hours of the end of the sample collection phase of the test.
    (13) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last 
deceleration (at 1,369 seconds).
    (14) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously 
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 2 and if applicable, turn off 
the hydrocarbon integrator No. 2, mark the hydrocarbon recorder chart 
and position the sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position 
(and open the valves isolating particulate filter No. 1, if 
applicable). Record the measured roll or shaft revolutions (both gas 
meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings), and reset the 
counter. As soon as possible, transfer the ``stabilized'' exhaust and 
dilution air samples to the analytical system and process the samples 
according to Sec.  86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading of the 
exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the 
sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and formaldehyde 
sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end of the 
sample period. (If it is not possible to perform analysis on the 
methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should 
be stored in a dark cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. The 
samples should be analyzed within fourteen days.)
    (15) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the 
cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover.
    (16) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the 
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle.
    (17) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(2) of this 
section for the hot start test, except only two evacuated sample bags, 
two methanod sample impringers, and two formaldehyde sample impingers 
are required. The step in paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin 
between 9 and 11 minutes after the end of the sample period for the 
cold start test.
    (18) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 
505 seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 
(and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1, mark the 
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart) and position the 
sample selector valve to the ``standby'' position. (Engine shutdown is 
not part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll 
or shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow 
measurement instrument). (Carefully remove the third pair of 
particulate sample filters from its holder and place in a clean petri 
dish and cover, if applicable.)
    (19) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start ``transient'' 
exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical system and process 
the samples according to Sec.  86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading 
of the exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end 
of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and 
formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end 
of the sample period. (If it is not possible to perform analysis on the 
methanol and formaldehyde samples, within 24 hours the samples should 
be stored in a dark cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. The 
samples should be analyzed within fourteen days.)
    (20) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and 
drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
    (21) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
    (22) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions will proceed 
according to Sec.  86.138. For all others this completes the test 
sequence.

0
14. Section 86.244-94 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.244-94  Calculations; exhaust emissions.

    The provisions of Sec.  86.144-94 apply to this subpart, except 
that NO<INF>X</INF> measurements are optional. Should NO<INF>X</INF> 
measurements be calculated, note that the humidity correction factor is 
not valid at colder temperatures. Light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks must calculate and report the weighted mass of each relevant 
pollutant, i.e., THC, CO, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, CH4, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
CO<INF>2</INF> in grams per vehicle mile.

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES

0
15. The authority citation for part 600 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901--23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
16. A new Sec.  600.001-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.001-08  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year automobiles, except medium duty passenger vehicles, 
manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to 2011 and later model 
year medium-duty

[[Page 77927]]

passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles manufactured prior to January 
26, 2007 may optionally comply with the provisions of this subpart. 
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt 
from the requirements of this subpart, except with regard to the 
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric 
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric 
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel 
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply 
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.

0
17. A new Sec.  600.002-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.002-08  Definitions.

    3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in part 86 of 
this chapter, with three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start 
transient (``Bag 1''), stabilized (``Bag 2''), and hot-start transient 
phases (``Bag 3'').
    4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with the addition of a sampling 
portion for the hot-start stabilized phase (``Bag 4'').
    5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP 
tests as described in Subparts B and C of this part.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
    Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume 
methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
    Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate 
exclusively on alcohol.
    Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel; and
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated 
in accordance with Sec.  600.510(g)(1) while operating on alcohol as it 
does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds 
the minimum driving range established by the Department of 
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Automobile has the meaning given by the Department of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.3.
    Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design 
as defined in part 86 of this chapter.
    Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as 
computed under Sec.  600.510 for a specific class of automobiles 
produced by a manufacturer that is subject to average fuel economy 
standards.
    Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the 
differential (or equivalent) turns for each turn of the drive wheels.
    Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia 
weight class and transmission class.
    Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style 
that makes up a car line.
    Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine 
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (e.g., type of fuel 
injection), catalyst usage, and other engine and emission control 
system characteristics specified by the Administrator. For electric 
vehicles, basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer and 
electric traction motor, motor controller, battery configuration, 
electrical charging system, energy storage device, and other components 
as specified by the Administrator.
    Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage, 
capacity (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics 
of the battery used as the tractive energy device.
    Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as 
defined by number of doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan, 
convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of seats (i.e., front, 
second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part 
571. Station wagons and light trucks are identified as car lines.
    Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances, 
unique to a particular design, version of application of a component, 
or component assembly capable of functionally describing its operation 
over its working range.
    Car line means a name denoting a group of vehicles within a make or 
car division which has a degree of commonality in construction (e.g., 
body, chassis). Car line does not consider any level of decor or 
opulence and is not generally distinguished by characteristics as roof 
line, number of doors, seats, or windows, except for station wagons or 
light-duty trucks. Station wagons and light-duty trucks are considered 
to be different car lines than passenger cars.
    Certification vehicle means a vehicle which is selected under Sec.  
86.1828-01 of this chapter and used to determine compliance under Sec.  
86.1848-01 of this chapter for issuance of an original certificate of 
conformity.
    City fuel economy means the city fuel economy determined by 
operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the 
Federal emission test procedure, or determined according to the 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle procedures.
    Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions 
of Subpart C of part 86 of this chapter.
    Combined fuel economy means:
    (1) The fuel economy value determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) 
by harmonically averaging the city and highway fuel economy values, 
weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
    (2) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-
based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation procedure 
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.
    Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United 
States, any territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia 
and who is engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to 
the ultimate purchaser.
    Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived 
from the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of 
the equation provided in Sec.  600.210-08.
    Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive 
axles (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and 
any other feature of the drive system if the Administrator determines 
that such other features may result in a fuel economy difference.
    Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60 Hz 
alternating electric current, as commonly available in residential 
electric service in the United States, to a proper form for recharging 
the energy storage device.
    Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which 
provides tractive energy to the wheels of a vehicle.
    Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing 
tractive energy on board a vehicle such as storage batteries or a 
flywheel.
    Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system 
combination (as defined in part 86 of this chapter), of displacement, 
fuel injection (or carburetion or other fuel delivery system), 
calibration, distributor calibration, choke calibration, auxiliary 
emission control devices, and other engine and emission control system 
components specified by the Administrator. For electric vehicles, 
engine code means a unique combination of manufacturer, electric 
traction motor, motor configuration, motor controller, and energy 
storage device.

[[Page 77928]]

    Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer 
driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical 
procedures described in part 86 of this chapter for the respective 
model year, which are used to derive city fuel economy data.
    FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in 
Sec.  600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of FTP testing.
    Fuel means:
    (1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered 
automobiles; or
    (2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or
    (3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or
    (4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles.
    Fuel economy means:
    (1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group 
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as calculated in this part; 
or
    (2) The equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy for an electrically 
powered automobile as determined by the Secretary of Energy.
    Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of 
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
    Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight 
rating for the individual vehicle.
    Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional 
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is 
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear 
door which encompasses the rear window.
    Highway fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined 
either by operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule 
in the Federal highway fuel economy test procedure, or determined 
according to either the vehicle-specific 5-cycle equation or the 
derived 5-cycle equation for highway fuel economy.
    Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the 
dynamometer driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and 
analytical procedures described in subpart B of this part and which are 
used to derive highway fuel economy data.
    HFET-based fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined 
in Sec.  600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
    Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test 
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle 
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
    Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is 
affixed to new automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part.
    Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile, 
as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This 
term is interchangeable with ``non-passenger automobile''.
    Medium-duty passenger vehicle means a vehicle which would satisfy 
the criteria for light trucks as defined by the Secretary of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5 but for its gross vehicle weight rating 
or its curb weight, which is rated at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or has a 
vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or has a basic vehicle 
frontal area in excess of 45 square feet, and which is designed 
primarily to transport passengers, but does not include a vehicle that:
    (1) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
    (2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
    (3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the 
driver's seat; or
    (4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up 
truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered 
box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be 
considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
    Minivan means a light truck which is designed primarily to carry no 
more than eight passengers having an integral enclosure fully enclosing 
the driver, passenger, and load-carrying compartments, with a total 
interior volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and rear seats readily 
removed or folded to floor level to facilitate cargo carrying. A 
minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors and a rear 
liftgate.
    Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period (as 
determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of such 
calendar year. If a manufacturer has no annual production period, the 
term ``model year'' means the calendar year.
    Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine, 
and transmission class.
    Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device 
to convert energy stored in an energy storage device into a form 
suitable to power the traction motor.
    Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to 
operate exclusively on natural gas.
    Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel;
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated 
in Sec.  600.510(g)(1) while operating on natural gas as it does while 
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds 
the minimum driving range established by the Department of 
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Nonpassenger automobile means a light truck.
    Passenger automobile means any automobile which the Secretary of 
Transportation determines is manufactured primarily for use in the 
transportation of no more than 10 individuals.
    Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger 
compartment and an open cargo bed.
    Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of 
vehicle units domestically produced in a particular model year but not 
exported, and for a foreign manufacturer, means the number of vehicle 
units of a particular model imported into the United States.
    Rounded means a number shortened to the specific number of decimal 
places in accordance with the rounding method specified in ASTM E 29-67 
(Reapproved 1973) ``Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating which 
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified 
Limiting Values.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th 
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    SC03 means the test procedure specified in Sec.  86.160-00 of this 
chapter.
    Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation 
or his authorized representative.
    Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized 
representative.

[[Page 77929]]

    Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended 
roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment 
open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily 
removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof 
line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to 
the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats 
readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle 
configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any 
other operational characteristics or parameters which the Administrator 
determines may significantly affect fuel economy within a vehicle 
configuration.
    Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the 
following common features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic, 
or semi-automatic); number of forward gears used in fuel economy 
testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed automatic, two-speed 
semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel 
drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final 
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter 
type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, variable ratio); and 
other transmission characteristics that may be determined to be 
significant by the Administrator.
    Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further 
subdivide within a transmission class if the Administrator determines 
that sufficient fuel economy differences exist. Features such as gear 
ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift 
calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish 
characteristics within a transmission class.
    Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which 
is used in the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on 
its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 
of this chapter.
    Ultimate consumer means the first person who purchases an 
automobile for purposes other than resale or leases an automobile.
    US06 means the test procedure as described in Sec.  86.159-08 of 
this chapter.
    US06-City means the combined periods of the US06 test that occur 
before and after the US06-Highway period.
    US06-Highway means the period of the US06 test that begins at the 
end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 130 seconds of 
the driving schedule and terminates at the end of the deceleration 
which is scheduled to occur at 495 seconds of the driving schedule.
    Van means any light truck having an integral enclosure fully 
enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, and having 
no body sections protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading 
edge of the windshield.
    Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of basic engine, 
engine code, inertia weight class, transmission configuration, and axle 
ratio within a base level.
    Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy means the fuel economy 
calculated according to the procedures in Sec.  600.114-08.

0
18. A new Sec.  600.006-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.006-08  Data and information requirements for fuel economy 
vehicles.

    (a) For certification vehicles with less than 10,000 miles, the 
requirements of this section are considered to have been met except as 
noted in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit the following information for 
each fuel economy data vehicle:
    (i) A description of the vehicle, exhaust emission test results, 
applicable deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust emission levels, and 
test fuel property values as specified in Sec.  600.113-08.
    (ii) A statement of the origin of the vehicle including total 
mileage accumulation, and modification (if any) form the vehicle 
configuration in which the mileage was accumulated. (For modifications 
requiring advance approval by the Administrator, the name of the 
Administrator's representative approving the modification and date of 
approval are required.) If the vehicle was previously used for testing 
for compliance with part 86 of this chapter or previously accepted by 
the Administrator as a fuel economy data vehicle in a different 
configuration, the requirements of this paragraph may be satisfied by 
reference to the vehicle number and previous configuration.
    (iii) A statement that the fuel economy data vehicle for which data 
are submitted:
    (A) Has been tested in accordance with applicable test procedures;
    (B) Is, to the best of the manufacturer's knowledge, representative 
of the vehicle configuration listed; and
    (C) Is in compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards.
    (2) The manufacturer shall retain the following information for 
each fuel economy data vehicle, and make it available to the 
Administrator upon request:
    (i) A description of all maintenance to engine, emission control 
system, or fuel system, or fuel system components performed within 
2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing.
    (ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a description of all 
maintenance to electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, 
or other components performed within 2,000 miles prior to fuel economy 
testing.
    (iii) A copy of calibrations for engine, fuel system, and emission 
control devices, showing the calibration of the actual components on 
the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
    (iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a copy of calibrations for 
the electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, or other 
components on the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
    (v) If calibrations for components specified in paragraph (b)(2) 
(iii) or (iv) of this section were submitted previously as part of the 
description of another vehicle or configuration, the original submittal 
may be referenced.
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data:
    (1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 of this 
chapter (other than those chosen in accordance with Sec. Sec.  86.1829-
01(a) or 86.1845 of this chapter, the FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and cold 
temperature FTP fuel economy results, as applicable, from all tests on 
that vehicle, and the test results adjusted in accordance with 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) For each fuel economy data vehicle, all individual test results 
(excluding results of invalid and zero mile tests) and these test 
results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 
of this chapter, data from a cold temperature FTP, performed in 
accordance with Sec.  600.111-08(e), using the fuel specified in Sec.  
600.107-08(c).
    (4) For all vehicles tested in paragraph (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section, the individual fuel economy results measured on a per-phase 
basis, that is, the individual phase results for all sample phases of 
the FTP, cold temperature FTP and US06 tests.
    (d) The manufacturer shall submit an indication of the intended 
purpose of the data (e.g., data required by the general labeling 
program or voluntarily submitted for specific labeling).
    (e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a 
manufacturer may

[[Page 77930]]

provide fuel economy values derived from an analytical expression, 
e.g., regression analysis. In order for fuel economy values derived 
from analytical methods to be accepted, the expression (form and 
coefficients) must have been approved by the Administrator.
    (f) If, in conducting tests required or authorized by this part, 
the manufacturer utilizes procedures, equipment, or facilities not 
described in the Application for Certification required in Sec.  
86.1844-01 of this chapter, the manufacturer shall submit to the 
Administrator a description of such procedures, equipment, and 
facilities.
    (g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel 
economy label calculations in subpart D and average fuel economy 
calculations in subpart F for the classes of automobiles within the 
categories identified in paragraphs of Sec.  600.510(a)(1) through (4). 
The test data shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) or 
(4) of this section as applicable.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data generated by 
vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more than 6,200 
miles by using the following equation:

FE<INF>4,000mi</INF> = FE<INF>T</INF>[0.979 + 5.25x10<SUP>-6</SUP> 
(mi)]<SUP>-1</SUP>

Where:

FE<INF>4,000mi</INF> = Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test 
point rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE<INF>T</INF> = Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 
0.1 mpg.
mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to 
the nearest whole mile.

    (4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the 
manufacturer is not required to adjust the data.

0
19. A new Sec.  600.007-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.007-08  Vehicle acceptability.

    (a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet 
the requirements of part 86 of this chapter (other than those chosen 
per Sec.  86.1829-01(a) of this chapter), are considered to have met 
the requirements of this section.
    (b) Any vehicle not meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section must be judged acceptable by the Administrator under this 
section in order for the test results to be reviewed for use in subpart 
C or F of this part. The Administrator will judge the acceptability of 
a fuel economy data vehicle on the basis of the information supplied by 
the manufacturer under Sec.  600.006(b). The criteria to be met are:
    (1) A fuel economy data vehicle may have accumulated not more than 
10,000 miles. A vehicle will be considered to have met this requirement 
if the engine and drivetrain have accumulated 10,000 or fewer miles. 
The components installed for a fuel economy test are not required to be 
the ones with which the mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles, 
transmission types, and tire sizes may be changed. The Administrator 
will determine if vehicle/engine component changes are acceptable.
    (2) A vehicle may be tested in different vehicle configurations by 
change of vehicle components, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, or by testing in different inertia weight classes. Also, a 
single vehicle may be tested under different test conditions, i.e., 
test weight and/or road load horsepower, to generate fuel economy data 
representing various situations within a vehicle configuration. For 
purposes of this part, data generated by a single vehicle tested in 
various test conditions will be treated as if the data were generated 
by the testing of multiple vehicles.
    (3) The mileage on a fuel economy data vehicle must be, to the 
extent possible, accumulated according to Sec.  86.1831 of this 
chapter.
    (4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust 
emission standards as certification vehicles of the respective engine-
system combination during the test in which the city fuel economy test 
results are generated. The deterioration factors established for the 
respective engine-system combination per Sec.  86.1841-01 of this 
chapter as applicable will be used.
    (5) The calibration information submitted under Sec.  600.006(b) 
must be representative of the vehicle configuration for which the fuel 
economy data were submitted.
    (6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy purposes must be 
representative of a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to produce 
under the provisions of a certificate of conformity.
    (7) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) of this chapter, or (e)(2) (when 
applicable) only the following requirements must be met:
    (i) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 of this chapter, a 
highway fuel economy value must be generated contemporaneously with the 
emission tests used for purposes of demonstrating compliance with Sec.  
85.1509 of this chapter. No modifications or adjustments should be made 
to the vehicles between the highway fuel economy, FTP, US06, SC03 and 
Cold temperature FTP tests.
    (ii) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this chapter (when 
applicable) with over 10,000 miles, the equation in Sec.  600.006-
08(g)(3) shall be used as though only 10,000 miles had been 
accumulated.
    (iii) Any required fuel economy testing must take place after any 
safety modifications are completed for each vehicle as required by 
regulations of the Department of Transportation.
    (iv) Every vehicle imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this chapter (when 
applicable) must be considered a separate type for the purposes of 
calculating a fuel economy label for a manufacturer's average fuel 
economy.
    (c) If, based on review of the information submitted under Sec.  
600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data 
vehicle meets the requirements of this section, the fuel economy data 
vehicle will be judged to be acceptable and fuel economy data from that 
fuel economy data vehicle will be reviewed pursuant to Sec.  600.008.
    (d) If, based on the review of the information submitted under 
Sec.  600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data 
vehicle does not meet the requirements of this section, the 
Administrator will reject that fuel economy data vehicle and inform the 
manufacturer of the rejection in writing.
    (e) If, based on a review of the emission data for a fuel economy 
data vehicle, submitted under Sec.  600.006(b), or emission data 
generated by a vehicle tested under Sec.  600.008(e), the Administrator 
finds an indication of non-compliance with section 202 of the Clean Air 
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of the regulation thereunder, he may take 
such investigative actions as are appropriate to determine to what 
extent emission non-compliance actually exists.
    (1) The Administrator may, under the provisions of Sec.  86.1830-01 
of this chapter, request the manufacturer to submit production vehicles 
of the configuration(s) specified by the Administrator for testing to 
determine to what extent emission noncompliance of a production vehicle 
configuration or of a group of production vehicle configurations may 
actually exist.
    (2) If the Administrator determines, as a result of his 
investigation, that substantial emission non-compliance is exhibited by 
a production vehicle configuration or group of production vehicle 
configurations, he may proceed with respect to the vehicle 
configuration(s) as provided under

[[Page 77931]]

Sec.  600.206(b)(2) or Sec.  600.207(c)(1), as applicable of the Clean 
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
    (f) All vehicles used to generate fuel economy data, and for which 
emission standards apply, must be covered by a certificate of 
conformity under part 86 of this chapter before:
    (1) The data may be used in the calculation of any approved general 
or specific label value, or
    (2) The data will be used in any calculations under subpart F, 
except that vehicles imported under Sec. Sec.  85.1509 and 85.1511 of 
this chapter need not be covered by a certificate of conformity.

0
20. A new Sec.  600.008-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.008-08  Review of fuel economy data, testing by the 
Administrator.

    (a) Testing by the Administrator. (1) The Administrator may require 
that any one or more of the test vehicles be submitted to the Agency, 
at such place or places as the Agency may designate, for the purposes 
of conducting fuel economy tests. The Administrator may specify that 
such testing be conducted at the manufacturer's facility, in which case 
instrumentation and equipment specified by the Administrator shall be 
made available by the manufacturer for test operations. The tests to be 
performed may comprise the FTP, highway fuel economy test, US06, SC03, 
or Cold temperature FTP or any combination of those tests. Any testing 
conducted at a manufacturer's facility pursuant to this paragraph shall 
be scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible.
    (2) Retesting and official data determination. For any vehicles 
selected for confirmatory testing under the provisions of paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, the Administrator will follow this procedure:
    (i) The manufacturer's data (or harmonically averaged data if more 
than one test was conducted) will be compared with the results of the 
Administrator's test.
    (ii) If, in the Administrator's judgment, the comparison in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section indicates a disparity in the data, 
the Administrator will repeat the test or tests as applicable.
    (A) The manufacturer's average test results and the results of the 
Administrator's first test will be compared with the results of the 
Administrator's second test as in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (B) If, in the Administrator's judgment, both comparisons in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, indicate a disparity in the 
data, the Administrator will repeat the applicable test or tests until:
    (1) In the Administrator's judgment no disparity in the data is 
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator or by 
comparison of the manufacturer's average test results and a test by the 
Administrator; or
    (2) Four tests of a single test type are conducted by the 
Administrator in which a disparity in the data is indicated when 
compared as in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity 
indicated by comparison of manufacturer's average test results with a 
test by the Administrator, the test values generated by the 
Administrator will be used to represent the vehicle.
    (iv) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity 
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator, the harmonic 
averages of the fuel economy results from those tests will be used to 
represent the vehicle.
    (v) If the situation in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of this section 
occurs, the Administrator will notify the manufacturer, in writing, 
that the Administrator rejects that fuel economy data vehicle.
    (b) Manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing. (1) If the 
Administrator determines not to conduct a confirmatory test under the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, manufacturers will conduct 
a confirmatory test at their facility after submitting the original 
test data to the Administrator whenever any of the following conditions 
exist:
    (i) The vehicle configuration has previously failed an emission 
standard;
    (ii) The test exhibits high emission levels determined by exceeding 
a percentage of the standards specified by the Administrator for that 
model year;
    (iii) The fuel economy value of the FTP or HFET test is higher than 
expected based on procedures approved by the Administrator;
    (iv) The fuel economy for the FTP or HFET test is close to a Gas 
Guzzler Tax threshold value based on tolerances established by the 
Administrator; or
    (v) The fuel economy value for the FTP or highway is a potential 
fuel economy leader for a class of vehicles based on cut points 
provided by the Administrator.
    (2) If the Administrator selects the vehicle for confirmatory 
testing based on the manufacturer's original test results, the testing 
shall be conducted as ordered by the Administrator. In this case, the 
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing specified under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section would not be required.
    (3) The manufacturer shall conduct a retest of the FTP or highway 
test if the difference between the fuel economy of the confirmatory 
test and the original manufacturer's test equals or exceeds three 
percent (or such lower percentage to be applied consistently to all 
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing as requested by the 
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator).
    (i) The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a retest, accept 
the lower of the original and confirmatory test fuel economy results 
for use in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) The manufacturer shall conduct a second retest of the FTP or 
highway test if the fuel economy difference between the second 
confirmatory test and the original manufacturer test equals or exceeds 
three percent (or such lower percentage as requested by the 
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator) and the fuel economy 
difference between the second confirmatory test and the first 
confirmatory test equals or exceeds three percent (or such lower 
percentage as requested by the manufacturer and approved by the 
Administrator). The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a second 
retest, accept the lowest of the original test, the first confirmatory 
test, and the second confirmatory test fuel economy results for use in 
subpart C or F of this part.
    (4) The Administrator may request the manufacturer to conduct a 
retest of the US06, SC03 or Cold Temperature FTP on the basis of fuel 
economy that is higher than expected as specified in criteria provided 
by the Administrator. Such retests shall not be required before the 
2011 model year.
    (c) Review of fuel economy data. (1) Fuel economy data must be 
judged reasonable and representative by the Administrator in order for 
the test results to be used for the purposes of subpart C or F of this 
part. In making this determination, the Administrator will, when 
possible, compare the results of a test vehicle to those of other 
similar test vehicles.
    (2) If testing was conducted by the Administrator under the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the data from this 
testing, together with all other fuel economy data submitted for that 
vehicle under Sec.  600.006(c) or (e) will be evaluated by the 
Administrator for reasonableness and representativeness per paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section.
    (i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the 
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be

[[Page 77932]]

accepted for use in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may 
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected 
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (3) If confirmatory testing was conducted by the manufacturer under 
the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the data from this 
testing will be evaluated by the Administrator for reasonableness and 
representativeness per paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the 
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use 
in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may 
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected 
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (4) If no confirmatory testing was conducted by either the 
Administrator or the manufacturer under the provisions of paragraph (a) 
and (b) of this section, respectively, then the data submitted under 
the provisions of Sec.  600.006(c) or (e) shall be accepted for use in 
subpart C or F of this part.
    (i) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (ii) If more than one test was conducted, the harmonic average of 
the test results shall be accepted for use in subpart C or F of this 
part.
    (d) If, based on a review of the fuel economy data generated by 
testing under paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator 
determines that an unacceptable level of correlation exists between 
fuel economy data generated by a manufacturer and fuel economy data 
generated by the Administrator, he/she may reject all fuel economy data 
submitted by the manufacturer until the cause of the discrepancy is 
determined and the validity of the data is established by the 
manufacturer.
    (e)(1) If, based on the results of an inspection conducted under 
Sec.  600.005(b) or any other information, the Administrator has reason 
to believe that the manufacturer has not followed proper testing 
procedures or that the testing equipment is faulty or improperly 
calibrated, or if records do not exist that will enable him to make a 
finding of proper testing, the Administrator may notify the 
manufacturer in writing of his finding and require the manufacturer to:
    (i) Submit the test vehicle(s) upon which the data are based or 
additional test vehicle(s) at a place he may designate for the purpose 
of fuel economy testing.
    (ii) Conduct such additional fuel economy testing as may be 
required to demonstrate that prior fuel economy test data are 
reasonable and representative.
    (2) Previous acceptance by the Administrator of any fuel economy 
test data submitted by the manufacturer shall not limit the 
Administrator's right to require additional testing under paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section.
    (3) If, based on tests required under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, the Administrator determines that any fuel economy data 
submitted by the manufacturer and used to calculate the manufacturer's 
fuel economy average was unrepresentative, the Administrator may 
recalculate the manufacturer's fuel economy average based on fuel 
economy data that he/she deems representative.
    (4) A manufacturer may request a hearing as provided in Sec.  
600.009 if the Administrator decides to recalculate the manufacturer's 
average pursuant to determinations made relative to this section.

0
21. A new Sec.  600.010-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.010-08  Vehicle test requirements and minimum data 
requirements.

    (a) Unless otherwise exempted from specific emission compliance 
requirements, for each certification vehicle defined in this part, and 
for each vehicle tested according to the emission test procedures in 
part 86 of this chapter for addition of a model after certification or 
approval of a running change (Sec. Sec.  86.079-32, 86.079-33 and 
86.082-34 or 86.1842-01 of this chapter, as applicable):
    (1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures.
    (2) The manufacturer shall generate highway fuel economy data by:
    (i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
    (ii) Using an analytical technique, as described in Sec.  
600.006(e).
    (3) The manufacturer shall generate US06 fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternate fueled 
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternate fuel may 
optionally generate this data using the alternate fuel.
    (4) The manufacturer shall generate SC03 fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternate fueled 
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternate fuel may 
optionally generate this data using the alternate fuel.
    (5) The manufacturer shall generate cold temperature FTP fuel 
economy data by testing according to the applicable procedures. 
Alternate fueled vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on 
alternate fuel may optionally generate this data using the alternate 
fuel.
    (6) The data generated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section, shall be submitted to the Administrator in combination with 
other data for the vehicle required to be submitted in part 86 of this 
chapter.
    (b) For each fuel economy data vehicle:
    (1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP and HFET fuel economy data 
by:
    (i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
    (ii) Use of an analytical technique as described in Sec.  
600.006(e), in addition to testing (e.g., city fuel economy data by 
testing, highway fuel economy data by analytical technique).
    (2) The data generated shall be submitted to the Administrator 
according to the procedures in Sec.  600.006.
    (c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to 
establish fuel economy label values under Sec.  600.306-08, the 
manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance with Sec.  
600.008-08 meeting the minimum coverage of:
    (i) Data required for emission certification under Sec. Sec.  
86.001-24, 86.079-32, 86.079-33, 86.082-34, 86.1828-01 and 86.1842-01 
of this chapter, as applicable,
    (ii) (A) FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year 
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales 
configuration for each base level, and
    (B) If required under Sec.  600.115-08, for 2011 and later model 
year vehicles, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP data from the 
highest projected model year sales subconfiguration within the highest 
projected model year sales configuration for each base level. 
Manufacturers may optionally generate this data for any 2008 through 
2010 model years, and, 2011 and later model year vehicles, if not 
otherwise required.
    (iii) For additional model types established under Sec.  
600.208(a)(2) or Sec.  600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and if 
required under Sec.  600.115-08, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP 
data

[[Page 77933]]

from each subconfiguration included within the model type.
    (2) For the purpose of recalculating fuel economy label values as 
required under Sec.  600.314(b), the manufacturer shall submit data 
required under Sec.  600.507.
    (d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel 
economy. For the purpose of calculating the manufacturer's average fuel 
economy under Sec.  600.510, the manufacturer shall submit data 
representing at least 90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model 
year production, by configuration, for each category identified for 
calculation under Sec.  600.510(a).

0
22. The table of references in Sec.  600.011-93(b)(1) is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  600.011-93  Reference materials.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document number and name            40 CFR part 600 reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM E 29-67 (Reapproved 1973) Standard        600.002-93, 600.002-08.
 Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
 Places of Figures Are To Be Considered
 Significant in Specified Limiting Values.
ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) Standard      600.113-93, 600.510-93,
 Practice for Density, Relative Density         600.113-08, 600.510- 08.
 (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude
 Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by
 Hydrometer Method.
ASTM D 3343-90 Standard Test Method for        600.113-93, 600.113-08.
 Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation
 Fuels.
ASTM D 3338-92 Standard Test Method for        600.113-93, 600.113-08.
 Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of
 Aviation Fuels.
ASTM D 240-92 Standard Test Method for Heat    600.113-93, 600.510-93,
 of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by   600.113-08, 600.510-08.
 Bomb Calorimeter.
ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for     600.107-08.
 Diesel Fuel Oils''
ASTM D 1945-91 Standard Test Method for        600.113-93, 600.113-08.
 Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas
 Chromatography..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
23. A new Sec.  600.101-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.101-08  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year automobiles, except medium duty passenger vehicles, 
manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to 2011 and later model 
year medium-duty passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles manufactured 
prior to January 26, 2007 may optionally comply with the provisions of 
this subpart.

0
24. A new Sec.  600.106-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.106-08  Equipment requirements.

    The requirements for test equipment to be used for all fuel economy 
testing are given in Subparts B and C of part 86 of this chapter.

0
25. A new Sec.  600.107-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.107-08  Fuel specifications.

    (a) The test fuel specifications for gasoline, diesel, methanol, 
and methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are given in Sec.  86.113 of this 
chapter, except for cold temperature FTP fuel requirements for diesel 
and alternative fuel vehicles, which are given in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b)(1) Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing must 
comprise a winter-grade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c 
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' and that complies with 
part 80 of this chapter. This incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American 
Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. 
EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 
14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Alternatively, EPA may approve the use 
of a different diesel fuel, provided that the level of kerosene added 
shall not exceed 20 percent.
    (2) The manufacturer may request EPA approval of the use of an 
alternative fuel for cold temperature FTP testing.

0
26. A new Sec.  600.109-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.109-08  EPA driving cycles.

    (a) The FTP driving cycle is prescribed in Sec.  86.115 of this 
chapter.
    (b) The highway fuel economy driving cycle is specified in this 
paragraph.
    (1) The Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is set forth in 
Appendix I of this part. The driving schedule is defined by a smooth 
trace drawn through the specified speed versus time relationships.
    (2) The speed tolerance at any given time on the dynamometer 
driving schedule specified in Appendix I of this part, or as printed on 
a driver's aid chart approved by the Administrator, when conducted to 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of Sec.  600.111 is defined by 
upper and lower limits. The upper limit is 2 mph higher than the 
highest point on trace within 1 second of the given time. The lower 
limit is 2 mph lower than the lowest point on the trace within 1 second 
of the given time. Speed variations greater than the tolerances (such 
as may occur during gear changes) are acceptable provided they occur 
for less than 2 seconds on any occasion. Speeds lower than those 
prescribed are acceptable provided the vehicle is operated at maximum 
available power during such occurrences.
    (3) A graphic representation of the range of acceptable speed 
tolerances is found in Sec.  86.115(c) of this chapter.
    (c) The US06 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of 
this chapter.
    (d) The SC03 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of 
this chapter.

0
27. A new Sec.  600.110-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.110-08  Equipment calibration.

    The equipment used for fuel economy testing must be calibrated 
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.116 and 86.216 of this 
chapter.

0
28. A new Sec.  600.111-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.111-08  Test procedures.

    (a) FTP testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the FTP test are those prescribed in Sec. Sec.  86.127 
through 86.138 of this chapter, as applicable, except as provided for 
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (The evaporative loss portion of 
the test procedure may be omitted

[[Page 77934]]

unless specifically required by the Administrator.)
    (b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel 
Economy Dynamometer Procedure (HFET) consists of preconditioning 
highway driving sequence and a measured highway driving sequence.
    (2) The HFET is designated to simulate non-metropolitan driving 
with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph. The 
cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop per mile and consists of warmed-
up vehicle operation on a chassis dynamometer through a specified 
driving cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is 
collected continuously for subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide, carbon dioxide using a constant volume (variable dilution) 
sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is continuously analyzed for 
hydrocarbons using a heated sample line and analyzer. Methanol and 
formaldehyde samples are collected and individually analyzed for 
methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and formaldehyde may 
be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-fueled vehicles 
provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for measuring HC plus 
methanol).
    (3) Except in cases of component malfunction or failure, all 
emission control systems installed on or incorporated in a new motor 
vehicle must be functioning during all procedures in this subpart. The 
Administrator may authorize maintenance to correct component 
malfunction or failure.
    (4) Transmission. The provisions of Sec.  86.128 of this chapter 
apply for vehicle transmission operation during highway fuel economy 
testing under this subpart.
    (5) Road load power and test weight determination. Sec.  86.129 of 
this chapter applies for determination of road load power and test 
weight for highway fuel economy testing. The test weight for the 
testing of a certification vehicle will be that test weight specified 
by the Administrator under the provisions of part 86 of this chapter. 
The test weight for a fuel economy data vehicle will be that test 
weight specified by the Administrator from the test weights covered by 
that vehicle configuration. The Administrator will base his selection 
of a test weight on the relative projected sales volumes of the various 
test weights within the vehicle configuration.
    (6) Vehicle preconditioning. The HFET is designed to be performed 
immediately following the Federal Emission Test Procedure, Sec. Sec.  
86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter. When conditions allow, the tests 
should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be 
scheduled within three hours of the Federal Emission Test Procedure 
(including one hour hot soak evaporative loss test, if applicable) the 
vehicle should be preconditioned as in paragraph (b)(6) (i) or (ii) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak 
(68 [deg]F-86 [deg]F) since the completion of the Federal Emission Test 
Procedure, or has experienced periods of storage outdoors, or in 
environments where soak temperature is not controlled to 68 [deg]F-86 
[deg]F, the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a 
dynamometer through one cycle of the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule, Sec.  86.115 of this chapter.
    (ii) In unusual circumstances where additional preconditioning is 
desired by the manufacturer, the provisions of Sec.  86.132(a)(3) of 
this chapter apply.
    (7) Highway fuel economy dynamometer procedure. (i) The dynamometer 
procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule (Sec.  600.109(b)) separated by 15 seconds of idle. The first 
cycle of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to 
precondition the test vehicle and the second is driven for the fuel 
economy measurement.
    (ii) The provisions of Sec.  86.135 (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h) 
and (i) Dynamometer procedure of this chapter, apply for highway fuel 
economy testing.
    (iii) Only one exhaust sample and one background sample are 
collected and analyzed for hydrocarbons (except diesel hydrocarbons 
which are analyzed continuously), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. 
Methanol and formaldehyde samples (exhaust and dilution air) are 
collected and analyzed for methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of 
methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model 
year methanol-fueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is 
used for measuring HC plus methanol).
    (iv) The fuel economy measurement cycle of the test includes two 
seconds of idle indexed at the beginning of the second cycle and two 
seconds of idle indexed at the end of the second cycle.
    (8) Engine starting and restarting. (i) If the engine is not 
running at the initiation of the highway fuel economy test 
(preconditioning cycle), the start-up procedure must be according to 
the manufacturer's recommended procedures.
    (ii) False starts and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must 
be treated as in Sec.  86.136(d) and (e). If the vehicle stalls during 
the measurement cycle of the highway fuel economy test, the test is 
voided, corrective action may be taken according to Sec.  86.1834-01 as 
applicable, and the vehicle may be rescheduled for test. The person 
taking the corrective action shall report the action so that the test 
records for the vehicle contain a record of the action.
    (9) Dynamometer test run. The following steps must be taken for 
each test:
    (i) Place the drive wheels of the vehicle on the dynamometer. The 
vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the 
cooling fan(s) required. Manufacturers may request the use of 
additional cooling fans for additional engine compartment or under-
vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or brake temperatures 
during dynamometer operation.
    (iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the 
measurement highway driving cycle.
    (iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of Sec.  86.137(b)(3) 
through (6) of this chapter apply for highway fuel economy test except 
that only one exhaust sample collection bag and one dilution air sample 
collection bag need be connected to the sample collection systems.
    (v) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified 
in Sec.  600.109(b).
    (vi) When the vehicle reaches zero speed at the end of the 
preconditioning cycle, the driver has 17 seconds to prepare for the 
emission measurement cycle of the test.
    (vii) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified 
in Sec.  600.109(b) while sampling the exhaust gas.
    (viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first 
acceleration of the fuel economy measurement cycle and must end two 
seconds after the end of the deceleration to zero. At the end of the 
deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be 
recorded.
    (10) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of 
Sec.  600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed for each of the fuels on 
which the vehicle is designed to operate.

[[Page 77935]]

    (c) US06 Testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the US06 test are those prescribed in Sec.  86.159 of this 
chapter, as applicable.
    (d) SC03 testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the SC03 test are prescribed in Sec. Sec.  86.160 through 
161 of this chapter, as applicable.
    (e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. The test procedures to be 
followed for conducting the cold temperature FTP test are generally 
prescribed in subpart C of part 86 of this chapter, as applicable. For 
the purpose of fuel economy labeling, diesel vehicles are subject to 
cold temperature FTP testing, but are not required to measure 
particulate matter, as described in Sec.  86.210-08 of this chapter.

0
29. A new Sec.  600.112-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.112-08  Exhaust sample analysis.

    The exhaust sample analysis must be performed according to Sec.  
86.140, or Sec.  86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.

0
30. A new Sec.  600.113-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.113-08  Fuel economy calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 
and cold temperature FTP tests.

    The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in 
this paragraph for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with 
gasoline, diesel, alcohol-based or natural gas fuel. The calculations 
of the weighted fuel economy values require input of the weighted 
grams/mile values for total hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), 
and carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>); and, additionally for methanol-
fueled automobiles, methanol (CH<INF>3</INF>OH) and formaldehyde 
(HCHO); and additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles non-methane 
hydrocarbons (NMHC) and methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) for the FTP, HFET, 
US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests. Additionally, the specific 
gravity, carbon weight fraction and net heating value of the test fuel 
must be determined. The FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP 
fuel economy values shall be calculated as specified in this section. 
An example appears in Appendix II of this part.
    (a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for 
HC, CO and CO<INF>2</INF>; and, additionally for methanol-fueled 
automobiles, CH<INF>3</INF>OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural 
gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF> as specified in Sec.  
86.144 of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties 
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the FTP 
test. For vehicles with more than one source of propulsion energy, one 
of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with 
special features that the Administrator determines may have a 
rechargeable energy source, whose charge can vary during the test, 
calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient 
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient phase and hot stabilized phase 
of the FTP test.
    (b) Calculate the HFET fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test for 
HC, CO and CO<INF>2</INF>, and where applicable CH<INF>3</INF>OH, HCHO, 
NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF> as specified in Sec.  86.144(b) of this 
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy 
test for HC, CO and CO<INF>2</INF>, and where applicable 
CH<INF>3</INF>OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF> by dividing the mass 
values obtained in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the actual 
distance traveled, measured in miles, as specified in Sec.  86.135(h) 
of this chapter.
    (c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold 
temperature FTP test for HC, CO and CO<INF>2</INF>; and, additionally 
for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH<INF>3</INF>OH and HCHO; and 
additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF> 
as specified in Sec.  86.244 of this chapter. For 2008 through 2010 
diesel-fueled vehicles, HC measurement is optional.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the cold 
temperature FTP test in Sec.  86.244 of this chapter.
    (3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) Calculate the US06 fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the total grams/mile values for the US06 test for HC, 
CO and CO<INF>2</INF>; and where applicable CH<INF>3</INF>OH, HCHO, 
NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF>, as specified in Sec.  86.164 of this chapter.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for HC, CO and 
CO<INF>2</INF>; and where applicable CH<INF>3</INF>OH, HCHO, NMHC and 
CH<INF>4</INF>, for both the US06 City phase and the US06 Highway phase 
of the US06 test as specified in Sec.  86.164 of this chapter. In lieu 
of directly measuring the emissions of the separate city and highway 
phases of the US06 test according to the provisions of Sec.  86.159 of 
this chapter, the manufacturer may, with the advance approval of the 
Administrator and using good engineering judgment, optionally 
analytically determine the grams/mile values for the city and highway 
phases of the US06 test. To analytically determine US06 City and US06 
Highway phase emission results, the manufacturer shall multiply the 
US06 total grams/mile values determined in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section by the estimated proportion of fuel use for the city and 
highway phases relative to the total US06 fuel use. The manufacturer 
may estimate the proportion of fuel use for the US06 City and US06 
Highway phases by using modal HC, CO, and CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
data, or by using appropriate OBD data (e.g., fuel flow rate in grams 
of fuel per second), or another method approved by the Administrator.
    (3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (e) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO 
and CO<INF>2</INF>; and additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, 
CH<INF>3</INF>OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled 
automobiles NMHC and CH<INF>4</INF> as specified in Sec.  86.144 of 
this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f)(1) Gasoline test fuel properties shall be determined by 
analysis of a fuel sample taken from the fuel supply. A sample shall be 
taken after each addition of fresh fuel to the fuel supply. 
Additionally, the fuel shall be resampled once a month to account for 
any fuel property changes during storage. Less frequent resampling may 
be permitted if EPA concludes, on the basis of manufacturer-supplied 
data, that the properties of test fuel in the manufacturer's storage 
facility will remain stable for a period longer than one month. The 
fuel samples shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel 
properties:
    (i) Specific gravity per ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) 
``Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), 
or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by 
Hydrometer Method''. This incorporation by reference was approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West

[[Page 77936]]

Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (ii) Carbon weight fraction per ASTM D 3343-90 ``Standard Test 
Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels.'' This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) per ASTM D 3338-92 ``Standard Test 
Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels.'' 
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, 
EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following 
fuel properties:
    (i) Specific gravity using either:
    (A) ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for 
Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude 
Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method'' for the 
blend. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, 
EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html or:
    (B) ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for 
Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude 
Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method'' for the 
gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol fuel component and 
combining as follows. This incorporation by reference was approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th 
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    SG = SG<INF>g</INF> x volume fraction gasoline + SG<INF>m</INF> x 
volume fraction methanol.
    (ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation:

    CWF = CWF<INF>g</INF> x MF<INF>g</INF> + 0.375 x MF<INF>m</INF>

Where:

CWF<INF>g</INF> = Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of 
blend per ASTM D 3343-90 ``Standard Test Method for Estimation of 
Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels.'' This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, 
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

MF<INF>g</INF>=Mass fraction gasoline=(G x SG<INF>g</INF>)/(G x 
SG<INF>g</INF> + M x SG<INF>m</INF>)

MF<INF>m</INF>=Mass fraction methanol=(M x SG<INF>m</INF>)/(G x 
SG<INF>g</INF> + M x SG<INF>m</INF>)

Where:

G=Volume fraction gasoline.
M=Volume fraction methanol.
SG<INF>g</INF>=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured by ASTM D 
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative 
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation 
by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Room 3340, 
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
SG<INF>m</INF>=Specific gravity of methanol as measured by ASTM D 
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative 
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation 
by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West 
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Room 3340, 
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (B) Upon the approval of the Administrator, other procedures to 
measure the carbon weight fraction of the fuel blend may be used if the 
manufacturer can show that the procedures are superior to or equally as 
accurate as those specified in this paragraph (f)(2)(ii).

[[Page 77937]]

    (iii) Net heating value (BTU/lb) per ASTM D 240-92 ``Standard Test 
Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 
Calorimeter.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th 
Street, NW, Room 3340, Washington DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the 
following fuel properties:
    (i) Fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91 ``Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography.'' This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies 
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, 
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington DC, or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (ii) Specific gravity (based on fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91 
``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas 
Chromatography.'') This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th 
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (iii) Carbon weight fraction based on the carbon contained only in 
the HC constituents of the fuel=weight of carbon in HC constituents 
divided by the total weight of fuel.
    (iv) Carbon weight fraction of fuel=total weight of carbon in the 
fuel (i.e., includes carbon contained in HC and in CO<INF>2</INF>) 
divided by total weight of fuel.
    (g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold 
temperature FTP fuel economy from the grams/mile values for total HC, 
CO, CO<INF>2</INF> and, where applicable, CH<INF>3</INF>OH, HCHO, NMHC 
and CH<INF>4</INF> and, the test fuel's specific gravity, carbon weight 
fraction, net heating value, and additionally for natural gas, the test 
fuel's composition. The emission values (obtained per paragraph (a) 
through (e) of this section, as applicable) used in each calculation of 
this section shall be rounded in accordance with Sec.  86.094-
26(a)(6)(iii) or Sec.  86.1837-01 of this chapter as applicable. The 
CO<INF>2</INF> values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used 
in each calculation of this section shall be rounded to the nearest 
gram/mile. The specific gravity and the carbon weight fraction 
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded using 
three places to the right of the decimal point. The net heating value 
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded to the 
nearest whole Btu/lb.
    (h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on test fuel 
specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a), the fuel economy in miles per gallon 
is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (5174 x 10 \4\ x C x CWF x SG)/[((CWF x HC) + (0.429 x CO) + 
(0.273 x CO<INF>2</INF>)) x ((0.6 x SG x NHV) + 5471)]

Where:

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO<INF>2</INF> = Grams/mile CO<INF>2</INF> as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
NHV = Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
SG = Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.

    (2) Round the calculated result to the nearest 0.1 miles per 
gallon.
    (i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in 
miles per gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by the sum of three 
terms:
    (i) (A) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/miles as obtained in 
paragraph (g) of this section) or
    (B) zero, in the case of cold FTP diesel tests for which HC was not 
collected, as permitted in Sec.  600.113-08(c);
    (ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section); and
    (iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO<INF>2</INF> (in grams/mile as obtained 
in paragraph (g) of this section).
    (2) Round the quotient to the nearest 0.1 mile per gallon.
    (j) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to 
operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (CWF x SG x 3781.8)/((CWF<INF>exHC</INF> x HC) + (0.429 x CO) + 
(0.273 x CO<INF>2</INF>) + (0.375 x CH<INF>3</INF>OH) + (0.400 x HCHO))


Where:CWF = Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
SG = Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section.
CWF<INF>exHC</INF> = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF<INF>g</INF> as determined in (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for 
M100 fuel, CWF<INF>exHC</INF> = 0.866).
HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO<INF>2</INF> = Grams/mile CO<INF>2</INF> as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH<INF>3</INF>OH = Grams/mile CH<INF>3</INF>OH (methanol) as 
obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) 
of this section.

    (k) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the fuel economy in 
miles per gallon of natural gas is to be calculated using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.035


[[Page 77938]]


Where:

mpg<INF>e</INF>=miles per equivalent gallon of natural gas.
CWF<INF>HC/NG</INF>=carbon weight fraction based on the hydrocarbon 
constituents in the natural gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
D<INF>NG</INF>=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/ft3 at 68 
[deg]F (20 [deg]C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3 kPa)] pressure as obtained 
in paragraph (g) of this section.
CH<INF>4</INF>, NMHC, CO, and CO<INF>2</INF>=weighted mass exhaust 
emissions [grams/mile] for methane, non-methane HC, carbon monoxide, 
and carbon dioxide as calculated in Sec.  600.113.
CWF<INF>NMHC</INF>=carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC 
constituents in the fuel as determined from the speciated fuel 
composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
CO<INF>2NG</INF>=grams of carbon dioxide in the natural gas fuel 
consumed per mile of travel.
CO<INF>2NG</INF>=FC<INF>NG</INF> D<INF>NG</INF> WF<INF>CO2</INF>
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.036

Where:

CWF<INF>NG</INF> = the carbon weight fraction of the natural gas 
fuel as calculated in paragraph (f) of this section.
WF<INF>CO2</INF> = weight fraction carbon dioxide of the natural gas 
fuel calculated using the mole fractions and molecular weights of 
the natural gas fuel constituents per ASTM D 1945-91 ``Standard Test 
Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography.'' This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters 
Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, 
NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability 
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (l) Equations for fuels other than those specified in paragraphs 
(h) through (k) of this section may be used with advance EPA approval.

0
31. A new Sec.  600.114-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.114-08  Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy calculations.

    This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under 
Subpart D of this part.
    (a) City fuel economy. For each vehicle tested under Sec.  600.010-
08(c)(i) and (ii), determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.037

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.038

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.039

Where:

Bag Y FE<INF>x</INF> = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75 [deg]F or 20 [deg]F,

and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.040

Where:

US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the ``city'' 
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
    (b) Highway fuel economy. (1) For each vehicle tested under 
Sec. Sec.  600.010-08(a) and (c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-

[[Page 77939]]

cycle highway fuel economy using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.041

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.042

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.043

and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.044

Where:

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the highway 
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test.

    (2) If the condition specified in Sec.  600.115-08(b)(2)(iii)(B) is 
met, in lieu of using the calculation in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer may optionally determine the highway fuel 
economy using the following modified 5-cycle equation which utilizes 
data from FTP, HFET, and US06 tests, and applies mathematic adjustments 
for Cold FTP and SC03 conditions:
    (i) Perform a US06 test in addition to the FTP and HFET tests.
    (ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy according to the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.045

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.046

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.047

Bag y FE<INF>75</INF> = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75 [deg]F.

[[Page 77940]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.048

Where:

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the highway 
portion of the US06 test.
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test.
US06 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the entire US06 
test.

    (c) Fuel economy calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. Under 
the requirements of Sec.  86.1811-04(n), hybrid electric vehicles are 
subject to California test methods which require FTP emission sampling 
for the 75 [deg]F FTP test over four phases (bags) of the UDDS (cold-
start, transient, warm-start, transient). Optionally, these four phases 
may be combined into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). 
Calculations for these sampling methods follow.
    (1) Four-bag FTP equations. If the 4-bag sampling method is used, 
manufacturers may use the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section to determine city and highway fuel economy estimates. If this 
method is chosen, it must be used to determine both city and highway 
fuel economy. Optionally, the following calculations may be used, 
provided that they are used to determine both city and highway fuel 
economy:
    (i) City fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.049
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.050

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.051

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.052

    (B) Running FC (gallons per mile) =
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.053
    
Where:

US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test.
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the Highway 
portion of the US06 test.
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test.
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.

    (ii) Highway fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.054
    

[[Page 77941]]


Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.055

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.058

Where:
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the Highway 
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.

    (2) Two-bag FTP equations. If the 2-bag sampling method is used for 
the 75 [deg]F FTP test, it must be used to determine both city and 
highway fuel economy. The following calculations must be used to 
determine both city and highway fuel economy:
    (i) City fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.059
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.060

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.062

Where:
Bag y FE<INF>20</INF> = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP test.
Bag x/y FE<INF>x</INF> = fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test 
conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.

[[Page 77942]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.063

Where:
US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
Bag x/y FE<INF>x</INF> = fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test 
conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.
    (ii) Highway fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.064
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.065

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.066

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.067

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.068

Where:
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
Bag y FE<INF>20</INF> = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP test.
Bag x/y FE<INF>x</INF> = fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at 
an ambient temperature of 75[deg]F.

    (3) For hybrid electric vehicles using the modified 5-cycle highway 
calculation in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the equation in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, applies except that the 
equation for Start Fuel<INF>75</INF> will be replaced with one of the 
following:
    (i) The equation for Start Fuel<INF>75</INF> for hybrids tested 
according to the 4-bag FTP is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.069

    (ii) The equation for Start Fuel<INF>75</INF> for hybrids tested 
according to the 2-bag FTP is:

[[Page 77943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.070

    32. A new Sec.  600.115-is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.115-08  Criteria for determining the fuel economy label 
calculation method for 2011 and later model year vehicles.

    This section provides the criteria to determine if the derived 5-
cycle method for determining fuel economy label values, as specified in 
Sec.  600.210-08 (a)(2) or (b)(2), as applicable, may be used to 
determine label values for 2011 and later model year vehicles. Separate 
criteria apply to city and highway fuel economy for each test group. 
The provisions of this section are optional. If this option is not 
chosen, or if the criteria provided in this section are not met, fuel 
economy label values for 2011 and later model year vehicles must be 
determined according to the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified 
in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable.
    (a) City fuel economy criterion. (1) For each test group certified 
for emission compliance under Sec.  86.1848-01 of this chapter, the 
FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests determined to be official 
under Sec.  86.1835-01 of this chapter are used to calculate the 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy which is then compared to 
the derived 5-cycle city fuel economy, as follows:
    (i) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy from the 
official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08(a) and 
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
    (ii) Using the same FTP data as used in paragraph (a)(i) of this 
section, the corresponding derived 5-cycle city fuel economy is 
calculated according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.071


Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See 
Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2)(iii).
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.  
600.210-08(a)(2)(iii.)
FTP FE = the FTP-based city fuel economy from the official test used 
forcertification compliance, determined under Sec.  600.113-08(a), 
rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (2) The derived 5-cycle fuel economy value determined in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section is multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to the 
nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
    (3) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy determined in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section is greater than or equal to the 
value determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, then the 
manufacturer may base the city fuel economy estimates for the model 
types covered by the test group on the derived 5-cycle method specified 
in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2), as applicable.
    (b) Highway fuel economy criterion. The determination for highway 
fuel economy depends upon the outcome of the determination for city 
fuel economy in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for each test group.
    (1) If the city determination for a test group made in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section does not allow the use of the derived 5-cycle 
method, then the highway fuel economy values for all model types 
represented by the test group are likewise not allowed to be determined 
using the derived 5-cycle method, and must be determined according to 
the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(1) 
or (b)(1), as applicable.
    (2) If the city determination made in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section allows the use of the derived 5-cycle method, a separate 
determination is made for the highway fuel economy labeling method as 
follows:
    (i) For each test group certified for emission compliance under 
Sec.  86.1848-01 of this chapter, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold 
FTP tests determined to be official under Sec.  86.1835-01 of this 
chapter are used to calculate the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy, which is then compared to the derived 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy, as follows:
    (A) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy from the 
official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08(b)(1) and 
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
    (B) Using the same HFET data as used in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of 
this section, the corresponding derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy is 
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.072

Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See 
Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2)(iii).
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.  
600.210-08(a)(2)(iii).
HFET FE = the HFET-based highway fuel economy determined under Sec.  
600.113-08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (ii) The derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section is multiplied by 0.95 and 
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.

[[Page 77944]]

    (iii) (A) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy of 
the vehicle tested in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is greater 
than or equal to the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 
section, then the manufacturer may base the highway fuel economy 
estimates for the model types covered by the test group on the derived 
5-cycle method specified in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2), as 
applicable.
    (B) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy determined 
in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is less than the value 
determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the manufacturer 
may determine the highway fuel economy for the model types covered by 
the test group on the modified 5-cycle equation specified in Sec.  
600.114-08(b)(2).
    (c) The manufacturer will apply the criteria in paragraph (a) and 
(b) of this section to every test group for each model year.
    (d) The tests used to make the evaluations in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section will be the official tests used to determine 
compliance with emission standards under Sec.  86.1835-01(c). 
Adjustments and/or substitutions to the official test data may be made 
with advance approval of the Administrator.

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
33. A new Sec.  600.201-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.201-08  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year automobiles, except medium duty passenger vehicles, 
manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to 2011 and later model 
year medium-duty passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles manufactured 
prior to January 26, 2007 may optionally comply with the provisions of 
this subpart.

0
34. A new Sec.  600.206-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.206-08  Calculation and use of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel 
economy values for vehicle configurations.

    (a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.  
600.113(a) and (b) and as approved in Sec.  600.008-08 (c), are used to 
determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined FTP/Highway-
based fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which data 
are available.
    (1) If only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel 
economy values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, 
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city 
and highway fuel economy values for that configuration.
    (2) If more than one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 
fuel economy values are accepted for a vehicle configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically 
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in 
order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy 
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was 
tested.
    (iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy values and all HFET-based 
highway fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to 
the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle 
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of 
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded 
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
    (3) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under Sec.  
600.510-08, the combined fuel economy value for a vehicle configuration 
is calculated by harmonically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec.  600.206(a)(1) 
or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and 
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon. A sample of this 
calculation appears in Appendix II of this part.
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, 
as applicable, shall be used to calculate two separate sets of FTP-
based city, HFET-based highway, and combined fuel economy values for 
each configuration.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will comprise the petroleum-based 
fuel economy for that configuration.
    (c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values for that 
vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to the 
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.

0
35. A new Sec.  600.207-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.207-08  Calculation and use of vehicle-specific 5-cycle-based 
fuel economy values for vehicle configurations.

    (a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.  
600.114-08 and as approved in Sec.  600.008-08 (c), are used to 
determine vehicle-specific 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
for each vehicle configuration for which data are available.
    (1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city and highway fuel 
economy values for that configuration.
    (2) If more than one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy 
values are accepted for a vehicle configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.209(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each subconfiguration of data, all values are 
harmonically averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per 
gallon in order to determine 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy 
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was 
tested.
    (iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section 
are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to the 
sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle 
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of 
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded 
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle 
highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
    (3) [Reserved]
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section 
shall be used to calculate two separate sets of 5-cycle city, highway 
fuel economy values for each configuration.

[[Page 77945]]

    (i) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values from 
the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if 5-
cycle testing has been performed. Otherwise, the procedure in Sec.  
600.210(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies.
    (b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will comprise the petroleum-based 
5-cycle fuel economy for that configuration.
    (c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel 
economy value exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values 
for that vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to 
the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.

0
36. A new Sec.  600.208-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.208-08  Calculation of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel economy 
values for a model type.

    (a) Fuel economy values for a base level are calculated from 
vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in Sec.  
600.206-08(a), (b), or (c) as applicable, for low-altitude tests.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs 
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to 
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is 
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base 
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is 
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be 
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new 
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new 
basic engines and base level(s) if:
    (i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another 
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the 
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
    (ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not 
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine 
(i.e., they are not included in the calculation of the original base 
level fuel economy values); and
    (iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are 
represented by test data in accordance with Sec.  600.010-08(c)(1)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section may be 
satisfied by providing an amended application for certification, as 
described in Sec.  86.1844-01.
    (4) Vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08 (a), (b) or (c), as applicable, are grouped according 
to base level.
    (i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been 
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration 
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
    (ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has 
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are 
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction 
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the 
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per 
gallon.
    (5) The procedure specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section will be repeated for each base level, thus establishing city, 
highway, and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
    (6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy 
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are 
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude, 
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on 
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel 
economy for the base level.
    (7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a 
city, highway, and combined fuel economy value will be calculated by 
using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base level 
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done 
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08 (a), (b) or (c), as applicable.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by 
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by 
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.0001.
    (3) The FTP-based city fuel economy values of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one 
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which 
is a fraction determined by dividing:
    (i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (ii) The FTP-based city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.
    (4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is 
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined 
fuel economy values for the model type.
    (5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each model type.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.

[[Page 77946]]


0
37. A new Sec.  600.209-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.209-08  Calculation of vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy 
values for a model type.

    (a) Base level. 5-cycle fuel economy values for a base level are 
calculated from vehicle configuration 5-cycle fuel economy values as 
determined in Sec.  600.207-08 for low-altitude tests.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs 
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to 
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is 
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base 
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is 
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be 
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new 
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new 
basic engines and base level(s) if:
    (i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another 
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the 
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
    (ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not 
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine 
(i.e., they are not included in the calculation of the original base 
level fuel economy values); and
    (iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are 
represented by test data in accordance with Sec.  600.010-08 (c)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by 
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 
Sec.  86.1844-01 of this chapter.
    (4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as 
determined in Sec.  600.207-08(a), (b), or (c), as applicable, are 
grouped according to base level.
    (i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been 
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration 
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
    (ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has 
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are 
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction 
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the 
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per 
gallon.
    (5) The procedure specified in Sec.  600.209-08 (a) will be 
repeated for each base level, thus establishing city and highway fuel 
economy values for each base level.
    (6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy 
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are 
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude, 
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on 
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel 
economy for the base level.
    (7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
    (i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy values from the 
tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) If 5-cycle testing was performed on the alcohol or natural gas 
test fuel, calculate the city and highway fuel economy values from the 
tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) Model type. For each model type, as determined by the 
Administrator, a city and highway fuel economy value will be calculated 
by using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base 
level within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be 
done based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as 
determined in Sec.  600.207-08, as applicable.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by 
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by 
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.0001.
    (3) The 5-cycle city fuel economy values of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one 
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which 
is a fraction determined by dividing:
    (i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (ii) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.
    (4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is 
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined 
fuel economy values for the model type.
    (5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city and 
highway fuel economy values for each model type.
    (i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy values from the 
tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if 5-
cycle testing was performed on the alcohol or natural gas test fuel. 
Otherwise, the procedure in Sec.  600.210(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies.

0
38. A new Sec.  600.210-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.210-08  Calculation of fuel economy values for labeling.

    (a) General labels. Fuel economy for general labels can be 
determined by two methods. The first is based on vehicle-specific 
model-type 5-cycle data as determined in Sec.  600.209-08(b). This 
method is optional beginning in the 2008 model year for all vehicles, 
including medium-duty passenger vehicles, and required beginning in the 
2011 model year (except for medium-duty passenger vehicles) unless 
otherwise indicated according to the provisions in Sec.  600.115-08. 
The second method is the derived 5-cycle method, and is based on fuel 
economy that is derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle

[[Page 77947]]

model type data as determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This 
method is required for 2008 through 2010 model years (except for 
medium-duty passenger vehicles, in which case it is optional), and is 
permitted beginning in 2011 model year under the provisions of Sec.  
600.115-08. If the manufacturer determines that the resulting label 
values from either of these methods are not representative of the fuel 
economy for that model type, they may voluntarily lower these values. 
All 2011 and later model year medium-duty passenger vehicles must be 
labeled for fuel economy, using the derived 5-cycle method or, at the 
manufacturer's option, the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. Fuel 
economy label values for dual fuel vehicles operating on alcohol-based 
or natural gas fuel are calculated separately.
    (1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway model 
type fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.209-08(b), rounded to the 
nearest mpg, comprise the fuel economy values for general fuel economy 
labels, or, alternatively;
    (2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Derived 5-cycle city and highway label 
values are determined according to the following method:
    (i) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle city fuel 
economy using the following equation and coefficients determined by the 
Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.073

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
MT FTP FE = the model type FTP-based city fuel economy determined 
under Sec.  600.208-08(a), rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (ii) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle highway 
fuel economy using the equation below and coefficients determined by 
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.074

Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
MT HFET FE = the model type highway fuel economy determined under 
Sec.  600.208-08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (iii) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, unless and until 
superseded by written guidance from the Administrator, the following 
intercepts and slopes shall be used in the equations in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section:

City Intercept = 0.003259.
City Slope = 1.1805.
Highway Intercept = 0.001376.
Highway Slope = 1.3466.

    The Administrator will periodically update the slopes and 
intercepts via guidance and will determine the model year that the new 
coefficients must take effect. The Administrator will issue guidance no 
later than six months prior to the earliest starting date of the 
effective model year (e.g., for 2011 models, the earliest start of the 
model year is January 2, 2010, so guidance would be issued by July 1, 
2009.) Until otherwise instructed by written guidance from the 
Administrator, manufacturers must use the coefficients that are in 
currently in effect.
    (3) General alternate fuel label values for dual-fueled vehicles. 
(i) City and Highway label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and 
natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately 
determined by the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.076

Where:

FE<INF>alt</INF> = The unrounded FTP-based model-type city or HFET-
based model-type highway fuel economy from the alternate fuel, as 
determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(ii).
5cycle FE<INF>gas</INF> = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle model-type city or highway fuel economy as determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
FE<INF>gas</INF> = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based model 
type highway fuel economy from gasoline (or diesel), as determined 
in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(i).

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed 
using the alternate fuel, the manufacturer may choose to use the 
alternate fuel label city or highway value result in Sec.  600.209-
08(b)(5)(ii), rounded to the nearest whole number.
    (b) Specific Labels. The following two methods are used to 
determine specific labels. The first is based on vehicle-specific 
configuration 5-cycle data as determined in Sec.  600.207-08. This 
method is optional beginning in the 2008 model year for all vehicles, 
including medium-duty passenger vehicles, and required beginning in the 
2011 model year (except for medium-duty passenger vehicles) unless 
otherwise indicated according to the provisions in Sec.  600.115-08. 
The second method is based on derived 5-cycle configuration data as 
determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This method is required 
for 2008 through 2010 model years (except for medium-duty passenger 
vehicles, in which case it is optional), and is allowed beginning in 
2011 model year if permitted under the provisions in Sec.  600.115-08. 
If the manufacturer determines that the resulting label values from 
either of these methods are not representative of the fuel economy for 
that model type,

[[Page 77948]]

they may voluntarily lower these values. All 2011 and later model year 
medium-duty passenger vehicles must be labeled for fuel economy, using 
the derived 5-cycle method or, at the manufacturer's option, the 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. Fuel economy label values for dual 
fuel vehicles operating on alcohol-based or natural gas fuel are 
calculated separately.
    (1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway 
configuration fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.207-08, rounded to 
the nearest mpg, comprise the fuel economy values for specific fuel 
economy labels, or, alternatively;
    (2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Specific city and highway label values 
from derived 5-cycle are determined according to the following method:
    (i) Determine the derived five-cycle city fuel economy of the 
configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined by 
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.077

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
Config FTP FE = the configuration FTP-based city fuel economy 
determined under Sec.  600.206-08, rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (ii) Determine the derived five-cycle highway fuel economy of the 
configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined by 
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.078


Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Config HFET FE = the configuration highway fuel economy determined 
under Sec.  600.206-08, rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (iii) The slopes and intercepts of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this 
section apply.
    (3) Specific alternate fuel label values for dual-fueled vehicles. 
(i) Specific city and highway label values for dual fuel alcohol-based 
and natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately 
determined by the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.079

Where:
FE<INF>alt</INF> = The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or 
HFET-based configuration highway fuel economy from the alternate 
fuel, as determined in Sec.  600.206.
5cycle FE<INF>gas</INF> = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle configuration city or highway fuel economy as determined in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
FE<INF>gas</INF> = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based 
configuration highway fuel economy from gasoline, as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08.

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed 
using the alternate fuel, the manufacturer may choose to use the 
alternate fuel label city or highway value result in Sec.  600.207-
08(a)(4)(ii), rounded to the nearest whole number.
    (c) For the purposes of calculating the combined fuel economy for a 
model type, to be used in displaying on the label and for determining 
annual fuel costs under Sec.  600.307-08, the manufacturer shall:
    (1)(i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and 
natural gas-fueled automobiles, and for dual fuel automobiles operated 
on gasoline or diesel fuel, harmonically average the unrounded city and 
highway values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section 
and (b)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, 
and round to the nearest whole mpg. (An example of this calculation 
procedure appears in Appendix II of this part); or
    (ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles 
operated on the alternate fuel, harmonically average the unrounded city 
and highway values from the tests performed using the alternative fuel 
as determined in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section, weighted 
0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg.
    (d)(1) Label values for 2008-2010 model year automobiles (except 
medium-duty passenger vehicles) the city and highway values for a model 
type must be determined by the same method. If the manufacturer 
optionally chooses to determine fuel economy for a model type using the 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle method, that method must be used to determine 
both the city and highway fuel economy.
    (2) For 2011 and later model year automobiles, if the criteria in 
Sec.  600.115-08(a) are met for a model type, both the city and highway 
fuel economy must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
method. If the criteria in Sec.  600.115-08(b) are met for a model 
type, the city fuel economy may be determined using either method, but 
the highway fuel economy must be determined using the vehicle-specific 
5-cycle method (or modified 5-cycle method as allowed under Sec.  
600.114-08(b)(2)).
    (3) If the criteria in Sec.  600.115-08 are not met for a model 
type, the city and highway label values must be determined by using the 
same method, either the derived 5-cycle or vehicle-specific 5-cycle.

[[Page 77949]]


0
39. A new Sec.  600.211-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.211-08  Sample Calculation of fuel economy values for 
labeling.

    An example of the calculation required in this subpart appears in 
Appendix III of this part.

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
40. A new Sec.  600.301-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.301-08  General applicability.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this subpart are 
applicable to 2008 and later model year automobiles, except medium duty 
passenger vehicles, manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to 
2011 and later model year medium-duty passenger vehicles. All 2008 
automobiles manufactured prior to January 26, 2007 may optionally 
comply with the provisions of this subpart.
    (b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt 
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the 
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric 
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric 
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel 
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply 
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.

0
41. A new Sec.  600.306-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.306-08  Labeling requirements.

    (a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix 
or cause to be affixed and each dealer shall maintain or cause to be 
maintained on each automobile:
    (1) A general fuel economy label (initial, or updated as required 
in Sec.  600.314-08) as described in Sec.  600.307-08 or:
    (2) A specific label, for those automobiles manufactured or 
imported before the date that occurs 15 days after general labels have 
been determined by the manufacturer, as described in Sec.  600.210-
08(b).
    (i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a 
model type (as defined in Sec.  600.002-08, he shall also affix 
specific labels on all automobiles within this model type, except on 
those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that labels 
are required to bear range values as required by paragraph (b) of this 
section, or determined by the Administrator, or as permitted under 
Sec.  600.310-86.
    (ii) If a manufacturer elects to change from general to specific 
labels or vice versa within a model type, the manufacturer shall, 
within five calendar days, initiate or discontinue as applicable, the 
use of specific labels on all vehicles within a model type at all 
facilities where labels are affixed.
    (3) For any vehicle for which a specific label is requested which 
has a combined FTP/HFET-based fuel economy value, as determined in 
Sec.  600.513-08, at or below the minimum tax-free value, the following 
statement must appear on the specific label:
    ``[Manufacturer's name] may have to pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on 
this vehicle because of the low fuel economy.''
    (4)(i) At the time a general fuel economy value is determined for a 
model type, a manufacturer shall, except as provided in paragraph 
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, relabel, or cause to be relabeled, vehicles 
which:
    (A) Have not been delivered to the ultimate purchaser, and
    (B) Have a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value 
(as determined in Sec.  600.208-08(b) of 0.1 mpg or more below the 
lowest fuel economy value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax of $0 is to be 
assessed.
    (ii) The manufacturer has the option of re-labeling vehicles during 
the first five working days after the general label value is known.
    (iii) For those vehicle model types which have been issued a 
specific label and are subsequently found to have tax liability, the 
manufacturer is responsible for the tax liability regardless of whether 
the vehicle has been sold or not or whether the vehicle has been 
relabeled or not.
    (b) Fuel economy range of comparable vehicles. The manufacturer 
shall include the current range of fuel economy of comparable 
automobiles (as described in Sec. Sec.  600.311-08 and 600.314-08) in 
the label of each vehicle manufactured or imported more than 15 
calendar days after the current range is made available by the 
Administrator.
    (1) Automobiles manufactured or imported before a date 16 or more 
calendar days after the initial label range is made available under 
Sec.  600.311-08(c) shall include the range from the previous model 
year.
    (2) Automobiles manufactured or imported more than 15 calendar days 
after the label range is made available under Sec.  600.311-08(c) or 
(d) shall be labeled with the current range of fuel economy of 
comparable automobiles as approved for that label.
    (c) The fuel economy label must be readily visible from the 
exterior of the automobile and remain affixed until the time the 
automobile is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
    (1) It is preferable that the fuel economy label information be 
incorporated into the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, 
provided that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label 
is maintained. For this purpose, all fuel economy label information 
must be placed on a separate section in the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label and may not be intermixed with that label 
information, except for vehicle descriptions as noted in Sec.  600.307-
08(d)(1).
    (2) The fuel economy label must be located on a side window. If the 
window is not large enough to contain both the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label and the fuel economy label, the manufacturer shall 
have the fuel economy label affixed on another window and as close as 
possible to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label.
    (3) The manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed in 
such a manner that appearance and legibility are maintained until after 
the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer.

0
42. A new Sec.  600.307-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.307-08  Fuel economy label format requirements.

    Examples of fuel economy labels for gasoline and diesel vehicles, 
dual fuel vehicles and alternate fuel vehicles are provided in Appendix 
IV of this part. Detailed printing specifications are given in Appendix 
V of this part, and unless otherwise permitted, apply to the provisions 
in this section. The Administrator may approve modifications to the 
style guidelines in cases where there may be space limitations and/or 
legibility concerns.
    (a) Fuel economy labels must be:
    (1) Rectangular in shape with a minimum height of 4.5 inches (114 
mm) and a minimum length of 7.0 inches (178 mm) as specified in 
Appendix V of this part.
    (2) Printed in a color which contrasts with the background paper 
color.
    (3) Have a contrasting border, with dimensions specified in 
Appendix V of this part.
    (b) Label information. The information on the label shall contain:
    (1) The titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', centered over the 
applicable fuel economy estimates.
    (2) The numeric, whole-number city and highway estimates, as 
determined in Sec.  600.210-08, as specified in Appendix V of this 
part. The font size

[[Page 77950]]

of the numbers may be larger than specified, provided: that the city 
and highway numbers are equal in size; that the titles ``CITY MPG'' and 
``HIGHWAY MPG'' are increased in the same proportion; and that doing so 
does not obscure the other information on the label.
    (i) For dedicated gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, 
and natural gas-fueled automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy 
estimates calculated in accordance with Sec.  600.210-08.
    (ii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy estimates for operation 
on gasoline or diesel fuel as calculated in Sec.  600.210-08(a) and 
(b).
    (3) The fuel pump logo.
    (4) The following phrase: ``Your actual mileage will vary depending 
on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.'', located and formatted as 
shown in Appendix V of this part.
    (5) The statement: ``Expected range for most drivers: ---- to ---- 
mpg'', placed underneath both the city and highway estimates, centered 
to the estimate numbers. The range values for this statement are to be 
calculated in accordance with the following:
    (i) The lower range values shall be determined by multiplying the 
city and highway estimates by 0.83, then rounding to the next lower 
integer value.
    (ii) The upper range values shall be determined by multiplying the 
city and highway estimates by 1.17 and rounding to the next higher 
integer value.
    (6) The top border shall contain the centered title ``EPA Fuel 
Economy Estimates'' in a contrasting color.
    (7) Alternate fuel titles. (i) For dedicated alcohol-fueled 
automobiles, the title ``[insert appropriate fuel (e.g., ``ETHANOL 
(E85))''] *''. The title shall be positioned and sized according to the 
style guidelines in Appendix V of this part.
    (ii) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the title 
``NATURAL GAS *''. The title shall be positioned in the grey area above 
the window of the fuel pump logo, in a size and format specified in 
Appendix V of this part.
    (iii) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual 
fuel automobiles, the title ``Dual Fuel Vehicle*'', and directly below 
that, the title ``[insert appropriate conventional fuel (example 
Gasoline)]-[insert appropriate alternate fuel (example ``Ethanol 
(E85)'']''. Both of these titles are centered in the grey area above 
the window of the fuel pump logo, with a size and format specified in 
Appendix V of this part.
    (8) Alternate fuel information. (i) For dedicated alcohol-fueled 
automobiles, the title ``[insert appropriate fuel (example ``E85'')]'' 
centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY 
MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix V of this part.
    (ii) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobile, the title 
``GASOLINE EQUIVALENT'' centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above 
the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix 
V of this part.
    (iii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the title ``GASOLINE'' [or ``DIESEL'', as applicable] 
centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY 
MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix V of this part.
    (9) The bottom border of the label shall contain the following 
centered statement, formatted according to the style guidelines in 
Appendix V: ``See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or 
www.fueleconomy.gov''.
    (10) If the label is separate from the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label, the vehicle description, as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section, located on the label such that it does 
not interfere with the other required information. In cases where the 
vehicle description information may not easily fit on the label, the 
manufacturer may request Administrator approval of modifications to the 
label format to accommodate this information.
    (11) Comparison fuel economy. A graphic depiction of comparison 
fuel economy information, in the style and format given in Appendix V 
of this part, containing the following elements:
    (i) A bar that represents the total range of combined fuel economy 
for the applicable class of comparison fuel economy.
    (ii) A downward pointing tail-less arrow, located at the top of the 
bar positioned on the bar where that vehicle's combined fuel economy 
falls relative to the range of comparable vehicles.
    (iii) The combined fuel economy value for the vehicle as determined 
in Sec.  600.210-08(c), located directly above the arrow.
    (iv) The statement ``This Vehicle'' directly above the combined 
fuel economy number.
    (vi)(A) For gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles, the statement 
``Combined Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This Vehicle'' 
statement, and centered above the bar.
    (B) For dual fuel vehicles, the statement ``Combined Gasoline [or 
``Diesel'', as appropriate] Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This 
Vehicle'' statement, and centered above the bar, in two lines, if 
needed.
    (C) For dedicated natural gas vehicles, the statement ``Combined 
Gasoline Equivalent Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This Vehicle'' 
statement, and centered above the bar, in two lines, if needed.
    (v) The upper and lower MPG ranges for that class of vehicles, with 
the lower range shown directly to the left of the bar and the upper 
range directly to the right of the bar. The range values are those 
determined in accordance with Sec.  600.311.
    (vi) The statement ``All [name of the comparable vehicle class]s'', 
centered below the bar. The names of the comparable classes given in 
Sec.  600.315-08 apply. For the purpose of presenting the name of the 
class on the label, the following class names may be shortened as 
indicated: minicompact cars may be ``Minicompacts'', subcompact cars 
may be ``Subcompacts'', compact cars may be ``Compacts'', small station 
wagons may be ``Small Wagons'', midsize station wagons may be ``Midsize 
Wagons'', large station wagons may be ``Large Wagons'', small pickup 
trucks may be ``Small Pickups'', standard pickup trucks may be 
``Standard Pickups'', and sport utility vehicles may be ``SUVs''.
    (12)(i) The statement: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Cost:'' followed by 
the appropriate value calculated in accordance with paragraph (f) or 
(g) of this section and the statement ``based on [EPA-provided number 
of miles per paragraph (f) of this section] miles at [the EPA-provided 
dollar cost per gallon of the required fuel for that vehicle] per 
gallon of gasoline.'' The estimated annual fuel cost value for alcohol 
dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel vehicles to appear on 
the fuel economy label shall be that calculated based on operating the 
vehicle on gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in paragraphs (f) and 
(g) of this section.
    (ii) At the manufacturer's option, the label may also contain the 
estimated annual fuel cost value based on operating the vehicle on the 
alternative fuel.
    (13) The Gas Guzzler statement, when applicable (see paragraph (e) 
of this section), must be located on the bottom half of the label, 
either in the space reserved for alternate fuel information, or, if the 
vehicle is an alternate fuel vehicle, directly beneath this space.

[[Page 77951]]

    (14) Alternate fuel statement. (i) For dedicated alternate fuel 
automobiles, the statement: ``* This vehicle operates on NATURAL GAS 
FUEL [or other alternate fuel as appropriate] only. Fuel economy is 
expressed in gasoline equivalent values.'' This statement is located on 
the right-hand bottom portion of the label. See Appendix V of this part 
for details of location, size and format.
    (ii) For dual fuel automobiles, the statement: ``*Fuel economy when 
operating on E85 [or other alternate fuel as appropriate] will yield 
different values than gasoline [or diesel as appropriate]. See Fuel 
Economy Guide for more information.'' Optionally, this statement may be 
replaced with the city, highway and combined fuel economy values using 
the alternate fuel, in a size and format specified in Appendix V of 
this part.
    (c) The city mpg number shall be displayed on the upper half of the 
left side of the label and the highway mpg number displayed on the 
upper half of the right side of the label. If the manufacturer chooses 
to enlarge the label from that specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, the logo and the fuel economy label values, including the 
titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', must be increased in the same 
proportion.
    (d) Vehicle description information for general and specific 
labels.
    (1) Where the fuel economy label is physically incorporated with 
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the 
applicable vehicle description, as set forth in this paragraph, does 
not have to be repeated if the information is readily found on this 
label.
    (2) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle 
description on general labels will be as follows:
    (i) Model year;
    (ii) Vehicle car line;
    (iii) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or 
liters whichever is consistent with the customary description of that 
engine;
    (iv) Transmission class.
    (v) Other descriptive information, as necessary, such as number of 
engine cylinders, to distinguish otherwise identical model types or, in 
the case of specific labels, vehicle configurations, as approved by the 
Administrator.
    (e)(1) For fuel economy labels of passenger automobile model types 
requiring a tax statement under Sec.  600.513-08, the phrase ``Gas 
Guzzler Tax'' followed by the dollar amount, in a size and format 
specified in Appendix V of this part.
    (2) The tax value required by this paragraph shall be based on the 
combined fuel economy value for the model type calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  600.513-08 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (f) Estimated annual fuel cost--general labels. The annual fuel 
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a model type 
shall be computed by using values for the fuel cost per gallon of the 
recommended fuel as specified by the manufacturer in the owner's manual 
and average annual mileage, predetermined by the Administrator, and the 
combined fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.210(c).
    (1) The annual fuel cost estimate for a model type is computed by 
multiplying:
    (i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of 
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF = 0.823 equivalent gallons) 
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
    (ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the 
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
    (iii) The inverse of the combined fuel economy value determined in 
Sec.  600.210-08(c) for a model type (as determined in Sec.  600.210-
08(a), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile (natural gas must 
be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile, where 100 
SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons).
    (2) The product computed in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and 
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel 
cost estimate that appears on general labels for the model type.
    (g) Estimated annual fuel cost--specific labels. (1) The annual 
fuel cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a vehicle 
configuration will be computed by using the values for the fuel cost 
per volume (gallon for liquid fuels, cubic feet for gaseous fuels) and 
average mileage and the fuel economy determined by multiplying:
    (i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of 
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) 
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
    (ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the 
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
    (iii) The inverse, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile 
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile, 
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the combined fuel economy 
value determined in Sec.  600.210-08(c) for a vehicle configuration (as 
determined in Sec.  600.210-08(b).
    (2) The product computed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and 
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel 
cost estimate that appears on specific labels for that vehicle 
configuration.
    (h) For model year 2008 and 2009 automobiles only, the following 
statement, located directly above the fuel pump logo, centered in the 
label: ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 2008 
models.'' The size and format is specified in Appendix V to this part.
    (i) For model year 2008 vehicles manufactured or imported prior to 
September 1, 2007, manufacturers may optionally use the label format 
provisions of Sec.  600.307-95. In this case, the following information 
must be included on the label:
    (1) The city and highway estimates, as determined according to the 
provisions in Sec.  600.210-08.
    (2) The statement ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods 
beginning with 2008 models.'', centered, and located in a prominent 
position on the label, preferably near the top of the label.
    (j) For model year 2008 vehicles manufactured or imported prior to 
June 1, 2007, the manufacturer may optionally include the city and 
highway fuel economy determined under the provisions of Sec.  600.209-
95, presented in fine print underneath the city and highway mpg numbers 
from paragraph (c) of this section, in a statement as follows: ``[xx] 
MPG under old methods''.
    (1) The font size may not exceed 8 points and may not be bold.
    (2) If the optional provisions of paragraph (i) of this section are 
selected, the location of the fuel economy estimates allowed under this 
paragraph (j) may be either:
    (i) underneath the large city and highway miles-per-gallon numbers, 
or
    (ii) in a statement at the bottom of the label as follows: ``*Fuel 
economy under the old methods would be [xx] MPG city and [xx] MPG 
highway''. The statement required in paragraph (i)(2) must contain an 
asterisk (*) after the word ``models''.

0
43. A new Sec.  600.311-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.311-08  Range of fuel economy for comparable automobiles.

    (a) The Administrator will determine the range of combined fuel 
economy values for each class of comparable automobiles comprising the 
maximum and minimum combined fuel economy

[[Page 77952]]

values for all general labels as determined in Sec.  600.210-08(c).
    (b)(1) The ranges for a model year will be made available on a date 
specified by the Administrator that closely coincides to the date of 
the general model introduction for the industry.
    (2) If the Administrator has not made available the fuel economy 
ranges prior to the model introduction, the ranges from the previous 
model year must be used.
    (3) For 2008 model year automobiles manufactured or imported prior 
to the date specified in Sec.  600.306-08(b), the Administrator will 
provide initial fuel economy ranges based upon data from 2007 models 
that have been adjusted in accordance with the derived 5-cycle 
calculations in Sec.  600.210-08.
    (c) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in California are likely to exhibit significant differences in 
fuel economy from those intended for sale in other states, he/she will 
compute separate ranges of fuel economy values for each class of 
automobiles for California and for the other states.
    (d) For high altitude vehicles determined under Sec.  600.310, both 
general and specific labels will contain the range of comparable fuel 
economy computed in this section.
    (e) The manufacturer shall include the appropriate range of fuel 
economy determined by the Administrator in paragraph (b) of this 
section, on each label affixed to an automobile within the class, 
except as provided in Sec.  600.306(b)(1).

0
44. A new Sec.  600.314-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.314-01  Updating label values, annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler 
Tax, and range of fuel economy for comparable automobiles.

    (a) The label values established in Sec.  600.312 shall remain in 
effect for the model year unless updated in accordance with paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b)(1) The manufacturer shall recalculate the model type fuel 
economy values for any model type containing base levels affected by 
running changes specified in Sec.  600.507(a).
    (2) For separate model types created in Sec.  600.209-08(a)(2), the 
manufacturer shall recalculate the model type values for any additions 
or deletions of subconfigurations to the model type. Minimum data 
requirements specified in Sec.  600.010(c) shall be met prior to 
recalculation.
    (3) Label value recalculations shall be performed as follows:
    (i) The manufacturer shall use updated total model year projected 
sales for label value recalculations.
    (ii) All model year data approved by the Administrator at the time 
of the recalculation for that model type shall be included in the 
recalculation.
    (iii) Using the additional data under paragraph (b) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and 
highway values in accordance with Sec.  600.210-08 except that the 
values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (4)(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city 
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 mpg or 
more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated model 
type values (rounded to the nearest whole mpg) to all new vehicles of 
that model type beginning on the day of implementation of the running 
change.
    (ii) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is higher than the respective 
city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 
mpg or more, then the manufacturer has the option to use the 
recalculated values for labeling the entire model type beginning on the 
day of implementation of the running change.
    (c) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy 
values determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information 
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the 
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax as needed).
    (d) The Administrator shall periodically update the range of fuel 
economies of comparable automobiles based upon all label data supplied 
to the Administrator.
    (e) The manufacturer may request permission from the Administrator 
to calculate and use label values based on test data from vehicles 
which have not completed the Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing 
required under the provisions of Sec.  600.008-08(b). If the 
Administrator approves such a calculation the following procedures 
shall be used to determine if relabeling is required after the 
confirmatory testing is completed.
    (1) The Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing shall be 
completed as quickly as possible.
    (2) Using the additional data under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and 
highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec.  600.207-08 and 600.210-08 
except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (4) Relabeling. (i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel 
economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the 
respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 
section by 0.5 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with 
the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg') to all new 
vehicles of that model type beginning 15 days after the completion of 
the confirmatory test.
    (ii) If both the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city 
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 0.1 mpg or 
more and the recalculated gas guzzler tax rate determined under the 
provisions of Sec.  600.513-08 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix 
labels with the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg') 
and gas guzzler tax statement and rates to all new vehicles of that 
model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory 
test.
    (5) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy 
values determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section, 
the manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information 
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the 
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax if required by Department of 
Treasury regulations).

0
45. A new Sec.  600.315-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.315-08  Classes of comparable automobiles.

    (a) The Secretary will classify automobiles as passenger 
automobiles or light trucks (nonpassenger automobiles) in accordance 
with 49 CFR part 523.
    (1) The Administrator will classify passenger automobiles by car 
line into one of the following classes based on interior volume index 
or seating capacity except for those passenger automobiles which the 
Administrator determines are most appropriately placed in a different 
classification or classed as special purpose vehicles as provided in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

[[Page 77953]]

    (i) Two seaters. A car line shall be classed as ``Two Seater'' if 
the majority of the vehicles in that car line have no more than two 
designated seating positions as such term is defined in the regulations 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 571.3.
    (ii) Minicompact cars. Interior volume index less than 85 cubic 
feet.
    (iii) Subcompact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal 
to 85 cubic feet but less than 100 cubic feet.
    (iv) Compact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 
100 cubic feet but less than 110 cubic feet.
    (v) Midsize cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 
110 cubic feet but less than 120 cubic feet.
    (vi) Large cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 120 
cubic feet.
    (vii) Small station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index less than 130 cubic feet.
    (viii) Midsize station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index greater than or equal to 130 cubic feet but less than 160 cubic 
feet.
    (ix) Large station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index greater than or equal to 160 cubic feet.
    (2) The Administrator will classify light trucks (nonpassenger 
automobiles) into the following categories: small pickup trucks, 
standard pickup trucks, vans, minivans, SUVS and special purpose 
vehicles. Pickup trucks will be separated by car line on the basis of 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). For pickup truck car lines with 
more than one GVWR, the GVWR of the pickup truck car line is the 
arithmetic average of all distinct GVWR's less than or equal to 8,500 
pounds available for that car line.
    (i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR less than 6000 
pounds.
    (ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR of 6000 
pounds up to and including 8,500 pounds.
    (iii) Vans.
    (iv) Minivans.
    (v) Sport utility vehicles.
    (3) (i) Special purpose vehicles. All automobiles with GVWR less 
than or equal to 8,500 pounds and all medium-duty passenger vehicles 
which possess special features and which the Administrator determines 
are more appropriately classified separately from typical automobiles 
or which do not meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section will be classified as special purpose vehicles.
    (ii) All automobiles which possess features that could apply to two 
classes will be classified by the Administrator based on the 
Administrator's judgment on which class of vehicles consumers are more 
likely to make comparisons.
    (4) Once a certain car line is classified by the Administrator, the 
classification will remain in effect for the model year.
    (b) Interior volume index--passenger automobiles. (1) The interior 
volume index shall be calculated for each car line which is not a 
``Atwo seater'' car line, in cubic feet rounded to the nearest 0.1 
cubic foot. For car lines with more than one body style, the interior 
volume index for the car line is the arithmetic average of the interior 
volume indexes of each body style in the car line.
    (2) For all body styles except station wagons, minivans and 
hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) 
equipped with seatbelts as required by DOT safety regulations, interior 
volume index is the sum, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the 
front seat volume, the rear seat volume, if applicable, and the luggage 
capacity.
    (3) For all station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks with more than 
one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) equipped with seatbelts as 
required by DOT safety regulations, interior volume index is the sum, 
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the front seat volume, the 
rear seat volume, and the cargo volume index.
    (c) All interior and cargo dimensions are measured in inches to the 
nearest 0.1 inch. All dimensions and volumes shall be determined from 
the base vehicles of each body style in each car line, and do not 
include optional equipment. The dimensions H61, W3, W5, L34, H63, W4, 
W6, L51, H201, L205, L210, L211, H198, and volume V1 are to be 
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle 
Dimensions SAE J1100a (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, 
Society of Automotive Engineers, approved September 1973 and last 
revised September 1975) except as noted herein:
    (1) SAE J1100a(2.3)--Cargo dimensions. All dimensions measured with 
the front seat positioned the same as for the interior dimensions and 
the second seat, for the station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks, in 
the upright position. All head restraints shall be in the stowed 
position and considered part of the seat.
    (2) SAE J1100a(8)--Luggage capacity. Total of columns of individual 
pieces of standard luggage set plus H boxes stowed in the luggage 
compartment in accordance with the procedure described in 8.2. For 
passenger automobiles with no rear seat or with two rear seats with no 
rear seatbelts, the luggage compartment shall include the area to the 
rear of the front seat, with the rear seat (if applicable) folded, to 
the height of a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the front 
seatback.
    (3) SAE J1100a(7)--Cargo dimensions. (i) L210-Cargo length at 
second seatback height-hatchback. The minimum horizontal dimension from 
the ``X'' plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the second seatback 
to the inside limiting interference of the hatchback door on the zero 
``Y'' plane.
    (ii) L211--Cargo length at floor-second-hatchback. The minimum 
horizontal dimensions at floor level from the rear of the second 
seatback to the normal limiting interference of the hatchback door on 
the vehicle zero ``Y'' plane.
    (iii) H198--Second seatback to load floor height. The dimension 
measured vertically from the horizontal tangent to the top of the 
second seatback to the undepressed floor covering.
    (d) The front seat volume is calculated in cubic feet by dividing 
1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and rounding the 
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (1) H61--Effective head room-front. (In inches, obtained according 
to paragraph (c) of this section),
    (2)(i) (W3+W5+5)/2-Average of shoulder and hip room-front, if hip 
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 and 
W5 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
    (ii) W3-Shoulder room-front, if hip room is not more than 5 inches 
less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section), and
    (3) L34--Maximum effective leg room-accelerator. (In inches, 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the 
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
    (e) The rear seat volume is calculated in cubic feet, for vehicles 
within a rear seat equipped with rear seat belts (as required by DOT), 
by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and 
rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (1) H63--Effective head room-second. (Inches obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section),
    (2)(i) (W4+W6+5)/2-Average of shoulder and hip room-second, if hip 
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W4 and 
W6 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
    (ii) W4--Shoulder room-second, if hip room is not more than 5 
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section), and

[[Page 77954]]

    (3) L51--Minimum effective leg room-second. (In inches obtained 
according to paragraph (c) of this section.)
    (f) The luggage capacity is V1, the usable luggage capacity 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section. For passenger 
automobiles with no rear seat or with a rear seat but no rear seat 
belts, the area to the rear of the front seat shall be included in the 
determination of V1, usable luggage capacity, as outlined in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (g) Cargo volume index. (1) For station wagons and minivans the 
cargo volume index V2 is calculated, in cubic feet, by dividing 1,728 
into the product of three terms and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (i) W4-;Shoulder room-second. (In inches obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section.)
    (ii) H201-;Cargo height. (In inches obtained according to paragraph 
(c) of this section.)
    (iii) L205-;Cargo length at belt-second. (In inches obtained 
according to paragraph (c) of this section.)
    (2) For hatchbacks, the cargo volume index V3 is calculated, in 
cubic feet, by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms:
    (i) Average cargo length, which is the arithmetic average of:
    (A) L210-Cargo length at second seatback height-hatchback. (In 
inches obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section);
    (B) L211-;Cargo length at floor-second-hatchback. (In inches 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section);
    (ii) W4-;Shoulder room-second. (In inches obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section);
    (iii) H198-;Second seatback to load floor height. (In inches 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the 
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic foot.
    (h) The following data must be submitted to the Administrator no 
later than the time of a general label request. Data shall be included 
for each body style in the car line covered by that general label.
    (1) For all passenger automobiles:
    (i) Dimensions H61, W3, L34 determined in accordance with paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (ii) Front seat volume determined in accordance with paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (iii) Dimensions H63, W4, L51 (if applicable) determined in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iv) Rear seat volume (if applicable) determined in accordance with 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (v) The interior volume index determined in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section for:
    (A) Each body style, and
    (B) The car line.
    (vi) The class of the car line as determined in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (2) For all passenger automobiles except station wagons, minivans 
and hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third 
seat) equipped with seat belts as required by DOT safety regulations:
    (i) The quantity and letter designation of the pieces of the 
standard luggage set installed in the vehicle in the determination of 
usable luggage capacity V1, and
    (ii) The usable luggage capacity V1, determined in accordance with 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (3) For station wagons and minivans with more than one seat (e.g., 
with a second or third seat) equipped with seat belts as required by 
DOT safety regulations:
    (i) The dimensions H201 and L205 determined in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section, and
    (ii) The cargo volume index V2 determined in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (4) For hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or 
third seat) equipped with seat belts as required by DOT safety 
regulations:
    (i) The dimensions L210, L211, and H198 determined in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) The cargo volume index V3 determined in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (5) For pickup trucks:
    (i) All GVWR's of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds available in 
the car line.
    (ii) The arithmetic average GVWR for the car line.

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
46. A new Sec.  600.405-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.405-08  Dealer requirements.

    (a) Each dealer shall prominently display at each location where 
new automobiles are offered for sale a copy of the annual Fuel Economy 
Guide containing the information specified in Sec.  600.407. The Fuel 
Economy Guide may be made available either in hard copy or 
electronically via an on-site computer available for prospective 
purchasers to view and print as desired. The dealer shall provide this 
information without charge. The dealer will be expected to make this 
information available as soon as it is received by the dealer, but in 
no case later than 15 working days after notification is given of its 
availability. The Department of Energy will annually notify dealers of 
the availability of the information with instructions on how to obtain 
it either electronically or in hard copy.
    (b) The dealer shall display the Fuel Economy Guide, or a notice of 
where the customer can electronically access the Fuel Economy Guide, in 
the same manner and in each location used to display brochures 
describing the automobiles offered for sale by the dealer. The notice 
shall include a link to the official Web site where this information is 
contained (http://www.fueleconomy.gov.)
    (c) The dealer shall display the booklet applicable to each model 
year automobile offered for sale at the location.

0
47. A new Sec.  600.407-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.407-08  Booklets displayed by dealers.

    (a) Booklets displayed by dealers in order to fulfill the 
obligations of Sec.  600.405 may be either
    (1) The printed copy of the annual Fuel Economy Guide published by 
the Department of Energy, or;
    (2) Optionally, dealers may display the Fuel Economy Guide on a 
computer that is linked to the electronic version of the Fuel Economy 
Guide (available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov), or;
    (3) A booklet approved by the Administrator of EPA containing the 
same information, format, and order as the Fuel Economy Guide published 
by the Department of Energy. Such a booklet may highlight the dealer's 
product line by contrasting color of ink or boldface type and may 
include other supplemental information regarding the dealer's product 
line subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (b) A manufacturer's name and logo or a dealer's name and address 
or both may appear on the back cover of the hard copies of the Fuel 
Economy Guide.

Subpart F--[Amended]

    48. A new Sec.  600.507-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.507-08  Running change data requirements.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall submit additional running change fuel economy data 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section for any running change 
approved or implemented under Sec. Sec.  86.079-32,

[[Page 77955]]

86.079-33, or 86.082-34 or 86.1842-01 as applicable, which:
    (1) Creates a new base level or,
    (2) Affects an existing base level by:
    (i) Adding an axle ratio which is at least 10 percent larger (or, 
optionally, 10 percent smaller) than the largest axle ratio tested.
    (ii) Increasing (or, optionally, decreasing) the road-load 
horsepower for a subconfiguration by 10 percent or more for the 
individual running change or, when considered cumulatively, since 
original certification (for each cumulative 10 percent increase using 
the originally certified road-load horsepower as a base).
    (iii) Adding a new subconfiguration by increasing (or, optionally, 
decreasing) the equivalent test weight for any previously tested 
subconfiguration in the base level.
    (b)(1) The additional running change fuel economy data requirement 
in paragraph (a) of this section will be determined based on the sales 
of the vehicle configurations in the created or affected base level(s) 
as updated at the time of running change approval.
    (2) Within each newly created base level as specified in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, the manufacturer shall submit data from the 
highest projected total model year sales subconfiguration within the 
highest projected total model year sales configuration in the base 
level.
    (3) Within each base level affected by a running change as 
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, fuel economy data shall 
be submitted for the vehicle configuration created or affected by the 
running change which has the highest total model year sales. The test 
vehicle shall be of the subconfiguration created by the running change 
which has the highest projected total model year sales within the 
applicable vehicle configuration.
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by 
this section to the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.314(b).
    (d) For those model types created under Sec.  600.208-08(a)(2), the 
manufacturer shall submit data for each subconfiguration added by a 
running change.

0
49. A new Sec.  600.510-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.510-08  Calculation of average fuel economy.

    (a) Average fuel economy will be calculated to the nearest 0.1 mpg 
for the classes of automobiles identified in this section, and the 
results of such calculations will be reported to the Secretary of 
Transportation for use in determining compliance with the applicable 
fuel economy standards.
    (1) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of passenger automobiles that is domestically manufactured as 
defined in Sec.  600.511(d)(1).
    (2) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of passenger automobiles that is not domestically manufactured 
as defined in Sec.  600.511(d)(2).
    (3) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of light trucks that is domestically manufactured as defined 
in Sec.  600.511(e)(1).
    (4) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of light trucks that is not domestically manufactured as 
defined in Sec.  600.511(e)(2).
    (b) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy under 
paragraph (c), of this section:
    (1) All fuel economy data submitted in accordance with Sec.  
600.006(e) or Sec.  600.512(c) shall be used.
    (2) The combined city/highway fuel economy will be calculated for 
each model type in accordance with Sec.  600.208-08 of this section 
except that:
    (i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for model types 
and base levels associated with car lines that are:
    (A) Domestically produced; and
    (B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
    (ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart, 
will be used instead of sales projections;
    (iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be 
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to correct gallons of diesel fuel to 
equivalent gallons of gasoline;
    (iv) The fuel economy value will be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; 
and
    (v) At the manufacturer's option, those vehicle configurations that 
are self-compensating to altitude changes may be separated by sales 
into high-altitude sales categories and low-altitude sales categories. 
These separate sales categories may then be treated (only for the 
purpose of this section) as separate configurations in accordance with 
the procedure of Sec.  600.208-08(a)(4)(ii).
    (3) The fuel economy value for each vehicle configuration is the 
combined fuel economy calculated according to Sec.  600.206-08(a)(3) 
except that:
    (i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for vehicle 
configurations associated with car lines that are:
    (A) Domestically produced; and
    (B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
    (ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart 
will be used instead of sales projections; and
    (iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be 
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to convert gallons of diesel fuel to 
equivalent gallons of gasoline.
    (c) Except as permitted in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
average fuel economy will be calculated individually for each category 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
    (1) Divide the total production volume of that category of 
automobiles; by
    (2) A sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a model type 
within that category of automobiles and is a fraction determined by 
dividing:
    (i) The number of automobiles of that model type produced by the 
manufacturer in the model year; by
    (ii) For gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled model types, the fuel 
economy calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section; or
    (iii) For alcohol-fueled model types, the fuel economy value 
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
    (iv) For natural gas-fueled model types, the fuel economy value 
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
    (v) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 through 
2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the result 
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
    (A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15 
provided the requirements of Sec.  600.510(g) are met; or
    (vi) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 
through 2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the 
result rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
    (A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
gasoline or diesel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
natural gas as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15 
provided the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are met.

[[Page 77956]]

    (d) The Administrator may approve alternative calculation methods 
if they are part of an approved credit plan under the provisions of 15 
U.S.C. 2003.
    (e) For passenger categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section, the average fuel economy calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section shall be adjusted using the 
following equation:

AFE<INF>adj</INF> = AFE[((0.55 x a x c) + (0.45 x c) + (0.5556 x a) + 
0.4487) / ((0.55 x a) + 0.45)] + IW

Where:

AFE<INF>adj</INF> = Adjusted average combined fuel economy, rounded 
to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
AFE = Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph (c) 
of this section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a = Sales-weight average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all 
model type highway fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1 
mpg) divided by the sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest 
0.0001 mpg) of all model type city fuel economy values (rounded to 
the nearest 0.1 mpg). The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal 
places. These average fuel economies shall be determined using the 
methodology of paragraph (c) of this section.
c = 0.0022 for the 1986 model year.
c = A constant value, fixed by model year. For 1987, the 
Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary 
laboratory humidity and test fuel data become available. For 1988 
and later model years, the Administrator will specify the c value 
after the necessary laboratory humidity and test fuel data become 
available.
IW = (9.2917 x 10 <SUP>-3</SUP> x SF<INF>3IWC</INF> x 
FE<INF>3IWC</INF>) - (3.5123 x 10 <SUP>-3</SUP> xx SF<INF>4ETW</INF> 
x FE<INF>4IWC</INF>).

    Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set 
equal to zero.

SF<INF>3IWC</INF> = The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales divided 
by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF<INF>4ETW</INF> = The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight category 
sales divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 
decimal places.
FE<INF>4IWC</INF> = The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy 
of all 3000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance 
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE<INF>4IWC</INF> = The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy 
of all 4000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance 
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

    (f) The Administrator shall calculate and apply additional average 
fuel economy adjustments if, after notice and opportunity for comment, 
the Administrator determines that, as a result of test procedure 
changes not previously considered, such correction is necessary to 
yield fuel economy test results that are comparable to those obtained 
under the 1975 test procedures. In making such determinations, the 
Administrator must find that:
    (1) A directional change in measured fuel economy of an average 
vehicle can be predicted from a revision to the test procedures;
    (2) The magnitude of the change in measured fuel economy for any 
vehicle or fleet of vehicles caused by a revision to the test 
procedures is quantifiable from theoretical calculations or best 
available test data;
    (3) The impact of a change on average fuel economy is not due to 
eliminating the ability of manufacturers to take advantage of 
flexibility within the existing test procedures to gain measured 
improvements in fuel economy which are not the result of actual 
improvements in the fuel economy of production vehicles;
    (4) The impact of a change on average fuel economy is not solely 
due to a greater ability of manufacturers to reflect in average fuel 
economy those design changes expected to have comparable effects on in-
use fuel economy;
    (5) The test procedure change is required by EPA or is a change 
initiated by EPA in its laboratory and is not a change implemented 
solely by a manufacturer in its own laboratory.
    (g)(1) Alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles must provide equal or greater energy efficiency while 
operating on alcohol or natural gas as while operating on gasoline or 
diesel fuel to obtain the CAFE credit determined in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section. The following equation must hold 
true:

E<INF>alt</INF>/E<INF>pet</INF> > or = 1

Where:

E<INF>alt</INF> = [FE<INF>alt</INF>/(NHV<INF>alt</INF> x 
D<INF>alt</INF>)] x 10 <SUP>6</SUP> = energy efficiency while 
operating on alternative fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/
million BTU.
E<INF>pet</INF> = [FE<INF>pet</INF>/(NHV<INF>pet</INF> x 
D<INF>pet</INF>)] x 10 <SUP>6</SUP> = energy efficiency while 
operating on gasoline or diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the 
nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
FE<INF>alt</INF> is the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels 
or miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] while operated 
on the alternative fuel as determined in Sec.  600.113-08(a) and 
(b);
FE<INF>pet</INF> is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated 
on petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined in Sec.  
600.113(a) and (b);
NHV<INF>alt</INF> is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 
alternative fuel;
NHV<INF>pet</INF> is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 
petroleum fuel;
D<INF>alt</INF> is the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels or lb/100 
standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] of the alternative fuel;
D<INF>pet</INF> is the density [lb/gallon] of the petroleum fuel.

    (i) The equation must hold true for both the FTP city and HFET 
highway fuel economy values for each test of each test vehicle.
    (ii)(A) The net heating value for alcohol fuels shall be determined 
per ASTM D 240-92 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of 
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter.'' This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies 
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, 
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be determined per ASTM D 
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative 
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies 
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, 
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be 
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec.  600.113(f).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Alcohol dual fuel passenger automobiles and natural gas dual 
fuel passenger automobiles manufactured during model years 1993 through 
2004 must meet the minimum driving range

[[Page 77957]]

requirements established by the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR 
part 538) to obtain the CAFE credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) 
and (vi) of this section.
    (h) For each of the model years 1993 through 2004, and for each 
category of automobile identified in paragraph (a) of this section, the 
maximum increase in average fuel economy determined in paragraph (c) of 
this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural 
gas dual fuel automobiles shall be 1.2 miles per gallon or as provided 
for in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (1) The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel 
economy to determine if the maximum increase provided in paragraph (h) 
of this section has been reached. The Administrator shall calculate the 
average fuel economy for each category of automobiles specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section by subtracting the average fuel economy 
values calculated in accordance with this section by assuming all 
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated 
exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) fuel from the average fuel economy 
values determined in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and (c) of 
this section. The difference is limited to the maximum increase 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (i) In the event that the Secretary of Transportation lowers the 
corporate average fuel economy standard applicable to passenger 
automobiles below 27.5 miles per gallon for any model year during 1993 
through 2004, the maximum increase of 1.2 mpg per year specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section shall be reduced by the amount the 
standard was lowered, but not reduced below 0.7 mpg per year.

0
50. A new Sec.  600.512-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.512-01  Model year report.

    (a) For each model year, the manufacturer shall submit to the 
Administrator a report, known as the model year report, containing all 
information necessary for the calculation of the manufacturer's average 
fuel economy. The results of the manufacturer calculations and summary 
information of model type fuel economy values which are contained in 
the average calculation shall be submitted to the Secretary of the 
Department of Transportation, National Highway and Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    (b)(1) The model year report shall be in writing, signed by the 
authorized representative of the manufacturer and shall be submitted no 
later than 90 days after the end of the model year.
    (2) The Administrator may waive the requirement that the model year 
report be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the model 
year. Based upon a request by the manufacturer, if the Administrator 
determines that 90 days is insufficient time for the manufacturer to 
provide all additional data required as determined in Sec.  600.507, 
the Administrator shall establish a date by which the model year report 
must be submitted.
    (3) Separate reports shall be submitted for passenger automobiles 
and light trucks (as identified in Sec.  600.510).
    (c) The model year report must include the following information:
    (1) All fuel economy data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type 
calculations under Sec.  600.208-08, and subsequently required by the 
Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.507;
    (2) All fuel economy data for certification vehicles and for 
vehicles tested for running changes approved under Sec.  86.1842-01 of 
this chapter;
    (3) Any additional fuel economy data submitted by the manufacturer 
under Sec.  600.509;
    (4) A fuel economy value for each model type of the manufacturer's 
product line calculated according to Sec.  600.510(b)(2);
    (5) The manufacturer's average fuel economy value calculated 
according to Sec.  600.510(c);
    (6) A listing of both domestically and nondomestically produced car 
lines as determined in Sec.  600.511 and the cost information upon 
which the determination was made; and
    (7) The authenticity and accuracy of production data must be 
attested to by the corporation, and shall bear the signature of an 
officer (a corporate executive of at least the rank of vice-president) 
designated by the corporation. Such attestation shall constitute a 
representation by the manufacturer that the manufacturer has 
established reasonable, prudent procedures to ascertain and provide 
production data that are accurate and authentic in all material 
respects and that these procedures have been followed by employees of 
the manufacturer involved in the reporting process. The signature of 
the designated officer shall constitute a representation by the 
required attestation.

0
51. A new Sec.  600.513-08 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.513-08  Gas Guzzler Tax.

    (a) This section applies only to passenger automobiles sold after 
December 27, 1991, regardless of the model year of those vehicles. For 
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the fuel 
economy while such automobiles are operated on gasoline will be used 
for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments.
    (1) The provisions of this section do not apply to passenger 
automobiles exempted for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments by applicable 
federal law and regulations. However, the manufacturer of an exempted 
passenger automobile may, in its discretion, label such vehicles in 
accordance with the provisions of this section.
    (2) For 1991 and later model year passenger automobiles, the 
combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value determined in 
Sec.  600.208-08 used for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments shall be 
calculated in accordance with the following equation, rounded to the 
nearest 0.1 mpg:

FE<INF>adj</INF> = FE[((0.55 x a<INF>g</INF> x c) + (0.45 x c) + 
(0.5556 x a<INF>g</INF>) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 x a<INF>g</INF>) + 0.45)] + 
IW<INF>g</INF>

Where:

FE<INF>adj</INF> = Fuel economy value to be used for determination 
of gas guzzler tax assessment rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE = Combined model type fuel economy calculated in accordance with 
Sec.  600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a<INF>g</INF> = Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg 
divided by the model type city fuel economy calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. The 
quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
c = gas guzzler adjustment factor = 1.300 x 10<SUP>-</SUP>\3\ for 
the 1986 and later model years.
IW<INF>g</INF> = (9.2917 x 10<SUP>-3</SUP> x SF<INF>3IWCG</INF> 
FE<INF>3IWCG</INF>) - (3.5123 x 10<SUP>-3</SUP> x SF<INF>4ETWG</INF> 
x FE<INF>4IWCG</INF>).

    Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set 
equal to zero.

SF<INF>3IWCG</INF> = The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales in the 
model type divided by the total model type sales; the quotient shall 
be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF<INF>4ETWG</INF> = The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight sales in 
the model type divided by the total model type sales, the quotient 
shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
    FE<INF>3IWCG</INF> = The 3000 lb. inertial weight class base 
level combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel 
economy rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
    FE<INF>4IWCG</INF> = The 4000 lb. inertial weight class base 
level combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel 
economy rounded to the nearest 0.001 mpg.

    (b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold after December 31, 1990, with 
a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value of less than 
22.5 mpg (as determined in Sec.  600.208-08), calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and rounded to the

[[Page 77958]]

nearest 0.1 mpg, each vehicle fuel economy label shall include a Gas 
Guzzler Tax statement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax 
amount stated shall be as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) For passenger automobiles with a combined general label model 
type fuel economy value of:
    (i) At least 22.5 mpg, no Gas Guzzler Tax statement is required.
    (ii) At least 21.5 mpg, but less than 22.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $1,000.
    (iii) At least 20.5 mpg, but less than 21.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $1,300.
    (iv) At least 19.5 mpg, but less than 20.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $1,700.
    (v) At least 18.5 mpg; but less than 19.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $2,100.
    (vi) At least 17.5 mpg, but less than 18.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $2,600.
    (vii) At least 16.5 mpg, but less than 17.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,000.
    (viii) At least 15.5 mpg, but less than 16.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,700.
    (ix) At least 14.5 mpg, but less than 15.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $4,500.
    (x) At least 13.5 mpg, but less than 14.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $5,400.
    (xi) At least 12.5 mpg, but less than 13.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $6,400.
    (xii) Less than 12.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax statement shall show 
a tax of $7,700.

0
52. Appendix II to Part 600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) as 
follows:

Appendix II to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Calculations

* * * * *
    (b) This sample fuel economy calculation is applicable to 1988 
and later model year automobiles.
    (1) Assume that a gasoline-fueled vehicle was tested by the 
Federal Emission Test Procedure and the following results were 
calculated:

HC = .139 grams/mile.
CO = 1.59 grams/mile.
CO<INF>2</INF> = 317 grams/mile.

    (2) Assume that the test fuel used for this test had the 
following properties:

SG = 0.745.
CWF = 0.868.
NHV = 18,478 Btu/lb.
    (3) According to the procedure in Sec.  600.113-08, the city 
fuel economy or MPG<INF>c</INF>, for the vehicle may be calculated 
by substituting the HC, CO, and CO<INF>2</INF> gram/mile values and 
the SG, CWF, and NHV values into the following equation:

MPG<INF>c</INF> = (5174 x 10<SUP>4</SUP>x CWF x SG) / [((CWF x HC) + 
(0.429 x CO + (0.273 x CO<INF>2</INF>)) ((0.6 x SG x NHV) + 5471)]

    Example:

MPG<INF>c</INF> = (5174 x 10 <SUP>4</SUP> x 0.868 x 0.745) / [(0.868 x 
.139 + 0.429 x 1.59 + 0.273 x 317)(0.6 x 0.745 x 18478 + 5471)]
MPG<INF>c</INF> = 27.9

    (4) Assume that the same vehicle was tested by the Federal 
Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure and a calculation similar to 
that shown in (b)(3) of this section resulted in a highway fuel 
economy of MPG<INF>h</INF> of 36.9. According to the procedure in 
Sec.  600.210(c), the combined fuel economy (called 
MPG<INF>comb</INF>) for the vehicle may be calculated by 
substituting the city and highway fuel economy values into the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.082

0
53. Appendix III to Part 600 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix III to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Label Calculation

    Suppose that a manufacturer called Mizer Motors has a product 
line composed of eight car lines. Of these eight, four are available 
with the 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, sequential multi-point fuel 
injection, 4-valve per cylinder, and 3-way catalyst engine. These 
four car lines are:

Ajax
Boredom III
Dodo
Castor (Station Wagon)

    A. A car line is defined in subpart A (with additional guidance 
provided in EPA Advisory Circular 89) as a group of vehicles within 
a make or division which has a degree of commonality in 
construction. Car line does not consider any level of decor or 
opulence and is not generally distinguished by such characteristics 
as roofline, number of doors, seats, or windows. Station wagons and 
light duty trucks are, however, identified separately from the 
remainder of each car line. In other words, a Castor station wagon 
would be considered a different car line than the normal Castor car 
line made up of sedans, coupes, etc.
    B. The engine considered here is defined as a basic engine in 
subpart A of this part (with additional guidance provided in EPA 
Advisory Circular 83A). A basic engine is a unique combination of 
manufacturer, engine displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system, 
catalyst usage and other engine and emission control system 
characteristics specified by the Administrator. A model type is a 
unique combination of car line, basic engine, and transmission 
class. Thus Ajax is a car line but Ajax 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder manual 
four-speed transmission is a model type whereas Ajax 3.0 liter, 6 
cylinder automatic three-speed transmission is a different model 
type.
    C. The following calculations provide an example of the 
procedures described in subpart C of this part for the calculation 
of vehicle configuration and model type fuel economy values. In 
order to simplify the presentation, only city fuel economy values 
are included (as determined by either the derived 5-cycle method or 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle based method). The procedure is identical 
for highway and combined fuel economy values.
    Step I. Input data as supplied by the manufacturer or as 
determined from testing conducted by the Administrator.

Manufacturer--Mizer Motors

    Basic Engine: (3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, sequential multi-point 
fuel injection, 4-valve per cylinder, 3-way catalyst).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Harmonically    Specific     Vehicle
                    Test vehicle carline                      Engine code     Trans       Inertia     Axle ratio    averaged.    label MPG     config.
                                                                                           weight                   city MPG        \1\         sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax........................................................            1          M-4         3500         2.73       16.1001           16       15,000
Ajax........................................................            2          A-3         3500         2.56       15.9020           16       35,000
Boredom III.................................................            4          M-4         4000         3.08       14.2343           14       10,000
Ajax........................................................            3          M-4         4000         3.36       15.0000           15       15,000
Boredom III.................................................            8          A-3         4000         2.56       13.8138           14       25,000
Boredom III.................................................            5          A-3         4500         3.08       13.2203           13       20,000
Castor......................................................            5          A-3         5000         3.08       10.6006           11      40,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The vehicle configuration fuel economy values, rounded to the nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values that would be used on specific
  labels for that vehicle configuration.


[[Page 77959]]

    Step II. Group vehicle fuel economy and sales data according to 
base level combinations within this basic engine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Projected
                                                                           Inertia     Miles per      vehicle
                Base level                      Transmission class          weight       gallon    configuration
                                                                                                       sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................................  Manual-4....................        3,500      16.1001        15,000
B........................................  Automatic-3.................        3,500      15.9020        35,000
C........................................  Manual-4....................        4,000      14.2343        10,000
C........................................  Manual-4....................        4,000      15.0000        15,000
D........................................  Automatic-3.................        4,000      13.8138        25,000
E........................................  Automatic-3.................        4,500      13.2203        20,000
F........................................  Automatic-3.................        5,000      10.6006        40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step III. Determine base level fuel economy values.
    A. For all the base levels except the base level which includes 
4,000 pound, manual four-speed transmission data, the base level 
fuel economy is as noted in Step II since only one vehicle 
configuration was tested within each of these base levels.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,500 lb/M4 transmission..................  16.1001 mpg.
3,500 lb/A3 transmission..................  15.9020 mpg.
4,000 lb/A3 transmission..................  13.8138 mpg.
4,500 lb/A3 transmission..................  13.2203 mpg.
5,000 lb/A3 transmission..................  10.6006 mpg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Since data from more than one vehicle configuration are 
included in the 4,000-pound, manual four-speed transmission base 
level, this fuel economy is harmonically averaged in proportion to 
the percentage of total sales of all vehicle configurations tested 
within that base level represented by each vehicle configuration 
tested within that base level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.083

    Base level: M4 transmission, 4000 pounds:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.084
    
    Therefore, the 4000 pound, M4 transmission fuel economy is 
14.6840 miles per gallon.
    Note that the car line of the test vehicle using a given engine 
makes no difference--only the weight and transmission do.
    Step IV. For each model type offered by the manufacturer with 
that basic engine, determine the sales fraction represented by each 
inertia weight/transmission class combination and the corresponding 
fuel economy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax.....................................  M4........................  0.4000 at 3,500 lb..........      16.1001
                                                                       0.6000 at 4,000 lb..........      14.6840
                                           A3........................  0.3000 at 3,500 lb..........      15.9020
                                                                       0.7000 at 4,000 lb..........      13.8138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodo.....................................  M4........................  0.4000 at 3,500 lb..........      16.1001
                                                                       0.6000 at 4,000 lb..........      14.6840
                                           A3........................  0.3000 at 3,500 lb..........      15.9020
                                                                       0.7000 at 4,000 lb..........      13.8138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boredom III..............................  M4........................  1.0000 at 4,000 lb..........      14.6840
                                           A3........................  0.2500 at 4,000 lb..........      13.8138
                                                                       0.7500 at 4,500 lb..........      13.2203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castor...................................  A3........................  0.2000 at 4,500 lb..........      13.2203
                                                                       0.8000 at 5,000 lb..........      10.6006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77960]]

    Step V. Determine fuel economy for each model type (that is, car 
line/basic engine/transmission class combination).
    Ajax, 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 transmission, model type MPG is 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.085

    Similarly, Ajax and Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, M4 model type 
MPG is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.086

    Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.087

    Boredom III 3.0 liter 6 cylinder M4 model type MPG = 14.6840 
mpg, which rounds to 15 mi./gal\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The model type fuel economy values rounded to the nearest 
mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values listed in the EPA Fuel 
Economy Guide and used on the general labels (window stickers) for 
production vehicles for that model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boredom III 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.088

    Castor 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.089


[[Page 77961]]


    Note that even though no Dodo was actually tested, this approach 
permits its fuel economy figure to be estimated, based on the 
inertia weight distribution of projected Dodo sales within a 
specific engine and transmission grouping.

0
54. A new Appendix IV is added to read as follows:

Appendix IV to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 and Later 
Model Year Vehicles

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    A. Gasoline (or diesel)-fueled vehicle label
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.090
    
    B. Gasoline (or diesel)-fueled vehicle label (with transitional 
text statement for MY 2008 and 2009 vehicles only)

[[Page 77962]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.091

    C. Gasoline-fueled Gas Guzzler vehicle label
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.092
    
    D. Dual Fuel Vehicle Label (Ethanol/Gasoline)
    Option 1--without alternate fuel economy)

[[Page 77963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.093

    Option 2--with alternate fuel economy
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.094
    
    E. Natural Gas Vehicle Label

[[Page 77964]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.095

    F. Dual Fuel Natural Gas Label
    Option 1--without alternate fuel economy
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.096
    
    Option 2--With alternate fuel economy

[[Page 77965]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.097


0
55. A new Appendix V is added to read as follows:

Appendix V to Part 600--Fuel Economy Label Style Guidelines for 2008 
and Later Model Year Vehicles

    A. Format Guidelines for Gasoline (or Diesel) Vehicles

[[Page 77966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.098

    B. Format Guidelines for Ethanol and Natural Gas Dual Fuel 
Vehicles. Unless otherwise indicated, the format specifications in 
Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.099


[[Page 77967]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.101


[[Page 77968]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.102

    C. Format Guidelines showing Gas Guzzler. Unless otherwise 
indicated, the format specifications in Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.103


[[Page 77969]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.104

    D. Format Guidelines for Natural Vehicles. Unless otherwise 
indicated, the format specifications in Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.105

[FR Doc. 06-9749 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>