77872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ‘‘lightduty 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. 

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: french.roberts@epa.gov. 

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: 

Category NAICS Codes a Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry .............. 336111, 336112 ...................................... Motor vehicle manufacturers. 

Industry .............. 81112, 811198, 54154 ............................ Commercial importers of 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 MediumDuty 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77873 

2See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006), Available in the 

public docket and on our Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm. 

3Enter the docket i.d. number (EPA–HQ–OAR–

2005–0169) in the Keyword field and choose ‘‘All 

Documents (Open and Closed for Comment).’’ 4See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

regulations.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. 

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 DealerSupplied 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. 

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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

6See 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. 

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 °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 mid1980’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

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 realworld. 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77875 

7Emissions 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. 

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

9U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal 

Test Procedure Review Project: Preliminary 

Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, No. EPA420–R–93–007, May 1993. 

10See 61 FR 54852 (October 22, 1996). 

11These 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. 

12A ‘‘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 

Continued 

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 realworld 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. 

The need for action to address offcycle 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°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 °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 °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. 

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

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 °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 realworld 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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

recent real-world driving activity 

studies is described in detail in the 

Technical Support Document. 

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

Test Designed to represent Avg speed 

(mph) 

Max speed 

(mph) 

Max accel 

(mph/sec) Ambient conditions Primary use 

Federal Test Procedure 

(FTP).

Urban stop-and-go driving from 1970’s.21 58 3.3 75 °F ............................. Emissions & fuel economy testing. 

Highway Fuel Economy 

Test (HFET).

Rural driving ................. 48 60 3.3 75 °F ............................. Fuel economy testing. 

US06 ............................. High speeds and aggressive driving.48 80 8.5 75 °F ............................. Emissions testing. 

SC03 ............................. Air conditioner operation.22 55 5.1 95 °F & 40% relative 

humidity.

Emissions testing. 

Cold FTP ...................... Cold temperature operation.21 58 3.3 20 °F ............................. Emissions testing. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77877 

14See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b). 

15See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). 

16See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a). 17See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006). 

program some of the heavy-duty 

vehicles that are designed and used 

predominantly for passenger use. 

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. 

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. 

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: 

• A new layout featuring an updated 

fuel pump graphic, a prominent 

heading, and prominent government 

logos; 

• 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); 

• An easy-to-use graphic that allows 

quick comparison of the labeled vehicle 

with other vehicles in its class; 

• A simplified statement noting that 

‘‘Your mileage will vary’’; 

• A link to the EPA/DOE Web site 

www.fueleconomy.gov; and, 

• 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). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77878 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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. 

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: 

• 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); 

• Mandatory operation of the heater/ 

defroster during the cold temperature 

FTP for emissions and fuel economy 

testing; 

• Testing diesel vehicles on the cold 

temperature FTP; and 

• 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 realworld 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 realworld 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 realworld 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 °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 °F test 

temperature. Only about 20 percent of 

VMT occurs between 70 and 80 °F, 

approximately 15 percent of VMT 

occurs at temperatures above 80 °F, and 

65 percent occurs below 70 °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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

19The ‘‘mpg-based’’ method is termed the 

‘‘derived 5-cycle’’ approach in the regulatory text. 20Any 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. 

21See 49 U.S.C. 32908, 32901(a)(3)(B), and 

Section VII for a detailed explanation of EPA’s legal 

authority. 

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. 

Starting with the 2011 model year, the 

5-cycle approach will be required. 

Under this approach, the manufacturers 

will be required to implement vehiclespecific 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 mpgbased 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 MediumDuty 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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77881 

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

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

24See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ or http: 

//www.regulations.gov. 

25The 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). 

26EPA’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. 

1975.22 This final rule will not impact 

the CAFE calculations. 

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. 

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

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°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. 

Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold 

FTP tests are only performed on a subset 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. 

We also are finalizing the proposed 

provisions that allow manufacturers to 

use the interim approach to fuel 

economy label estimation, the ‘‘mpgbased’’ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

27Any 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. 

28Our 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. 

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

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 mpgbased 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. 

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 vehiclespecific 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 fleetwide average relationship, as opposed to 

that vehicle’s own results over the 5 test 

cycles. In other words, under the mpgbased 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 °F improves our ability to estimate 

fuel economy at 50 °F, compared to 

projecting fuel economy at 50 °F solely 

using the FTP test data at 75 °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 °F, 

50 °F, and 75 °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 °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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77884 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

City FE Start FC + Running FC)= × 0 905 1 . (

Where: 

Start FC Start Fuel (gallons per mile) = 0.330 × (. . 0 76 0 24 × +× 75 Start Fuel20

4 1

)

.





 





Where: 

Start Fuel for vehicles tested over a 3-bag FTP = 3.6 1

B x ×ag 1 FE

1

x x Bag 3 FE − 



 





Where: 

Bag y FEx = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during the specified bag of 

the FTP test conducted at an ambient 

temperature of 75 ° or 20 °F. 

For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles 

tested over a 4-bag FTP the calculation 

for start fuel consumption is somewhat 

different: 

Start FC Start Fuel S (gallons per mile) = 0.33 × (. . 0 76 0 24 × +× 75 tart Fuel20

4 1

)

.





 





Where: 

Start Fuel = 3.6 1

Bag 1 FE

1

Bag 3 FE

3.9 1

Ba 75

75 75

× −





 



 + ×

g 2 FE

1

75 75 Bag 4 FE − 



 





and 

Start Fuel = 3.6 1

Bag 1 FE

1

Bag 3 FE 20

20 20

× −





 





Likewise, 

Running FC = 0.82 0.48

Bag 2 FE

0.41

Bag 3 FE 75 75

× ++

0 11

06

.

US City FE

0.5

Bag 2 FE

0.5

Bag 3 FE

 

20 20





 



 +× +





 



0 18  .

 + 0.133 1.083

 FE

0.61

Bag 3 FE

0.39

Ba 75

×× − +

1

SC03 g 2 FE 75





 



 















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 °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: 


ER27DE06.000</MATH> ER27DE06.001</MATH> ER27DE06.002</MATH> ER27DE06.003</MATH> ER27DE06.004</MATH> ER27DE06.005</MATH> ER27DE06.006</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77885 

 0.82 0.48

Bag 4 FE

0.41

75 75 Bag 3 FE City FE

× ++





 



0 11

06

.

US  +× +





 





×

0 18 . 0.5

Bag 2 FE

0.5

Bag 3 FE

 + 0.133

20 20

1.083

 FE

0.61

Bag 3 FE

0.39

75 75 Bag 4 FE

×− + 



 



 











 1

SC03 

Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 

formula, the highway fuel economy 

value would be calculated as follows: 

Highway FE = 0.905 1

Start FC + Running FC

×

Where: 

Start FC gallons

Start Fuel St

 per mile ( ) = ×

× +×

0 330

0 76 0 24 75 . . . art Fuel20

60

( )



 





and, 

Running HFET FC = 1.007

US06 Highway FE FE ( ) × +





 



 +

0 79 0 21 0 . . . . . . 133 0 377 1

03

0 61

3

0 39

2 75

×× − + 



 



 





SC Bag FE Bag FE FE 75









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 °F FTP the 

highway fuel economy is calculated 

using the following equations: 

Highway FC + Running FC)FE

Start

= × 0 905 1 . (

Where: 

Start FC

Start Fuel Start Fuel = × ( ) × +×



 



0 33

0 76 0 24

60

75 20 . . . 

Where: 

Start Fuel

ag 1 FE Bag 3 FE ag 2 75

75 75

=× −





 



3 6  + ×

1 1 3 9 1 . . B B FE Bag 4 FE 75 75

− 



 



 1

and, 

Start Fuel = 3.6 1

Bag 1 FE

1

Bag 3 FE 20

20 20

× − 



 






ER27DE06.007</MATH> ER27DE06.008</MATH> ER27DE06.009</MATH> ER27DE06.010</MATH> ER27DE06.011</MATH> ER27DE06.012</MATH> ER27DE06.013</MATH> ER27DE06.014</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77886 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

and, 

Running HFET FC = 1.007

US06 Highway FE FE

× +





 



 +

0 79 0 21 0 1 . . . 33 0 377 1

0 3

0 61

3

0 39

4 75

×× − + 



 



 



.  . .

SC Bag FE Bag FE FE 75









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 mpgbased 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: 

Equation 1:

City MPG = 1

0.003259 + 1.1805

FTP FE





 





Where: 

FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during the FTP test 

conducted at an ambient temperature of 

75°F. This value is normally a salesweighted average of the vehicle models 

included in the ‘‘model type’’ vehicle 

grouping as defined in 40 CFR 600.002–

93. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.015</MATH> ER27DE06.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77887 

Likewise, the highway fuel economy 

value will be calculated as follows: 

Equation 2:

Highway MPG = 1

0.001376 + 1.3466

HFET FE





 





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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.018</GPH> ER27DE06.019</MATH>
77888 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 mpgbased 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-todate 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 identicallynamed 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.021</GPH>
77890 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.022</GPH> ER27DE06.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77891 

29The 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. 

TABLE II–1.—EFFECT OF 5-CYCLE FORMULAE ON CITY AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY LABELS

City Highway Combined* 

Current 

(mpg) 

5-Cycle 

(mpg) 

Percent 

change 

(percent) 

Current 

(mpg) 

5-Cycle 

(mpg) 

Percent 

change 

(percent) 

Current 

(mpg) 

5-Cycle 

(mpg) 

Percent 

change 

(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. 

There is one diesel vehicle in our 5- 

cycle fuel economy database. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.024</GPH>
77892 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

30The database spreadsheet is available in the 

public docket for review. 

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 

Current 

(mpg) 

MPG-based 

(mpg) 

Percent 

change 

(percent) 

Current 

(mpg) 

MPG-based 

(mpg) 

Percent 

change 

(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 MPGbased Current 5-Cycle MPGbased 

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

TABLE II.–4.—EFFECT OF NEW METHODS ON FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR MANUFACTURERS

Manufacturer 

2005 U.S. 

market share 

(percent)* 

Average 

change in city 

fuel economy 

estimate 

(percent) 

Average 

change in 

highway fuel 

economy estimate 

(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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77893 

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. 

TABLE II.–4.—EFFECT OF NEW METHODS ON FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR MANUFACTURERS—Continued 

Manufacturer 

2005 U.S. 

market share 

(percent)* 

Average 

change in city 

fuel economy 

estimate 

(percent) 

Average 

change in 

highway fuel 

economy estimate 

(percent) 

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 matchup 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 nongovernmental 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 nongovernmental 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 mpgbased 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 mpgbased 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77894 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

32AAA Auto Guide: 2004 New Cars and Trucks. 

AAA Publishing, 2004. 

TABLE II–5.—CONSUMER REPORTS AND CURRENT EPA AND MPG-BASED FUEL ECONOMY: 303 VEHICLES

Consumer 

reports 

Current EPA label MPG-based 

MPG MPG Difference* (percent) MPG Difference (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 

reports 

Current EPA label 5-cycle MPG-based 

MPG MPG Difference* (percent) MPG Difference (percent) MPG Difference (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%. 

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

Vehicle type Number of 

estimates YourMPG Current label 

Difference 

(percent) 

MPG-based 

label 

Difference 

(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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77895 

33See www.edmunds.com. 

34The ‘‘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, fourwheel 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. 

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. 

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 mpgbased 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 mpgbased 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. 

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 vehiclespecific 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-thanaverage performance, we expect that 

most manufacturers will want to do 

complete 5-cycle testing for vehicles 

likely to be significantly above the mpgbased 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 mpgbased 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77896 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 mpgbased approach to estimate the city fuel 

economy label. For the highway label in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.025</GPH> ER27DE06.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77897 

35See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000). 

36This is the regulatory definition of MediumDuty 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. 

37See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b). 

38See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). 

39See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a). 

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

41MDPVs 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. 

42See 61 FR 54852 (Oct. 22, 1996). 

this case, all the vehicle configurations 

represented by the emission data 

vehicle may use an approximate 5-cycle 

formula. This formula includes vehiclespecific 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 vehiclespecific, 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 testto-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 newlydefined 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

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. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77898 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

43See 65 FR 6789 (Feb. 10, 2000). 

44U.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. 

45Note 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. 

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

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 mpgbased 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. 

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. 

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 jointlysponsoring 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. 

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77899 

and horizontal designs for focus group 

review.] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.027</GPH>
77900 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77901 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.029</GPH>
77902 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 milesper-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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77903 

The focus group reaction was divided 

uniformly between the three options 

provided. Some liked seeing the moredetailed 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 statutorilyrequired 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.031</GPH>
77904 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

47See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) and 26 U.S.C. 

4064(c)(1). 48See, 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 

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. 

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

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77905 

49Based on fuel economies of gasoline and E85 

reported in the Model Year 2006 Fuel Economy 

Guide, p. 18. 

50See the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1810(i)(4) and 40 CFR 86.1811–04(g). 

51ASTM 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, NonAviation 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. 

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. 

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. 

1. Diesel Vehicles 

Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently 

subject to Cold FTP emission standards 

and thus do not have a 20 °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 #1–D (wintergrade) 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. 

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 (CO2) 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

53Section 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. 

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, CO2, and HC measurements. 

2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles 

There are two types of alternativefueled vehicles: (1) Flexible-fuel 

vehicles (FFVs; also known as dualfueled, 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 mpgbased 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: 

FE gasoline

mpg

mpg

FE gas

mpg, city

. . =

+

= 1

0 0033563 1 17895

24

19

oline

mpg

mpg mpg,

. . highway =

+

= 1

0 0013934 1 34619

32

23

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. 

ratio mpg

mpg

ratio mpg

mpg

city

highway

= =

= =

19

24

0 826

23

32

0 71

.

. 9

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. 

FE altfuel FTP altfuel FE gasoline

FTP gasolin city

mpg city = × ,

e

mpg mpg

FE altfuel HFET altfuel FE ga

highway

= ×=

= ×

18 0 826 15 

 

.

soline

HFET gasoline mpg mpg mpg, . highway = ×= 26 0 719 19 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.032</MATH> ER27DE06.033</MATH> ER27DE06.034</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77907 

54See § 600.113–93. 

55Mitcham, 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. 

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 mpgbased 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. 

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 alternativefueled 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 fourphase FTP measurements for gasolineelectric 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

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 (CH4) 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-bysecond 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 twobag 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

56See 40 CFR 86.230–94(f). 

57Southwest 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. 

58Southwest 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. 

use the 5-cycle approach must either 

conduct the two-bag US06 test or 

determine two-bag results from a onebag 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, CO2 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 

°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 °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. 

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 °F Cold FTP. 

We compared the fuel economy results 

with heater/defroster operational to the 

results of the heater/defroster nonoperational 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

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 realworld at cold temperatures including 20 

°F, and it is necessary to maintain a 

level playing field across manufacturers 

to prevent gaming of the test procedure. 

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°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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77909 

59See 60 FR 15804, ‘‘Control of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Mobile Sources’’ (March 29, 2006). 

60 Ibid. 

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

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. 

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°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°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°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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77910 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 hybridelectric 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 hybridelectric 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) asis 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 hybridelectric 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 mpgbased calculation for the five-cycle fuel 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77911 

61Model 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. 

62The figure is approximate because the city FTP 

test may be used and recorded primarily as a fuel 

economy test, an emissions test, or both. 

63Based 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. 

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 mpgbased 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 

data61, 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. 

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 MediumDuty 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lightduty 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 fourphase 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77913 

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

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

Cost Element 

MY 2008 through MY 2010 MY 2011 and after 

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77914 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

65As discussed in Section III, the new fuel 

economy label design becomes mandatory on 

September 1, 2007, before which manufacturers 

may optionally use it. 66See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10). 

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 withinclass 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

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77915 

67See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 68See 49 U.S.C. 32908 (c)(3). 69See Pub. L. 94–163. 

70See 49 U.S.C. 32904, 32908. 

71See 49 U.S.C. 32904. 

72See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 

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

74See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1). 

75See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F). 

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 DealerSupplied 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. 

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

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

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: 

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). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77916 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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

77See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c). 

78 Id. 

79See Pub. L. 109–58. 

80More 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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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

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 higheroctane 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. 

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. 

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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77917 

82See Pub. L. 109–58. 

83See 40 FR 42003 (Sept. 10, 1975). 

84See 43 FR 55747 (Nov. 29, 1978); and 60 FR 

56230 (Nov. 8, 1995). 

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. 

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 highoccupancy 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.’’

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77918 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

■ 2. The table of references in 

§ 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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77920 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 86.1 Reference materials. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Document No. and 

name 

40 CFR part 86 reference 

* * * * * 

ASTM D 975–04c 

Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel 

Oils.

86.1910, 86.213–11. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 3. A new § 86.158–08 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.158–08 Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures; overview. 

The procedures described in 

§§ 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, NOX, CH4, and 

CO2. For diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is 

sampled and analyzed continuously 

according to the provisions of § 86.110. 

(b) Each test procedure follows the 

vehicle preconditioning specified in 

§ 86.132–00. 

(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test 

procedure for emissions on the US06 

driving schedule (see § 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 § 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 

§ 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 dieselcycle vehicles for which THC is 

sampled and analyzed continuously 

according to the provisions of § 86.110, 

the analytical system shall be 

configured to calculate THC for the 

US06 City phase and the US06 Highway 

phase as described in § 86.159–08. 

(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test 

procedure for determining exhaust 

emissions with the air conditioner 

operating (see § 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 °F, 100 

grains of water/pound of dry air 

(approximately 40 percent relative 

humidity), and a solar heat load 

intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test 

consists of vehicle preconditioning (see 

§ 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 (§ 86.159–08), air 

conditioning test (§ 86.160–00), and FTP 

test (§ 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 § 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 § 86.132–00. 

■ 4. A new § 86.159–08 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 86.136–90 (engine starting and 

restarting). For gasoline-fueled Ottocycle vehicles, the composite samples 

collected in bags are analyzed for THC, 

CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For petroleumfueled diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is 

sampled and analyzed continuously 

according to the provisions of § 86.110. 

Parallel bag samples of dilution air are 

analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and 

NOX. 

(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 § 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 

§ 86.129–94(a) and discussed in 

§ 86.129–00 (e) and (f). 

(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia 

weight and roadload horsepower 

requirements for the test vehicle 

according to § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 petroleumfueled 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77922 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. 

■ 5. A new § 86.164–08 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.164–08 Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedure calculations. 

(a) The provisions of § 86.144–94 (b) 

and (c) are applicable to this section 

except that the NOX humidity correction 

factor of § 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv) must be 

modified when adjusting SC03 

environmental test cell NOX 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 § 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 

(Ywm). 

(c)(1) When the test vehicle is 

equipped with air conditioning, the 

final reported test results for the SFTP 

composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional 

composite CO standards shall be 

computed by the following formulas. 

(i) YWSFTP = 0.35(YFTP) + 0.37(YSC03) + 

0.28(YUS06) 

Where: 

(A) YWSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a 

particular pollutant weighted in terms of 

the contributions from the FTP, SC03, 

and US06 schedules. Values of YWSFTP

are obtained for each of the exhaust 

emissions of NMHC, NOX and CO. 

(B) YFTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile 

(YWM) based on the measured driving 

distance of the FTP test schedule. 

(C) YSC03 = Calculated mass emissions per 

mile based on the measured driving 

distance of the SC03 test schedule. 

(D)(1) YUS06 = 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 § 86.159–

08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter: 

YUS06 = 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+NOX) = 

YWSFTP(NMHC) + YWSFTP(NOX) 

Where: 

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC) = results of paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) of this section for NMHC. 

(B) YWSFTP(NOX) = results of paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) of this section for NOX. 

(2) When the test vehicle is not 

equipped with air conditioning, the 

final reported test results for the SFTP 

composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional 

composite CO standards shall be 

computed by the following formulas. 

(i) YWSFTP = 0.72(YFTP)+0.28(YUS06) 

Where: 

(A) YWSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a 

particular pollutant weighted in terms of 

the contributions from the FTP and US06 

schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained 

for each of the exhaust emissions of 

NMHC, NOX and CO. 

(B) YFTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile 

(Ywm) based on the measured driving 

distance of the FTP test schedule. 

(C)(1) YUS06 = 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 § 86.159–

08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter: 

YUS06 = 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+NOX) = 

YWSFTP(NMHC) + YWSFTP(NOX) 

Where: 

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC) = results of paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section for NMHC. 

(B) YWSFTP(NOX) = results of paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section for NOX. 

(d) The NOX humidity correction 

factor for adjusting NOX test results to 

the environmental test cell air 

conditioning ambient condition of 100 

grains of water/pound of dry air is: 

KH (100) = 0.8825/[1–0.0047(H–75)] 

Where: 

H = measured test humidity in grains of 

water/pound of dry air. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 6. A new § 86.201–11 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 gasolinefueled 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 °F (¥7 °C). 

(c) The provisions that are specifically 

applicable to testing at temperatures 

between 25 °F (¥4 °C) and 68 °F (20 °C) 

are specified in § 86.246–94 of this 

subpart. 

■ 7. A new § 86.205–11 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 gasolinefueled 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; §§ 86.216 through 86.226 

discuss calibration methods and 

frequency; test procedures and data 

requirements are listed (in approximate 

order of performance) in §§ 86.227 

through 86.245. 

■ 8. A new § 86.206–11 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.206–11 Equipment required; 

overview. 

This subpart contains procedures for 

exhaust emission tests on gasolinefueled 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 petroleumfueled diesel cycle (where applicable 

under part 600 of this chapter) vehicles 

is tested for gaseous emissions using the 

Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) 

concept (§ 86.209). Equipment necessary 

and specifications appear in §§ 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 § 86.213. Analytical 

gases are specified in § 86.214. The EPA 

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77923 

(UDDS) for use in gasoline-fueled 

emission tests is specified in § 86.115 

and Appendix I to this part. 

■ 9. A new § 86.210–08 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 °±20 °F 

(191 °±11 °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°±20 °F (191°±11 

°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 petroleumfueled 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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 °±20 °F 

(191 °±11 °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 °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 ±2 °F (1.1 °C). 

(5) The dilute exhaust gas flowing in 

the THC sample system shall be: 

(i) At 375 °F±10 °F (191 °C±6 °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 ±2 °F 

(1.1 °C). 

(ii) At 375 °F±10 °F (191 °C ±6 °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 ±2 °F (1.1 °C). 

(6) It is intended that the dilute 

exhaust gas flowing in the THC sample 

system be between 365 °F and 385 °F 

(185 °C and 197 °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 

§ 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. 

■ 10. Section 86.211–94 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.211–94 Exhaust gas analytical 

system. 

The provisions of § 86.111–94 apply 

to this subpart, except that the NOX

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. 

■ 11. A new § 86.213–11 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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

Item ASTM test Cold CO low octane value or 

range 

Cold CO high 

octane 1 value or 

range 

(RON+MON)/2, min ................................................................. D 2699 ................................... 87.8±.3 ................................... 92.3±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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77924 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE—COLD CO FUEL SPECIFICATIONS—Continued 

Item ASTM test Cold CO low octane value or 

range 

Cold CO high 

octane 1 value or 

range 

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±.3 ................................... 11.5±.3. 

Hydrocarbon composition ........................................................ D 1319.

Olefins, vol. pct ................................................................. ................................................ 12.5±5.0 ................................. 10.0±5.0. 

Aromatics, vol. pct ............................................................ ................................................ 26.4±4.0 ................................. 32.0±4.0. 

Saturates .......................................................................... ................................................ Remainder ............................. Remainder. 

1Gasoline 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 § 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. 

■ 12. A new § 86.230–11 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.230–11 Test sequence: general 

requirements. 

(a) Sequence steps. Figure C94–1 of 

§ 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 § 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 ° ±5 °F (¥7 °C ±2.8 °C) and 

shall not be less than 10 °F (¥14 °C) nor 

more than 30 °F (¥1 °C) during vehicle 

preconditioning, except for 

preconditioning performed in 

accordance with § 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 °F ±3 °F (¥7 °C ±1.7 °C) when 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section. The temperature 

may not exceed 25 °F (¥4 °C) or fall 

below 15 °F (¥9 °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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 86.1840–01 if, for 

example, a vehicle’s climate control 

system is not compatible with the 

provisions of this section. 

■ 13. A new section 86.237–08 is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 NOX 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 § 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, petroleumfueled 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 § 86.109 and 

§ 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 

§ 86.109 and § 86.110. For impinger 

samples in which the concentration of 

formaldehyde in the primary impinger 

exceeds 0.1 mg/l, it is recommended 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (§ 86.115). 

Note: During particulate testing, if 

applicable, adjust the flow rate through the 

particulate sample probe to maintain a 

constant value within ±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 petroleumfueled 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 § 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 § 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 °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 petroleumfueled 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 § 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 °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 § 86.138. For all others this 

completes the test sequence. 

■ 14. Section 86.244–94 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.244–94 Calculations; exhaust 

emissions. 

The provisions of § 86.144–94 apply 

to this subpart, except that NOX

measurements are optional. Should NOX

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, NOX, and 

CO2 in grams per vehicle mile. 

PART 600—FUEL ECONOMY OF 

VEHICLES 

■ 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] 

■ 16. A new § 600.001–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 gasolinefueled and/or diesel powered passenger 

automobiles and light trucks may 

optionally comply with the electric 

vehicle requirements in this subpart. 

■ 17. A new § 600.002–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 hotstart 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 § 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 § 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 § 86.1828–01 of 

this chapter and used to determine 

compliance under § 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 gaspowered 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 

§ 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 ‘‘nonpassenger 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 

§ 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 semiautomatic); 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 § 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 

§ 600.114–08. 

■ 18. A new § 600.006–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 600.111–08(e), using the fuel specified 

in § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77930 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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: 

FE4,000mi = FET[0.979 + 5.25×10¥6

(mi)]¥1

Where: 

FE4,000mi = Fuel economy data adjusted to 

4,000-mile test point rounded to the 

nearest 0.1 mpg. 

FET = 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. 

■ 19. A new § 600.007–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 86.1841–01 of this chapter as 

applicable will be used. 

(5) The calibration information 

submitted under § 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 

§ 85.1509 or § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), 

(c)(2), or (c)(4) of this chapter (when 

applicable) with over 10,000 miles, the 

equation in § 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 

§ 85.1509 or § 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 

§ 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 § 600.008. 

(d) If, based on the review of the 

information submitted under 

§ 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 § 600.006(b), 

or emission data generated by a vehicle 

tested under § 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77931 

§ 600.206(b)(2) or § 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 §§ 85.1509 

and 85.1511 of this chapter need not be 

covered by a certificate of conformity. 

■ 20. A new § 600.008–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77932 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 600.009 if the 

Administrator decides to recalculate the 

manufacturer’s average pursuant to 

determinations made relative to this 

section. 

■ 21. A new § 600.010–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 (§§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 600.006. 

(c) Minimum data requirements for 

labeling. (1) In order to establish fuel 

economy label values under § 600.306–

08, the manufacturer shall use only test 

data accepted in accordance with 

§ 600.008–08 meeting the minimum 

coverage of: 

(i) Data required for emission 

certification under §§ 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 § 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 § 600.208(a)(2) or 

§ 600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and 

if required under § 600.115–08, US06, 

SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77933 

from each subconfiguration included 

within the model type. 

(2) For the purpose of recalculating 

fuel economy label values as required 

under § 600.314(b), the manufacturer 

shall submit data required under 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 600.510(a). 

■ 22. The table of references in 

§ 600.011–93(b)(1) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 600.011–93 Reference materials. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Document number and name 40 CFR part 600 reference 

ASTM E 29–67 (Reapproved 1973) Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which 

Places of Figures Are To Be Considered Significant in Specified Limiting Values.

600.002–93, 600.002–08. 

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.

600.113–93, 600.510–93, 600.113–08, 

600.510– 08. 

ASTM D 3343–90 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels 600.113–93, 600.113–08. 

ASTM D 3338–92 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation 

Fuels.

600.113–93, 600.113–08. 

ASTM D 240–92 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels 

by Bomb Calorimeter.

600.113–93, 600.510–93, 600.113–08, 

600.510–08. 

ASTM D975–04c ‘‘Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’ 600.107–08. 

ASTM D 1945–91 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography. 600.113–93, 600.113–08. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 23. A new § 600.101–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 24. A new § 600.106–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 25. A new § 600.107–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.107–08 Fuel specifications. 

(a) The test fuel specifications for 

gasoline, diesel, methanol, and 

methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are 

given in § 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. 

■ 26. A new § 600.109–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.109–08 EPA driving cycles. 

(a) The FTP driving cycle is 

prescribed in § 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 § 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 § 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. 

■ 27. A new § 600.110–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.110–08 Equipment calibration. 

The equipment used for fuel economy 

testing must be calibrated according to 

the provisions of §§ 86.116 and 86.216 

of this chapter. 

■ 28. A new § 600.111–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.111–08 Test procedures. 

(a) FTP testing procedures. The test 

procedures to be followed for 

conducting the FTP test are those 

prescribed in §§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77934 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 methanolfueled 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 

§ 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. § 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, §§ 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 °F–86 °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 °F–

86 °F, the vehicle must be 

preconditioned by operation on a 

dynamometer through one cycle of the 

EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving 

Schedule, § 86.115 of this chapter. 

(ii) In unusual circumstances where 

additional preconditioning is desired by 

the manufacturer, the provisions of 

§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 methanolfueled 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed 

for each of the fuels on which the 

vehicle is designed to operate. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77935 

(c) US06 Testing procedures. The test 

procedures to be followed for 

conducting the US06 test are those 

prescribed in § 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 §§ 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 

§ 86.210–08 of this chapter. 

■ 29. A new § 600.112–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.112–08 Exhaust sample analysis. 

The exhaust sample analysis must be 

performed according to § 86.140, or 

§ 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable. 

■ 30. A new § 600.113–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 (CO2); and, 

additionally for methanol-fueled 

automobiles, methanol (CH3OH) and 

formaldehyde (HCHO); and additionally 

for natural gas-fueled vehicles nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and 

methane (CH4) 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 

CO2; and, additionally for methanolfueled automobiles, CH3OH and HCHO; 

and additionally for natural gas-fueled 

automobiles NMHC and CH4 as 

specified in § 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 CO2, and where applicable CH3OH, 

HCHO, NMHC and CH4 as specified in 

§ 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 CO2, and where applicable 

CH3OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH4 by 

dividing the mass values obtained in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the 

actual distance traveled, measured in 

miles, as specified in § 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 CO2; and, additionally 

for methanol-fueled automobiles, 

CH3OH and HCHO; and additionally for 

natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC 

and CH4 as specified in § 86.244 of this 

chapter. For 2008 through 2010 dieselfueled 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 

§ 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 

CO2; and where applicable CH3OH, 

HCHO, NMHC and CH4, as specified in 

§ 86.164 of this chapter. 

(2) Calculate separately the grams/ 

mile values for HC, CO and CO2; and 

where applicable CH3OH, HCHO, 

NMHC and CH4, for both the US06 City 

phase and the US06 Highway phase of 

the US06 test as specified in § 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 

§ 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 CO2

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 CO2; and 

additionally for methanol-fueled 

automobiles, CH3OH and HCHO; and 

additionally for natural gas-fueled 

automobiles NMHC and CH4 as 

specified in § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77936 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 = SGg × volume fraction gasoline 

+ SGm × volume fraction methanol. 

(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using 

the following equation: 

CWF = CWFg × MFg + 0.375 × MFm

Where: 

CWFg = 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. 

MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(G × SGg)/ 

(G × SGg + M × SGm) 

MFm=Mass fraction methanol=(M × 

SGm)/(G × SGg + M × SGm) 

Where: 

G=Volume fraction gasoline. 

M=Volume fraction methanol. 

SGg=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. 

SGm=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). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 CO2) 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, CO2 and, where 

applicable, CH3OH, HCHO, NMHC and 

CH4 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 § 86.094–26(a)(6)(iii) or 

§ 86.1837–01 of this chapter as 

applicable. The CO2 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 § 86.113–

04(a), the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon is to be calculated using the 

following equation: 

mpg = (5174 × 10 4 × C × CWF × SG)/ 

[((CWF × HC) + (0.429 × CO) + 

(0.273 × CO2)) × ((0.6 × SG × 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. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 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 § 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 CO2 (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 × SG × 3781.8)/((CWFexHC

× HC) + (0.429 × CO) + (0.273 × 

CO2) + (0.375 × CH3OH) + (0.400 × 

HCHO)) 

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. 

CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust 

hydrocarbons = CWFg as determined in 

(f)(2)(ii) of this section (for M100 fuel, 

CWFexHC = 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. 

CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (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: 

mpg

CWF D

 CH CWF CO + 0.27 e

HC/NG NG

4 NMHC

=

( ) + ( ) + ( )

121 5

0 749 0 429

.

. . ( ) 3 CO CO ( ) 2 2NG −


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.035</MATH>
77938 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

mpge=miles per equivalent gallon of natural 

gas. 

CWFHC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on 

the hydrocarbon constituents in the 

natural gas fuel as obtained in paragraph 

(g) of this section. 

DNG=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/ 

ft3 at 68 °F (20 °C) and 760 mm Hg 

(101.3 kPa)] pressure as obtained in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

CH4, NMHC, CO, and CO2=weighted mass 

exhaust emissions [grams/mile] for 

methane, non-methane HC, carbon 

monoxide, and carbon dioxide as 

calculated in § 600.113. 

CWFNMHC=carbon weight fraction of the nonmethane HC constituents in the fuel as 

determined from the speciated fuel 

composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section. 

CO2NG=grams of carbon dioxide in the 

natural gas fuel consumed per mile of 

travel. 

CO2NG=FCNG DNG WFCO2

Where: 

FC cubic feet of natural gas fuel consumed per mile =

0.74 NG = 9 CH CWF NMHC + 0.429 CO + CO

CWF D

4 NMHC 2

NG NG

( ) + ( ) () ( . )( ) 0 273

Where: 

CWFNG = the carbon weight fraction of the 

natural gas fuel as calculated in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

WFCO2 = 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. 

■ 31. A new § 600.114–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 600.010–08(c)(i) 

and (ii), determine the 5-cycle city fuel 

economy using the following equation: 

1 City FE Start FC + Running FC ( ) = × ( ) 0 905 1 .

Where: 

(i) Start FC (gallons per mile) = 0.33

0.76 Start Fuel75 × ( ) × + 0 2. 4 ×



 



 Start Fuel

4.1

20

Where: 

Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE x

x x

=× − 



 



3 6  1 1 .

Where: 

Bag Y FEx = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during the specified bag of 

the FTP test conducted at an ambient 

temperature of 75 °F or 20 °F, 

and, 

( ) . ii

US Running FC = 0.82 0.48Bag 2 FE

0.41

75 75 Bag 3 FE

× ++

0 11

06

0 18

 City FE

0.5

Bag 2 FE

0.5

Bag 3 FE

 

20 20





 



 +× +





 



 .

 FE

0.61

Bag 3 75

+ ×× − 0 133 1 083 1

03 . . SC FE

0.39

Bag 2 FE 75

+ 



 



 















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 §§ 600.010–

08(a) and (c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5- 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.036</MATH> ER27DE06.037</MATH> ER27DE06.038</MATH> ER27DE06.039</MATH> ER27DE06.040</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77939 

cycle highway fuel economy using the 

following equation: 

Highway FE = 0.905 1

Start FC + Running FC

×

Where: 

( ) . i

Start

 Start FC = 0.33

0.76 Start Fuel Fuel 75 20 × ( ) × + × ( ) 0 24

60





 





Where: 

Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE x

x x

=× − 



 



3 6  1 1 .

and, 

(ii) Running FC = 1.007 0.79

US06 Highway FE HFET FE

× +





 



0 21 .  +×× − + 



 



 

0 133 0 377 1 0 61 0 39 . . . .

SC03 FE Bag 3 FE Bag 2 FE 75 75













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 

§ 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: 

Highway FE = 0.905 1

Start FC + Running FC

×

Where: 

(A) = 0.33 Start FC Start Fuel×  + ×





(. . )

.

0 0055155 1 13637

60 0

75





Where: 

Start Fuel = Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE 75 75

75 3 6 1 1 . × − 



 





Bag y FE75 = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during the specified bag of 

the FTP test conducted at an ambient 

temperature of 75 °F. 


ER27DE06.041</MATH> ER27DE06.042</MATH> ER27DE06.043</MATH> ER27DE06.044</MATH> ER27DE06.045</MATH> ER27DE06.046</MATH> ER27DE06.047</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77940 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) FC = 1.007 US06 Highway FE FE Running HFET× +





 



 0 79 0 21 . . + ×× + 



 



 



 



 0 377 0 133 0 00540 0 1357 .. . .

US06 FE

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 § 86.1811–04(n), hybrid 

electric vehicles are subject to California 

test methods which require FTP 

emission sampling for the 75 °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. 

City FE Start FC + Running FC)= × 0 905 1 . (

Where: 

(A) (gallons per mile) = 0.33 Start FC Start Fuel× (. . 0 76 0 × + 75 24

4 1

 × 20



 





Start Fuel )

.

Where: 

(. . 1) Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE Ba 75

75 75

=× −





 



3 6  + ×

1 1 3 9 1

g 2 FE Bag 4 FE 75 75

− 



 



 1

and 

( . 2) Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE 20

20 20

=× −





 



3 6  1 1

(B) Running FC (gallons per mile) = 

0.82

Bag 4 FE Bag 3 FE US06 City FE 75 75

× ++





 



 +

0 48 0 41 0 11 .. . 0 18 05 05

0 133 1 083 1

. . .

. .

× +





 





+ ××

Bag 2 FE Bag 3 3 FE

SC0

20 20

3 FE Bag 3 FE Bag 4 FE 75 75

− + 



 



 















0 61 0 39 . .

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. 

Highway FE = Start FC + Running FC0 905 1 . ×


ER27DE06.048</MATH> ER27DE06.049</MATH> ER27DE06.050</MATH> ER27DE06.051</MATH> ER27DE06.052</MATH> ER27DE06.053</MATH> ER27DE06.054</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77941 

Where: 

( . A) Start FC = 0.33

0.76 Start Fuel Start Fuel

60

75 20 × ( ) × +× 0 24

Where: 

Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE Bag 2 75

75 75

=× −





 



3 6  + ×

1 1 3 9 1 . . FE Bag 4 FE 75 75

− 



 



 1

Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE 20

20 20

=× −





 



3 6  1 1 .

(B) Running FC = US06 Highway FE HFET FE1 007 0 79 0 21 . . . × −





 



 +×× − + 



 



0 133 0 377 1 0 61 0 39 . . . .

SC03 FE Bag 3 FE Bag 4 FE 75 75

 















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 °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. 

City FE = 0.905 1

Start FC Running FC

×

+

Where: 

(A) Start FC = 0.33

0.76 Start Fuel Start Fuel

4.1

75 20 × ( ) × +× 0 24 .

Where: 

Start Fuel

Bag 1/2 FE Bag 3/4 FE 75

75 75

=× −





 



7 5  1 1 .

Start Fuel

Bag 1 FE Bag 3 FE 20

20 20

=× −





 



3 6  1 1 .

Where: Bag y FE20 = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of 

the 20 °F FTP test. 

Bag x/y FEx = 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 °F. 


ER27DE06.055</MATH> ER27DE06.056</MATH> ER27DE06.057</MATH> ER27DE06.058</MATH> ER27DE06.059</MATH> ER27DE06.060</MATH> ER27DE06.061</MATH> ER27DE06.062</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77942 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

( ) . B

US Running FC = 0.82 0.90Bag 3/4 FE City FE 75

× +





 



0 10

06  +× +





 



0 18  . 0.5

Bag 2 FE

0.5

Bag 3 FE

 

20 20

 + 0.133 1.083

 FE

1.0

Bag 3/4 FE 75

×× − 



 



 







1 

SC03 





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 FEx = 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 °F. 

(ii) Highway fuel economy. 

Highway FE Start FC Running FC= ×

+

0 905 1 . 

Where: 

() . (. . ) A Start FC Start Fuel Start Fuel = ×

× +× 0 33 0 76 0 24

60

75 20

Where: 

Start Fuel

Bag FE Bag FE 75

75 75

7 5 1

1 2

1

3 4

=× −





 



 . / /

and 

Start Fuel

Bag FE Bag FE 20

20 20

3 6 1

1

1

3

=× −





 



 .

and 

() . . . B

US Highway FE HFET FE Running FC = 1 007 0 7906

0 21

× +





 



 +×× − 



 



 















0 133 0 377 1

03

1 0

3 475

. . .

SC FE Bag FE /

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 FE20 = the fuel economy in miles per 

gallon of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of 

the 20 °F FTP test. 

Bag x/y FEx = 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°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 Fuel75

will be replaced with one of the 

following: 

(i) The equation for Start Fuel75 for 

hybrids tested according to the 4-bag 

FTP is: 

Start Fuel

Bag FE Bag FE Bag 75

75 75

3 6 1

1 75

1

3

3 9 1=× −





 



. .  + × 2

1

4 FE Bag FE 75 75

− 



 





(ii) The equation for Start Fuel75 for 

hybrids tested according to the 2-bag 

FTP is: 


ER27DE06.063</MATH> ER27DE06.064</MATH> ER27DE06.065</MATH> ER27DE06.066</MATH> ER27DE06.067</MATH> ER27DE06.068</MATH> ER27DE06.069</MATH>sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77943 

Start Fuel = 7.5 1

Bag 1/2 FE

1

Bag 3/4 FE 75

75 75 − 



 





32. A new § 600.115–is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 vehiclespecific 5-cycle method specified in 

§ 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 § 86.1848–01 of this 

chapter, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 

and Cold FTP tests determined to be 

official under § 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 

§ 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: 

Derived cycle city fuel economy

City ntercept City S - 

 I

5 1 =

{ } +

lope

FTP FE

 { }



 





Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the 

Administrator. See § 600.210–

08(a)(2)(iii). 

City Slope = Slope determined by the 

Administrator. See § 600.210–

08(a)(2)(iii.) 

FTP FE = the FTP-based city fuel economy 

from the official test used forcertification 

compliance, determined under 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 86.1848–

01 of this chapter, the FTP, HFET, 

US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests 

determined to be official under 

§ 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 

§ 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: 

Derived

H 5-cycle highway fuel economy = 1

{ } Highway Intercept +

ighwaySlope

HFET FE

 { }



 





Where: 

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by 

the Administrator. See § 600.210–

08(a)(2)(iii). 

Highway Slope = Slope determined by the 

Administrator. See § 600.210–

08(a)(2)(iii). 

HFET FE = the HFET-based highway fuel 

economy determined under § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.070</MATH> ER27DE06.071</MATH> ER27DE06.072</MATH>
77944 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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] 

■ 33. A new § 600.201–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 34. A new § 600.206–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.206–08 Calculation and use of FTPbased and HFET-based fuel economy 

values for vehicle configurations. 

(a) Fuel economy values determined 

for each vehicle under § 600.113(a) and 

(b) and as approved in § 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 

§ 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 FTPbased 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 § 600.510–

08, the combined fuel economy value 

for a vehicle configuration is calculated 

by harmonically averaging the FTPbased city and HFET-based highway 

fuel economy values, as determined in 

§ 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 petroleumbased fuel economy value exists for an 

electric configuration, that value, 

rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile 

per gallon, will comprise the petroleumbased 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. 

■ 35. A new § 600.207–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 600.114–08 and 

as approved in § 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 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 600.210(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies. 

(b) If only one equivalent petroleumbased fuel economy value exists for an 

electric configuration, that value, 

rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile 

per gallon, will comprise the petroleumbased 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. 

■ 36. A new § 600.208–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 86.1844–

01. 

(4) Vehicle configuration fuel 

economy values, as determined in 

§ 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77946 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 37. A new § 600.209–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.209–08 Calculation of vehiclespecific 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 86.1844–01 of this 

chapter. 

(4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel 

economy values, as determined in 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 600.210(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies. 

■ 38. A new § 600.210–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 vehiclespecific model-type 5-cycle data as 

determined in § 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 mediumduty passenger vehicles) unless 

otherwise indicated according to the 

provisions in § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 mediumduty passenger vehicles, in which case 

it is optional), and is permitted 

beginning in 2011 model year under the 

provisions of § 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 mediumduty 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 alcoholbased or natural gas fuel are calculated 

separately. 

(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The 

city and highway model type fuel 

economy determined in § 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: 

Derived

City S 5-cycle City Fuel Economy = 1

{ } City Intercept +

lope

MTFTP FE

 { }



 





Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the 

Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the 

Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

MT FTP FE = the model type FTP-based city 

fuel economy determined under 

§ 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: 

Derived 5-cycle Highway Fuel Economy = 1

{ } Highway Intercept +

Highway Slope

MT HFET FE

 { }



 





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 vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy 

data. 

MT HFET FE = the model type highway fuel 

economy determined under § 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: 

Derived FE FE cycle

FE alt alt

gas

gas

= ×

5

Where: 

FEalt = The unrounded FTP-based model-type 

city or HFET-based model-type highway 

fuel economy from the alternate fuel, as 

determined in § 600.208(b)(5)(ii). 

5cycle FEgas = The unrounded vehiclespecific or derived 5-cycle model-type 

city or highway fuel economy as 

determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(2) 

of this section. 

FEgas = The unrounded FTP-based city or 

HFET-based model type highway fuel 

economy from gasoline (or diesel), as 

determined in § 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 

§ 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 vehiclespecific configuration 5-cycle data as 

determined in § 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 mediumduty passenger vehicles) unless 

otherwise indicated according to the 

provisions in § 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 mediumduty passenger vehicles, in which case 

it is optional), and is allowed beginning 

in 2011 model year if permitted under 

the provisions in § 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.073</MATH> ER27DE06.074</MATH> ER27DE06.076</MATH>
77948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

they may voluntarily lower these values. 

All 2011 and later model year mediumduty 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 alcoholbased or natural gas fuel are calculated 

separately. 

(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The 

city and highway configuration fuel 

economy determined in § 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: 

Derived 5-cycle City Fuel Economy = 1

City Intercept City S { } +

lope

Config FTP FE

 { }



 





Where: 

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the 

Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

City Slope = Slope determined by the 

Administrator based on historic vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel economy data. 

Config FTP FE = the configuration FTP-based 

city fuel economy determined under 

§ 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: 

Derived 5-cycle Highway Fuel Economy = 1

{ } Highway Intercept +

Highway Slope

Config HFET FE

 { }



 





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 vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel economy 

data. 

Config HFET FE = the configuration highway 

fuel economy determined under 

§ 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: 

Derived FE FE cycle

FE alt alt

gas

gas

= ×

5

Where: 

FEalt = The unrounded FTP-based 

configuration city or HFET-based 

configuration highway fuel economy 

from the alternate fuel, as determined in 

§ 600.206. 

5cycle FEgas = The unrounded vehiclespecific or derived 5-cycle configuration 

city or highway fuel economy as 

determined in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) 

of this section. 

FEgas = The unrounded FTP-based city or 

HFET-based configuration highway fuel 

economy from gasoline, as determined in 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 600.307–08, the 

manufacturer shall: 

(1)(i) For gasoline-fueled, dieselfueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural gasfueled 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 600.114–

08(b)(2)). 

(3) If the criteria in § 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 vehiclespecific 5-cycle. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.077</MATH> ER27DE06.078</MATH> ER27DE06.079</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77949 

■ 39. A new § 600.211–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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] 

■ 40. A new § 600.301–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 gasolinefueled and/or diesel powered passenger 

automobiles and light trucks may 

optionally comply with the electric 

vehicle requirements in this subpart. 

■ 41. A new § 600.306–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 600.314–08) as described in § 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 

§ 600.210–08(b). 

(i) If the manufacturer elects to use a 

specific label within a model type (as 

defined in § 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 § 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 

§ 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/HFETbased model type fuel economy value 

(as determined in § 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

■ 42. A new § 600.307–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 600.210–08, as specified in 

Appendix V of this part. The font size 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77950 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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: ll to ll 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 600.210–08(c) for a model type (as 

determined in § 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 § 600.210–08(c) for a 

vehicle configuration (as determined in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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’’. 

■ 43. A new § 600.311–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77952 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

values for all general labels as 

determined in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 600.306(b)(1). 

■ 44. A new § 600.314–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 600.507(a). 

(2) For separate model types created 

in § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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). 

■ 45. A new § 600.315–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 mediumduty 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 floorsecond-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 roomaccelerator. (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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77954 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) L51—Minimum effective leg roomsecond. (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 beltsecond. (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 floorsecond-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] 

■ 46. A new § 600.405–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 47. A new § 600.407–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.407–08 Booklets displayed by 

dealers. 

(a) Booklets displayed by dealers in 

order to fulfill the obligations of 

§ 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 § 600.507–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 86.079–32, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 600.314(b). 

(d) For those model types created 

under § 600.208–08(a)(2), the 

manufacturer shall submit data for each 

subconfiguration added by a running 

change. 

■ 49. A new § 600.510–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 600.006(e) or 

§ 600.512(c) shall be used. 

(2) The combined city/highway fuel 

economy will be calculated for each 

model type in accordance with 

§ 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 dieselpowered 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 highaltitude sales categories and lowaltitude 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 § 600.208–

08(a)(4)(ii). 

(3) The fuel economy value for each 

vehicle configuration is the combined 

fuel economy calculated according to 

§ 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 dieselpowered 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 dieselfueled 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 

§ 600.208(b)(5)(i); and 

(B) The combined model type fuel 

economy value for operation on alcohol 

fuel as determined in § 600.208(b)(5)(ii) 

divided by 0.15 provided the 

requirements of § 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 

§ 600.208(b)(5)(i); and 

(B) The combined model type fuel 

economy value for operation on natural 

gas as determined in § 600.208(b)(5)(ii) 

divided by 0.15 provided the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

section are met. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77956 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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: 

AFEadj = AFE[((0.55 x a x c) + (0.45 × 

c) + (0.5556 x a) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 

x a) + 0.45)] + IW 

Where: 

AFEadj = 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 × 10 ¥3 × SF3IWC × FE3IWC) ¥ 

(3.5123 × 10 ¥3 x× SF4ETW × FE4IWC). 

Note: Any calculated value of IW less than 

zero shall be set equal to zero. 

SF3IWC = The 3000 lb. inertia weight class 

sales divided by total sales. The quotient 

shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. 

SF4ETW = The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight 

category sales divided by total sales. The 

quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal 

places. 

FE4IWC = 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. 

FE4IWC = 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: 

Ealt/Epet > or = 1 

Where: 

Ealt = [FEalt/(NHValt × Dalt)] × 10 6 = energy 

efficiency while operating on alternative 

fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/ 

million BTU. 

Epet = [FEpet/(NHVpet × Dpet)] × 10 6 = energy 

efficiency while operating on gasoline or 

diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the 

nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU. 

FEalt 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 

§ 600.113–08(a) and (b); 

FEpet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while 

operated on petroleum fuel (gasoline or 

diesel) as determined in § 600.113(a) and 

(b); 

NHValt is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/ 

lb] of the alternative fuel; 

NHVpet is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/ 

lb] of the petroleum fuel; 

Dalt is the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels 

or lb/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous 

fuels] of the alternative fuel; 

Dpet 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 50. A new § 600.512–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 600.208–08, and 

subsequently required by the 

Administrator in accordance with 

§ 600.507; 

(2) All fuel economy data for 

certification vehicles and for vehicles 

tested for running changes approved 

under § 86.1842–01 of this chapter; 

(3) Any additional fuel economy data 

submitted by the manufacturer under 

§ 600.509; 

(4) A fuel economy value for each 

model type of the manufacturer’s 

product line calculated according to 

§ 600.510(b)(2); 

(5) The manufacturer’s average fuel 

economy value calculated according to 

§ 600.510(c); 

(6) A listing of both domestically and 

nondomestically produced car lines as 

determined in § 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 vicepresident) 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. 

■ 51. A new § 600.513–08 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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: 

FEadj = FE[((0.55 × ag × c) + (0.45 × c) 

+ (0.5556 × ag) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 × 

ag) + 0.45)] + IWg

Where: 

FEadj = 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 § 600.208–

08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. 

ag = Model type highway fuel economy, 

calculated in accordance with § 600.208–

08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg 

divided by the model type city fuel 

economy calculated in accordance with 

§ 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 × 

10¥3 for the 1986 and later model years. 

IWg = (9.2917 × 10¥3 × SF3IWCG FE3IWCG) ¥ 

(3.5123 × 10¥3 × SF4ETWG × FE4IWCG). 

Note: Any calculated value of IW less than 

zero shall be set equal to zero. 

SF3IWCG = 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. 

SF4ETWG = 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. 

FE3IWCG = 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. 

FE4IWCG = 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 § 600.208–08), 

calculated in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section and rounded to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
77958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 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. 

CO2 = 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 

§ 600.113–08, the city fuel economy or MPGc, 

for the vehicle may be calculated by 

substituting the HC, CO, and CO2 gram/mile 

values and the SG, CWF, and NHV values 

into the following equation: 

MPGc = (5174 × 104× CWF × SG) / 

[((CWF × HC) + (0.429 × CO + (0.273 

× CO2)) ((0.6 × SG × NHV) + 5471)] 

Example: 

MPGc = (5174 × 10 4 × 0.868 × 0.745) / 

[(0.868 × .139 + 0.429 × 1.59 + 0.273 

× 317)(0.6 × 0.745 × 18478 + 5471)] 

MPGc = 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 MPGh of 36.9. 

According to the procedure in § 600.210(c), 

the combined fuel economy (called MPGcomb) 

for the vehicle may be calculated by 

substituting the city and highway fuel 

economy values into the following equation: 

MPG

MPG MPG

comb

c h

=

+

1

0 55 0 45 . .

MPG

27.9 36.9

comb =

+

1

0 55 0 45 . .

MPGcomb = 31 3.

■ 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). 

Test vehicle carline Engine code Trans Inertia 

weight Axle ratio 

Harmonically averaged. city 

MPG 

Specific 

label MPG 1

Vehicle 

config. 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 

1The 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.080</MATH> ER27DE06.081</MATH> ER27DE06.082</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77959 

Step II. Group vehicle fuel economy and 

sales data according to base level 

combinations within this basic engine. 

Base level Transmission class Inertia 

weight 

Miles per 

gallon 

Projected 

vehicle 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. 

Base level fuel economy =

Fraction of total sales of config

1

urations

tested represented by

configuration No. 1 sales













































+

1

Configuration

No. 1 fuel economy

Fraction of total sales 

of configurations tested

represented by configuration 

No. 2 sales

Configuration

No. 2

























1

 1 fuel economy

























Base level: M4 transmission, 4000 pounds: 

1

10000

25000

1

14 2343

15000

25000

1

15 0000

14 6840 



 



 + 



 





=

. .

. miles per gallon

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.083</MATH> ER27DE06.084</MATH>
77960 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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. 

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: 

1

 fraction of Ajax

vehicles using the 3.0 liter, 6 cylin

The

der

engine which fall in the 3500 lb inertia

weight class with an A3 transmission

Fuel economy for 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder 3500 lb

A3 transmission base level

















































+

The fraction of Ajax vehicles using the

3.0 liter, 6 cylinder engine which fall in the 4000 lb

inertia weight class with an A3 transmission

Fuel economy for 3.0 liter 6 cylinder 4000 lb A3

transmission base level





































= 



 



 + 



 





= 1

0.3000

15.9020

 mpg, 0 7000

13 8138

14 3803 .

.

. which rounds to 14 MPG1

Similarly, Ajax and Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 

cylinder, M4 model type MPG is calculated 

as follows: 

1

0 4000

16 1001

0 6000

14 6840

15 2185 .

.

.

.

. , 



 



 + 



 





= which rounds to 15 MPG1

Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type 

MPG is calculated as follows: 

= 



 



 + 



 





= 1

0 3000

15 9020

0 7000

13 8138

14 3803 .

.

.

.

. , mpg which rounds to 14 MPG1

Boredom III 3.0 liter 6 cylinder M4 model 

type MPG = 14.6840 mpg, which rounds to 

15 mi./gal1

Boredom III 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model 

type MPG is calculated as follows: 

1

0 2500

13 8138

0 7500

13 2203

13 3638 .

.

.

.

. , 



 



 + 



 





= which rounds to 13 MPG1

Castor 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type 

MPG is calculated as follows: 

1

0 2000

13 2203

0 8000

10 6006

11 0381 .

.

.

.

. , 



 



 + 



 





= which rounds to 11 MPG1


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 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 

B. Gasoline (or diesel)-fueled vehicle 

label (with transitional text statement 

for MY 2008 and 2009 vehicles only) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.090</GPH>
77962 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Gasoline-fueled Gas Guzzler 

vehicle label 

D. Dual Fuel Vehicle Label (Ethanol/ 

Gasoline) 

Option 1—without alternate fuel 

economy) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.091</GPH> ER27DE06.092</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77963 

Option 2—with alternate fuel 

economy 

E. Natural Gas Vehicle Label 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.093</GPH> ER27DE06.094</GPH>
77964 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Dual Fuel Natural Gas Label Option 1—without alternate fuel 

economy 

Option 2—With alternate fuel 

economy 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.095</GPH> ER27DE06.096</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77965 

■ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.097</GPH>
77966 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Format Guidelines for Ethanol and 

Natural Gas Dual Fuel Vehicles. Unless 

otherwise indicated, the format specifications 

in Appendix V. A. apply. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.098</GPH> ER27DE06.099</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77967 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.100</GPH> ER27DE06.101</GPH>
77968 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Format Guidelines showing Gas Guzzler. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the format 

specifications in Appendix V. A. apply. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.102</GPH> ER27DE06.103</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77969 

D. Format Guidelines for Natural Vehicles. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the format 

specifications in Appendix V. A. apply. 

[FR Doc. 06–9749 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER27DE06.104</GPH> ER27DE06.105</GPH>