Draft 

Supporting Statement 

for 

Information Collection Request 

Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed Rule) 

EPA ICR 2392.01 

July, 2010 

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

and 

Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Office of Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
2

Part A SUBMISSION 

Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

 Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed Rule), EPA ICR number 

2392.01, OMB control number 2060-NEW. The burden for this ICR will be transferred to 

the ICR 0783 series (OMB 2060-0104) after other pending adjustments have received 

clearance. 

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

 EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are conducting a joint 

rulemaking to redesign the current fuel economy label that is posted on the window sticker 

of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. The redesigned label will provide new 

information to American consumers about the fuel economy and consumption, fuel costs, 

and environmental impacts associated with purchasing new vehicles beginning with model 

year 2012 cars and trucks. This action will also develop new labels for advanced 

technology vehicles which are poised to enter the U.S. market, in particular plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs). 

 These new requirements will apply to model year 2012 and later vehicles. The 

normal time horizon of ICRs is three years from the date of clearance. Consequently, this 

ICR should cover the startup period and approximately the first two years of operation of 

the new requirements. 

 The information costs associated with this rulemaking arise in part from the new 

testing requirements that generate the data on fuel economy that EVs and PHEVs must 

submit to EPA in applications for certification of conformity with the Clean Air Act. These 

costs in turn are broken down into startup costs for information technology and testingrelated equipment, testing operations costs, and a component to reflect increased capital 

facility costs. The rulemaking also entails costs for redesigning and printing the new label 

under the required new format. The label itself is not reported to EPA; it is deemed to be an 

information collection for disclosure to the public falling within the definition in 40 CFR 

1320.3(c). The numbers that go on the label, however, are reported to EPA, and the costs 

and hours for manufacturers to obtain these numbers are included in this analysis. Because 

the data is reported to EPA, the burden associated with the new label, which is mandated 

by statute upon NHTSA, is here treated as an EPA burden for simplicity. 

 The preamble to the proposed rule notes that “over the next several model years, 

however, the agencies expect to see increasing numbers of EVs and PHEVs entering the 

marketplace.” A count of current such vehicles and EPA’s information about those likely to 

appear in the next three years indicates that the number of manufacturers and test groups is 

likely to be more limited in the near term. This ICR is written to accommodate all those 

families in existence or contemplated plus a margin of error; beyond that any increases in 
3

burden are speculative and will have to await the next collection authority renewal. 

 This draft ICR estimates that 35 manufacturers will incur $2,286,829 yearly in new 

startup, facility, and operations and maintenance costs and 8,548 in annual labor hours as a 

result of the rule. 

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection 

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

 Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is charged with 

issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle designs that comply with applicable 

emission standards. A manufacturer must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally 

introduced into commerce. Provisions in the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA; 

codified as Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 

2001 et seq.) require fuel economy ratings to be determined and vehicles to be labeled. To 

insure compliance with these statutes, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer 

test results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results. Information is 

also shared with other agencies: the Internal Revenue Service for “gas guzzler” taxes and 

NHTSA for CAFE requirements. 

In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140), 

Congress required that NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and the Department of Energy, 

establish regulations to implement several new labeling requirements for new automobiles 

(see 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)). Based on criteria provided by EPA, NHTSA must develop a 

program to require manufacturers to label new automobiles with information reflecting an 

automobile’s performance with respect to “fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other 

emissions” over the automobile’s useful life. NHTSA must also develop a rating system 

that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including designations of 

automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the 

highest fuel economy. The present joint EPA-NHTSA rulemaking is intended to respond to 

these requirements by developing a single label that will also accommodate emerging 

technologies. 

 The regulations dealing with LDV emission control can be found in 40 CFR Parts 

85 and 86. EPA’s LDV fuel economy provisions are found in 40 CFR Part 600. The 

regulations are not attached to this statement due to their length and technical nature. 

 

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

 Emissions data submitted to EPA as a part of the existing certification and 

compliance program is used, in conjunction with additional tests and projected sales, to 

establish fuel economy ratings. Based on test results, EPA calculates a fuel economy 

number for each vehicle model. EPA then computes an average fuel economy for each 

manufacturer that is weighted by the number of units of each of its vehicle models in that 
4

year. This “harmonic mean” calculation is statutory (49 U.S.C. 32904). In the previous, 

“five-cycle” label rulemaking (71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006) EPA extended the 

required fuel economy labels to certain heavier vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 

weight, such as larger SUVs and vans, beginning with the 2011 model year. In a recent joint 

rulemaking (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010) EPA and NHTSA established harmonized federal 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for 

new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks. 

In a separate program, the fuel economy ratings, used to comply with the labeling 

requirements for new vehicles (40 CFR Part 600, Subpart D), are listed by model type. 

These ratings are computed as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the “base levels” 

within each model type, which in turn are calculated as the sales weighted harmonic mean 

of the configurations/subconfigurations within each base level. This procedure is intended 

to insure that the most representative fuel economy values are posted on new vehicles, 

which are sold by the manufacturer’s model designation rather than categories that 

correspond to the test groups that are used for generating fuel economy data as a part of the 

certification process. The current fuel economy label required on all new cars and other 

personal vehicles contains the following information: city and highway fuel economy 

values in miles per gallon, how the vehicle’s combined city/highway fuel economy 

compares to a range of comparable vehicles, the estimated fuel cost to operate the vehicle 

for one year, 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, and the amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax (“gas guzzler tax”) 

imposed on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

This joint proposal is designed to update the current label in two main respects. 

First, it would also bring EVs and PHEVs into the labeling scheme in a manner which 

accounts for the fact that the normal ways of measuring fuel economy based on exhaust 

emissions need to be modified. Second, the proposed rule suggests possible modifications 

of the label format that are intended to comply with the Congressional mandate to provide 

consumers information on performance with respect to “fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

and other emissions” over the automobile’s useful life and display a rating system that 

would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and 

other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including designations of 

automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the 

highest fuel economy. 

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 

3(a) Nonduplication

 Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. The 

mandating statutes give both EPA and NHTSA authority over labeling requirements related 

to fuel economy and environmental information under EPCA and EISA, respectively. In 

order to implement that authority in the most coordinated and efficient way, the agencies 

are jointly proposing the revised labels that give rise to this collection request. 
5

 The proposal also raises two duplication issues with respect to the existing FTC 

labeling requirement for “alternative fuel vehicles” including EVs and flexible fuel 

vehicles (FFVs) (69 FR 26926, April 9, 2004; 16 CFR part 309, subpart C). First, the FTC 

label requires that the cruising range of EVs be determined using the procedures in SAE 

J1634 (16 CFR 309.22(a)(2)). Consequently, EV manufacturers selling vehicles in the 

United States have already been subject for several years to the SAE J1634 testing 

requirements proposed in the rulemaking. It is expected that tests conducted to satisfy FTC 

labeling requirements in previous years will be carried over to EPA certification 

applications under the new rule, so that this overlap is primarily an information cost 

accounting issue, discussed below. In addition, however, the FTC regulations specify the 

1993 version of the SAE J8634, which is more elaborate and expensive than the 1999 

version suggested by EPA in its existing testing guidance and contemplated by the EV 

testing provisions in the proposed rule. Second, The FTC label displays the cruising range 

of the vehicle on each fuel, and the proposed rule would similarly require fuel economy 

information to be displayed not just for the diesel or gasoline fuel but the alternative fuel as 

well. In both these latter respects EPA believes this might present information on the EPA 

fuel economy label that may be somewhat duplicative of the information on the FTC label, 

and could potentially lead to a review by the FTC and a determination that the FTC label is 

no longer needed in cases where information regarding both fuels is displayed on the EPA 

label. EPA is required by statute to consult with the FTC regarding changes to the fuel 

economy label, and EPA expects this to be a point of discussion. 

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

 EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published on ______, 2010, __ Federal Register ____; a copy can be found at 

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

3(c) Consultations

 The proposed regulations were developed with extensive consultation with the 

affected industry, expert opinion, and the public. This included consultations with ten or 

more major manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the convening 

and report by a nine-member expert panel, consultations with environmental groups, and a 

three-stage focus group effort that was the subject of ICRs 2343.01 and 2390.01 (OMB 

2060-NEW). After the close of the comment period EPA intends to engage in additional 

contacts specifically with respect to the cost estimate in the proposal and this ICR. 

 In preparing this ICR submission, EPA consulted with the following individuals 

working in the regulated industry: 

Individual Firm Telephone

 
6

 Their comments have been reflected in the burden estimates discussed below. EPA 

wishes to thank them and their colleagues for their assistance in preparing this report. 

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

 As required by the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7525(a)), emission and fuel economy 

information is submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the manufacturer’s “model 

year.” EPA allows applicants to define their own “model year”, thus granting some 

flexibility in this regard. In connection with certification application, the manufacturer 

submits along with emissions data the projected sales and the definition of carlines 

corresponding to the models that will be for sale; this information is used to calculate the 

values and gas guzzler information that appears on the fuel economy label. (After the end 

of the model year, manufacturers send actual sales data that is used to calculate CAFE 

fleet-wide averages, but this is a separate program not involved in this collection.) 

Consequently, the label information collection, printing, and application to vehicles is 

inextricably linked to the annual model year timeframe. For this reason, a collection 

frequency longer than a model year is not possible. However, testing results are frequently 

“carried over” when there are no substantial emissions-related changes from one model 

year to the next. 

3(e) General Guidelines

 Manufacturers are required to keep some EPA fuel economy related records for 

periods longer than three years (for example, 40 CFR 600.005(a)(3)). This requirement 

stems from the statutory requirement that manufacturers warrant some items for periods 

longer than 3 years. 

 This information collection activity complies with the remaining guidelines in 5 

CFR 1320.5. The proposal makes no changes in the reporting and recordkeeping 

provisions that impact any of the guidelines for information collections as approved in the 

existing approved collection. 

3(f) Confidentiality

 Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific 

vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are available, most 

information associated with the manufacturer/importer’s application is available to the 

public. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 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. 

3(g) Sensitive Questions
7

 No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection. This collection 

complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108. 

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

 The respondents are involved in the industries shown in the following table: 

Category NAICS Codes A

Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities 

Industry 336111 

336112 

Motor vehicle manufacturers. 

Industry 811112 

811198 

541514 

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle 

Components. 

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

 The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs within the 

context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification program. Current regulations require 

manufacturers to submit fuel economy and greenhouse gasses information to EPA in 

conjunction with this program. Manufacturers must submit an application for certification 

prior to production. The application describes the major aspects of the proposed product 

line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to indicate 

compliance with the emissions limitations. The application and supporting test results are 

reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued. 

 Some of the product information used to verify emission compliance is also used, in 

conjunction with additional tests and projected sales, to establish fuel economy ratings for 

purposes of the fuel economy label. 

 The fuel economy ratings used to comply with the new labeling requirements for 

new vehicles are listed by model type. These ratings are computed as the sales weighted 

harmonic mean of the “base levels” within each model type, which in turn are calculated as 

the sales weighted harmonic mean of the configurations/sub-configurations within each 

base level. The criteria for determining a configuration, sub-configuration, and base level 

are set forth in the regulations. This procedure is intended to insure that the most 
8

representative fuel economy values are posted on new vehicles. New vehicles are sold and 

therefore labeled and rated by the manufacturer’s model designation rather than the 

categories that correspond to the test groups and fuel economy vehicles that are used for 

generating fuel economy data. 

 The proposal contemplates no changes in the methodology for the sales-weighted 

calculations based on configurations of vehicles and projected sales summarized in the 

preceding paragraph. 

(ii) Respondent Activities

 Respondents are car and truck manufacturers and ICIs who submit certification 

applications to EPA via its Verify certification and information management system. The 

applications contain the results of testing conducted according to EPA regulations that, in 

addition to providing emissions information, yield fuel economy values for the tested 

vehicles. These data along with projected sales and carline details allows EPA to calculate 

the values that apply to the manufacturer’s vehicle label. With this fuel economy and other 

label-related information approved by EPA, the manufacturer prints the labels consistent 

with the format required by EPA and NHTSA and attaches them to the vehicles before they 

are sent from the manufacturing plant (or ICI facility) for sale. Manufacturers must retain 

records related to this information submitted to EPA and appearing on the label. These 

tasks are repeated for each model year, although typically previous data and information 

can be “carried over” when no significant changes have occurred. If, during the course of a 

model year a product change is made (a “running change”), EPA must be notified. Under 

some circumstances additional test data may be required. After the end of the model year, 

final sales numbers are submitted to EPA and NHTSA for use in CAFE calculations, but 

this does not affect the fuel economy labeling program that is the subject of this collection 

request. 

Section 5: The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and 

Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

 The test data used by EPA to determine the fuel economy estimates posted on the 

fuel economy labels and to calculate a manufacturer's CAFE are derived from vehicle 

testing done by vehicle manufacturers who report their own test data to EPA, and at EPA's 

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Each year, EPA 

provides fuel economy data to the Department of Energy (DOE), NHTSA, and the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) so that they can administer their fuel economy-related programs. 

DOE publishes the annual fuel economy label values in the annual Fuel Economy Guide 

and on the fuel economy web site at http://www.fueleconomy.gov. NHTSA receives the 

manufacturers' fleet average fuel economy from EPA, and determines if manufacturers are 

complying with the CAFE standards. EPA provides IRS with the fuel economy data for 

vehicles that may be subject to the Gas Guzzler tax penalty. IRS is responsible for 

collecting those taxes from manufacturers. 
9

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

 As of model year 2010, EPA collects all fuel economy related information 

exclusively through its Verify information collection and management system (MY 2009 

information was collected through VERIFY in CFEIS format and ICIs were not yet in the 

Verify system). The rule makes no changes in this reporting system, only changing the 

format and content of some of the information reported within it. 

 All information received by EPA is subject to review. Except for projected sales 

and a very limited amount of proprietary product information (typically catalyst 

formulations), all information is available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered for 

sale. Emission and fuel economy data are posted on the internet; other information is 

available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act. 

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

 The analysis of the proposed rule prepared in response to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

concluded that the proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. One of the 24 manufacturers and all of the 11 ICIs 

identified by EPA as subject to the rule can be considered small entities under the 

definition in 13 CFR 121.201. It is anticipated that the one manufacturer, with one EV test 

group, will be able to carry over its previous test results in compliance with the new label 

EV testing requirements. For ICIs, a significant flexibility added by the proposed 

regulation is to eliminate the requirement for 5-cycle testing of vehicles that would 

otherwise apply starting in 2011. Under the proposal, ICIs would be allowed to continue 

predicting their 5-cycle fuel economy estimates from data collected over the FTP and 

HFET driving cycles. ICIs and any new small entity entrants into the market will need to 

design and post labels in conformance with the regulations and perform the necessary tests 

to generate the information on the labels. 

5(d) Collection Schedule

 Information must be submitted for each “model year” that a manufacturer intends to 

build (or import) vehicles. For fuel economy purposes, a “model year” is statutorily 

defined in EPCA as the annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided by the 

Administrator, which includes January 1 of that calendar year; or that calendar year if the 

manufacturer does not have an annual production period. At the time of application, the 

manufacturer submits the information that goes on the label that is the subject of this ICR. 

If a product is unchanged between model years, much of the information can be “carried 

over.” 

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

 The following estimates of increased burden are derived from the economic impact 
10

analysis contained in the proposed regulation. The analysis uses the cost assumptions in 

previous ICRs in this series, modified and updated as detailed below. As an aid to the 

analysis and to help articulate the range of uncertainty we estimated both low and high cost 

estimates for each of these cost and labor hour elements. These ranges also help indicate 

the extent to which the dollar and hour estimates should not be deemed to have the same 

number of significant digits as the unrounded numbers reported. 

 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden 

 Labor hours are associated, first, with startup costs for installing (updating) 

information technology systems to incorporate the new information to be reported, and for 

label redesign. As these labor costs are all associated with capital/startup costs, they are 

included under that heading, following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A31). Label redesign is estimated to take 16 to 24 hours by an information technologist for each 

manufacturer. Updating information systems is deemed to apply to manufacturers of EVs and 

PHEVs and to entail four weeks for four IT staff for analysis and coding, and four weeks for two 

IT staff for testing, or 960 hours per affected manufacturer. 

Second, there are labor hours associated with increased testing times for EVs and 

PHEVs. These test protocols would increase the testing time depending on the operating range of 

the vehicles (see 6(b)(ii) below). The high and low O&M labor hours are developed by 

multiplying the baseline hours by this increment in time. The baseline assumption is that an 

FTP/HFET test pair takes 30 hours of labor, divided 70% to FTP (21 hours) and 30% to HFET(9 

hours) for purposes of analysis. For EVs, the range that must be tested could be from 50 to 250 

miles, depending on the vehicle, so the FTP hour burden per test group is increased by 50 to 250 

divided by 7.45 (the normal length of an FTP), and the HFET by 50 to 250 divided by 10.3. This 

calculation adds 107 to 704.75 labor hours per FTP and 43.6 to 218.5 per HFET, with each EV 

family needing both for certification. EV fuel economy testing under this rule is also treated as 

an entirely new testing cost (see below) which therefore entails 30 hours per test group in 

preparation costs. Preparation includes several coast downs, a UDDS (two of the four phases of a 

full FTP), and a soak period. 

The proposed EPA test procedure for PHEVs is an extension of the existing test 

procedure for hybrid vehicles (see below). Hybrid vehicles already do FTP and HFET tests for 

fuel economy determination. The new FTP procedure would essentially run repeated FTPs until 

the charge is depleted . This is the “charge depleting” operation when the vehicle is mainly 

running on its battery. The battery would then be recharged and a single additional four-phase 

FTP would be conducted in what is denominated as the “charge sustain” operation. Following 

this the vehicle will be recharged if necessary by running any appropriate test cycle followed by 

HFET cycles in “charge depleting” operation, followed by a cycle in “charge sustain” operation. 

For purposes of this cost analysis the charge sustain FTP and HFET cycles along with 

potential other cycles mandated by emissions and fuel economy testing requirements are 

considered to be continuations of existing requirements. The cost increment due to this proposal 

consequently derives entirely from the increased testing time in depleting mode. The duration of 

the depleting modes estimated as 7.45 to 50 miles over the repeated 7.45 or 10.3 mile FTP and 
11

HFET test cycles. These together add 27.6 to 115.375 labor hours per test group to existing 

hybrid testing costs. 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating labor costs

 Information technology specialists for analysis and coding and label redesign are priced 

at $100 per hour, although the results are budgeted as startup capital costs. Labor costs for 

revised FTP and HFET testing cycles for EVs and PHEVs and for EV preparation is based on the 

cost assumptions of ICR 0783.47, 0783.51, 0783.54 and 0783.57. This labor cost estimate in 

these renewals and revisions the certification ICR series are based on laboratory labor costs at 

EPA’s motor vehicle and engine testing facility in mid-2005, which averaged $55 an hour for all 

of management, technical and secretarial plus overhead. The current estimate is based on this 

figure with an adjustment from the BLS Employment Cost Index for total compensation, by 

occupational group and industry, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t01.htm , of 111.8 percent 

for all civilian workers, taking December, 2005, as baseline adjusting to March, 2010. This 

raises the cost per hour to $61.49. Future renewal requests in the OMB 2660-0103, ICR 0783 

series will be similarly incremented. 

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

 New O&M costs come from new label-related fuel economy testing requirements 

for EVs and PHEVs and from printing costs for the new labels. 

For EVs, EPA currently has no federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy. 

To date, EPA has performed some fuel economy testing connected with certification 

applications for electric vehicles using the procedures developed by the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), specifically SAE J1634. This proposal spells out EV testing 

requirements that are similar to SAE J1634 and allows continued use of that procedure (as 

cancelled in 2002). 

 In estimating the costs of this action, there is no clear existing default cost that 

manufacturers of EVs would have incurred in satisfying federal requirements, because 

existing fuel economy measurements are entirely specified in terms of exhaust and 

greenhouse gasses emissions. For purposes of the analysis, we therefore assume these EV 

costs are entirely new costs rather than increments to pre-existing costs. Here and in the 

facility costs section, this also means we (conservatively) assume no carry-over 

applications for EVs. 

EPA is cognizant of the fact that in 2004 the Federal Trade Commission promulgated a 

rule requiring “alternative fueled vehicles” to include a consumer label indicating their estimated 

cruising ranges (69 FR 26926, April 9, 2004; 16 CFR part 309, subpart C). The covered vehicles 

include electric vehicles but not hybrids. Estimated cruising range for an EV is the range 

determined according to SAE J1634 (16 CFR 309.22(a)(2)). Consequently, EV manufacturers 

selling vehicles in the United States have already been subject for several years to SAE J1634 

testing requirements similar to those allowed and proposed in the rulemaking. However, for 
12

purposes of the analysis in this ICR we treat the costs of compliance for manufacturers subject to 

the proposed rule as new costs in order to insure that they are fully considered in this 

rulemaking. It is not clear from the cost analysis in the FTC final rule preamble (at 26954-26955) 

or in the final rule ICR ((OMB 3084-0094) that the FTC considered the cost of testing in its 

analysis. The entire cost for the industry was estimated as 30 minutes each for 58 members of the 

alt fuel vehicle industry. Including the full cost of EV testing for each estimated test group 

subject to the rule is therefore conservative in that it ignores the likelihood that any EV test 

group previously satisfying the FTC labeling requirements will have its testing data carried over 

to the model year certification applications subject to this rule, but has the advantage of insuring 

that information collection-driven testing costs are included in OMB’s information budget. 

The salient feature of SEA J1634 for cost purposes is that it requires, similar to a 

conventional vehicle, the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or City Test), preceded by vehicle 

preparation. This is followed by the Highway Test (HFET); the off-cycle tests (USO6, 

SCO3, cold FTP) are optional under EPA’s proposal. Furthermore, cruising range 

determination requires that the FTP be repeated until the battery system is no longer able to 

maintain the FTP speed tolerances; the FTP in question is the full four-phase FTP , 

repeated as cold and hot start “UDDS” (or “LA-4”) cycles until that point is reached. Nonlabor preparation costs are estimated to be $3,163 per vehicle, per ICR 0783.54 (OMB 

2060-0104), the certification ICR for conventional vehicles. The low and high EV test 

distances for FTP and HFET tests is estimated as 50 to 250 miles. (The cost of the FTP is 

not incremented to reflect the extra phase 2 compared to the normal three phase cycle 

because that would be double counting in view of the 50 or 250 divided by 7.45 conversion 

factor.) For purposes of this estimate, the non-labor cost of an FTP/HFET pair is $1,860, 

allocated 70% to the FTP and 30% to the HFET and incremented by 50 or 250 divided by 

7.45 (the distance of a normal FTP) or 50 or 250 divided by 10.3 (the distance of the 

normal HFET). These costs total $15,060 to $60,848 per test group/engine family 

complying with the proposed label requirements . 

For PHEVs, the proposed EPA test procedure is an extension of the existing test 

procedure for hybrid vehicles. Off-cycle tests are already required for test groups that do 

not meet the “litmus test”; others would use the derived 5-cycle adjustment. Hybrid 

vehicles already do FTP and HFET tests for fuel economy determination. The new FTP 

procedure would essentially run repeated FTPs until the charge is depleted. This is the 

“charge depleting” operation when the vehicle is mainly running on its battery. The battery 

would then be recharged and a single additional four-phase FTP would be conducted in 

what is denominated as the “charge sustain” operation. Following this the vehicle will be 

recharged if necessary by running any appropriate test cycle followed by HFET cycles in 

“charge depleting” operation, followed by a cycle in “charge sustain” operation. 

For purposes of this cost analysis the charge sustain FTP and HFET cycles along 

with potential other cycles mandated by emissions and fuel economy testing requirements 

are considered to be continuations of existing requirements. The cost increment due to this 

proposal consequently derives entirely from the increased testing time in depleting mode. 

The duration of the depleting modes estimated as 7.45 to 50 miles over the repeated 7.45 

or 10.3 mile FTP and HFET test cycles. These together add an estimated $1,706 to 
13

$10,070 in non-labor O&M costs to each test group/engine family conservatively assuming 

no carryovers. 

The cost for the new label design is the increment in printing cost from the existing 

black-and-white design to color. To estimate this cost difference, we noted two sources. 

First, in 2007 the California Air Resources Board examined the effects of requiring a 4-by6-inch environmental label that included color printing. It estimated the combined capital 

and operating costs of color labels to be as low as $0.02 per vehicle for large 

manufacturers;1 CARB expected small-scale manufacturers to switch to pre-printed color 

labels at an incremental cost of $0.05 per label. Secondly, in 2006 Hewlett-Packard 

estimated the per-letter-page cost of color printing on its HP Color LaserJet 4700n printer 

as $0.09 per letter-sized page, and black-and-white printing on a dedicated black-and-white 

printer as $0.015, for a cost difference of $0.075 per page.2 The existing fuel economy 

label measures 4.5 by 7 inches, about a third the size of a letter page. For the cost 

estimates developed here, we chose a low estimate of $0.03 and a high estimate of $0.08 

per label in additional printing costs. 

Note that the new label will include information already required for EVs by the 

FTC label rule. If these overlapping requirements can be harmonized, the cost of 

complying with the FTC ‘s and EPA/NHTSA’s requirements as they apply to alternative 

fueled vehicles could be lowered. 

(iii) Facility Capital Costs

In addition to new equipment (treated as a startup cost, below) the new testing 

requirements for EVs and PHEVs will in theory require expanded testing facilities for 

those manufacturers choosing to produce and sell them in the U.S. Because the cost of new 

facility capacity is highly dependent on manufacturer-specific factors (the costs of capital, 

the availability of land, the structure of work shifts, the existing excess capacity, 

contractual arrangements with third-party testing contractors, etc.), we use the 

approximation of unitizing increased test costs by assuming that a facility capable of 

performing 750 FTP/HFET pairs would cost $4 million. Here, the new tests are deemed to 

require these facilities in proportion to the increases in test time, and the costs are then 

annualized over ten years and amortized at 7% interest compounded monthly. This is likely 

a conservative assumption since it does not attempt to account for the excess capacity that 

exists in manufacturers’ current test facilities. We assume that there is no excess capacity 

in our analysis. Note that other features of the EV and PHEV test cycles, such as 

recharging times, have been harmonized with existing test protocols. Furthermore, 

consistent with other information burden analyses for the emissions and fuel economy 

programs, we consider these as ongoing rather than startup costs (i.e., as the facilities 

depreciate they are continually being replaced), another conservative assumption. Applied 

 

1

 State of California, Air Resources Board. “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Proposed 

Amendments to the Smog Index Vehicle Emissions Label,” May 4, 2007, 

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/arb/2007-06-21_isor.pdf , accessed May 3, 2010. 

2

 Hewlett-Packard, “Head to head comparison: color versus black-and-white printing,” 

http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/hpc2447wpcolorvsbwgov.pdf , accessed May 4, 2010. 
14

to a low and high estimate of 5 to 8 EV families and 5 to 8 PHEV families per year, this 

yields an annualized cost of $25,278 to $175,649 per year in facility costs. 

(iii) Start-up Costs

 “Startup” costs are one-time costs to implement the new requirements in the proposal 

beginning with model year 2012. Startup costs are accounted as one-time costs that are 

annualized and amortized or discounted at an interest rate of 7% over ten years. The startup cost 

elements identified in this analysis are for updating information systems and testing equipment 

and label redesign. 

The estimate includes the cost of upgrading information systems for the manufacturers 

who will need to comply with the new EV and PHEV testing requirements, such as recording 

multiple tests, recording battery charge data, and communicating the resulting data to the 

information system that gets it to EPA and the label. Both low and high estimates use 4 weeks 

for four IT staff for analysis and code, and 4 weeks for two IT staff for testing, at $100 per hour, 

for each manufacturer. Similarly, each of these manufacturers is assumed to need new testing 

equipment costing $25,000 for an ammeter and $50,000 for voltage stabilizers. 

 The proposed label designs would not affect either the existence or size of the label. 

Auto companies currently have significant flexibility in whether fuel economy label should be a 

stand-alone label or included in the “Monroney label” (which provides information on the price 

and options included for a specific vehicle), or where it is placed on the Monroney label. The 

agencies are not proposing any changes to this flexibility. The agencies estimate 16 to 24 hours 

at $100 per hour for this work, assuming at this time that no specific location or size within the 

Monroney label is required. This cost is applied to the universe of separate manufacturer entities 

subject to the rule. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

 The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are administered by EPA’s 

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division and Laboratory Operations Division. 

Approximately 26 full time employee equivalents are directly involved in the combined 

emission and fuel economy programs; their cost is approximately $2.9 million, including 

benefits but not overhead. EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency 

contracts with an organization that provides qualified persons to perform duties for the 

agency that are not performed by EPA employees. The cost associated with these persons 

who work directly on the combined emission and fuel economy program for the two 

divisions is approximately $0.5 million, including overhead. Overhead percentage for the 

entire division is approximately 60 (i.e., the baseline labor costs are multiplied by 1.6), 

yielding an estimated total agency cost of $5.44 million. 

 Implementation of the new fuel economy rule will be carried out by existing staff 

and by information technology contracts for the Verify information system. One-time 

startup costs including overhead for implementing the new rule include 300 hours and 

$12,318 for public outreach, and $500,000 in contracts without hour allocation for added 
15

computer database system development, for a total of 300 hours and $512,318; annualized 

over ten years with 7% depreciation this cost burden comes to $72,943. Ongoing agency 

burden added by the rule is estimated as 183 hours and $100,000 annually in database 

management labor. Combined labor and annual startup plus continuing costs therefore total 

483 hours (startup hours not annualized) and $172,943. Other ongoing database 

management, oversight, and certification activities are part of the fuel economy and 

emissions program Agency baseline. All EPA labor estimates, are based on Office of 

Personnel Management annual pay rates effective January, 2006, with a 1.6 multiplier for 

overhead based on EPA’s latest fees cost allocation study (1.37 indirect program cost 

overhead times 1.16 overall EPA overhead). These estimates will be updated for the final 

ICR. This estimate does not include Agency burdens incurred prior to the effective date of 

the rule, such as costs of developing the rule and preliminary consultations with 

manufacturers on database issues. 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

 The relevant respondents or actions to which the above costs and labor hours apply 

are the following: 1) the number of manufacturers who will have to redesign their labels, 

print them, and apply them to vehicles; 2) the number of such vehicles; 3) the number of 

manufacturers producing EVs or PHEVs for sale in the United States, who will need to 

redesign information systems, purchase testing equipment, and undergo increased testing 

O&M costs and facility capacity costs; and 4) the number of EV and PHEV test groups 

likely to be tested under the modified testing requirements. 

 1) For the number of manufacturers, many specific automotive brands are parts of 

marketing groups or are owned and managed by other, parent companies. These parent 

groups were considered the most relevant respondent unit for label redesign. Allowing for 

these relationships, the best guess is that the rule would apply to 24 manufacturers and 11 

independent commercial importers (ICIs) importing nonconforming vehicles into the U.S. 

for sale. The manufacturer list is based on determinations that are underway for the 2010 

Fuel Economy Trends Report (for Trends Reports see 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm ) and may be revised later if warranted. The count of 

ICIs is from a search for light-duty ICIs listed in the Verify database. 

 2) For the number of labels, we estimate the subject fleet from the April 20, 2010, 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Summary of Fuel Economy Performance ( 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_Performance_Report_April_2010.p

df , accessed June 17, 2010 ), taking MY2009’s 9.82 million as the low and MY2005’s 15.9 

million as the high estimate. 

 3) EPA estimates 5 to 8 EV manufacturers and 5 to 8 PHEV manufacturers in the next 

three years and a combined 8 to 10 manufacturers needing to update testing equipment and/or 

information systems. This is an estimate based on information of existing, pending, and 

contemplated near-term actions as opposed to speculation about possible future directions for 

these industries. This is considered a conservative estimate with a margin of error both at the low 

and high cost estimates. 
16

 4) The number of test groups/engine families subject to new EV and PHEV testing 

requirements is similarly estimated as 5 to 8 for EVs and 5 to 8 for PHEVs over the next year, 

leading to testing and facility cost estimates that conservatively add these together to 

contemplate 10 to 16 test groups a year. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

 The results of adding these unit and respondent costs to the total units and respondents is 

summarized in the following tallies for the high estimate and in the tables presented at the end of 

the text. 

(i) Respondent Tally

RESPONDENTS 35 

BURDEN HOURS 8,548 

LABOR COST $525,635 

OPERATING COST $184,981 

FACILITY CAPITAL $210,779 

STARTUP CAPITAL $324,069 

TOTAL CAP & O&M $2,286,829 

TOTAL COST WITH LABOR $2,812.465 

(ii) Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES 26 

STARTUP $72,943 

OPERATING $100,000 

LABOR HOURS 483 

(f) Reasons for change in burden

 The burden change is from startup costs associated with implementing the new label 

requirements and related testing requirements detailed in the draft based on the analysis 

above. 

6(g) Burden Statement

 The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 279.3 hours per response. 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 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 
17

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 are listed in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the 

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the [EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 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. An electronic version of the public 

docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select 

“search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any 

correspondence.

TOTAL ANNUAL COST AND HOURS INCREASE 

COST BURDEN 

 Min Max 

O&M: testing and label $378,518 $1,841,981 

Facility Capital $25,278 $210,779 

Startup: one-time IT, label 

redesign, and reg 

familiarization, 10 yrs 7% $170,711 $234,069 

Total $574,507 $2,286,829 

 

HOURS BURDEN 

 Min Max 

O&M: testing and label 1,211 8,548 

Facility Capital 0 0 

Startup: one-time IT, 

equipment,label redesign, 

and reg familiarization, 10 

yrs 7% 0 0 

Total 1,211 8,548 

 

Labor Cost $74,446 $525,635 

 

Total Cost $648,952 $2,812,465 
18

TESTING COSTS (LABOR AND O&M COSTS FOR RUNNING THE TESTS) 

Increase In Number of Tests 

Increase in 

Hours 

Vehicle Type/Test 

Cycle Min Tests 

Min Cost 

Increase Max Tests 

Max Cost 

Increase Min Max 

EV 

Prep 5.0 $18,065 8.0 $28,904 150 240 

FTP 5.0 $43,691 8.0 $349,530 705 5,638

HW 5.0 $13,544 8.0 $108,350 218 1,748

PHEV 5.0 

FTP 5.0 $6,510 8.0 $50,563 105 705 

HW 5.0 $2,018 8.0 $30,001 33 218 

Total $83,828 $567,348 1,211 8,548

PRINTING COSTS 

 Number Min@$0.03 Max@$0.08 

Color Labels 9,832,000 $294,690 15,932,920 $1,274,634 

 

TOTAL O&M $378,518 $1,841,981 

INCREASE IN TEST FACILITIES 

 

Undepreciated capital costs Minimum Maximum 

EV test distance increase $154,210 $1,233,683 

PHEV test distance increase $22,977 $246,737 

Total $177,188 $1,480,420 

Amortized, 10yrs @ 7 % $25,278 $210,779 

STARTUP COSTS 

 

Cost 

 Item Minimum Maximum 

Updating Information systems $768,000 $960,000 

Ammeter/stabilizer $375,000 $600,000 

Label redesign $56,000 $84,000 

TOTAL $1,199,000 $1,644,000 

Depreciate 10 years at 7% $170,711 $234,069