Revised 8/16/10 

Question #/ TOPIC Responsible 

Agency 

OMB Comment Proposed Response 

1.Emissions for Electric Vehicles 

EPA Interagency reviewers recommend that the agencies 

accept comments on a more complete range of issues regarding what emissions information to include on the label, how to calculate emissions data, and how to present it. 

• Forthcoming 

2.Objective Language pp.16,34,101 

EPA Commenters recommend that the agencies modify 

language that may be perceived as trying to manipulate consumers into making certain consumption decisions that the Administration views as socially desirable from a policy perspective.2 Instead, the rule should be 

described as an objective attempt to provide more and better information to consumers so that they can more easily assess the true costs and emissions of different vehicles and make fully-informed decisions. The agencies should not imply that consumers who do not buy more fuel efficient vehicles are making poorer decisions, when it may be their preference to do so even with more information. Please make these revisions throughout the entire document. 

• The agencies will 

preamble in approobjectivity. 

3. Median Baseline Vehicle p.36 

EPA What alternatives did the agencies consider in deciding 

how to help consumers compare vehicles? The current proposal to shift each year’s median vehicle might make it very difficult or even misleading when consumers are comparing identical vehicles but different model years. A new model year vehicle might have lower ratings and cost savings than the previous year model year even if it is more efficient because of the shifting median vehicle. Do the agencies think this could be problematic? 

• The agencies unde

expressed in this cthere is no perfect think using each ycomparison is the underlying assumpdate to be most usWhen the Agencietesting post-propoprobe on this and 
Revised 8/16/10 

assumptions issue

• We will invite com

raised by the commwill review this seA.10.of the preamif we need to more discussion. 

4. Display of Model Year 

EPA Under the grading scale, the model year of a vehicle is 

extremely important because the relative metrics are updated every year. The agencies should therefore solicit comments on whether to highlight the model year more prominently on the label. Also, the agencies should consider – in greater detail – that consumers may want to compare essentially identical vehicles, but for different model years. As described above, under the updated grading scheme, the newer vehicle could have a lower grade even if it is more efficient than an older model, due to a different baseline for the grading scale. A similar condition could exist for the presentation of “fuel savings” information. 

• Model year is clea

all Monroney labeand the NHTSA sincorporated into tlabel, it would be model year on the well. Many consuMonroney label, sinformation on the to compare a new vehicle is with ww

5. Half letter upgrade for PHEVS pp46-47 

EPA Currently, the rule allows all vehicles to receive a half a 

letter grade upgrade if they perform well on “other HG emissions” except for PHEVs. The agencies state that PHEVs are excluded from receiving an upgrade if they are eligible to receive it because they want only EVs to get the A+ rating. PHEVs get an A for just the CO2 emissions and if they perform well on other GHG emissions, could get an A+. Excluding PHEVs from getting this upgrade might not level the playing field. Have the agencies considered implications from not 

• The agencies are n

letter upgrade/dowpollutants, simply comment on the oseveral other optiogrades 

• We will delete pre

excludes PHEVs fhighest letter grad
Revised 8/16/10 

allowing for a leveled playing field? Commenters 

recommended that the agencies not exclude PHEVs from getting this half letter upgrade if they are eligible to receive it. 

6. Overall Monroney Label Impacts 

EPA How would changes from this NPRM impact other 

components of the Monroney label? What is the relative size of the fuel economy component compared to the safety ratings component? How might the difference in size of the various components influence consumer perception about other vehicle attributes -- such as safety? 

• The proposal does 

effects that the proon other Monroneas the safety ratingproposal in Sectioagencies also seek the potential for thto create confusion information found in particular, the sSpecifically, the aon whether consumlarge letter grade oother aspects of th(such as safety) beenvironmental impconcern, the agencprominent black bthe purpose of the Nevertheless the aon whether additiorequired under 329this potential conf

• The agencies also 

whether the co-proparticular Label 1 
Revised 8/16/10 

large font for the omight inadvertentlfrom the black-andratings. As one wpotential issue, NHrequire under 49 Csafety ratings be lophysically possibleconomy and enviensure that the staget “lost” on the MSimilarly, the agenwhether their regueconomy and envirequire that it be lophysically possiblratings." 

7. Explain text on p. 29- cumulative cap on upstream emissions 

EPA • The phrase referen

comments is not obelieve it is anywh

• The phrase on pag

production cap perefers to the provi2016 light-duty veestablishes a thresproduction (or salemanufacturer duritimeframe, below zero gram per milEVs, and the elect
Revised 8/16/10 

and above which tcompliance value upstream GHG emthreshold is 200,0manufacturers whEVs/PHEVs/FCV300,000 vehicles f

8. Label Title EPA Commenters recommended that the agencies use “GHG 

Performance” instead of “Environment” on the label itself because the agencies are only considering GHG impacts. It is more accurate to refer to it as GHG reductions instead of “Environment.” Please make this change in the NPRM as well. 

• The title on both c

Economy and EnvComparisons” refeinformation on eacperformance metriinformation, and dgreenhouse gases emissions as well. the title is approprconsumers to all thinformation availa

9. List of acronyms needed pp9-11

EPA It would be helpful if the proposed rule included a list 

of acronyms at the beginning of the document. 

• The agencies have 

acronyms for inclu

10. Effect on aftermarket p.145 

EPA Could the agencies please clarify whether the proposed 

rule would affect “aftermarket” manufacturers (firms that purchase passenger cars or light trucks) and customize them for (re)sale. Would these firms be required to provide a label when they resold the vehicle? (Commenter asked this because these aftermarket” firms are likely to be small businesses, and if they are covered by the rule need to be included in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis.) (Commenter notes that Sec. 600-316-08 says that the 

• Because the “after

several different tythe response to whrequirement appliesituation. The diffsituations are as fo

1) Independent CommICIs are companies thoverseas either becaus
Revised 8/16/10 

“final stage” manufacturer is treated as the manufacturer for purposes of compliance with 

the rule.) 

to the U.S., or because otherwise available in performance sports capostal vehicles). Undregulations, such imporequired to be emissioFE label. Small businour Regulatory Flexib2) Alternative-fuel cocurrent regulations, alare not subject to the Frequirements. We are changes for alternativFE label proposal. Thalternative-fuel conveour RFA analysis. 3) Manufacturer-appr(e.g., limousines); Socertify vehicles that alcompanies to modify certain weight limit anemissions certificate. also provide fuel econaftermarket companieestimates for the modithe weight of the modEPA’s current regulatcompany does not neeemissions as long as t
Revised 8/16/10 

weight limit specified but they do need to pulabel on the modified manufacturer providefrom the non-modified We are not proposing provisions with the FE Therefore, small businconverters covered unapproved modificationmanufacturers are regbe included in our RFadjust the text in the Rthis. 4) Other types of modEPA Advisory CirculMarch 1977) that clartampering, aftermarkea vehicle from it certiflong as they do not adof accessories to the vthey do not modify themission control systesuch cases the aftermarequired to obtain a secertification or put thevehicle. Therefore, smcompanies engaged in modifications are not analysis. 
Revised 8/16/10 

• We do not believe 

changes to the pro“aftermarket” issualready included t“aftermarket” situlabel is required (ianalysis/discussio

11. RFA and autodealers p.145 

EPA The RFA analysis/certification should also include 

“auto dealers,” as the rule (Subpart E, Sec. 600-405) requires them to ensure that labels are in place and to obtain, display, and make available to consumers the Fuel Economy Guide (comparison booklet). Commenter assumes these costs are de minimus, so including them in the RFA analysis could be done in a brief sentence or two (but they should be included in the analysis and table of regulated entities). 

• We agree that “au

responsibilities unlabeling regulationproposal does not requirements to ththere is no incremdealers” due to the 

• We will revise our 

(in both the introdpreamble, see “SUINFORMATION: Apply to Me?” ansection VIII.B.3, Tin “auto dealers”. 

• We will also add d

section of the preano incremental imdue to the propose

12. Font size of MPG vs. GMP Label 2 p85 

EPA The NPRM does a great job outlining the benefits of 

gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon. But then label 2 has MPG in huge font (the biggest on the label) and GPM in tiny font. And all the labels have the slider bar as MPG rather than GMP. Commenter understands 

• The agencies did c

prominence of GPagencies agree to issue in section IIIfollowing languag
Revised 8/16/10 

that people now are used to the concept of MPG, but did the agencies consider gradually transitioning the label from emphasizing MPG to emphasizing GPM? Commenters could imagine, for example, the relative font sizes or placements changing over a decade. 

“The agencies are seewhether to gradually iof gallons per hundred consumer familiarity aconsumption metric.” 

13. p. 30 AC Leakage p32 

EPA On page 30 of the preamble there is a discussion on 

using A/C leakage adjustments in the determination of GHG emissions. If this option were adopted would it be inconsistent with labeling the emission as “tailpipe emissions”? Wouldn’t including A/C leakage adjustments also lead to widening the gap between what is on the label and what consumers get in the “real world”? 

• The agencies are n

A/C leakage adjuscomments 

• We agree to seek c

on the issue raised comment: “Wouladjustments lead tbetween what is oconsumers get in t

14. p. 66 p70 

EPA On page 66 in the forth sentence of the last paragraph, 

the word “actually” should be replaced with “typically” as shown below. This change would make the sentence consistent with the discussion preceding this sentence and corresponds to DOE’s findings in testing E85-FFVs energy efficiency and fuel economy. “While the E85 mpg values are lower than the gasoline mpg values, the use of E85 is actually typically slightly more energy efficient than the use of gasoline.” 

We will make this proin the preamble: “Whare lower than the gasuse of E85 is actually energy efficient than t

15. p. 67 methodology for assigning ghg value for FFVs 

EPA On page 67, the proposed methodology for assigning an 

overall combined value for greenhouse gas emissions or fuel economy for FFVs based on the fraction of alternative fuel currently in use seems uninformative for consumers. Especially with FFVs, it is unlikely that any individual consumer uses the national average fraction 

• The agencies are s

comment on this ipage 68, is not to ufraction of E85 usgasoline/1% E85)gasoline use as the 
Revised 8/16/10 

of alternative fuel. Possibly deriving a merged value for a clearly stated percentage of the alternative fuel (say 10% or 25% E85 usage for an FFV) would be of more value to the consumer. 

most flexible fuel gasoline all the timproposal does alloa different gasolinprovide data to shvehicles are in facmix, on average, iapproach is consisflexible fuel vehiccompliance under for 2016 and later 

16. labeling option for E85-FFV p73 

EPA Combined fuel economy labeling options for E85-FFV 

and diesel vehicles: It is not clear from the discussion if the combined FE ratings for diesel and E85-FFV vehicles would be on a gasoline equivalent basis or a per gallon basis of diesel or E85. DOE’s believes it would be more useful to consumers if the combined FE ratings for diesel and E85-FFV vehicles were on a diesel or E85 volumetric basis since these fuels are also sold on a per gallon basis. However, it is appropriate for the combined FE ratings for non liquid fuels such as CNG and electricity to be on a gasoline equivalent basis. 

• With respect to E8

on page 67 the prompg (volumetric) equivalent) metriccomment on whetboth. With respecis silent on this issto continue to repovolumetric basis athe past. We will aII.C.4 to address t"EPA proposes to fuel economy of dtraveled on a gallofuel has a long hisvolumetric basis, adifferences betweeand a gallon of diesmall." 
Revised 8/16/10 

17, Saves/Spend Disclosure Issues p51 

EPA Label 1 “Saves/Spend” Disclosures: For vehicles with 

below-average economy, proposed Label 1 would disclose the additional cost of fuel as compared to the average vehicle. For example, the disclosure on Figure III-5 states “Over five years, you will spend $3,600 more in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle.” Similarly, for above average vehicles, Label 1 contains a savings claim (e.g., “Over five years, this vehicle saves $5,700 in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle”). These disclosures present several potential problems. First, commenter expects that many consumers will interpret the “spend” disclosure to be a representation of total operating cost without realizing that figure is only a portion of that total. In addition, the basis for the saves/spend disclosure is five years of operation while, elsewhere on the label, the basis for the total operating cost disclosure is one year of operation. This may cause confusion. In addition, we expect the five year assumption will be lost on many consumers. Finally, because the saves/spend figures compare to an “average vehicle” that may not be in a consumer’s decision set, these figures may not be particularly useful to many consumers. Given these concerns, the “saves/spend” disclosure should be tested for these potential problems. Commenter notes that FTC has found through onsumer research that the annual operating cost provides a 

• The Expert Panel 

is a much more pocost. The Agencieopportunities for cpertinent informatof “spend” and the represents a five ythe Agencies also OMB June 18, 20calls for simple su

• The commenter st

figures compare to that may not be in set, these figures museful to many conthe median vehicleit to be a reference Unfortunately, it ivalue on the label specific vehicles tconsidering. Howto have specific cosuch as this on a wconsumers to pershabits and vehicle agencies are takinways to demonstracomparisons (see II.A.10) 
Revised 8/16/10 

useful, straightforward disclosure that allows for easy 

comparisons among all products (regardless of size and configuration). Commenter recommends that EPA and DOT consider displaying the annual operating cost figure prominently in lieu of the problematic saves/spend disclosure. Such a change is likely to make the label clearer, simpler to read and less cluttered. 

• The agencies are c

proposal engaging the additional rescomment. In addibelieve both Interconducted as well groups which are proposal will provdata on this issue. 

• We will seek com

by FTC and inclulanguage as in Secbeginning after, “Tcomment on this aapproaches, as oppapproach of displacost savings relatiin the fleet.” “ Thseeking comment potential of consuthe two different cLabel 1 with regarannual fuel cost of and the 5 year fuecompared to the ainterested in receivthese values may iand we intend to eprior to finalizing 
Revised 8/16/10 

exploring research branch agencies.” 

18. Environmental & Combined MPG Scales 

NHTSA Environmental and Combined MPG Scales: The three 

small scales on Label 1 (combined MPG, CO2, and Air Pollutants) are difficult to read and clutter the label. Accordingly, commenter suspects that consumers will have difficulty understanding these scales and their presence may detract from other label information. To the extent that such rating scales are required under the statute, commenter suggests that EPA and DOT consider whether the simple letter rating on Label 1 meets such requirements. If they do, commenter recommends that these small scales be removed from the label. This would increase label space and allow the size of the disclosures above the ranges to beincreased. Similarly, to the extent that environmental impacts are collinear with fuel economy, commenter suggests that EPA and DOT consider consolidating information (or significantly reducing the prominence of environmental disclosures) wherever possible to reduce clutter. For example, the greenhouse gas and air pollutant scales in Label 2 could be eliminated or made less prominent to simplify the label and make it easier for consumers to use. 

• The agencies b

addressed this attached documlanguage from 

19. p. 61-FTC Label Reference p65 

EPA FTC Label Reference: On page 61, the term “hang tag” 

should be replaced with the term “label.” 

• The agencies wil

preamble langua

20. Overall Rating utility 

NHTSA Some commenters questioned the utility of the overall 

summary rating because it does not by itself provide useful information to consumers. Have the agencies considered increasing the font of information that 

• Please Pages 24 

regarding this dis
Revised 8/16/10 

consumers might find more useful and decreasing the font of the overall summary rating that might not 

provide any useful information? 

21. Should any car receive an A+ p35 

EPA Some consideration should be given to the question of 

whether any car ought to receive a grade of A+. There may be undue psychological effects on consumers’ environmental choices. Consumers might get the impression that their environmental obligations are fulfilled after getting an A+ car. In addition, people tend 

to drive more miles if they think their car is more fuel efficient, and so if someone is led to believe their car has NOenvironmental impact, then who knows how they’ll change their behavior. In fact, there 

• The agencies bel

grading scale is inecessary differeuseful to both comanufacturers. Tadd language to tinviting commen

22. GHG performance based on tailpipe misleading bias against ethanol or biodiesel 

EPA Biofuel issues 

• These commen

interrelated 

• One primary th

that we should GHG issues--isuggested chanpart of our respEV emissions 

• A second thru

we should shoenvironmental fuel--is already Preamble as on 

23.Alt Fuel Labels should include info on gasoline savings in addition to fuel savings 24. p.28, SecII.3- upstream emissions issue 25. SectionII.3 proposed language addition from RFS fact sheet 
Revised 8/16/10 

p. 29 suggested lang change to include RFS language 

third and fourtagencies discuproviding E85and we ask for of the E85 flex

• EPA is oppose

proposed labelpreclude changproposal and a 

p. 57-adding upstream emissions language p. 58 – upstream lang p. 66 – suggest adding co2 reduction from combusting E85 fuels alongside tailpipe CO2 p.71 – Renewable fuels lbenefits- add info to label Pages 12-16 (alternative labels) 
1

Draft EPA Response to Interagency Comments on Upstream GHG Emissions 

Draft Preamble Section II.B.4.a (new language in bold, deleted language in strikeout): 

a. Life-Cycle Fuel Production-Related GHG and Energy Issues 

49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i) states that NHTSA must require vehicles to be labeled with 

information “reflecting an automobile’s performance ... [with respect to] greenhouse gas ... 

emissions ... of the automobile.”1

 NHTSA and EPA propose that the greenhouse gas emissions 

represented on the label include vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO2, but not any GHG emissions 

generated upstream of the vehicle. However, the agencies recognize that all automotive fuels 

have upstream GHG emissions associated with the production and distribution of the fuel used 

by the motor vehicle. This includes gasoline, diesel, and other fuels such as natural gas, 

electricity, and renewable biofuels. Operation of vehicles can result in GHG emissions from the 

vehicle itself as well as GHG emissions from the production and distribution of the fuel used by 

the vehicle. This section discusses how the agencies should address the issue of upstream 

emissions, focused on the advanced technology vehicles that use electricity from the grid to 

power the vehicle, such as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are expected to enter the 

market in larger numbers in the coming years. 

NHTSA believes that the EISA provision is somewhat ambiguous as written and thus 

provides a degree of discretion in its interpretation. One reasonable interpretation of this 

provision is that only GHG emissions directly from the vehicle itself are required for the label. 

Those would be the direct “automobile’s performance” with respect to “greenhouse gas 

emissions.” If this approach was taken, the agencies could supplement the label information by 

providing on their websites extensive information on upstream emissions from electricity 

generation. We note that this approach is also consistent with the joint EPA/DOT standards for 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and light trucks for model 

years 2012-2016, which treat GHG emissions for electric operation as zero up to a cumulative 

production cap per manufacturer.2 Accordingly, the agencies propose that vehicle operation 

on grid electricity be reflected on the label for now as having tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions 

of zero. 

Alternatively, NHTSA believes that it would also be reasonable to interpret the statutory 

language as permitting it to require that the required label information on GHG emissions 

include information on the upstream GHG emissions associated with electricity or other fuels 

used by the vehicle, insofar as the upstream GHG emissions are related to the automobile’s 

GHG performance. As noted above, the agencies recognize that there are upstream GHG 

emissions associated with the production and distribution of the fuel used by the vehicle, 

including electricity from the grid used by EVs and PHEVs. In light of that, the agencies are 

considering and request comment on the following alternative for the label for EVs and PHEVs. 

This alternative would be a modified approach to displaying “tailpipe only” CO2g/mile data for 

                                                           

1

 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) also refers to GHG “emissions of automobiles,” and further requires a designation of automobiles 

“with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles.” 2

 EPA placed a cumulative production cap on the total production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs for which an individual 

manufacturer can claim the zero grams/mile compliance value during model years 2012-2016. The cumulative 

production cap will be 200,000 vehicles, except that those manufacturers that sell at least 25,000 EVs, PHEVs, and 

FCVs in MY 2012 will have a cap of 300,000 vehicles for MY 2012-2016. See 75 FR 25436 (May 7, 2010)
2

EVs and PHEVs. Under this alternative, the EV label would eliminate the "0" CO2g/mile 

number currently displayed on the co-proposed labels (Figure III-2, III-10). This number would 

be replaced with either a symbol or an asterisk and explanatory text which states, "The only C02 

emissions are from electricity generation". Likewise, the agencies would modify the coproposed PHEV labels (Figure III-3, III-6, III-1, III-12) inserting either a symbol or asterisk next to 

the current CO2g/mile number displayed with the following explanatory text, “Does not include 

CO2 from electricity generation.” The phrase “tailpipe only” would be deleted from all of the 

labels, as not necessary. This alternative would avoid potentially confusing or misleading 

purchasers by more explicitly indicating that the CO2 emissions from generation of electricity 

are not reflected in the CO2 numbers on the label. Figures III-X, III-Y, III-Z illustrate one way 

this information could be displayed. The agencies request comment on this alternative option. 

 In addition, the agencies recognize that consumers may want to have access to 

information on the total GHG emissions associated with the operation of their vehicles, not just 

the tailpipe only emissions, and that access to such information can help consumers understand 

the GHG emissions that result from operation of the vehicle. The agencies recognize that 

developing such information and providing it in a manner that is both accurate and useful for the 

consumer raises a number of issues. For example, the upstream GHG emissions from 

electricity generation can vary significantly based on the different fuels used at generating 

stations. At a minimum, under this proposal the agencies intend to provide consumers with 

easily accessible web information that will inform them about the projected upstream GHG 

emissions and energy impacts of vehicle operation, based on both national average values and, 

where appropriate because of regional variability, regional values as well. 

The agencies are also considering and invite comment on an alternative where some 

information on upstream emissions is provided on the label itself. The agencies recognize that 

accounting for upstream GHG emissions from production and distribution of the fuel, including 

electricity, can be complex. We encourage commenters to be as specific as possible with any 

recommendations on how to address such upstream GHG emissions. Given that the label itself 

provides opportunity to provide only a limited amount of information, while much broader and 

detailed information can be provided on web sites, the agencies invite comment both on what 

kind of information should be provided to prospective purchasers, and where such information 

should be provided, the label or the web site. 

For example, the agencies invite comment on whether information on upstream 

emissions should be provided, on either the labels or the websites? In general, if information on 

upstream emissions is provided on the label, what information? If information is provided on the 

website, what information? The agencies specifically invite comment on how to address 

upstream emissions associated with the electricity used to power the advanced technology 

vehicles starting to enter commerce, electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Should 

upstream emissions be provided specifically for the emissions associated with the combustion 

of fuel to produce electricity? Should such upstream emissions be determined on a regional or 

a national basis? Should upstream emissions be provided as a relative comparison to a 

gasoline or diesel fuel, the current predominant fuels? In general, the agencies invite comment 

on the appropriate metrics to use and the specific suggestions for label content and design, if 

appropriate. For the label, commenters should take into consideration the limited amount of 

information that can be provided 
3

For the convenience of commenters, we have prepared the Table below as an 

illustrative example of one way that some upstream emissions could be accounted for, based on 

the assumptions that follow: 3

Proposal‐‐Tailpipe‐

Only

Tailpipe + Upstream

Vehicle CO2/mile CO2/mile

EV 0 197

PHEV 1 89 210

PHEV 2 133 217

Toyota Prius HEV 178 224

Honda Civic HEV 212 266

Honda Insight HEV 217 273

Ford Fusion HEV 228 287

 

                                                           

3

    The key assumptions underlying the illustrative numbers in the right-hand column are that: 

• EV and PHEVs all assumed to use 200 Watt-hours per mile when operating on electricity over the EPA test and assuming 

a 30% range (43% electricity consumption) shortfall from test to road. 

• PHEV 1 assumed to operate on electricity 50% of the time. 

• PHEV 2 assumed to operate on electricity 25% of the time. 

• Uses 2005 nationwide average value of 0.642 grams of upstream GHG per Watt-hour at powerplant (adjusted to include 

GHG emissions from feedstock extraction, transportation, and processing as well) from MY2012-2016 light-duty vehicle 

GHG final rule (75 Federal Register 25437). 

• Assumes typical 7% electricity grid transmission losses. 

• Uses 2250 grams upstream GHG per gallon of gasoline.
4

Figure III-Xa 
5

Figures III-Xb 
6

Figure III-Ya 
7

Figure III-Za 
8

Figure III-Zb 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 1 of 150

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0865; FRL_XXXX-X; NHTSA-2010-0087]

RIN 2060-AQ09; RIN 2127-AK73

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 

 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) are conducting a joint rulemaking to redesign and add 

information to the current fuel economy label that is posted on the window sticker of all new cars 

and light-duty 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 certain advanced technology vehicles, which 

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

vehicles. 

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007 imposes several new labeling requirements, because the agencies 

believe that labels for conventional vehicles can be improved to help consumers make more 

informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because the time is right to develop new labels for 

advanced technology vehicles that are being commercialized. This proposal is also consistent 

with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized federal 

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

new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012-2016.1

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before [Insert date 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register], sixty days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 

provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before 

[Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register], thirty days after date of 

 

1

 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 2 of 150

publication in the Federal Register. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

on “Public Participation” for more information about written comments. 

Hearings: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold xx public hearings on the following dates: [Insert 

Date], in [insert location], and [insert any additional dates and locations]. The hearings will start 

at 9 a.m. local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on “Public Participation.” for more 

information about the public hearings. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 

and/or NHTSA-2010-0087, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov 

• Fax: EPA: (202) 566–1741; NHTSA: (202) 493-2251. 

• Mail: 

o EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and 

Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 

o NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

o In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: 

o EPA: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0865. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

o NHTSA: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 and/or 

NHTSA-2010-0087. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on “Public 

Participation” for more information about submitting written comments. 

Public Hearing: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold [insert number] public hearings on the 

following dates: [Insert Date, Location, & Address]. OR [The agencies will announce the 

addresses for each hearing location in a supplemental Federal Register Notice.] See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on “Public Participation” for more information 

about the public hearings. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 3 of 150

Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available in hard copy in EPA’s docket, 

and electronically in NHTSA’s online docket. Publicly available docket materials are available 

either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations: EPA: 

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. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Lucie Audette, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4850; fax 

number: 734-214-4816; email address: audette.lucie@epa.gov, or Assessment and Standards 

Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; e-mail address asdinfo@epa.gov. 

NHTSA: Gregory Powell National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5206; Fax: (202) 493-2990; email 

address: gregory.powell@dot.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. 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, as defined under EPA’s CAA regulations,2

 and 

passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) as defined 

under NHTSA’s CAFE regulations.3

 Regulated categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS CodesA Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities 

Industry 336111 

336112 

Motor vehicle manufacturers. 

Industry 811112 

811198 

423110 

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components. 

Industry 336211 Stretch limousine manufacturers and hearse manufacturers.

Industry 441110 Automobile dealers. A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

 

2

 “Light-duty vehicle,” “light-duty truck,” and “medium-duty passenger vehicle” are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01. 

Generally, the term “light-duty vehicle” means a passenger car, the term “light-duty truck” means a pick-up truck, 

sport-utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, and “medium-duty passenger 

vehicle” means a sport-utility vehicle or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating. 

Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up trucks. 

3

 “Passenger car” and “light truck” are defined in 49 CFR Part 523. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 4 of 150

 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. 

B. Public Participation 

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this joint proposed rule. This 

section describes how you can participate in this process. 

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

In this joint proposal, there are many issues common to both EPA’s and NHTSA’s 

proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA docket (whether 

hard copy or electronic) will be considered comments submitted to both EPA and the NHTSA 

docket, and vice versa. Therefore, the public only needs to submit one set of comments to either 

one of the two agency dockets that will be reviewed by both agencies. Comments that are 

submitted for consideration by only one agency should be identified as such, and comments that 

are submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as such. Absent such 

identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is 

submitted on its proposal. 

 

Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket are 

described below. 

EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. EPA’s policy 

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your 

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed 

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 5 of 150

NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments 

are correctly filed in the docket, please include the Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0087 in your 

comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.4

 NHTSA established this 

limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the 

attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that 

the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, 

thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.5

 Please note 

that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used 

by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage 

you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines may be accessed 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible (last accessed June 2, 2010), and DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http://regs.dot.gov (last accessed June 22, 2010). 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, please remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket numbers and other identifying information 

(subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions - The agencies may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or 

section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language 

for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that 

you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or 

personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES 

section above. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

 Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will also be 

available to the other agency.6

 However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only 

 

4

 49 CFR 553.21. 

5

 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper 

document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text. 

6

 This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential 

information received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to submit their CBI only to EPA and 

not to both agencies. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 6 of 150

needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies’ dockets, and it will be available to the other. 

Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency. 

EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. In addition, you should submit a copy from which 

you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

 NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to 

be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment containing 

confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business information regulation.7

 In addition, you should submit a 

copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket 

by one of the methods set forth above. 

Will the Agencies Consider Late Comments?

 

 NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the 

comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent practicable, we will also 

consider comments received after that date. If interested persons believe that any new 

information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments 

after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final 

rule. However, the agencies’ ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will 

be limited due to the time frame for issuing a final rule. 

 

 If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider it in developing a final 

rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

 

 You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments 

submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may 

also read the materials at the EPA Docket Center or NHTSA Docket Management Facility by 

going to the street addresses given above under ADDRESSES. 

How do I participate in the public hearings?

 

7

 49 CFR part 512. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 7 of 150

 NHTSA and EPA will jointly host [insert number] public hearings on the dates and 

locations described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above. 

If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you notify the 

EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

at least ten days before the hearing. Once EPA and NHTSA learn how many people have 

registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each 

participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning 

purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we 

may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you 

bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels and the 

audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials 

before the hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not 

use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, 

you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids 

to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. In addition, we will 

reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony. 

 The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals 

who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than ten days 

before the date of the hearing. 

NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence 

will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official 

record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You 

may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of Proposed Labels

C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect?

D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Label Changes?

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating Systems)

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles

1. Fuel Economy Performance
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 8 of 150

2. Fuel Consumption

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles

8. SmartWay Logo

9. Annual Fuel Cost

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

12. Other Label Text

13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

1. Introduction

2. EPA Statutory Requirements

3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies

1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance

A. Proposed Label Designs

1. Label 1

2. Label 2

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3)

IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling

A. Methods of Research

1. Literature Review

2. Focus Groups

3. Internet Survey

4. Expert Panel

B. Key Research Questions and Findings

1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label Information

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology Vehicles

3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison

4. Effective Whole Label Designs

5. Tools beyond the Label

V. Implementation of the New Label

A. Timing

B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles

C. Implementation of Label Content

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals

A. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures

1. Electric Vehicles

2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 9 of 150

B. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background

2. General Application of Utility Factors

3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility Factors

4. Low Powered Vehicles.

C. Comparable Class Categories

D. Using Smart Phone QR Codes to Link to Fuel Economy Information

 E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the “Monroney” Sticker

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

VII. Projected Impacts Of The Proposed Requirements

A. Costs Associated with this Rule

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours

2. Facility Costs

3. Startup Costs

4. Cost Summary

B. Impact of Proposing One Label to Meet EPCA/EISA

C. Benefits of Label Changes

D. Summary

VIII. Agencies’ Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews

A. Relationship of EPA’s Proposed Requirements With Other Statutes and Regulations

1. Automobile Disclosure Act

2. Internal Revenue Code

3. Clean Air Act

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New 

Vehicles

5. California Environmental Performance Label

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments

7. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution 

or Use

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

A/C Air Conditioning

AC Alternating Current
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 10 of 150

AIDA Automobile Information Disclosure Act

BTU British Thermal Units

CAA Clean Air Act

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI Confidential Business Information

CD Charge Depleting 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CREE Carbon-related Exhaust Emissions

CS Charge Sustaining

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

E85 A mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

EREV Extended Range Electric Vehicle

EV Electric Vehicle

FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle

FE Fuel Economy

FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicle

FTC Federal Trade Commission

FTP Federal Test Procedure

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HCHO Formaldehyde

HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon

HFET Highway Fuel Economy Test

ICI Independent Commercial Importer

IT Information Technology

ICR Information Collection Request

LEVII Low Emitting Vehicle II

LEV II opt 1 Low Emitting Vehicle II, option 1

MDPV Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle

MPG Miles per Gallon

MPGe Miles per Gallon equivalent 

MY Model Year

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NAICS North American Industry Classification System
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 11 of 150

NEC Net Energy Change 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NMOG Non-methane Organic Gases

NOX Oxides of Nitrogen

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OCR Optical Character Recognition 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PEF Petroleum Equivalency Factor

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PM Particulate Matter

PZEV Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicle

RCDA Actual Charge Depleting Range

RESS Rechargeable Energy Storage System

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users

SBA Small Business Administration

SFTP Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

SOC State- of- Charge

SULEV II Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules

UF Utility Factor

ULEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels 

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes 

This joint action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes what will likely be the most 

significant overhaul of the federal government’s fuel economy label or “sticker” since its 

inception over 30 years ago. 

 The current fuel economy label required on all new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles contains the following core information, as required by statute: 

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 12 of 150

• Comparison of the vehicle’s combined city/highway fuel economy to a range of 

comparable vehicles 

• Estimated fuel cost to operate the vehicle for one year 

This joint proposal is designed to update the current label in order to increase the 

usefulness of the label in helping consumers choose more efficient and environmentally friendly 

vehicles that would also meet new requirements added by Congress. This proposal also includes 

new label designs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), two 

advanced vehicle technologies that are beginning to enter the market. 

 EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs for public comment without a 

single primary proposal, although the final rule will adopt only one label design. Both label 

designs meet statutory requirements and rely on the same underlying data; they differ in how the 

data is used and presented on the label. One is a more traditional label design that retains the 

current label’s focus on fuel economy values and annual fuel cost projections, with a general 

label layout more similar to the current label. The second label design contains all appropriate 

information but prominently features a letter grade to communicate the overall fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas emissions – along with projected 5-year fuel cost or savings associated with a 

particular vehicle when compared to an average vehicle. The agencies are also seeking comment 

on an alternative third label design that follows a more traditional format but presents some 

information differently. All labels expand upon the content found on the current label and 

include the following information for conventional vehicles (advanced technology vehicle labels 

contain additional information tailored to the individual technology): 

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon 

• Combined city/highway fuel consumption in gallons per 100 miles 

• Tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in grams per mile 

• Annual fuel cost in dollars per year 

• A slider bar comparing the combined fuel economy to all other vehicles 

• A slider bar comparing the CO2 emissions to all other vehicles 

• A slider bar comparing non-CO2 (“other” or “smog-related”) emissions to all other 

vehicles 

• A symbol that can be read by a ‘Smartphone’ for additional consumer information (also 

known as a QR code) 

• A reference to a federal government website for additional information 

Despite the fact that the co-proposed labels are based on the same underlying data, they are 

significantly different in terms of presentation and prominence. The agencies encourage public 

feedback on the central question of which label design would be more useful and help consumers 

select more energy efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles that meet their needs, or 

whether the agencies should consider alternative designs. 

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates several new labeling requirements intended to help 

consumers make more informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because this is an appropriate 

time to develop new labels for advanced technology vehicles (Battery Electric or EVs and Plug-
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 13 of 150

In Hybrid Vehicles or PHEVs) that are being commercialized. The agencies believe that a joint 

label meeting our separate statutory requirements and our shared consumer information 

objectives makes far more sense for both consumers and manufacturers than separate labels. As 

a joint rulemaking, this proposal is also consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and 

NHTSA that established harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate 

average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and 

pickup trucks for model years 2012-2016.8

The agencies believe these new labeling requirements for automobiles are important in 

light of a growing national interest in both fuel economy and climate change. Historically, 

consumers have generally paid the most attention to fuel economy when fuel prices increase 

sharply over a short period of time, such as in 2008, but the agencies believe that this 

phenomenon has changed and consumers will continue in the future to pay more attention to fuel 

economy. Based on projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that future 

gasoline prices will increase over coming decades due to global economic growth and oil 

demand, we believe that it is likely that consumer interest in and use of the fuel economy label 

will grow over time.9

 In addition, given the increased awareness of consumers regarding climate 

change and air pollution, more comprehensive information on the emissions performance of 

vehicles, as required by EISA, could help consumers make more informed decisions on how a 

vehicle they buy may impact the environment. 

It is also important for the agencies to define labeling requirements for advanced vehicle 

technologies that are nearing commercialization. The existing label has long provided city and 

highway fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon (mpg) values, which the agencies believe are 

well recognized and understood by consumers, and which are widely used as metrics for 

comparing the efficiency of one vehicle to another. Since the late 1970s when the fuel economy 

label was first established by EPA as required under the Energy Policy Conservation Act 

(EPCA) of 1975, over 99 percent of the automobiles sold have been conventional, internalcombustion engine vehicles that run on petroleum-based fuels (or a liquid fuel blend dominated 

by petroleum). When manufacturers produced different advanced technology vehicles, such as 

compressed natural gas vehicles, EPA has generally addressed the need for labels on a case-bycase basis. 

Over the next several model years, however, the agencies expect to see increasing 

numbers of EVs and PHEVs entering the marketplace. This proposal includes changes to the 

label to address some of the specific issues raised by the use of grid electricity as a fuel for EVs 

and PHEVs. These vehicles will be required to display labels containing the same kind of 

information as conventional vehicles, but some of that information may be better conveyed in 

different ways, and consumers may be interested in different information for these vehicles. For 

example, evaluating the performance of a vehicle that uses grid electricity as some or all of its 

fuel, or the cost of operating such a vehicle, presents unique challenges for making an informed 

comparison between different EVs and PHEVs, and between advanced technology vehicles and 

 

8

 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 

9

 Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0383 (2010), 

May 11, 2010, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 14 of 150

their conventional vehicle counterparts including gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles and hybrid 

gasoline electric vehicles (HEVs). 

The co-proposed label designs present two approaches for addressing the complex 

challenges associated with labels for these advanced technology vehicles, and the agencies 

encourage the public to comment on a wide range of possible solutions. The agencies recognize 

that this is only the first generation of EV and PHEV labels, and we expect to refine them over 

time as we have done with conventional vehicle labels. Additionally, the agencies recognize that 

other advanced technology vehicles, such as fuel cell vehicles, may enter the marketplace in the 

near future as well, but for purposes of this first effort we have chosen to focus on EVs and 

PHEVs. Specific label requirements for other advanced technology vehicles will be developed at 

a later time as those vehicles enter the market. 

This joint proposal is designed to satisfy each agency’s statutory responsibilities in a 

manner that maximizes usefulness for the consumer, while avoiding unnecessary burden on the 

manufacturers who prepare the vehicle labels. Since 1977, EPA has required auto manufacturers 

to label all new automobiles,10 pursuant to EPCA.11 As amended, EPCA requires that labels 

shall contain the following information: 

(1) the fuel economy of the automobile; 

(2) the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile; 

(3) the range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles of all manufacturers; 

(4) 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; 

(5) 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 of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

4064); and 

(6) other information required or authorized by the EPA Administrator that is related to 

the information required by (1) through (4) above.12 

In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),13 Congress required that 

NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), establish regulations to 

implement several new labeling requirements for new automobiles.14 , NHTSA must develop a 

program that requires 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 useful life of the automobile based on criteria provided by EPA.15 NHTSA must also 

develop a rating system that makes it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including 

 

10 An “automobile” is defined for these purposes as a “4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative 

fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways” and “rated at not more than 8,500 

pounds gross vehicle weight.” See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) and 32908(a)(1). 11 Pub. L. 94-163. 

12 49 U.S.C. 32908(b). 

13 Pub. L. 110-140. 

14 EISA Sec. 108, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32908(g). 

15 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(i). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 15 of 150

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

and the highest fuel economy.16

Thus, either the basic label for automobiles needs to be expanded to include additional 

information on performance in terms of fuel economy, greenhouse gas and other emissions, or a 

new label needs to be required. NHTSA and EPA believe that a joint rulemaking to combine all 

of these elements into a single revised fuel economy label is the most appropriate way to meet 

the goals described above, rather than placing the information in two separate labels with 

duplicative and overlapping information, which could cause consumer confusion and impose 

unnecessary burden on the manufacturers.17 

 

Finally, given the goals described above and the need to provide additional information 

on the label, the agencies believe that the overall vehicle label design format and content should 

be reevaluated and could be improved. Simply including the additional information required 

under EISA for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles necessitates a review of the 

overall label design. 

As described above, the agencies view the purpose of the label as providing information 

that will be most useful for consumers in making informed decisions regarding the energy 

efficiency and emissions impacts of the vehicles they purchase. Providing information on 

energy, environmental performance, and cost can educate consumers in various ways. These 

metrics have the potential to help people who value this kind of information to make a more 

informed choice among different vehicles. It also has the potential to inform people who 

currently place less or even no value on this kind of information, but who may decide it is more 

important to them at some point in the future. NHTSA and EPA are mindful that this is a 

complicated issue and that there is no readily ascertainable metric to determine whether we have 

achieved this somewhat subjective and qualitative purpose. Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are coproposing two options, and also taking comment on another alternative, that highlight a number 

of relevant issues on which we seek public comment. The agencies will consider all public 

comments and publish a final rule in the near future. 

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of Proposed 

Labels 

Since today’s proposal includes adding important new elements to the existing label as 

well as creating new labels for advanced technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a 

comprehensive and innovative research program beginning in the fall of 2009. The research 

helped inform the development of the new labels being proposed and included three phases of 

consumer focus groups, a review of available literature, and a day long consultation with an 

expert panel of individuals who have introduced new products or have spearheaded national 

educational campaigns. 

 

16 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(ii). 

17 The agencies also raised the issue of the upcoming labeling requirements in the recent joint rulemaking for MYs 

2012-2016 CAFE and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 16 of 150

 For the focus groups, the agencies decided to use a three-phase approach in order to 

accommodate the sheer amount of information intended to be covered in the groups, as well as to 

use each phase to inform the next phase to help evolve the overall label design in regard to both 

content and appearance. Focus groups were held beginning in late February through May 2010 

in four cities: Charlotte, Houston, Chicago, and Seattle. Overall, 32 focus groups were 

convened with a total of 256 participants. We asked the focus groups about the following issues: 

• How they use the current fuel economy label 

• What feedback they could give us on potential new information and metrics for the label 

for conventional and advanced technology vehicles (EVs and PHEVs), and 

• What feedback they could give us, after reviewing draft labels, on designs and the level 

of information that makes sense, as well as overall preference for displaying information. 

The insights received from the focus groups were key for the agencies with regard to 

individual metrics that consumers wanted to see on labels and also with regard to effective label 

designs. Overall, focus groups indicated18 that redesigned labels must: 

 Create an immediate first impression for consumers 

 Be easy to read and understand quickly 

 Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, PHEV) 

 Utilize color 

 Chunk information to allow people to deal with “more information” 

 Be consistent in content and design across technologies 

 Allow for comparison across technologies 

 Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles 

Following the focus group research, we assembled an expert panel for a one day 

consultation and asked them to give us feedback on the draft label designs the focus groups had 

helped create and to also assist us in identifying opportunities and strategies to provide more and 

better information to consumers so that they can more easily assess the costs, emissions, and 

energy efficiency of different vehicles. The experts came from a variety of fields in advertising 

and product development, and were chosen because they have led successful national efforts to 

introduce new products or have spearheaded national educational campaigns. After viewing the 

draft labels, the expert panel offered the agencies the following insights and guidance19 that were 

key in developing one of the co-proposed label designs, including: 

 Keep it simple; we yearn for simplicity (fewer, bigger, better) 

 Consumers don’t act on details 

 Remember the reality of very short label viewing time - roll ratings and metrics up 

into a single score 

 Use cost savings information- a very strong consumer motivator 

 

18 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010; , 

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010;, and 

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 19 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Expert Panel Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 17 of 150

 Develop a web site that would be launched in conjunction with the new label. This 

consumer-focused, user friendly web site would provide more specific information on 

the label including addition information on the letter grade, along with access to the 

tools, applications, and social media. 

Beyond these two core research elements, the agencies also undertook a comprehensive 

literature review20 and drafted and had peer reviewed an internet survey. The agencies intend to 

administer the survey concurrently with the release of this proposal, and the results will be made 

publicly available in the dockets for this proposal prior to issuing a final rule with the new label 

requirements. 

 The agencies also met with a number of stakeholders, including environmental 

organizations, auto manufacturers, and dealers, to gather their input on what the label should and 

should not contain, as well as to ascertain particular concerns.21 Comments received on labeling 

issues in the context of the joint rulemaking on fuel economy and GHG standards, 22 as well as 

for the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule, 23 have also been considered. 

C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect? 

The agencies propose that the final label changes will take effect for model year (MY) 2012 

vehicles, consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established 

harmonized federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, 

minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.24 For those advanced 

technology vehicles that will be introduced to the market prior to MY2012, EPA will work with 

individual manufacturers on a case-by-case basis to develop interim labels under EPA’s current 

regulations that can be used prior to MY2012 and that are consistent with the proposed labels for 

advanced technology vehicles. 

D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Label Changes? 

The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from revisions to the fuel 

economy label and new testing requirements. As discussed in Section VII of this preamble, we 

estimate that the costs of this rule are likely to be in the range of $649,000 – $2.8 million per 

year. This rule is not economically significant under E.O 12866 or any DOT or EPA policies 

and procedures because it does not exceed $100 million or meet other related standards. 

The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule come from any improvements in 

consumer decision-making that may lead to reduced vehicle and fuel costs for them. There may 

be additional effects on criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. At this time, EPA and 

 

20 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010EPA 

Fuel Economy Label Literature Review, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010.. 21 Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum recording those meetings it attended, and 

attach documents submitted by stakeholders, as appropriate, when the information received formed a basis for this 

proposal, and the information can be made public, in the docket for this rulemaking. . 22 Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472. 23 Available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. 24 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 18 of 150

NHTSA do not believe it is feasible to fully develop a complete benefits analysis of the potential 

benefits. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the assessment of the benefits and costs presented 

in Section VII below. 

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs 

This proposal involves the addition of new information and design changes to 

conventional vehicle labels and the creation of specific labels for certain advanced vehicle 

technologies, but will not impact other important elements of the federal government’s fuel 

economy and GHG emissions regulatory programs. For example, this proposal will not affect 

the fuel economy compliance values used in NHTSA’s CAFE program, or the GHG emissions 

compliance values used in EPA’s GHG emissions control program. Nor will this proposal affect 

the methodology by which EPA generates the consumer fuel economy values used on the vehicle 

labels and provided at www.fueleconomy.gov. The result of the additional information, 

including environmental information, appearing on the label will necessitate that additional 

information also be displayed on this website in the future. Finally, this proposal does not affect 

the test procedures that are used by EPA and manufacturers to generate the federal government’s 

vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions database. 

This proposal also does not affect the vehicle labels required by the California Air 

Resources Board which indicate relative ratings for “Smog” and “Global Warming,” in 

fulfillment of that state’s statutory requirements. The agencies are aware that the California 

labels provide information that is effectively duplicative with some of the information on the 

labels that will result from this rulemaking effort, although using different underlying rating 

methodologies and presentational approaches. It is the hope of both NHTSA and EPA that the 

Federal label can meet the CARB requirements and, thus, preclude the need for a separate set of 

labels. However, it is ultimately up to California to determine how to implement its statue and, 

thus, beyond the purview of this rulemaking to make any such determination. 

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements 

The fuel economy label has evolved several times since it was first required by Congress 

in the 1970s, both in response to new statutory requirements and to changing policy objectives. 

There have been important changes in the past to make the label more technically accurate and 

understandable to consumers. The changes being proposed are consistent with past efforts by 

EPA to make the fuel economy label more consumer friendly and effective over time. This 

section provides a brief historical summary of the development of the fuel economy label. 

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 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). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 19 of 150

The responsibilities for these requirements were split between EPA, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT)25 and the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for 

establishing the test methods and procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates 

that are displayed on the labels and in the annual booklet, and for the calculation of a 

manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT, and by delegation, NHTSA, is responsible 

for administering the CAFE compliance program, which includes establishing standards, 

determining compliance, and assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible for 

publishing and distributing the annual fuel economy information booklet. 

EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute in 1976.26 The 

provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 model year, established the first fuel 

economy label along with the 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 values into a 

single number for manufacturers’ compliance purposes.27

After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates on the labels of new 

vehicles, it soon became apparent that drivers were disappointed by not often achieving these 

estimates on the road and expected them to be as accurate as possible. In 1978, Congress 

recognized the concern about differences between EPA-estimated fuel economy values and 

actual consumer experience and mandated a study under section 404 of the National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act of 1978.28 In February 1980, a set of hearings were conducted by the 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and National Resources. 

One of the recommendations in the subsequent report by the Subcommittee was that “EPA 

devise a new MPG system for labeling new cars and for the Gas Mileage Guide that provides 

fuel economy values, or a range of values, that most drivers can reasonably expect to 

experience.”29 

EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel economy labeling 

procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel economy data as part of that rulemaking.30

In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling procedures that were applicable to 1985 and 

later model year vehicles.31 The decision was made to retain the FTP and highway test 

 

25 The CAFE-related responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation are delegated to the NHTSA Administrator 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

26 41 FR 38685, promulgated at 40 CFR Part 600. 

27 EPCA requires that manufacturers simply comply with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, it does not 

require separate city and highway standards for each type of automobile. Thus, EPA calculates the average fuel 

economy for a manufacturer by weighting and combining the results of each automobile on the separate city and 

highway cycles. See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). 28 Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, 404, November 9, 1978. 

29 House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,'' Report 96-

948, May 13, 1980. 

30 “Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 460/3-

80-010, September, 1980, and ``Technical Support Report for Rulemaking Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel 

Economy Labeling,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE-81-6, October, 1980. 

31 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December 10, 1984. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 20 of 150

procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used for other purposes, including 

emissions certification and CAFE determination. Based on the in-use fuel economy data, 

however, it was evident that the final fuel economy values put on the labels needed to be 

adjusted downward in order to reflect more accurately consumers’ average fuel economy 

experience. The final rule, therefore, included downward adjustment factors for both the city 

and highway label fuel economy estimates. 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.32

EPA projected at the time that these adjustments would put the average city and highway 

MPG values in the middle of the range of fuel economy values experienced by consumers.33

During the rulemaking process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed 

concern that fuel economy estimates based on the average experience would result in a 

significant number of drivers failing to achieve that fuel economy. OMB requested that EPA 

provide a range of values on the label that would encompass the expected fuel economy of about 

75 percent of the driving population.34 To address this concern, in the final rule, EPA required 

the label to contain the range of city and highway fuel economy that most drivers should expect. 

Based on our understanding of the frequency distribution of in-use fuel economy data at the time, 

the range was set at plus or minus 15 percent of the stated city and highway estimates, and 

appears on the current fuel economy label. 

In the early 2000s, EPA again began investigating the accuracy of the fuel economy label 

estimates, and concluded that driving behavior (e.g., higher average speed and acceleration) and 

other factors (such as the use of ethanol as a gasoline blending agent) had changed significantly 

since the correction factors were implemented in 1985, leading again to a widening gap between 

real-world fuel economy and the label estimates that consumers saw when shopping for new 

vehicles. During the development of vehicle emissions regulations in the late 1990s, EPA had 

already conclusively found that the city and highway tests did not adequately represent realworld driving, and in December of 2006 EPA finalized new test methods for calculating the fuel 

economy label values.35 

The 2006 final rule made three important changes. First, EPA’s new methods brought the 

miles per gallon estimates closer to consumers' actual fuel economy by including factors such as 

high speeds, quicker accelerations, air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures. These 

revised fuel economy estimates also reflect other conditions that influence fuel economy, like 

road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The new 

estimates took effect with model year 2008 vehicles. Second, EPA now requires fuel economy 

labels on certain heavier vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such as larger SUVs 

and vans. Manufacturers will be required to post fuel economy labels on these vehicles 

beginning with the 2011 model year. Third, to convey fuel economy information to the public 

more effectively, EPA updated the design and content of the label. The rule required that new 

labels be placed on vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007. The fuel economy for each 

 

32 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984. 

33 49 FR 13832, April 6, 1984. 

34 49 FR 13835, April 6, 1984. 

35 71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 21 of 150

vehicle model continues to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG 

estimates. 

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 

Under EPCA, EPA is responsible for developing the fuel economy labels that are posted 

on all new light duty cars and trucks sold in the U.S and beginning in MY 2011 all new medium 

duty trucks as well. Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 

10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight that includes large sport utility vehicles and vans, but not 

pickup trucks. EPCA requires the manufacturers of automobiles to attach the fuel economy label 

in a prominent place on each automobile manufactured in a model year and also requires auto 

dealerships to maintain the label on the automobile.36 

 EPCA specifies the information that is minimally required on every fuel economy 

label.37 As stated above, labels must include: 

• The fuel economy of the automobile, 

• The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile. 

• The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers, 

• 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, 

• 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;38and 

• Other information required or authorized by the Administrator that is related to 

the information required [within the first four items]. 

Under the provision for “other information” EPA has previously required the statements 

“your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle,” and cost 

estimates “based on 15,000 miles at $2.80 per gallon” be placed on vehicle labels. 

There are additional labeling requirements found in EPCA for “dedicated” automobiles 

and “dual fueled” automobiles. A dedicated automobile is an automobile that operates only on 

an alternative fuel.39 Dedicated automobile labels must also display the information noted 

above. 

 

36 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1). 

37 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F). 

38 26 U.S.C. 4064. 

39 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) defines “alternative fuel” as including —(A) methanol; (B) denatured ethanol; (C) other 

alcohols; (D) except as provided in subsection(b) of this section, a mixture containing at least 85 percent of 

methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels; (E) natural gas; (F) 

liquefied petroleum gas; (G) hydrogen; (H) coal derived liquid fuels; (I) fuels (except alcohol) derived from 

biological materials; (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of 

Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy 

security and environmental benefits.” 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 22 of 150

A dual fueled vehicle is a vehicle which is “capable of operating on alternative fuel or a 

mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel, and on gasoline or diesel fuel” for the minimum driving 

range (defined by the DOT).40 Dual fueled vehicle labels must: 

• Indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline or diesel 

fuel. 

• Clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile. 

• Clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be operated; and 

• Contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional information 

required by subsection (c)(2) [the information booklet] is published and 

distributed by the Secretary of Energy. .

41

EPCA defines “fuel economy” for purposes of these vehicles 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 [of the EPA] under section 32904(c) [of this title].”42 

Additionally, EPA is required under EPCA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing 

information that is “simple and readily understandable.”43 The booklet is 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.”44 While the booklet continues to be available in paper form, in 

2006, EPA finalized regulations allowing manufacturers and dealers to make the Fuel Economy 

Guide available electronically to customers as an option.45

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

The 2007 passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) amended EPCA 

by introducing additional new vehicle labeling requirements, to be implemented by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 46 While EPA retained responsibility for 

establishing test methods and calculation procedures for determining the fuel economy estimates 

of automobiles for the purpose of posting fuel economy information on labels and in an annual 

Fuel Economy Guide, NHTSA gained responsibility for requiring automobiles to be labeled with 

additional performance metrics and rating systems to help consumers compare vehicles to one 

another more easily at the point of purchase. 

Specifically, and for purposes of this rulemaking, subsection “(g) Consumer Information” 

was added to 49 U.S.C. section 32908. Subsection (g), in relevant part, directed the Secretary of 

 

40 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9), (c). 41 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 

42 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11). 

43 49 U.S.C. 32908(c). 

44 Id. 

45 71 FR 77915, Dec. 27, 2006. 

46 P.L. 110-140. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 23 of 150

Transportation (by delegation, the NHTSA Admnistrator) to “develop and implement by rule a 

program to require manufacturers – 

(A) to label new automobiles sold in the United States with – 

(i) information reflecting an automobile’s performance on the basis of 

criteria that the [EPA] Administrator shall develop, not later than 18 

months after the date of the of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, to 

reflect fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the 

useful life of the automobile: 

(ii) 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 a designation of automobiles— 

(I) with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of 

the vehicles; and 

(II) the highest fuel economy...” 

 Thus, both EPA and NHTSA have 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 presented below.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating Systems) 

This section discusses the elements that the agencies are proposing for the fuel economy 

label. Section A discusses the range of options considered and proposed for “conventional” 

petroleum-fueled vehicles (i.e., those powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel). Current hybrid 

vehicles, which are fundamentally gasoline-fueled vehicles,47 will continue to use the same label 

as other gasoline vehicles, just as they do today. Many of the approaches discussed in Section A, 

such as the rating systems, will apply across all vehicles, including advanced technology 

vehicles. Section B specifically discusses the special cases of advanced technology vehicles. 

These vehicles – such as electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles 

(PHEVs) 48 – are one of the key reasons we are proposing new regulations. The agencies are 

concerned that current label requirements do not adequately address these vehicles, and we are 

seeking to develop labels that are useful and understandable to consumers, as well as equitable 

across the range of different vehicles and technological approaches. Section C addresses some 

of the less common fuels and fuel combinations for which label templates must ultimately be 

developed, such as compressed natural gas and methanol. 

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles 

 

47 Current hybrid vehicles obtain their electric power from their onboard conventional gasoline engine and energy 

captured through regenerative braking. Thus, the vehicle’s energy source is still gasoline. 

48 Definitions for hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

can be found in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1803-01. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 24 of 150

The complete effect of this proposal would be a single new label, which replaces the 

existing fuel economy label and which contains more information than is currently displayed, 

even in the case of conventional petroleum-fueled vehicles. An example of the current label is 

shown here to provide a basis for comparison with the proposed labels. 

The new single label is the result of EPA and NHTSA’s decision that it is good public 

policy to consolidate label requirements called for by EPCA and EISA. This label would contain 

information not only on a new vehicle’s fuel economy, annual fuel cost, and range of fuel 

economy within class, but also, for the first time, information on a new vehicle’s fuel 

consumption, emissions, and comparative rating information, as required by statute. This 

expansion of the role of the label beyond fuel economy information reflects the new EISA 

requirements, which are premised on the concept that greenhouse gas and other environmental 

information is also in the public interest. 

In developing this proposal, the agencies came up with two distinct approaches for 

conveying information on the label. While both approaches rely on the same underlying data 

and both meet EPCA and EISA requirements, they differ in how they present and emphasize the 

information. One approach is more traditional, focusing primarily on mpg values and 

secondarily on annual fuel cost, but adding new elements, such as environmental information. A 

label using this approach would look familiar to the public, with a style similar to the existing 

label. Requiring a label based on the traditional approach assumes that potential vehicle 

purchasers will use the information that is most meaningful to them, whether that is mpg, fuel 

cost, or other values. For example, participants in the focus groups leading up to this proposal 

indicated that, when considering the current fuel economy label, nearly all used the city and 

highway mpg values almost exclusively, despite the presence of other data elements on the label; 

some also used annual fuel cost and within-class comparison information.49 

 

 

49 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010,,EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010,

p. 10. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 25 of 150

The other approach uses the same data, but shifts the emphasis to a single, more 

prominent value that reflects fuel consumption and its counterpart, greenhouse gas emissions, 

using a format the consumers will easily recognize - a letter grade. The associated numerical 

values and other required elements would remain on the label, but with much less prominence. 

This approach makes it simpler for the consumer to identify those vehicles that use less oil and 

have a lesser environmental impact and more clearly expands the role of the label beyond fuel 

economy information. Many of the focus group participants indicated that they trusted the EPA 

to determine which of these factors were important, and the agencies believe that consumers 

might be more likely to consider a vehicle with higher fuel economy and lesser environmental 

impact if they were provided with a simpler label.50 

The agencies believe each approach has merit and that the public will be well-served by 

having both be fully considered; therefore, EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs 

based on these two approaches, without either being the primary proposal. NHTSA and EPA 

expect that comments will provide valuable insight on these two proposed label designs, and 

seek comment on the merits and drawbacks of each, recognizing that the label design ultimately 

finalized may draw on elements from all the labels presented in this proposal. The labels are 

presented in Section III. Label designs 1 and 2 are co-proposed, with Label 1 being the letter 

grade approach and Label 2 being the more traditional approach. Label 3, on which comment is 

also sought, is an alternative version of the traditional approach. 

 The subsections that follow describe each of the data elements presented on the labels, 

how the agencies considered them, and how we are proposing that they be displayed on each of 

the co-proposed labels. 

1. Fuel Economy Performance

 Since 1977, the EPA fuel economy label has represented the fuel economy performance 

of a vehicle with estimates of city and highway miles per gallon (mpg). With more than 30 years 

of consumers seeing these estimates as the most prominent values displayed on the fuel economy 

labels, it is not surprising that the consumer research conducted as part of this rulemaking has 

revealed a strong attachment to city and highway mpg values. A combined city and highway 

mpg value was first placed on the label starting with model year 2008 -- as part of the graphic 

showing the combined mpg value of the vehicle compared with other vehicles in the same class51

but, even prior to this, the combined mpg value has always been a key input to estimating the 

annual fuel cost value required on the label.52 

Representing the vehicle’s fuel economy performance on the label with an estimate of 

miles per gallon is a core element of the fuel economy information requirements of EPCA, which 

 

50 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010,EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010,

p. 36. 

51 The vehicle classes are defined in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 600.315-08 and provide a basis for comparing a 

vehicle’s fuel economy to that of other vehicles in its class as required by statute. See the discussion in section VI.C 

for a detailed discussion of the vehicle class structure. 

52 Combined fuel economy is a harmonic average of the City and Highway mpg values, with the City value 

weighted 55% and the Highway value weighted 45%. See 71 FR 77904, December 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 26 of 150

specifically states that the label must display “the fuel economy of the automobile” and defines 

“fuel economy” as “the average number of miles travelled...for each gallon of gasoline...”53 In 

addition, EPA and NHTSA have determined that continuing to display the fuel economy values 

on the label would also meet the new requirements put in place by EISA that call for a label 

“reflecting an automobile’s performance [based on criteria determined by EPA] to reflect fuel 

economy...over the useful life of the vehicle.”54 Because vehicle fuel economy depends 

primarily on fundamental vehicle design characteristics that do not change over time, the 

agencies believe that fuel economy remains essentially stable throughout the life of properlymaintained vehicles. Thus the agencies believe that the current test methods that determine label 

values for new vehicles will meet the EISA requirements by providing reasonable estimates of 

fuel economy performance for the full useful life of a vehicle. Finally, consumers have shown a 

strong familiarity with and preference for mpg values, and have consistently indicated that these 

values are used as part of the vehicle purchase decision. 

For these reasons, the agencies are proposing to continue to provide mile per gallon 

estimates to consumers, but with some changes relative to the current label, and with markedly 

different approaches on the two co-proposed labels. 

The agencies recognize that the focus group research suggested that consumers have a 

strong familiarity with and preference for the city and highway fuel economy values55 (although 

this preference was much stronger for conventional vehicles than for advanced technology 

vehicles; in those cases perhaps the complexity of the labels encouraged them to part with some 

of the numbers on the label). Focus group participants who argued strongly for separate city and 

highway mpg values on the label often stated, for example, that most of their driving is either 

city or highway, and that a combined city-highway mpg value might make it harder for them to 

determine what mpg they should reasonably expect for that vehicle.56 The agencies believe that 

this apparent preference was formed in large part because of EPA’s decision to present these as 

the dominant figures on the label for decades, not because consumers demanded these metrics 33 

years ago. Had EPA been presenting the combined number as the dominant figure on the label 

since 1977, we might expect to see a great deal of familiarity with and understanding of that 

particular value today. However, the distinction between city and highway driving does not 

address the key variables that could impact energy consumption for alternative technologies, 

such as ambient temperature. Thus, the agencies believe that, for labeling purposes, the 

city/highway distinction may be a less relevant metric than in the past. 

Thus with Label 1, NHTSA and EPA propose that the mpg values be significantly 

reduced in prominence (i.e., smaller font and “below the fold” location on the label), with the 

letter grade rating assuming the predominant role. Given space constraints and the amount of 

information that is required to be provided on the label, continuing to display mpg estimates with 

 

53 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(A). 

54 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 

55 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010,,

p. 10. 

56 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

10. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 27 of 150

the same or similar prominence would be likely unnecessary and possibly untenable. The city 

and highway mpg values would be available for those who wish to use them, but the rating 

assumes the key role of informing the public about the relative energy use and carbon emissions 

of a vehicle. The agencies believe that this de-emphasis on mpg values would have two primary 

benefits: first, the rating’s predominance should encourage consumers to use it rather than the 

specific mpg values to compare across vehicle technology types (particularly as mpg values 

become less meaningful for vehicles that do not run, or only partially run, on fuels dispensed by 

the gallon); and second, to address the non-linearity of mpg with respect to energy use, 

emissions, and cost, discussed further in Section II A 2, which becomes more important as 

significantly higher mileage vehicles are poised to enter the marketplace. 

The agencies are proposing a different approach for Label 2, in which the combined mpg 

value is displayed prominently, with separate city and highway values continuing to be shown on 

the label, but as subordinate values. This approach focuses attention on mpg since it is the 

metric that consumers are the most familiar with and have come to utilize on the label. 

However, it downplays the separate city and highway value in favor of a single, combined mpg, 

because the agencies believe that continuing to highlight multiple pieces of fuel economy 

information with the same level of prominence could make it more difficult for consumers to 

compare vehicles, particularly across technology types, where mpg becomes a less meaningful 

metric. A similar approach is taken on Label 3. 

The agencies seek comment generally on these two approaches to displaying fuel 

economy performance information on the labels. Specifically, comment is sought on whether or 

not the labels that emphasize combined city/highway mpg values over separate city and highway 

mpg values are helpful to consumers, and why or why not. If combined mpg is preferred, 

comment is sought on whether or not city and highway values should continue to be displayed, 

and why or why not. 

2. Fuel Consumption

While miles per gallon is statutorily mandated for fuel economy labels and has appeared 

on the label for several decades, the agencies have some concern that it can be a potentially 

misleading comparative tool for consumers, particularly when it is used as a proxy for fuel costs. 

The problem can be easily illustrated by the following figure, which shows the non-linear 

relationship between gallons used over a given distance and miles per gallon. It can be seen that 

the difference in gallons it takes to go 1,000 miles between 10 and 15 mpg (about 33 gallons) is 

substantially greater than the difference in gallons it takes to go the same distance between 30 

and 35 mpg (about 5 gallons). In other words, even if consumers clearly understand that higher 

mpg is better, those comparing vehicles with relatively low mpg values may not know that mpg 

differences that appear to be small, even one or two mpg, may actually have very different fuel 

consumption values, and that selecting the slightly higher mpg vehicle could actually result in 

significantly less fuel used, thus saving a considerable amount of money. Fuel consumption 

numbers, unlike mpg, relate directly to the amount of fuel used. Mathematically, they represent 

gallon per mile, instead of miles per gallon. Not coincidentally, they also relate directly to the 

amount of CO2 emitted, because the grams of CO2 produced are directly proportional to gallons 

of fuel combusted. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 28 of 150

Illustration of "MPG Illusion"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Miles per Gallon

Gallons per 1,000 Miles

33 gals

5 gals

This so-called “mpg illusion,” which has been widely written about by a number of 

economists to illustrate why mpg is a flawed measure of how a vehicle’s efficiency relates to fuel 

costs,57 was raised as an issue during the development of the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule. 

Some vehicle manufacturers suggested at the time that it may be more meaningful to express fuel 

efficiency in terms of consumption (e.g., gallons per mile or per 100 miles) rather than in terms 

of economy (miles per gallon).58 Fuel consumption is the primary metric used in Europe, and 

the Canadian fuel economy labels report both mpg and a consumption metric (liters per 100 

kilometers). Because a few stakeholders expressed an interest in a fuel consumption metric at 

the time, EPA requested comments on a gallons-per-mile metric and how it could be best used 

and presented publicly, such as whether it should be included in the Fuel Economy Guide. 

The comments received in response to this request were mixed. Public Citizen, on the 

one hand, responded that, while there may be some merit to including a fuel consumption metric, 

consumers are comfortable with mpg. Any change, they argued, should be carefully deliberated 

and involve a massive public outreach campaign to educate consumers.59 They also suggested 

 

57 Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., "Energy: Behavior and Energy Policy," Science, March 5, 2010, available 

at:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5970/1204; Larrick, R.L., Soll, J.B., "The MPG Illusion," 

Science, June 20, 2008, available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5883/1593; McArdle, M., 

"Department of Mathematical Illusion," The Atlantic, December 24, 2007, available at: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/department-of-mathematical-illusion/2425/. 58 US EPA Response to Comments: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles, EPA-420-R-06-016, Dec 2006, pp. 

60-61. 

59 Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-

0123.1, Apr 3, 2006, p.4. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 29 of 150

that the estimated annual fuel cost provides information derived from consumption values and is 

thus a suitable proxy for consumption. Toyota, in contrast, commented that fuel consumption is 

a more meaningful measure than mpg for expressing fuel efficiency, while acknowledging 

EPA’s statutory limitations. They noted - as have many others - that the mpg metric is 

fundamentally nonlinear in relation to issues of consumer interest, such as cost of fuel or gallons 

used, and noted that anecdotal evidence shows that the nonlinear aspects of mpg can lead to 

consumer confusion. Toyota concluded that “...this is a matter on which the EPA is obligated to 

educate the public as fuel consumption, not fuel economy, is a direct reflection of the 

environmental impact of vehicles in use.”60 

EPA responded to these comments in the 2006 final rule by concluding that switching to 

a consumption metric without a long-term consumer education program would cause confusion 

and that, absent Congressional action, the fuel economy labels would still have to continue to 

report mpg. EPA also agreed with commenters that the estimated annual fuel cost was a 

consumption-based metric which conveys essentially the same information (although the 

estimated annual fuel cost on the label is not without its own limitations, as described below). 

To allow further consideration of this issue, the consumer focus groups conducted for this 

rulemaking were asked to specifically explore the mpg illusion. Most participants were 

unconvinced that consumption should be included on the label with primary prominence and, 

although many were unopposed to having it as additional information, it was unclear whether it 

would add value from their perspective.61 This was the case regardless of the consumption 

metric tested, ranging from gallons per 100 miles to annual gallons consumed. 

However, there is general interest from a number of parties in the inclusion of a fuel 

consumption metric on the label. The agencies, as well, believe that it is important to introduce 

the concept of consumption to enable consumers to more accurately consider fuel use and costs 

during the vehicle purchase process. Thus, the agencies propose to introduce such a metric along 

with the mpg values, expecting that, over time, and with some education, consumers will begin 

to understand energy consumption and the direct connection it has with the fuel costs and 

environmental impacts of the vehicle. EPA is therefore proposing to include an estimate of 

gallons per 100 miles on the label under its 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F) authority to require other 

information related to fuel economy on the label, and requests comment on doing so, as well as 

on alternative options for reflecting fuel consumption, such as annual gallons consumed.62 For 

consumers to use a consumption number, however, EPA and NHTSA believe that a 

comprehensive education campaign would have to accompany the roll-out of new labels. 

The agencies also seek comment on the specifics of displaying a consumption metric on 

the two labels being co-proposed. Although the label may provide city and highway mpg values 

 

60 Toyota Motor Corporation Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR2005-0169-0118.1, Mar 31, 2006, p.7.

61 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

17. 62 This proposal is being made under EPA’s authority to require other information related to fuel economy on the 

label, as described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 30 of 150

as well as a combined city/highway mpg, we are proposing to require only the combined 

city/highway consumption value on the label. The agencies are concerned that requiring a 

consumption value corresponding to every mpg value would lead to an undesirable proliferation 

of numbers on the label. 

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance 

 In addition to the fuel economy performance information that has been provided on the 

labels since 1977, Congress directed NHTSA, through EISA, to require new vehicles to also be 

labeled with information reflecting their greenhouse gas performance, which would be 

determined on the basis of criteria provided by EPA to NHTSA. As with fuel economy, the 

GHG performance information would be per vehicle model type. EPA hereby proposes the 

criteria for determining greenhouse gas performance, addressing the greenhouse gases to be 

incorporated, the emissions sources to include, the underlying test procedures, and the specific 

metric to be used. The agencies seek comment on whether these criteria, as described below, are 

reasonable and appropriate for determining the greenhouse gas performance of new vehicles. 

For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA is proposing that the greenhouse gas performance element 

of the label be based on these criteria. These same greenhouse gas performance values would 

also be used as the basis for the proposed greenhouse gas rating systems. 

With regard to the greenhouse gases to be covered, the agencies propose that the label 

include greenhouse gas performance information solely on the basis of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions, which typically constitute approximately 95% of the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse 

gases. Including emission levels of the greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide 

(N2O) along with CO2 would not provide additional differentiation between vehicles. This is 

because, for purposes of compliance with EPA’s GHG standards beginning in model year 2012, 

CH4 and N2O values would be based on emission factors–that is, set values applied to each 

vehicle, rather than direct measurements. Because these values would be set at the same level 

for all vehicles, the agencies do not believe that including them would provide consumers with 

additional useful information. 

Similarly, the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information be based on CO2

emissions for the vehicle model type, rather than the carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) 

methodology used to determine fuel consumption for CAFE programs and compliance with the 

light duty greenhouse gas requirements. The use of CREE adds a level of complexity that, while 

useful for compliance purposes, may not be beneficial to public understanding of the relative 

differences in GHG emissions between vehicles because the levels of other carbon-related 

emissions are low relative to CO2 emissions. Although the agencies propose that the greenhouse 

gas information on the label be based only on CO2, we also seek comment on whether and, if so, 

how, the other greenhouse gases and carbon-related emissions should be included. 

Regarding the underlying test procedures to be used to determine the vehicle-specific 

GHG performance information for the labels, the agencies propose that the CO2 values presented 

on the label be based on the five-cycle test procedures that are currently utilized for fuel 

economy labeling purposes.63 These test procedures measure rates of tailpipe CO2 and other 

 

63 40 CFR part 600.210-08. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 31 of 150

emissions, which form the basis of the fuel economy values currently used for vehicle labeling. 

The five-cycle test procedures have been used for labeling since model year 2008, and have 

significantly improved the correlation between label values for MPG and those seen in actual 

use. Manufacturers could thus calculate CO2 emission rates using the same approach that they 

use for label fuel economy values, which the agencies know to be well-correlated with actual 

performance in use. More specifically, if a manufacturer uses the "derived five cycle" method 

for determining mpg for fuel economy labeling, they would use the same method for determining 

CO2 for labeling purposes. The city and highway CO2 emissions test results would then be used 

in the derived five-cycle equations, which the EPA has converted from a mpg basis to a CO2

basis for this purpose. Similarly, vehicle model types that are using the "full five cycle" method 

for fuel economy labeling would use the CO2 results from those tests for purposes of fuel 

economy labeling. The agencies are therefore proposing that manufacturers use the same fivemethodology currently utilized for fuel economy labeling purposes for determining GHG values 

for purposes of the new label. 

As far as emission sources to include, NHTSA and EPA propose that the greenhouse gas 

emissions represented on the label include only vehicle tailpipe emissions,64 and do not account 

for any GHG emissions generated upstream of the vehicle. This approach is also consistent with 

the vehicle GHG emissions compliance levels recently adopted by EPA, which treat GHG 

emissions for electric operation as zero up to a cumulative production cap per manufacturer.65 

When exploring this issue with focus groups, the agencies found that most participants 

did not consider the issue of upstream emissions either way. A few raised it when they noted 

that an electric vehicle indicated zero emissions, and suggested that these vehicles did cause 

some emissions at the power plant, which should be represented on the label.66 On further 

discussion, they generally determined that it would be challenging for the label to meaningfully 

represent the range of emissions from power plants operated on different fuels, and suggested 

that this information was obtainable from other sources.67 Given space constraints and the 

difficulty of explaining the potential range of upstream emissions due to different fuel sources, 

participants tended to agree that this issue could be adequately addressed by a statement on the 

label indicating that the CO2 values on the label represented vehicle tailpipe emissions only. The 

label designs presented in this NPRM include the words “Tailpipe Only” next to the CO2 value 

presented; the agencies seek comment on whether this wording will be readily and uniformly 

understood to mean that upstream GHG emissions are not being reflected on the label, or 

whether other, more direct wording might be clearer and more helpful to consumers. 

 

64 The agencies seek comment on the potential inclusion of GHG emissions reflecting from A/C leakage credits, as 

described later in this section. 

65 EPA placed a cumulative production cap on the total production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs for which an 

individual manufacturer can claim the zero grams/mile compliance value during model years 2012-2016. The 

cumulative production cap will be 200,000 vehicles, except that those manufacturers that sell at least 25,000 EVs, 

PHEVs, and FCVs in MY 2012 will have a cap of 300,000 vehicles for MY 2012-2016. See 75 FR 25436 (May 7, 

2010) 

66 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, 

p.42. 

67 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

42. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 32 of 150

Aside from tailpipe CO2, the agencies are not proposing, but seek comment on the 

inclusion of an additional factor in the GHG performance used for labeling: air conditioning 

(A/C) credits generated by a manufacturer under the light duty vehicle GHG requirements. Air 

conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. Hydrofluorocarbon 

(HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHGs, can leak from the A/C system (direct A/C 

emissions). Operation of the A/C system also places an additional load on the engine, which 

results in additional CO2 tailpipe emissions (indirect A/C related emissions). The efficiencyrelated A/C impacts are accounted for in the five-cycle tests utilized for fuel economy labeling 

and proposed as the basis for GHG labeling purposes. However, EPA and NHTSA are 

considering whether allowing manufacturers that generate credits towards their GHG compliance 

obligation by reducing A/C leakage-related GHGs should be allowed to factor these credits into 

the CO2 value displayed on the label and used as the basis for the GHG rating. Allowing 

manufacturers to factor A/C credits into the GHG performance metric on the label would reward 

them for making A/C leakage improvements, but it would also cause the GHG performance 

value and the fuel economy performance value to diverge, and would impact the methodology 

for any rating system that combines GHGs and fuel economy. EPA and NHTSA seek comment

on a number of issues: whether including A/C leakage adjustments would lead to widening the 

gap between what is on the label and what consumers get in the real world; on whether and, if so, 

how, to allow the use of A/C credits for the purposes of labeling, with specific focus on the 

methodology and how the labels might display the inclusion of A/C leakage credits if the 

agencies decided to allow their use. 

EPA and NHTSA are proposing to use grams per mile as the metric to display 

greenhouse gas performance information on the label, which would be consistent with the metric 

used for GHG emission standards and compliance for light duty vehicles. The agencies believe 

that this metric is also consistent with requirements in 49 U.S.C. § 32908(g)(1)(A) that 

performance reflect emissions “over the useful life of the automobile.” As with fuel economy, 

the agencies do not at this time expect notable deterioration of greenhouse gas emissions levels 

over a vehicle’s useful life. However, the agencies seek comment on alternative approaches to 

convey GHG performance information, such as tons per year, using an approach parallel to that 

discussed in section II for annual cost information. 

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems 

EISA requires that the label include 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 a designation of the automobiles with the lowest greenhouse 

gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel economy....”68 The two 

co-proposed label designs present two variations on ratings systems for fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas emissions, based on two interpretations of the statutory language. These two 

approaches - separate absolute ratings for fuel economy and greenhouse gases, and a relative 

rating that combines the two factors - are not mutually exclusive, and a label could contain one 

or both. 

 

68 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 33 of 150

In developing rating systems, the agencies are cognizant of the focus group testing 

conducted for this proposal, in which it appeared that many participants did not rely on any 

rating system. Perhaps due to their familiarity with the prominently displayed mpg numbers, 

many participants relied initially and sometimes exclusively on mpg or mpg-e label values to 

compare vehicles to one another. 69 Given this result, the agencies are proposing two different 

approaches to the ratings. 

The first approach is displayed at the bottom of Label 1 and Label 2: separate ratings 

scales for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, bounded by specific values for the “best” 

and the “worst” vehicles, and with specific fuel economy and GHG emissions values for the 

vehicle model type in question identified in the appropriate location on the scale. The scales on 

Label 2 are essentially larger versions of those on Label 1, with the addition of a within-class 

indicator on the fuel economy scale to meet the EPCA70 requirement for comparison across 

comparable vehicles. 

This variation - absolute rating scales - directly utilizes the actual fuel economy and CO2

performance values per vehicle model type to define the rating, which the agencies believe has 

both potential benefits and drawbacks. The agencies believe that, by rating vehicles on an 

absolute scale, this approach clearly meets the text of the EISA requirement for providing fuel 

economy and GHG performance information and indicating highest fuel economy and lowest 

GHG vehicles. The rating system allows the consumer looking at the label on the dealer’s lot to 

identify precisely the highest and lowest fuel economy values available, the lowest and highest 

GHG emissions values available, and where the vehicle bearing the label falls in relation to these 

extremes. When this variation was presented in focus groups, some participants liked the level 

of detail provided by absolute rating scales and found it helpful in understanding how a vehicle 

compared to the “best” and “worst” vehicles available, although others found it to be more detail 

than they wanted or did not pay attention to this information on the label.71

However, even for those consumers who appreciate this level of detail in comparing 

vehicles by fuel economy and GHG emissions, there is the possibility that the “best” will change 

over the course of the model year and that the mpg or gram/mile value at the end of the scale 

may no longer be accurate. Highest and lowest values to be used on the scale would be 

provided to manufacturers by EPA prior to the start of the model year via annual guidance. 

Because these values will be based on the previous model year plus any additional information 

regarding the upcoming new sales fleet available to the EPA, they are expected to be relatively 

accurate. However, because they are projected values, the introduction during the model year of 

any new and unexpected vehicles not previously identified to EPA could potentially cause 

inaccuracy in the end points of the rating scales. In general, because of the expected introduction 

of electric vehicles, which have no tailpipe CO2 emissions and thus anchor one end of the scale 

at zero, and because of the expectation that, for the foreseeable future, one or more vehicles will 

 

69 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

36. 

70 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 

71 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

41. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 34 of 150

anchor the opposite end at a relatively constant level, the agencies believe that the end points will 

likely remain relatively constant, but they may not remain exactly constant. The agencies 

therefore seek comment on how significant this potential for inaccuracy could be on consumers’ 

ability to use the absolute rating scales to compare fuel economy and GHG emissions across 

vehicles, and on whether commenters believe the labels would have to be revised in order to 

meet the statutory requirement every time a new “best” vehicle was introduced if they were not 

accommodated by the end points. 

The second approach to a rating system is also displayed on Label 1: a combined rating 

scale for fuel economy and GHG emissions, shown in the form of a letter grade. Because 

vehicles that are low in CO2 emissions have inherently good fuel economy (and vice versa), and 

because CO2 emissions are the primary determinant of fuel economy using EPA test procedures, 

vehicles would generally tend to have the same “score” for fuel economy as for GHG emissions. 

Thus, if the ratings are equivalent, as a practical matter, it would be consistent with the statutory 

requirement to provide a single, combined rating system. 

The proposed letter grade scale would range from A+ to D, including plus and minus 

designations to provide more opportunities for improvement. All vehicles would receive a 

“passing” grade - that is, the ratings would not include an “E” or “F” grade - because all vehicles 

must meet CAA requirements in order to be sold, and the agencies do not wish to convey 

otherwise. Additionally, the “A+” vehicles - with associated text stating the range of letter 

grades - will indicate which vehicles are the “best,” thus, meeting the requirement that the label 

designate highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas vehicles. 

This variation of a fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system was suggested by the 

expert panel and was not presented in focus groups, but many focus group participants favored 

the simplification of information presented when possible, and the agencies believe that such a 

well-known rating approach will be immediately recognizable by the majority of consumers. 

The agencies are also hopeful that a rating system as simple as a letter grade may encourage 

consumers to rely more on the rating system itself in making purchasing decisions, rather than 

on, for example, mpg numbers, which are subject to the “mpg illusion” issue discussed above. 

 A letter grade allows vehicles purchasers to make a comparative relative assessment 

among vehicles with different grades, consolidating information so that consumers might more 

easily assess the GHG emissions and fuel economy of different vehicles and make more fully 

informed decision. and may also motivate some consumers to make a more fuel efficient and 

environmentally-friendly choice. The proposed letter grade scale would range from A+ to D, 

including plus and minus designations to provide more opportunities for improvement. All 

vehicles would receive a “passing” grade - that is, the ratings would not include an “E” or “F” 

grade - because all vehicles must meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements in order to be sold, 

and the agencies do not wish to convey otherwise. 

The agencies also request comment on whether any vehicle should receive a grade of A+ or 

whether this might lead to mistaken consumer conclusion that the vehicle has no energy or 

environmental impacts.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 35 of 150

As noted above, CO2 emissions are directly measured by EPA and form the basis for 

calculating the fuel efficiency of the vehicle; using CO2 as the basis for the rating is the most 

direct methodological approach and will avoid any rounding discrepancies that could occur from 

converting to mpg and then to fuel consumption. It also avoids the need to adjust the mpg 

thresholds by fuel type to account for differences in the energy content of fuel. Utilizing CO2 as 

the controlling factor in the rating thresholds is a practical consideration and is not meant to 

imply that GHG emissions are more important than energy use; both are relevant considerations 

and are viewed by the agencies as equally important under the rating system. 72 

The agencies propose to base this rating system approach on the range of CO2 emissions 

for the projected fleet, placing the middle of the rating scale at the combined 5-cycle CO2

emissions rate for the median vehicle,73 with equal-sized increments of CO2 assigned to each 

grade or rating.74 The higher-GHG end of the scale would therefore be twice the CO2 emissions 

rate of the median value, although, effectively, any vehicle higher than this level would also 

receive the lowest rating. Under such an approach, the median value would become more 

stringent over time as a result of GHG emissions requirements and, thus, the entire scale would 

shift toward lower GHG levels. Unless a vehicle model reduced its rate of CO2 emissions across 

the model years, its ratings would gradually drop over time. This approach would be consistent 

with both the evolution of fuel economy and emission requirements, and the public expectation 

that products evolve over time. The CO2 thresholds associated with each rating would be 

determined on an annual basis and provided through guidance in advance of the model year. 

EPA would require that manufacturers use the ratings from the prior year if they are in a position 

to need to label a vehicle before the annual guidance has been issued. The agencies recognize 

that revising the median baseline vehicle each year may lead to some consumer confusion, but 

this dilemma is no different than what consumers currently encounter when they view identical

vehicles from different model years and their associated annual fuel cost or the comparative fuel 

economy slider bar for each vehicle displayed on today’s label. The agencies continue to believe

that the underlying assumptions need to be up-to-date to be most useful to consumers. 

 

72 The direct relationship between CO2 and fuel consumption breaks down to some extent for vehicles with electric 

operation. For these vehicles, tailpipe CO2 emissions are zero; however, energy is consumed by the vehicle and an 

energy efficiency value other than infinity can be assigned. Nevertheless, given that electric drive trains are 

currently much more efficient than those for conventional vehicles, the relationship between those vehicles emitting 

zero CO2 and having the highest energy efficiency holds true at the present time. This approach may need to 

reassessed in the future if efficiencies of electric drive and conventional vehicles begin to approach each other, or if 

it is desired to differentiate between the efficiencies of electric-powered vehicles, but should not be a necessary 

consideration in the foreseeable future. 

73 Median vehicle is determined by vehicle model type, with model type as defined in 40 CFR Part 600.311-.

(include exact citation)

74 The agencies evaluated several potential methodologies for creating this rating system besides equal increments of 

CO2. We rejected an approach that would create the rating system based on establishing equal size categories for 

the ratings using miles per gallon – that is, taking the range of mpg of the vehicle fleet and dividing that range into 

ten equal segments. Given that the fleet will soon see vehicles that achieve mpg-equivalent values of 75 to 100, the 

agencies were concerned that this methodology would create a situation where a vehicle such as the 2010 Toyota 

Prius (which gets a combined mpg of 50 mpg) would receive only an average rating. Using this method would 

result in the vast majority of vehicles receiving a rating well below the middle rating, which would not seem to be an 

appropriate result of a rating system. However, the agencies seek comment on whether a combined rating system 

based on mpg instead of on CO2 might be developed in a way that avoided these results. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 36 of 150

Nevertheless, the agencies request comment on what the agencies might do to avoid potential 

confusion.

The following example is based on model year 2010 data and assumes that one or more 

vehicles that emit zero CO2 tailpipe emissions (i.e., electric or fuel cell vehicles) have entered the 

market. Gasoline-equivalent MPG values are provided in the table for clarity. However, the 

agencies propose that the CO2 values be controlling for purposes of assigning the rating.

Table II.A.4-1 

Example Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating System 

 

CO2 Range 

(grams per mile) 

Rating Combined gasoline 

MPG or MPGe 

0-76 A+ 117 and higher 

77-152 A 59-116 

153-229 A- 40-58 

230-305 B+ 30-39 

306-382 B 24-29 

383-458 B- 20-23 

459-535 C+ 18-19 

536-611 C 16-17 

612-688 C- 14-15 

689-764 D+ 13 

765-842 

and higher 

D 12 and lower 

This example would result in the following distributions of ratings, based on 2010 vehicle model 

types, plus several additional vehicles indicated as “Electric Vehicle” and “Plug-in Hybrid 

Electric Vehicle.”75

 

75 The additional vehicles are examples of types expected to enter the commercial market. The CO2 and mpge 

values shown are examples only and are not based on any formal testing or certification data. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 37 of 150

 

Applying this rating system to model year 2010 data would assign the ratings as follows for the 

sample vehicles listed. Of course, future model year vehicles could receive different ratings 

from those shown in this example. 

CO2

g/mi

MPGe Sample Vehicles

A+ 0-76 117 

and up 

Electric Vehicle 

A 77-152 59-116 Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

A- 153-

229 

40-58 Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius 

B+ 230-

305 

30-39 Chevrolet Cobalt (Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (2WD), Honda 

Fit, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Toyota 

Corolla (1.8L Manual), Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Golf 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 38 of 150

B 306-

382 

24-29 Chevrolet Cobalt (Automatic), Chevrolet Malibu (2.4L), Ford 

Escape (2.5L Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (4WD), Ford Focus, 

Ford Fusion (2.5L), Ford Ranger (2.3L Manual), Honda Accord 

(2.4L), Honda Civic, Honda CR-V (2WD), Hyundai Elantra, 

Hyundai Sonata (2.4L), Jeep Patriot (2.0L, 2.4L Manual), Mazda 

3, Nissan Altima (2.5L), Nissan Sentra, Porsche Boxster 

(Automatic), Toyota Camry (2.5L), Toyota Corolla (1.8L 

Automatic, 2.4L), Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Matrix, 

Toyota RAV4 (2.5L)

B- 383-

458 

20-23 Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Automatic), Chevrolet Impala, 

Chevrolet Malibu (3.5L and 3.6L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 

Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe 1500 Hybrid, Dodge Charger (2.7/3.5L 

with 4-speed Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (4.0L), Ford 

Escape (2.5L Automatic), Ford Fusion (3.5L), Ford Mustang 

(4.0L Manual), Ford Ranger (2.3L Automatic), GMC Canyon 

(2.9L), GMC Sierra 15 Hybrid, Honda Accord (3.5L), Honda 

CR-V (4WD), Hyundai Sonata (3.3L), Hyundai Santa Fe, Jeep 

Patriot (2.4L CVT), Nissan Altima (3.5L), Porsche Boxster 

(Manual), Subaru Forester, Toyota 4Runner (2.7L), Toyota 

Camry (3.5L), Toyota Highlander (2WD), Toyota RAV4 (3.5L), 

Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 2WD) 

C+ 459-

535 

18-19 BMW 750Li (4.4L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Manual), 

Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Automatic, 7.0L), Chevrolet Express 

1500 (4.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), 

Chevrolet Tahoe 1500, Dodge Charger (3.5/5.7L with 5-speed 

Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (3.3L, 3.8L), Ford Explorer 

(4.6L 2WD), Ford F150 (2WD 6-speed Automatic), Ford 

Mustang(4.0L Automatic, 4.6L, 5.4L), Ford Ranger (4.0L 

Automatic), GMC Canyon (3.7L, 5.3L 2WD), GMC Sierra 15 

(4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), Honda Pilot, Jaguar XJ, Jeep Grand Cherokee 

(3.7L), Kia Sedona, Toyota 4Runner (4.0L), Toyota Highlander 

(4WD), Toyota Sienna, Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 4WD, 4.0L 

Automatic), Toyota Tundra (4.6L 2WD) 

C 536-

611 

16-17 BMW 750Li (4.4L 4WD, 6.0L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (6.2L, 

Manual), Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Manual), Chevrolet Express 

1500 (5.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 6.3L 

2WD), Dodge Charger (6.1L), Ford Explorer (4.0L and 4.6L 

4WD), Ford F150 (4-speed Automatic, 4WD 6-speed automatic), 

GMC Canyon (5.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 

6.2L), Jeep Grand Cherokee (5.7L), Nissan Titan (2WD), Toyota 

Tacoma (4.0L Manual), Toyota Tundra (4.0L, 4.6L 4WD, 5.7L 

2WD) 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 39 of 150

C- 612-

688 

14-15 Aston Martin DBS, BMW M5, Cadillac CTS (6.2L, Automatic), 

Chevrolet Silverado 15 (6.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (6.2L 

4WD), Land Rover Range Rover, Lexus LX 570, Maserati 

Quattroporte, Nissan Titan (4WD), Toyota Tundra (5.7L 4WD) 

D+ 689-

764 

13 Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, Mercedes-Benz Maybach 57 

D 765 

and up 

12 and 

down Ferrari 612 Scaglietti 

 One potential issue with this approach is that a rating system based on CO2 emissions 

may not be an adequate proxy for a fuel economy rating system if the agencies decide in the final 

rule to allow manufacturers to use A/C credits in determining their CO2 emissions values. Since 

fuel economy by definition does not account for HFC leakage, a CO2 rating boosted by A/C 

leakage credits would not accurately represent the vehicle’s fuel economy rating. EISA requires 

that labels include a rating system that allows consumers to compare fuel economy across 

vehicles, so a fuel economy rating system that includes HFC leakage arguably would not meet 

these requirements. The proposed Label 1 would address this issue, whether A/C were included 

in the letter-grade rating or not, by virtue of also having the absolute rating scale for fuel 

economy at the bottom of the label. Still, the agencies seek comment on whether a rating system 

that combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions could accurately describe both if A/C credits 

were permitted to be included in the rating system for CO2. 

Another issue with using a CO2-based method is the fact that some diesel vehicles would 

see their rating reduced by 1⁄2 letter grade – i.e., diesel vehicles would appear “worse” to the 

consumer in the rating system – relative to an approach that relied on mpg or fuel consumption, 

given the higher carbon content of a gallon of diesel fuel compared to a gallon of gasoline. This 

could potentially discourage some sales of diesel vehicles if consumers are influenced by the 

rating system, which the agencies may not necessarily want to accomplish. However, because a 

consistent basis is needed across all fuels, mpg-e would need to be used rather than mpg: this 

would provide equivalency on an energy rather than a volume basis, and would allow the use of 

an mpg-type metric across fuels that are not dispensed by the gallon, such as CNG and 

electricity. Since gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol have nearly equivalent ratios of energy 

to carbon, the choice of mpg-e versus CO2/mile has minimal impact on the rating system results, 

particularly for liquid fuels. The agencies nevertheless seek comment on how significantly a 

CO2-based rating system might impact diesel sales, and whether an mpg-e-based rating system 

might ameliorate any such impact, and if so, how that rating system would need to be structured 

for technology neutrality. 

In practical terms, this means that the rating system would include all vehicles for which 

fuel economy information and labeling is required, which currently includes all passenger 

automobiles and light trucks as defined by NHTSA at 49 CFR Part 523. More specifically, the 

rating system would span all automobiles up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight, plus some 

vehicles (large SUVs and some passenger vans) between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 

weight. We believe that this is consistent with the intent of Congress, based on the text of EISA 

Formatted: Italian (Italy)

Formatted: Italian (Italy)
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 40 of 150

which refers clearly to labels for “automobiles” rather than “passenger” or “non-passenger 

automobiles,” and which states that the rating system must include a designation of the vehicle 

with the highest fuel economy and lowest GHG emissions.76 The approach of including all 

vehicles in a single rating system is supported by the market research and literature reviews done 

for this proposal, which show that, while prospective vehicle purchasers narrow their choices by 

vehicle type early in the buying decision, they do not focus narrowly on a single class, at least as 

defined by EPA. Focus group participants indicated that they shopped, on average, across two to 

three vehicle classes.77 For these consumers, a single rating system will enable them to make 

accurate vehicle comparisons across whichever vehicles they choose to shop. Market research 

also indicates that consumers have varying definitions of what constitutes a specific vehicle 

class, thus making it challenging to categorize vehicles in a way that is useful for all consumers. 

Nevertheless, EPA is seeking comment on rating passenger cars separately from light 

duty trucks under its authority to require other information related to fuel economy as authorized 

by the Administrator at 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).78 In this case, EPA would propose to use the 

same definitions for cars and trucks used for light-duty fuel economy and GHG standards, which 

are NHTSA’s definitions provided in 49 CFR Part 523. Doing so would be consistent with 

automaker obligations under those requirements, in which cars and trucks have separate sets of 

standards. Additionally, market research shows that, while many people shop across several 

narrowly-defined classes, about two-thirds shop exclusively among either trucks or cars. These 

consumers might find it useful to compare among only those vehicles of interest. If a commenter 

believes that separate rating systems for cars and trucks would be preferable, EPA especially 

seeks comment on whether those consumers that shop among both cars and trucks could 

adequately compare across their vehicles of interest if ratings systems were separated, and 

whether or not the emerging “crossover” market will make this “car/truck” distinction 

increasingly less relevant and potentially confusing to the public.79 

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

In addition to fuel economy and greenhouse gas information and ratings, EISA requires 

new vehicles to also be labeled with information reflecting a vehicle’s performance in terms of 

“other emissions,” and a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the 

other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase.80 Unlike fuel economy and GHG 

emissions, EISA does not expressly require the designation of the “best” vehicle in terms of 

other emissions. This section lays out the criteria that EPA proposes NHTSA use to form the 

 

76 49 U.S.C. 32908 (g)(1)(A)(ii). 

77 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, EPA420-R-10-

907, August 2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 

2010, p. 18. 78 NHTSA does not interpret 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) as permitting rating systems based on less than the entire 

fleet, so a rating system for fuel economy and/or GHG emissions based on only the car or truck fleet would not be 

sufficient to satisfy EISA’s requirement, although EPA could require such a rating system under its authority. 

79 For example, under NHTSA’s and EPA’s definitions, the same version of a crossover could potentially be a “car” 

if it were two wheel drive and a “truck” if it were four wheel drive. A consumer looking at the labels of these two 

vehicles side by side might find it challenging to understand why their ratings were different. 80 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 41 of 150

basis for other emissions performance and ratings. Concurrently, NHTSA proposes that these 

criteria be used as the foundation for information that is provided on the label. 

 

Congress did not precisely define in EISA which of the pollutants in the universe of 

possible candidates for “other emissions” should be included for labeling purposes. The 

agencies assume that Congress did not intend to create any new substantive requirements as part 

of this labeling provision for pollutants that are not currently regulated and, thus, propose that 

“other emissions” include those tailpipe emissions, other than CO2, for which vehicles are 

required to meet current emission standards. These air pollutants comprise both criteria 

emissions regulated under EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and air toxics, and 

include: 

• NMOG—non-methane organic gases; 

• NOx—oxides of nitrogen; 

• PM—particulate matter; 

• CO—carbon monoxide; and 

• HCHO—formaldehyde. 

Auto manufacturers must provide the agency with emission rates of these pollutants for 

all new light duty vehicles each model year under EPA’s Tier 2 light duty vehicle emissions 

standards requirements, 81 or the parallel requirements for those vehicles certified instead to the 

California emissions standards.82 Emission standards for these pollutants are aggregated into 

bins; each bin contains emissions limits on a gram per mile basis for each of the aforementioned 

pollutants for the useful life of the vehicle, as shown in Table II.A.5-1. To be eligible for sale in 

the United States, each vehicle model and configuration must be certified to a specific bin, 

meaning that the automaker is confirming that the vehicle is designed not to exceed the specified 

emission rates for any of the pollutants over the useful life of the vehicles. Automakers must 

submit data to EPA that demonstrates compliance with these levels, with a requirement that their 

fleet achieve a sales-weighted NOx average equivalent to the bin 5 level or cleaner annually. 

California and states that have adopted California emissions standards in lieu of the federal 

standards have similar sets of emissions standards, known as the Low Emitting Vehicle II 

(LEVII) standards.83 

 

81 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

82 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), Clean Air Act Section 209, gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution 

standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s, as long as under certain requirements are met. 42 

U.S.C. 7507, Clean Air Act Section 177, allows states, under certain conditions, to adopt California’s vehicle 

emission standards. See 40 CFR 86.1844-01. 

83 The California Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations (last amended March 29, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 42 of 150

Table II.A.5-1 

US EPA Light Duty Tier 2 Emission Standards 

Emission Limits at Full Useful Life (120,000 miles) for Model 

Year 2004 and Later Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, 

and Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles 

NOx 

(g/mi) 

NMOG 

(g/mi) 

CO 

(g/mi) 

PM 

(g/mi) 

HCHO 

(g/mi) 

Bin 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Bin 2 0.02 0.01 2.1 0.01 0.004 

Bin 3 0.03 0.055 2.1 0.01 0.011 

Bin 4 0.04 0.07 2.1 0.01 0.011 

Bin 5 0.07 0.09 4.2 0.01 0.018 

Bin 6 0.1 0.09 4.2 0.01 0.018 

Bin 7 0.15 0.09 4.2 0.02 0.018 

Bin 8 0.2 0.125 4.2 0.02 0.018 

The agencies considered whether to provide specific information and ratings for each of 

these individual pollutants listed above. EPA Tier 2 emission regulations do require 

manufacturers to submit specific information regarding the performance of each vehicle for each 

of these pollutants, but the agencies believe that attempting to require all of it to be represented 

on the fuel economy label, along with rating systems for each, would be unduly burdensome and 

not reasonable given space constraints and the need to present all the other information required 

by EPCA and EISA. 

In addition, in the focus groups conducted for this proposal, consumers’ interest in actual 

emissions levels across multiple pollutants was minimal, and this level of detail is likely to be 

well beyond that which most members of the public would seek or find useful. 84 Repeatedly, 

focus group participants reflected that it was the job of the government to determine the relative 

importance of the pollutants, and that the label should not leave this determination up to the 

individual. Given that EISA did not specify exactly which pollutants would make up “other 

emissions” and given focus group feedback that differentiation between other emissions did not 

add value for many participants, the agencies are not proposing to provide pollutant-specific 

information on the label for “other emissions. Nevertheless, the agencies seek comment on 

whether pollutant-specific information and ratings might have value to consumers beyond what 

the agencies have seen in their focus group research, and if so, how the agencies might design a 

label to require pollutant-specific information and ratings that would make it easy for consumers 

to compare other pollutant emissions across vehicles at the point of purchase. 

Instead, the agencies believe that a rating based on the groups of emissions standards--

either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEVII system, as appropriate—can and 

should be used to meet this requirement. This approach mirrors the current Air Pollution Score 

on EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide (www.epa.gov/greenvehicle). Vehicle certification under either 

the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEVII system allows auto manufacturers to 

 

84 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

29. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 43 of 150

certify that their vehicles will fall into an emissions range across each of the regulated pollutants. 

In effect, the Federal and California systems rate vehicles according to their air pollution 

emissions by compiling the requirements across multiple pollutants into one category (a Tier 2 

bin or a LEVII standard). Though these systems are useful for regulatory compliance, they have 

limited recognition among consumers. However, relative rating systems are well-recognized by 

the public, and the Federal emissions bins and California standards categories are well-suited to 

conversion to a relative rating system that would be readily understandable. 

EPA and NHTSA therefore propose to establish a rating system for “other emissions” in 

which each rating is associated with a bin from the Federal Tier 2 emissions standards (or 

comparable California emissions standard). Table II.A.5-2 provides an example of how such a 

system would work for a ten-point rating scale.85 Various graphical representations of this rating 

are being contemplated, as discussed in Section III. 

Table II.A.5-2 

Proposed Rating System for Other Emissions 

Rating 

EPA Tier 2 

Emissions 

Standard 

California Air 

Resources Board LEV II 

Emissions Standard 

10 Bin 1 ZEV 

9 N/A PZEV 

8 Bin 2 SULEV II 

7 Bin 3 N/A 

6 Bin 4 ULEV II 

5 Bin 5 LEV II 

4 Bin 6 LEV II opt 1 

3 Bin 7 N/A 

2 Bin 8 SULEV II large trucks 

1 N/A 

ULEV & LEV II large 

trucks 

Because such a rating would be directly reflective of the emissions standards 

requirements for air pollutants to which the vehicle is certified, the agencies believe that it could 

serve the dual purposes of performance information and ratings for “other emissions” as required 

by 49 U.S.C. § 32908(g)(1)(A)(i) and (A)(ii). Such an approach would have the advantage of 

avoiding requiring detailed information on the label that would detract from the key elements 

and could be of minimal use to the majority of the public. NHTSA and EPA seek comment on 

 

85 Under EPA regulations, Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are allowed to import a limited number of 

older vehicles that can be certified to the emission standards which were in effect at the time the vehicle was 

produced. In some cases, these standards may be pre-Tier 2 standards. Because the rating system being proposed 

for other pollutants on the FE label is based on the Tier 2 bin structure, we are proposing that vehicles imported by 

ICIs that are not subject to the Tier 2 standards will automatically be rated as a "1" (i.e., the rating assigned to 

vehicles with the worst emissions under the Tier 2 bin structure).
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 44 of 150

whether also utilizing the rating system to meet the requirement for performance information on 

other emissions would be permissible under EISA. 

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

One of the issues that came up frequently in the focus groups conducted for this proposal 

was how to design a label that balanced the competing interests of completeness and simplicity. 

It became clear that different consumers wanted different amounts of information and levels of 

detail about fuel economy, GHG emissions, and other emissions, and how vehicles compare to 

one another. Many focus group participants expressed an interest in most or all of the 

information that might be offered, until they saw that the label they had “designed” would be 

cluttered and difficult to read; at this point, many culled their desired information down to a few 

key elements. Other participants simply were not interested in much detail. Yet other 

participants insisted that they wanted more detail anyway and would not find labels with more 

information distracting or confusing.86 

One approach that emerged to condense the level of detail was to combine rating 

systems: for example, a rating system that combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions, or that 

combined CO2 and other pollutant emissions, or that combined all three. Because they have 

different sets of units and different scales, rating systems that combine different data elements 

must employ relative or unit-free scales, such as the letter grade system, rather than absolute 

approaches like the separate rating scales discussed above. Using the bar as an example, if CO2

and other pollutants were combined into a single bar, a vehicle that falls at one point between the 

absolute end points for CO2 emissions may not fall at the same point between the (different) end 

points for other emissions, which would make combining the ratings challenging at best, and 

unhelpful at worst. Similarly, while a vehicle may fall at roughly the same point between “best” 

and “worst” absolute values for both fuel economy and CO2 emissions, differences in scale make 

presenting that visually difficult and possibly factually incorrect. 

Thus, if the agencies wanted to try to combine rating systems for visual simplicity and to 

appeal to consumers who want labels with less information, a relative scale – 1 to 10, 1 to 5, A+ 

to D – is needed. The agencies tested combined relative scales for GHG and other pollutant 

emissions fairly extensively in the focus groups, with mixed results. When environmental 

ratings were shown in the context of the label, the preference was for a consolidated 

environmental rating, with participants expressing minimal interest in having separate 

information on greenhouse gases and other air pollutant emissions; these participants often stated 

that the EPA was in a better position to assess the relative concerns regarding the various 

environmental factors than were the participants themselves.87 In contrast, however, when the 

environmental rating approaches were shown in isolation, apart from the context of the entire 

 

86 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

29. 

87 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

25. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 45 of 150

label, many participants indicated a preference for two separate ratings, arguing that more 

complete information holds more value.88 

Congress required in EISA that each new vehicle must be labeled with a “rating system 

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

other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of automobiles 

with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy 

. . . .” Thus, for purposes of meeting the statute, the question is whether a rating that combined 

two or all three elements could accurately reflect which vehicle achieves the lowest GHG and the 

highest fuel economy. For purposes of meeting consumers’ needs in a label, the question is how 

to design a label that is helpful both to the people who want more information and detail and to 

the people who want less information and detail. Given the EPCA requirements for fuel 

economy and annual cost information, and the EISA requirements for performance information 

on fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions, the agencies believe that the needs for 

more detail-oriented consumers will likely be adequately met. 

In the previous section we discussed an approach to combining fuel economy and CO2

into one overall rating; in this section the agencies discuss the additional option of also 

combining “other emissions” with either CO2 or with a combined fuel economy/CO2 rating. EPA 

and NHTSA recognize that there is not a strong correlation between CO2 and other emissions, 

due to sophisticated emission control systems, such as catalytic converters and exhaust gas 

recirculation, which target reductions of specific pollutants but do not also reduce CO2

emissions. In addition, the agencies are cognizant of the very real challenges automakers must 

overcome to achieve the required emissions levels and do not wish to deprive them of public 

recognition of advancements in reducing air pollutants that could come with a separate rating 

system for pollutants. Moreover, a separate rating would provide information for purchasers 

who value low emission levels and an opportunity to raise awareness among other consumers of 

which vehicles produce lower emissions. And finally, as discussed above, the agencies have 

determined that a rating for “other emissions” also meets the EISA requirement of providing 

vehicle performance information for those emissions. Combining this rating for “other 

emissions” with ratings for fuel economy and greenhouse gases would potentially be at odds 

with this requirement. For these reasons, the agencies propose that the rating for “other 

emissions” be separate from the rating(s) for fuel economy and greenhouse gases. 

Nevertheless, while some focus group participants wanted more information, most clearly 

wanted less and suggested that they would glean little additional value from a label with separate 

ratings. The agencies seek comment on whether it would be more useful to provide a single 

rating that captures all three elements: fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions. As 

a matter of technical appropriateness, although there is not a strong correlation between 

emissions of CO2 and emission of other pollutants, there is some correlation. The vehicles with 

the lowest fuel economy levels and highest CO2 emissions do not typically meet the cleaner 

emission bins; conversely, those with high fuel economy and low CO2 emissions are rarely, if 

ever, certified to the higher emission bins. 

 

88 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

39. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 46 of 150

Including other emissions in the rating system to form one rating would simplify for the 

consumer the overall energy and environmental impact of using the vehicle, thus reducing their 

need to weigh the relative importance of the various elements. It also allows the label to be less 

cluttered and more streamlined. 

Therefore, it is possible and perhaps reasonable to combine “other emissions” with the 

fuel economy/CO2 letter grade approach. Under this approach, the rating for fuel economy and 

greenhouse gases applicable to a vehicle would be adjusted upward or downward, based on the 

Federal emissions bin (or California standard) to which the vehicle is certified. That is, vehicles 

that are certified to the cleanest bins would have their rating increased—for example, under a 

letter grade system, a bin 2 vehicle otherwise eligible for a B+ would have their rating increased 

to an A-. Table II.A.6-1 illustrates how such a system could work. 

Table II.A.6-1 

Potential Comprehensive Rating 

Fuel Economy/ 

Greenhouse Gas 

Rating 

Overall Energy and Environment 

Rating 

Bin 1, 2, 3 Bin 4, 5 Bin 6, 7, 8 

A+ A+ A+ A 

A A+ or A 

(see next 

section)

A AA- A A- B+ 

B+ A- B+ B 

B B+ B BB- B B- C+ 

C+ B- C+ C 

C C+ C CC- C C- D+ 

D+ C- D+ D 

D D+ D DThe agencies seek comment on whether the public information purposes of EISA are met 

by incorporating the ratings for “other emissions” into the ratings for fuel economy and 

greenhouse gases and, if so, on the specific methodology described above. The agencies 

particularly seek comment on whether the possibility that an “A” vehicle for fuel economy and 

GHG emissions can be made an “A+” vehicle by the addition of the higher rating for other 

emissions is consistent with EISA’s requirement that label rating systems clearly designate the 

vehicle that achieves the lowest GHG emissions and the highest fuel economy. This issue is 

discussed further in the following section.

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 47 of 150

 In addition to ratings indicating relative emissions performance, EISA also requires the 

rating system to include “a designation of automobiles with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions 

over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy.” 

 Depending on the rating system(s) selected, differing approaches may be needed to 

achieve this requirement. For example, if the fuel economy and greenhouse gas ratings are 

provided separately, such as with the absolute bars shown on labels 1 and 2, consumers would be 

able to easily identify the highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas emitting vehicles by 

looking for those that have the highest absolute values. If fuel economy and greenhouse gases 

are combined into one rating, such as with the letter grade system, but are provided separately 

from other emissions, again consumers should be able to easily identify the highest fuel 

economy/lowest GHG vehicles by looking for those that achieve the best rating category. 

However, this will likely encompass more models than would be designated “best” under an 

absolute rating system, which may or may not have been the intent of EISA. In that instance, the 

rating system itself meets the requirement for designation of lowest GHG automobiles, defined 

in that case as the group of vehicles that achieve the best rating category. 

If, on the other hand, fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined with other 

emissions into a comprehensive rating, and no other information on the label indicates the 

highest fuel economy/lowest GHG vehicles, then the rating system would need to be adjusted in 

order to ensure that EISA requirements were met. If the system were crafted as described 

previously--with the fuel economy/greenhouse gas rating adjusted upward or downward based 

on a vehicle’s criteria pollutant emission bin—then the vehicles achieving the best category for 

fuel economy and greenhouse gases will also achieve the best comprehensive rating. This will 

certainly be the case under an approach based on tailpipe emissions, in which electric operation 

counts as zero for all emissions and the fuel economy/greenhouse gas score is based primarily on 

tailpipe emissions of CO2. In this situation, electric vehicles will receive the best possible rating 

for both fuel economy/greenhouse gases and other emissions. 

However, to ensure that only those vehicles with the highest fuel economy and lowest 

greenhouse gas emissions receive the best rating, the system would be adjusted so that vehicles 

from the next group down would not be promoted to the highest ratings based on their air 

pollutant levels. In other words, under the letter grade system, vehicles would not be able to 

move from an A to an A+ grade if they were certified to bin 2 or 3. Therefore, only those 

vehicles that are eligible for the highest rating based fuel economy and CO2 would receive the 

best possible rating, which would then serve the purpose of designating the highest fuel 

economy/lowest GHG vehicles. The practical effect of this approach is that only electricpowered vehicles would be eligible for an A+ rating. The agencies seek comment on whether 

separate ratings should be provided for other emissions or whether a single combined rating for 

fuel economy, GHG and other emissions should be provided. 

8. SmartWay Logo 

EPA and NHTSA additionally seek comment on utilizing the SmartWay logo as an 

indicator of a high level of overall environmental performance. The SmartWay Logo appears as 

follows: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 48 of 150

The SmartWay logo could be added to the label as a way of highlighting the top 

environmental performers each model year. This approach is contemplated for labels 2 and 3. 

The trademarked SmartWay designation was launched in 2005 on the EPA’s Green 

Vehicle Guide website (www.epa.gov/greenvehicle) to provide consumers with a quick and easy 

way to determine which vehicles were the cleanest and most fuel efficient for each model year. 

It has been awarded to those vehicle models that achieve certain thresholds on the Greenhouse 

Gas score (which is tied to the vehicle’s fuel economy and fuel type) and the Air Pollution score 

(which is tied to the Tier 2 bins or California standards, as applicable). Historically, the 

SmartWay thresholds determined by EPA have been targeted to approximately the top 20% of 

vehicle models each model year, and have been tightened over time as the fleet has become 

cleaner and more fuel efficient. 

The SmartWay logo for light duty vehicles is currently being used on a voluntary basis 

by auto manufacturers, vehicle-search web sites, rental car companies, banks/credits unions 

(green vehicle loan programs), and private companies (light duty commercial fleets and 

employee incentive programs). The SmartWay logo was included on labels shown to focus 

group participants for this rulemaking. Although participants did not recognize the logo, most 

readily understood that they could use it when shopping for vehicles to quickly identify those 

that were environmentally friendly, without having to review the rest of the environmental 

information on the label.89

Because focus groups have indicated that some consumers prefer more detailed 

information while others prefer a simpler presentation, the agencies are seeking comment on 

whether to require or optionally allow the SmartWay logo on the label for applicable vehicles. 

This logo would indicate in a binary fashion, similar to other eco-labels, whether \ a vehicle 

meets certain environmental and energy use thresholds. Specifically, the agencies seek comment 

on whether including the SmartWay logo would be helpful to consumers on a label that already 

addresses fuel economy, GHGs, and other emissions in other formats. 

9. Annual Fuel Cost 

EPCA requires the estimated annual fuel cost be displayed on the fuel economy label.90 

Prior to 2008, the label simply displayed the estimated annual cost with no explanatory 

information. EPA’s consumer research in 2006 found that consumers paid little attention to this 

metric, and the reason most frequently stated was that the assumptions behind the estimate 

(annual miles and fuel price) were unknown to them.91 As a result, the 2008 label modifications 

 

89 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

41. 

90 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(B). 

91 PRR, Inc., EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups: Report of Findings, prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, March 2005. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 49 of 150

included a requirement that these assumptions be placed on the label.92 EPA publishes annual 

guidance directing manufacturers what fuel price to use for determining annual cost—based on 

projections made by the Department of Energy93--so that all vehicles in a given model year use 

the same assumptions. The estimated annual fuel cost can therefore be used to compare across 

vehicles of the same model year. As an example, the estimated annual fuel cost to be used for 

labels on model year 2009 gasoline-fueled vehicles is $2.80. 

 

Despite the addition to the label of the assumptions behind the annual fuel cost starting in 

2008, the early focus groups conducted in 2010 showed that many participants still did not pay 

much attention to the estimated annual fuel cost metric. Participants often stated that this was 

because fuel prices fluctuate and, therefore, they did not think that the fuel price assumption 

stated on the label reflected what they were actually paying. Less frequently, participants 

additionally said that the fact that they did not drive 15,000 miles a year made the estimated 

annual cost not meaningful to them. Participants remained skeptical of the use of estimated 

annual fuel cost even when asked to consider whether it could be a useful comparative metric 

across other vehicles of the same model year. In retrospect, it is possible that providing this 

information on the label about the assumptions behind the annual fuel cost number resolved one 

issue and caused others, in that now there are two more numbers for the consumer to process and 

question. There is also the possibility that consumers are not aware that the two assumptions are 

used universally across all vehicles, which would call into question the usefulness of the metric 

as a comparative tool at the point of purchase (for example, if they believe that the manufacturers 

individually determine the inputs to the estimated annual fuel cost). However, participants in the 

Phase 3 focus groups leading up to this NPRM consistently employed the annual fuel cost 

information (along with mpg) when asked to compare the fuel efficiency of advanced technology 

vehicles like PHEVs and EVs with conventional vehicles, with their more complicated set of 

energy metrics.94 

Recognizing the EPCA statutory requirement to continue to display the estimated annual 

fuel cost, EPA requests comment on how to improve consumers’ understanding of the estimated 

annual fuel cost, whether it is a useful comparative tool across technologies, and if so, how to 

best communicate on the label that it is a valid comparative tool. EPA also requests comment on 

whether there might be an additional way to display fuel cost information – or a better way of 

displaying the required information – that might be more useful or might have a greater impact 

on consumers. In the 2010 focus groups, some groups were presented with a number of different 

ways of displaying fuel costs on the label, ranging in magnitude from dollars per mile to dollars 

per five years.95 A fairly clear preference emerged for dollars per year, with dollars per month a 

 

92 40 CFR 600.307-08. 

93 The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration publishes gasoline and diesel fuel price forecasts 

at least annually in its Annual Energy Outlook , available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 94 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, 

p.37. 

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, 95

EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010p. 19. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 50 of 150

frequent second choice.96 EPA is thus proposing labels that continue to prominently display the 

estimated annual fuel cost and the associated assumptions. EPA is requesting comment on 

whether the label should include the estimated monthly fuel cost, or other alternative cost 

information. Commenters should bear in mind the statutory requirement that estimated annual 

fuel cost be on the label; thus any other cost would have to be an additional piece of information. 

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

The expert panel recommended another approach to presenting fuel cost information—to 

focus on the savings attainable by purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle. These panelists felt 

strongly that savings is a much more powerful message than cost, which tends to be discounted, 

as just discussed. Although savings calculations would necessarily also rely on assumptions, 

they suggested that the value of savings to the consumer is significant enough to overcome these 

drawbacks, at least for a substantial portion of the population. NHTSA and EPA therefore 

propose including a five-year savings value on Label 1. No such value is proposed for Labels 2 

or 3, although the agencies could also require savings information on these labels, if one of them 

were finalized. 

The agencies explored a number of methods for calculating savings. The most promising 

approach seems to be savings compared to the projected median vehicle for that model year, and 

the agencies propose this method. Thus, some vehicles would show a savings, while others 

would show consumers paying more for fuel over five years compared to a reference vehicle; 

these values would increase in magnitude the further the vehicle is in terms of fuel consumption 

from the reference value. This approach appropriately reflects that fuel cost savings become 

larger the more a vehicle improves their fuel economy, and conversely that vehicles cost more to 

fuel when fuel efficiency is decreased when compared to the reference, median, vehicle. 

As with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system and comparable class 

information, the EPA would provide annual guidance indicating the value to be used as the 

reference against which the fuel cost savings would be measured. The reference five-year fuel 

cost would be calculated by applying the gasoline fuel price to the average miles driven over the 

first five years of the reference vehicle’s life, assuming a particular fuel economy for the 

reference vehicle; these values would be provided in the annual guidance. We propose that the 

fuel economy value for the reference vehicle be based on the projected fuel economy value of the 

median vehicle model type for sale the previous model year, not sales-weighted, and adjusted 

based on projections regarding the upcoming model year. This value is expected to change 

slightly from one year to the next as the fleet becomes more fuel efficient in response to 

regulations and market forces. The guidance would also include the fuel prices to be used to 

calculate fuel cost savings for the particular vehicle, based on its applicable fuel type. Finally, 

we propose to round the fuel cost savings values used on the label to the nearest one hundred 

dollars to avoid implying more precision than is warranted, as well as for ease of recall. 

 

96 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

19. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 51 of 150

As previously stated, vehicles with a higher fuel economy than the median vehicle would 

be designated as saving the consumer a certain number of dollars over a five year period. For 

those vehicles with fuel economy lower than the median vehicle, the label would state that the 

consumer would spend a certain number of dollars more over a five year period. Vehicles that 

are within fifty dollars of the reference vehicle fuel cost could be designated as saving zero 

dollars. Alternatively, text could indicate that this vehicle is comparable to the average vehicle. 

Although the agencies recognize that “median” is a more accurate term than “average,” we 

propose the use of the term ‘average” as being more readily understandable. 

Other methods considered include savings compared to the average vehicle one grade 

lower, and fuel cost savings compared to vehicles 10 mpg lower. These approaches had certain 

positive aspects, particularly in that they demonstrated the value of incremental improvements in 

vehicle choice. In the main, however, they provided values that seemed to be difficult to 

interpret and could perhaps cause perverse effects. For example, a vehicle at the high end of 

their grade or rating would have a higher savings value than a vehicle at the low end of their 

grade or rating. This might be valuable for those who are considering vehicles within the same 

grade. However, for those shoppers who glanced at the number quickly, they might erroneously 

conclude that, for instance, a vehicle at the low end of the B- grade would save less on fuel costs 

than a vehicle at the high end of the D+ grade. The agencies seek comment on this and 

alternative approaches, as opposed to the proposed approach of displaying a vehicle’s fuel cost 

savings relative to the median vehicle in the fleet. The agencies are also seeking comment on 

whether there is a potential for consumer confusion caused by two different cost values displayed 

on Label 1 with regard to the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the vehicle and the 5 year 

fuel cost savings number compared to the average vehicle. We are interested in receiving 

comments on how consumers may perceive these values as interacting with each other and we 

intend to explore this issue further prior to finalizing this proposal, including exploring research 

conducted in executive branch agencies.

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

EPCA requires that the label contain “the range of fuel economy of comparable 

automobiles of all manufacturers,” a requirement that the label addressed somewhat awkwardly 

for many years.97 As a result of EPA’s 2006 labeling rule, the labels now use a graphical 

element to show the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to the best and worst within that 

vehicle class.98 In the 2010 focus groups, it became clear that this information, though more 

prominently displayed on today’s fuel economy label than in previous iterations of the label, 

continued to be under-utilized by consumers as a tool to assist them in making vehicle purchase 

decisions. 

EPA is now proposing two possible ways of meeting this statutory requirement. Given 

the likelihood of more information on the label, a graphic as used on the current label that repeats 

the combined fuel economy number may overly complicate the new label. Thus one option 

being proposed is simply a text statement that would read “Combined fuel economy for [insert 

 

97 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 

98 40 CFR 600.307-08. A discussion of the comparable class categories and a proposed change to those categories 

can be found in section VI.B. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 52 of 150

vehicle class] ranges from XX to XX.” This approach is used on Labels 1 and 3. The other 

option EPA is proposing is essentially an updated version of the current graphical representation, 

which combines the fuel economy rating across all vehicles with the within-class information 

into one graphical element, as shown in Section III as part of Label 2. 

The agencies believe that one of these approaches could be used to satisfy the statutory 

requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C) (“the range of fuel economy of comparable 

automobiles”). As an alternative, EPA seeks comment on whether the requirement to indicate 

fuel economy of comparable vehicles is met by the overall fuel economy rating required by 49 

U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) (“a rating system that would make it easy to compare the fuel 

economy . . . of automobiles”), given that consumers tend to consider vehicles from several 

classes during their purchase process. 

12. Other Label Text

 EPA is proposing some minor changes and an addition to the text on the label not 

previously discussed, and seeks comment on each of these text changes. 

First, each of the proposed labels has information that indicates the fuel on which the 

vehicle operates. The agencies believe it will become increasingly important, as different 

technologies emerge, to display clearly the kind of vehicle a consumer is viewing. For duel fuel 

vehicles (e.g., current gasoline/ethanol vehicles), EPA is required by statute to identify the 

vehicle as a dual fuel vehicle and to identify the fuels that the vehicle operates on.99 In the case 

of current flexible-fuel vehicles, for example, this text would read “Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Ethanol 

(E85),” and for plug-in hybrid vehicles arriving soon on the market this text would read “Dual 

Fuel: Gasoline-Electricity.” In addition, we are proposing the use of various icons on the label to 

distinguish between different technologies and between different operating modes. These icons 

include stylized electric plugs, fuel pumps, and fuel dispensing nozzles. 

 Second, because of the expanded information on the label and DOT requirements under 

EISA, EPA is proposing to change the label heading from the current text (“EPA Fuel Economy 

Estimates”) to “EPA/DOT Fuel Economy & Environmental Comparisons.” We also propose 

adding the DOT logo to the label, to provide appropriate recognition of DOT’s role mandated by 

EISA. 

Third, EPA is proposing to change the Fuel Economy Guide statement found on the label 

to reflect the expanding features that comprise www.fueleconomy.gov, with the hope that this 

website will become the first Internet stop for a vehicle’s fuel economy and environmental 

information. The proposed text would read: “Visit www.fueleconomy.gov to calculate 

estimates personalized for your driving, and to download the Fuel economy Guide (also available 

at dealers).” 

EPCA requires EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare and distribute to 

dealers a fuel economy booklet, commonly known as the annual “Fuel Economy Guide,” 

 

99 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 53 of 150

containing information that is “simple and readily understandable.”100 EPCA requires that the 

guide include fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of operating automobiles 

manufactured in each model year, as well as some additional information for dual fueled 

automobiles (such as the fuel economy and driving range on both fuels). Further, EPCA requires 

that a statement appear on the fuel economy label that this booklet is available from dealers.101 

Starting in the 2008 model year, the statement on the label was broadened to include a reference 

to www.fueleconomy.gov as another source for the Fuel Economy Guide; this website is based 

on the EPA fuel economy information and jointly run by EPA and DOE. Thus the current text 

now reads: “See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov.” 

Both the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy and the EPA currently maintain www.fueleconomy.gov. The site helps fulfill DOE and 

EPA’s responsibility under EPCA of 1992 to provide accurate mpg information to consumers. 

The site provides fuel economy estimates, energy and environmental impact ratings, fuel-saving 

tips, as well as a downloadable version of the fuel economy guide and other useful information. 

Since its inception in 1999 this website has been used by millions of consumers, and the latest 

data from 2008 indicates that more that 30 million user sessions occurred in that year. 

Because of the extensive amount of information and user features available on the 

website beyond simply providing electronic access to the Fuel Economy Guide, the agencies 

wish to direct consumers to this website when they are researching their vehicle purchases. For 

example, the website allows a user to personalize their fuel economy information by inputting 

their specific driving habits and fuel prices. This ability will be even more important for 

understanding the impacts of driving distance and battery charging habits on the fuel 

consumption of vehicles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and EPA expects to work with 

DOE to develop a web-based system to allow users to customize the fuel economy estimates for 

these advanced technology vehicles. Further, information that some consumers may want but 

that is not available on the label is likely to be available on the website. For example, in the 

2010 focus groups some participants expressed an interest in knowing the cost to fill the tank, or 

the volume of the fuel tank, or how many miles could be driven on a tank. The website provides 

all this information, and information such as the miles per tank can be personalized to reflect a 

person’s relative amount of city and highway driving. Finally, the website also has developed a 

version tailored to mobile devices. 

During the expert panel, EPA provided the panelists with a copy of the current Fuel 

Economy Guide. The panelists all expressed concerns that the public probably didn’t know it 

was available, didn’t access it at the dealer showrooms if they did know it was available, and 

would not respond well to it in its current format. They recommended a simple one-sheet “guide” 

that dealers would distribute in the form of a checklist, that would allow EPA to deliver the top 

ten points on fuel economy that could not (and should not) be included on the label. It also would 

ensure that even if individuals did not utilize the website, they would receive this information. It 

was also suggested that if possible, distribution of this document be mandatory. 

 

100 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(1)(A). 101 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(D). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 54 of 150

EPA requests comments on the usefulness of the Fuel Economy Guide in its current form 

and also requests comments on whether EPA and DOE should develop a different approach in 

the future to the Fuel Economy Guide -- including the idea of transforming the guide into a 

consumer friendly “checklist” guide. While EPA recognizes that it does not have the authority to 

mandate distribution of this guide by dealers we also request comments on how we could better 

encourage and work with dealers to more prominently display and distribute the fuel economy 

guide in the future. 

The expert panel also strongly recommended that the new fuel economy label 

prominently display an easy to remember URL. Panelists suggested that not only should such a 

URL be easy to remember, it should also provide a consistent platform for educational messages 

that would be highly visible for consumers and serve as a portal for web users to engage each 

other on fuel economy issues, including exchanging helpful tips and tools. Panelists indicated 

that this type of URL and message platform is of critical importance in today’s marketplace and 

that EPA should make better use of the label to engage the public in this manner. Finally, the 

panelists recommended this new URL not be a '.gov' website, which they suggested is generally 

perceived as static and uninviting by consumers that are increasingly reliant on highly interactive 

social media networks and tools. Label 1 series found in Section III currently displays how this 

URL concept might be incorporated in Label 1. We note that President Obama has an initiative 

on transparency and open government,102 and as part of this initiative, the Executive Branch has 

already made some significant improvements to its websites. 

 The agencies request comment on the new URL concept displayed on Label 1, along with 

the underlying approach recommended by the expert panel: that the agencies create and display 

a prominent URL on the label that will provide both a visible consumer message and an easy to 

remember web portal or gateway to a more interactive consumer website. As envisioned, this 

website would introduce the new label approach, laying out what is new and unique to this label. 

It would explain what the agencies are trying to accomplish with the new design, and detail the 

concept of the grading system and underlying scoring method. It would include applications that 

consumers can use to personalize their vehicle buying decisions, based on their own driving 

habits and needs. It would also provide information that is not available on the label, such as the 

upstream emissions associated with each vehicle choice. It would also link to the detailed 

vehicle information and consumer discussion pages on fueleconomy.gov, capitalizing on the 

existing government website and further maximizing its consumer friendliness and usability. 

Finally, for conventional vehicles, EPA is not proposing any changes to the statement 

that currently reads “Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain 

your vehicle.” However, because some advanced technology vehicles are especially susceptible 

to certain conditions, such as cold weather, EPA is considering the addition of some specific 

qualifications to this statement for some vehicle technologies, and seeks comment on what 

qualifications might be most helpful. 

 

102 See Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/ (last accessed July 20, 2010); 

see also Open Government Directive from OMB, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2010). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 55 of 150

13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information

EPCA requires that “Gas Guzzler” tax information be included on the fuel economy 

label.103 These taxes are required under the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). This 

part of the Internal Revenue Code contains the provisions governing the administration of the 

Gas Guzzler Tax, and specifically 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). These provisions have 

been codified in 40 CFR 600.513-08. This proposed rule would not impact these provisions. 

The current labeling requirements for the Gas Guzzler Tax require that an affected 

vehicle have the following statement on the label (the regulations provide different ways of 

displaying this depending on the label; for example, an alternative fuel vehicle label has some 

additional information that limits space, thus the template for labeling such a vehicle accounts 

for this). In the limited situations in which this labeling requirement applies, EPA expects to 

provide label templates including this information that are consistent with the label design that is 

ultimately selected. For example, for Label 1 presented in Section III, one potential option is to 

place the gas guzzler information in the position for fuel cost savings. EPA seeks comment on 

this approach. 

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels 

1. Introduction

In the past, EPA has not devoted much effort to fuel economy label issues for advanced 

technology vehicles. There is a simple reason for this--if EPA defines a conventional vehicle to 

be that which derives all of its propulsive energy from a petroleum fuel (or a liquid fuel blend 

dominated by petroleum) stored on-board the vehicle, then conventional vehicles have 

represented well over 99% of all vehicles sold since the advent of fuel economy labels in the 

1970s. EPA made the judgment that the very small number of consumers who might have 

considered the purchase of an electric or natural gas or other type of advanced technology 

vehicle over the last 35 years did not justify a major investment of government resources to 

address the more complex issues associated with advanced technology labels. Rather, EPA 

addressed the occasional need for an advanced technology vehicle label on a case-by-case basis. 

But, this situation is changing and as the market evolves, this approach is no longer 

sufficient. For the first time since labels have been in use (in fact for the first time since the 

early days of the automotive industry), it appears increasingly likely that the future automotive 

marketplace will offer a much more diverse set of technological choices to consumers. EPA and 

NHTSA believe that now is the time to begin to design labels that are more appropriate for 

 

103 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 56 of 150

advanced technology vehicles that we expect to be commercialized in the next few years. For 

purposes of this rulemaking, the agencies intend to focus on two advanced technologies: 

• Electric vehicles (EVs) are vehicles that are powered exclusively by batteries (charged 

with electricity from the grid) and electric motors, and which do not have a conventional 

internal combustion engine or any other powertrain. Several automakers sold EVs in the 

early and mid-1990s104, but the only EV on the U.S. market today is the luxury Tesla 

Roadster with annual sales of a few hundred vehicles. The first more mainstream-priced 

EV offered for sale in the U.S. is the Nissan Leaf, for which orders are now being taken 

and first deliveries are projected for late this year in selected markets.105 In addition, 

Ford has announced plans for a model year 2012 Ford Focus EV.106

• Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can be powered in as many as three different 

ways: 1) like an EV, exclusively by batteries and electric motors, 2) like a conventional 

hybrid vehicle, when the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy from a conventional 

internal combustion engine/transmission (usually fueled with gasoline), though the 

battery still assists with regenerative braking and engine buffering, and 3) a combination 

of both conventional hybrid and electric operation. PHEVs entail a family of different 

engineering approaches, and will continue to evolve as the technology matures. One 

distinct type of PHEV is called an extended range electric vehicle (EREV). An EREV 

PHEV has a very distinct operational profile: as long as the battery is above its minimal 

charge level, the vehicle is operated exclusively on the electric powertrain, and then when 

the battery is at its minimal charge, it operates like a conventional hybrid getting all of its 

power from gasoline or other liquid fuel. In a way, an EREV PHEV can be considered to 

be a combination of an EV and a conventional hybrid, with an emphasis on operating like 

an EV as much as possible. There have been no commercial EREV PHEVs sold in the 

U.S. to date but the first commercial offering is likely to be the Chevrolet Volt, which is 

scheduled to be introduced in late 2010.107 A second type of PHEV is called a “blended” 

PHEV. As long as the battery is charged, it will operate on a combination of grid 

electricity and gasoline (while a blended PHEV might not have any “guaranteed” allelectric range, it is possible that some blended PHEV designs may have some all-electric 

range under certain driving conditions), then when the battery is at its minimal charge, 

the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy from the gasoline fuel and engine (though the 

battery still assists with regenerative braking and engine buffering, as with a conventional 

hybrid). In this respect, a blended PHEV can be viewed as a combination of a “gridenhanced” hybrid and a conventional hybrid, but without the emphasis on using only 

electricity for shorter trips as with the EREV PHEV. To the degree that a blended PHEV 

 

104 Ehsani,M., Gao,Y., and Einadi, A. (2010). Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles: F 

Fundamentals, Theory, and Design. Second Edition. Pp 12-14. 

105 “Nissan’s Electric Leaf Set for Production,” Detroit News. May 26, 2010, 

http://detnews.com/article/20100526/AUTO01/5260357, (last accessed May 26, 2010). 106 Abuelsamid, Sam, “Detroit 2010: 2012 Focus Electric could be both sedan and hatch”, green.autoblog.com, Jan 

11, 2010, available at: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/11/detroit-2010-2012-ford-focus-electric-could-be-bothsedan-and-h. (last accessed July 12, 2010). 107 “Chevy Volt’s Rollout to Include New York City,”New York Times, July 1, 2010, 

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/chevy-volts-initial-rollout-to-include-new-york-city/. (last accessed 

July 12, 2010).
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 57 of 150

does have some practical all-electric range, the boundary between a blended PHEV and 

an EREV PHEV begins to blur. There have been no original equipment blended PHEV 

offerings in the U.S. to date, but many automakers are developing prototypes and some 

aftermarket conversions are available. The first commercial U.S. blended PHEV may be 

a Toyota Prius, likely offered as a 2012 model.108

Other advanced technology vehicles will also likely be on the market in the near future--

for example, Honda continues to sell a dedicated compressed natural gas Civic in selected states 

and several manufacturers plan to sell fuel cell vehicles in the future.109 In any case, the issues 

associated with and the decisions that we make about labels for EVs and PHEVs will go a long 

way toward preparing us to address labels from other advanced technologies in the future. EPA 

and NHTSA seek comments on whether there are other advanced technologies that have the 

potential to achieve mainstream interest in the near future and for which the agencies should 

develop labels in a future rulemaking. 

PHEVs and EVs represent a fundamental departure from the powertrain and fueling 

infrastructure that has exclusively dominated the U.S. market for the last century—a single 

powertrain (an internal combustion engine with a mechanical transmission) and a single fuel 

(gasoline) available at public service stations. While PHEVs retain this option, they also offer 

the consumer the option to charge the on-board battery from the electric grid at home and to 

propel the vehicle exclusively or partially by the battery and electric motor. An EV must be 

operated this way. These fundamentally different powertrains and refueling approaches raise 

many challenging issues from a consumer information standpoint that may affect how the 

agencies decide to require these vehicles to be labeled. 

. 

• These technologies are still evolving. EPA has been able to test only a small number of 

these advanced technology vehicles, and it is unclear whether the vehicles that we have 

tested are a good reflection of the technologies that will ultimately be offered in the 

market. 

• Gasoline and electricity are very different automotive fuels. Gasoline is a liquid fuel with 

a high energy density that is stored on-board the vehicle in a relatively simple and 

lightweight tank that can be filled in a few minutes, while electricity is generated by 

chemical reactions inside a much lower energy density (and therefore heavier) battery 

pack and which can take many hours to recharge. Gasoline is produced very efficiently 

from crude oil, but is a less efficient vehicle fuel, while electricity is less efficient to 

produce from a wide variety of resources (such as coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, 

and wind), but is a more efficient vehicle fuel. Approximately 80% of the “life-cycle” 

 

108 “Detroit 2010: Toyota’s 2011 plug-in Prius release date is “aggressive” target,” Green Autoblog, January 14, 

2010, http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/14/detroit-2010-toyotas-2011-plug-in-prius-release-date-is-aggre. (last 

accessed July 12, 2010). 

109 “GM Plans Fuel-Cell Vehicle Pilot Program in Hawaii,: Environmental Leader, Energy & Environmental News 

for Business, May 12, 2010, http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/05/12/gm-plans-fuel-cell-vehicle-pilotprogram-in-hawaii/. (last accessed July 12, 2010).
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 58 of 150

greenhouse gas emissions from a gasoline vehicle are emitted directly from the vehicle 

tailpipe, while all of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric 

vehicle are “upstream” of the vehicle. As just one simple example, miles per gallon, the 

core metric that has been used on gasoline labels for the last 35 years, is a much more 

complicated metric for a fuel like electricity which is not measured in gallons. 

• Some advanced technologies can operate on more than one fuel, either simultaneously 

(e.g., the use of gasoline and electricity in the charge depleting mode of a blended PHEV) 

or at different times (e.g., an EREV PHEV uses electricity in charge depleting mode, then 

gasoline in hybrid mode). By itself, this suggests that a consumer label for a vehicle that 

operates on two fuels might have to have approximately twice as much information as a 

label for a vehicle that operates on a single fuel. 

• Consumer behavior can have a much larger impact on the operation of an advanced 

technology vehicle, relative to that of a conventional vehicle. Whether the owner of a 

PHEV charges the battery every night and how many miles per day they drive—neither 

of which affects average energy consumption for a conventional vehicle—can have a 

dramatic impact on energy and environmental performance. Again using the standard 

miles per gallon of gasoline metric as an example, one EREV PHEV design may vary 

from 35 or 40 mpg on the low end (when the battery is empty and the vehicle is in hybrid 

mode) to essentially “infinite” mpg-gasoline if the vehicle is operated only off the battery 

pack. This fuel economy variability is much greater than with conventional vehicles, 

where mpg values for most individual vehicles are typically within 15-20% of the 

average value. 

• Consumers have no practical experience with these new technologies,or in some cases 

might not even understand the basics of how the technologies work. While EPA has 

sponsored focus groups to gauge what consumers want on advanced technology labels, 

there can be little question that consumers are in a stronger position to provide 

meaningful input on conventional labels, with which they have decades of experience, 

than on advanced technology labels, where they may not now know now what they will 

want and need to know in the future to make informed purchase decisions. 

All of these factors suggest that there is the likelihood of significant consumer confusion 

when multiple advanced technology vehicles begin to compete in the marketplace. We have no 

illusions that our advanced technology labels will completely resolve this consumer confusion, 

but we do hope they will help to reduce the confusion. We are certain that advanced technology 

labels will be more complicated than conventional vehicle labels. Just as EPA has repeatedly 

refined the much simpler conventional vehicle labels over time, the agencies expect to do so with 

advanced technology vehicle labels as well. Accordingly, while EPA and NHTSA are coproposing two specific labels for EVs and PHEVs, the agencies also seek public comment on as 

many of the key issues as possible. 

While this section will discuss EVs and EREV PHEVs as well, in many cases blended 

PHEVs will be the illustrative technology because they often raise the most challenging issues 

due to the fact that two different fuels can be used simultaneously. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 59 of 150

2. EPA Statutory Requirements

a. Electric Vehicles (EVs) 

Electricity is an alternative fuel under the statute and vehicles fueled only by alternative 

fuel are “dedicated automobiles.”110

b. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) 

Some PHEVs are dual fueled automobiles under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9).111 They are 

capable of operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline, provide superior energy efficiency 

when operating on electricity compared to operating on gasoline, and provide superior efficiency 

when operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline as when operating on gasoline.112 These 

vehicles also meet the requirement that a dual fueled automobile must meet the minimum driving 

range under 49 U.S.C. 32901(c).113 DOT has set the minimum driving range for electric 

vehicles at 7.5 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA 

urban test cycle and 10.2 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on 

the EPA highway test cycle.114 

The statute contains particular requirements for dual fueled automobile labels. Section 

32908(b)(3) requires that each label (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 that additional information required by the statute is in the fuel economy 

booklet. The additional information required in the booklet for dual fuel automobiles is 

described in 32908(c)(2) and states that the label will include the energy efficiency and cost 

operation of the automobile when operated on gasoline as compared to when operated on 

alternative fuel and the driving range when operated on gasoline as compared to when operated 

on alternative fuel. It should also include information on the miles per gallon achieved when 

operated on alternative fuel and a statement explaining how these estimates may change when 

the automobile is operated on mixtures of alternative fuel and gasoline. 

 For simplicity and consistency, the agencies plan for all PHEV fuel economy labels to 

contain the information required for dual fueled vehicles under the statute, even though only 

some PHEVs are dual fuel automobiles. We seek comment on this approach. 

The fuel economy required on the label means the average number of miles traveled by 

an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used. 115 

Therefore, in order to meet the statutory requirement that fuel economy be displayed on the 

 

110 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) and (a)(8). 111 112 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(A), (B), (C). EPA is extending the application of the subclause (C). 113 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(D). 114 49 CFR 538.5(b). 115 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 60 of 150

label, the electricity use for EVs and PHEVs on the fuel economy label is converted to gallons of 

gasoline equivalent. 

EPA recognizes that the statutory requirements in the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 were adopted long before advanced technologies like EREV PHEVs and blended 

PHEVs were even conceived. While EPA must meet the statutory requirements, the agencies are 

concerned that requiring electricity to be conveyed in mpg equivalent values might actually 

make an advanced technology vehicle label less useful to consumers. The agencies seek public 

comment on this question as explained in more detail below. 

3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

The agencies have found it helpful to identify a few basic principles to guide our thinking 

about and development of advanced technology vehicle labels. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels should provide objective information that helps 

consumers make good decisions for both themselves and the environment. The market 

research undertaken for this rulemaking found that the current fuel economy label is a 

trusted source of information regarding the fuel economy of today’s conventional 

gasoline vehicles and the agencies seek to build on this foundation by ensuring that 

consumers receive objective, useful and essential information that helps inform their 

advanced technology vehicle purchasing decisions.116 The agencies recognize that many 

of the most important drivers for the public and private interest in advanced vehicle 

technologies are in fact related to energy and environmental considerations. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels should aim for the simplest way to provide fairly 

complex information. As discussed above in the introduction to this section and with 

specific examples later in this section, the agencies are aware that advanced technology 

vehicle labels will inherently be more complex than conventional vehicle labels. We 

strive to strike a balance between providing sufficient information to be helpful and 

credible (too simple runs the risk of misinformation with such complex technologies), 

without trying to “do everything” on the label (which could be a source of confusion for 

many consumers). We believe that automakers and respected third-party organizations 

(and possibly the federal government via fueleconomy.gov or other websites) will 

develop sophisticated on-line (and possibly on-vehicle) calculators that will allow 

consumers to customize energy, environmental, and cost information for their unique 

driving and battery re-charging habits. We believe that labels should be aimed at the 

consumer who wants a quick overview of energy, environmental, and cost performance, 

and that those consumers who want detailed, customized information will look to other 

sources. 

• The advanced technology vehicle labels must be as equitable as possible across different 

technologies, both advanced and conventional. For example, the agencies want to avoid 

 

116 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, EPA420-R10-907, August 2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, Prepared by PRR, Inc, 

July 2010, p. 5. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 61 of 150

picking a label design or label metric that inherently favors a certain advanced 

technology beyond the energy and environmental merits of the individual vehicles. 

There could be considerable consumer confusion when multiple advanced technology 

vehicles reach the market, each with their own marketing strategy, and labels are one way 

to minimize consumer confusion. We specifically solicit comments from automakers on 

whether we have achieved this goal of equity with our proposed label designs. 

• Finally, while labels should provide one or more metrics to compare across vehicle 

technologies, both advanced and conventional, the advanced technology vehicle labels do 

not have to have the same precise design as conventional vehicle labels. Given that many 

of the label content issues associated with advanced vehicle technologies are much more 

complex than for conventional vehicles, it would probably be impossible for the labels to 

look the same. On the other hand, we do want the “look and feel” of the advanced 

technology and conventional vehicle labels to be as consistent as possible. 

EPA and NHTSA seek public comment on the appropriateness of each of these 

principles, and whether there are additional principles that we should consider. 

4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues

 Most of the content on advanced technology vehicle labels will be similar to that on 

conventional vehicle labels. This section addresses those issues that are unique to advanced 

technology vehicle labels. 

a. Life-Cycle Fuel Production-Related GHG and Energy Issues 

This rulemaking addresses EPA’s and NHTSA’s authority and responsibilities under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Among other things, EPCA requires the fuel economy of the 

automobile to be on the label. Vehicle fuel economy has been the cornerstone of the label since 

its inception, and EPA has not included fuel production-related, or “upstream,” impacts on fuel 

economy labels in the past. While vehicle fuel economy and vehicle tailpipe GHG emissions are 

directly measured by EPA and automakers via prototype vehicle testing, upstream impacts 

associated with an individual vehicle’s fuel consumption are not measured in vehicle testing. 

Likewise, EISA requires that the label contain information reflecting the automobile’s 

performance with respect to fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the 

useful life of the automobile. The agencies believe that these various requirements are met by 

providing information on the performance of the vehicle itself on the label and not including 

upstream emissions. In addition, using vehicle tailpipe GHG emission levels is consistent with 

the tailpipe zero gram per mile GHG emissions compliance level that EPA adopted for EVs, 

FCVs, and the electric portion of PHEV operation in the light-duty vehicle GHG rule for MYs 

2012-2016, for the vehicle production that remains below an individual manufacturer’s 

cumulative vehicle production cap. However, EPA notes that some consumers may be interested 

in estimates of the upstream GHG and energy impacts associated with vehicles that they are 

considering purchasing. We plan to provide information on websites that will inform consumers 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 62 of 150

of the projected upstream GHG and energy impacts of vehicle operation, based on both national 

average values and, where appropriate because of regional variability, regional values as well. 

b. Energy Consumption Metrics 

Energy consumption metrics are another issue which becomes more complicated with 

advanced technology vehicles. For conventional gasoline vehicles, the mpg metric has been the 

foundation of the consumer label for 35 years. It is not a perfect metric, and some have 

expressed concerns about its “non-linearity,” e.g., the absolute fuel consumption savings 

associated with improving one mile per gallon from 10-11 mpg is over ten times greater than the 

fuel consumption savings associated with improving from 35-36 mpg as discussed above. But, 

in some respects, mpg has been a good metric for a consumer information program: lay people 

had used the mpg metric prior to its use on the label, the concept was simple and understood by 

almost all consumers, the practical range of 10-50 mpg was accessible to lay people and 

facilitated simple calculations that most consumers could perform, etc. The results from recent 

EPA focus groups conducted by the agencies were unequivocal—the mpg values were, by far, 

the most trusted and useful values on the label.117

Unfortunately, while the miles per gallon metric has been very useful when 99+% of all 

vehicles operated on petroleum fuels, its usefulness as a metric is less clear for a future vehicle 

fuel such as electricity, which is not measured in gallons, but rather in kilowatt-hours. 

Therefore, for an electric vehicle, or for an EREV PHEV when operated exclusively on grid 

electricity, there are three broad choices for a consumption metric, independent of statutory 

considerations, to characterize the amount of electricity and all have advantages and 

disadvantages: 

• Kilowatt-hours. The rationale for kilowatt-hours is that this is the metric by which 

electricity is “counted” and sold. In their monthly utility bills, consumers are charged 

a certain rate (or price) per kilowatt-hour, and this rate is multiplied by the number of 

kilowatt-hours that the consumer uses, to generate the overall monthly electricity bill. 

This is analogous to what happens at a gasoline service station, where a consumer 

pays a certain rate (or price) per gallon of gasoline, and this rate is multiplied by the 

number of gallons of gasoline that the consumer buys, to generate the overall gasoline 

bill. The primary argument against using kilowatt-hours is that the focus groups 

conducted by the agencies clearly indicates that few consumers understand what a 

kilowatt-hour is, and most of the consumers who do not know what a kilowatt-hour is 

say that they do not want to learn.118

• Gallons of gasoline-equivalent. From an engineering perspective, energy can be 

measured, and different forms of energy can be compared through the use of energy 

unit conversion factors. For example, a gallon of gasoline has the energy equivalent 

 

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010117

EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 10. 118 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010and .

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 63 of 150

of 33.7 kilowatt-hours, and any value for kilowatt-hours can be converted to an 

energy-equivalent value of gallons of gasoline.119 For example, a vehicle that used 

33.7 kilowatt-hours would have used an amount of energy equivalent to 1 gallon of 

gasoline, while a vehicle that used twice as much electricity would have used an 

amount of energy equivalent to 2 gallons of gasoline. The rationale for using gallons 

of gasoline-equivalent is that consumers understand the concept of “gallons” much 

more than they understand any other energy metric. In the focus groups conducted 

for this rulemaking, the agencies found that participants believed they understood the 

equivalency approach and felt comfortable with this metric since it closely aligns with 

the miles per gallon metric that they have always relied upon.120 The primary 

argument against using gallons of gasoline-equivalent is that the concept requires the 

conversion of one form of energy to another, and while this reflects a technical 

measurement of energy equivalency, it may or may not be useful to the consumer. 

For example, gasoline and electricity are very different fuels in many ways: how they 

are produced, how consumers buy them and refuel, whether consumer fuel 

expenditures stay in the local or regional economy or are exported, etc. 

• A generic energy unit not directly connected to either gasoline or electricity, such as 

British Thermal Units (BTUs) or joules. The argument here would be to pick an 

energy metric that is “fuel neutral.” The primary arguments against this are both that 

few consumers understand such a metric, and that no motor fuels are counted or sold 

in such units. While the agencies recognize this as another conceptual alternative, we 

have rejected this approach. 

As discussed previously, EPCA requires that electricity use for EVs and PHEVs on the 

fuel economy label is converted to gallons of gasoline-equivalent. But the statute also provides 

discretion to EPA on the relative prominence of a gallons of gasoline-equivalent metric and a 

kilowatt-hours metric. 

For EV labels, the agencies propose to show electricity consumption in both metrics: as 

miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (mpg-e) and as kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. The 

agencies recognize that higher mpg-e values are better, while lower kw-hr/100 miles values are 

better. The agencies seek comment on whether this is helpful or confusing to consumers. 

 The most complicated advanced technology vehicle in this regard is a blended PHEV that 

is operating simultaneously on gasoline and grid electricity. There are two options for energy 

metrics for blended PHEVs, which are based on the general concepts introduced above. 

• Retain separate energy metrics for gasoline and electricity. The gasoline metric would 

continue to be miles per gallon of gasoline (supplemented by a gallons/100 miles 

consumption value as well), while the electricity metric would be kilowatt-hours of 

electricity (either miles per kilowatt-hour or kilowatt-hours per 100 miles). The 

 

119 65 FR 36990. 120 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 

22. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 64 of 150

advantages of this approach are 1) it includes the values that EPA measures, 2) the 

metrics reflect how these forms of energy are counted and how consumers pay for them, 

3) the separate values do not require judgments about whether consumers “value” 

gasoline and electricity equally or not, and 4) it would avoid possible confusion over 

what a combined miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent value means (i.e., some, maybe 

many, consumers would probably assume that a miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent 

value was equal to a miles per gallon of gasoline value, which would be inaccurate). The 

disadvantages of such an approach are 1) few consumers understand the metric of 

kilowatt-hours, 2) dual energy metrics make it extremely difficult to compare energy 

efficiency across vehicles, and 3) those consumers who focus only on miles per gallon of 

gasoline and ignore kilowatt-hours of electricity, will believe that a blended PHEV is 

more energy efficient than it actually is. 

• Combine to a single energy metric of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. This 

would require the use of the conversion factor of 33.7 kilowatt-hours per gallon of 

gasoline-equivalent value cited above. The advantages of this approach are 1) it yields a 

single value that simplifies the label and facilitates vehicle comparisons, 2) it avoids the 

kilowatt-hour metric that consumers do not like or understand, and 3) some consumers 

(though not all) said they liked the concept of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. 

The disadvantages of such an approach are 1) it requires the simplifying assumption that 

all forms of energy (in this case, gasoline and electricity) are equally valued, 2) it does 

not allow the consumer to see the individual energy consumption values for gasoline and 

electricity, and 3) it will yield labels with both miles per gallon of gasoline and miles per 

gallon of gasoline-equivalent, which could be confusing to some consumers. 

The agencies are proposing to use the miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent metric only 

for PHEVs, but seek public comment on the relative merits of doing so versus using the separate 

energy metrics. The agencies believe that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. 

In formulating comments on this topic, commenters could also consider three additional 

questions. One, do consumers care equally about gasoline and electricity, i.e., are they just two 

different ways of fueling their vehicles, with a Btu of gasoline equivalent to a Btu of electricity, 

or do some or most consumers care more about one or the other form of energy? Two, how 

should the agencies interpret the focus group input in which most participants indicated that they 

did not understand kilowatt-hours on their electric bills and did not want to have this metric 

included on advanced vehicle labels? Three, should we view this as an opportunity to educate 

consumers about the importance of kilowatt-hours as a fundamental measurement of electricity 

consumption? 

c. Driving Range Information (including 5-Cycle Adjustment) 

 EPA does not include range information on conventional fuel economy labels. Petroleum 

fuels have high energy densities and are stored on-board the vehicle in relatively cheap and 

lightweight fuel tanks. The combination of high driving range values (gasoline vehicles typically 

have ranges of 300-500 miles) and the fact that range can be increased by simply increasing the 

size of the fuel tank, means that range for petroleum-fueled vehicles has not been a top consumer 

priority. In recognition of the fact that non-petroleum fuels generally have lower energy 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 65 of 150

densities resulting in reduced driving ranges than petroleum fuels, the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) requires a “hang tag”label that lists the “manufacturer’s estimated cruising 

range” for alternative-fueled vehicles. 121

 The primary issue addressed in this section is whether range should be included on 

advanced technology vehicle labels. For an EV, the primary range parameter of interest would 

be the miles that can be traveled between battery charges. For an EREV PHEV, the most 

important range parameter would be the miles that can be traveled in all-electric mode. For a 

blended PHEV, the primary range parameter would be the number of miles over which the 

battery is providing assistance in the form of grid electricity, but it is also possible that there 

could be some guaranteed or likely all-electric range as well. 

The primary arguments for including range include 1) focus groups strongly supported 

including the range for EVs and PHEVs122,

123 2) range is a critical factor for what the consumer 

gets for his or her investment in a more expensive EV or PHEV, and is obviously a core utility 

attribute for an EV and a primary determinant of the overall environmental and energy 

performance of a PHEV, and 3) EPA can easily measure range. 

The arguments against including range include 1) it is not a direct measurement of energy 

or environmental performance (in fact, for an EV, other things being equal, a higher range means 

a larger battery pack, a heavier vehicle, and therefore higher energy consumption, relative to the 

same vehicle with a lower range and smaller battery pack), 2) there will likely be much greater 

variability in EV range than we have faced with gasoline fuel economy in the past, so there are 

greater challenges involved in defining a specific range estimate, and 3) adding range would add 

to an already busy label. 

The agencies are proposing to include range information on alternative technology 

vehicle labels and seek public comment on this issue. 

A related issue is how EPA will determine the appropriate adjustment factor to use in 

converting 2-cycle test values for range to 5-cycle test values for vehicle labels. Under current 

EPA regulations established by the 2006 fuel economy label rulemaking, automakers would have 

two choices: 1) submitting 5-cycle test data, and 2) using the mpg-based (derived 5-cycle) 

equations.124 Based on preliminary EPA analysis, it appears that uUsing the mpg-based 

equations for EVs would yield an approximate 40 percent% downward adjustment for EV 

range.125 EPA notes that there were no EV or PHEV data in the database used to generate the 

 

121 16 CFR part 309. 122 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, 

pp 17, 28, and 38. 123 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010, pp 17, 28, and 38. 

124 71 FR77887-77888, Dec 27, 2006. 125 See 40 CFR 600.210-08. Using the equations in these regulations to adjust 2-cycle test values for extremely high 

mpg vehicles (or mpge for EVs) will result in adjustments approaching 40 percent. Because the data used to 

determine these equations did not include any such vehicles, EPA is uncertain as to the applicability of the formulae 

to EVs and other extremely high mpg vehicles. Cite.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 66 of 150

mpg-based equations, and that the downward adjustment appropriate for EVs (which have low 

direct vehicle energy consumption levels) is the result of extrapolating the results of the 

conventional vehicle data that was used to generate the equations. 

EPA proposes a new set of options for automakers to choose for purposes of identifying 

the appropriate 5-cycle range adjustment for EVs and the electric portion of PHEV operation. 

One, automakers could provide full 5-cycle test data, which is one option under current EPA 

regulations. Two, automakers could provide vehicle-specific real world range data collected 

from in-use vehicles. Three, automakers could use the mpg-based equations discussed above, 

but with the downward adjustment capped at the percent reduction represented by the worst-case 

gasoline vehicle in the EPA database. The worst-case gasoline vehicle is the highest-mpg 

gasoline vehicle, which is currently the Toyota Prius. Based on the application of the mpg-based 

equations to the Prius’ mpg values, the Prius would get about a 30% downward adjustment from 

its 2-cycle data to its derived 5-cycle value, and this would therefore be the level that automakers 

could use for EVs and the electric operation of PHEVs. 

EPA seeks comment on this proposal for the downward 5-cycle adjustment for EVs and 

PHEVs. 

d. Battery Charging Time Information 

EPA does not include information on the mechanisms for or time associated with 

refueling vehicles on conventional vehicle fuel economy labels. Refueling with petroleum fuels 

is a fairly quick and ubiquitous process, and has not been a topic of consumer concern. 

Refueling, or charging, a battery pack will be different in many ways. While gasoline vehicle 

refueling typically takes 5-10 minutes, charging a battery pack can take up to 12 hours or more, 

depending on the charging hardware. EPA focus group participants expressed strong interest in 

including some type of information on charging time on labels for EVs and PHEVs.126

 The arguments for including battery charging time information on EV and PHEV labels 

include 1) focus groups supported doing so, 2) it is a core consumer utility parameter (i.e., if the 

charging time is so long as to be onerous, consumers will recharge less frequently and this will 

have an effect on the vehicle’s energy and environmental performance), and 3) EPA could 

develop a test procedure for generating standardized information. 

An example of a simple approach for measuring EV recharge time would be to use the 

method for recharging the battery recommended by the manufacturer and available to the 

consumer. Full battery recharge time could be defined as the time required to charge the vehicle 

battery to full capacity from the end of the electric vehicle range test or "empty." A fully charged 

battery would be defined as the same battery state of charge used to determine electric vehicle 

range. EPA is also seeking comment on partial recharge time. Partial recharge time could be 

measured and expressed as the time of recharge required to travel a given distance. 

 

126 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010, pp. 16, 26, and 38.EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by 

PRR, Inc, July 2010.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 67 of 150

Arguments for excluding battery charging time on EV and PHEV labels include 1) there 

is only an indirect relationship between charging time and energy and environmental 

performance, 2) EPA does not now have a test procedure for generating standardized data, 3) it 

will be fairly easy for consumers and third parties to verify automaker claims on this basic 

question, and 4) adding battery charging time will make the advanced technology vehicle labels 

more cluttered. 

The agencies seek comments on whether we should include battery charging time 

information on labels for EVs and PHEVs. 

 

e. Merged Vehicle Operating Mode Information for PHEVs 

Conventional vehicles have a single “operating mode,” i.e., all the powertrain 

components contribute to propel the vehicle at all times. Some advanced technology vehicles 

have more than one operating mode. For example, a blended PHEV could have up to three 

operating modes: an all-electric mode where the vehicle is propelled exclusively by grid 

electricity via the battery and electric motor, a second mode where the vehicle is propelled by a 

combination of both grid electricity and an internal combustion engine, and a third mode that 

uses only the internal combustion engine. For such vehicles, the agencies propose to provide 

consumers with basic performance information about each of the PHEV’s individual operating 

modes. One advantage of this approach is that it will allow consumers to tailor the information 

from the individual operating modes to their own driving habits, and therefore develop 

“customized” information relevant to their own situations. One issue is whether the vehicle label 

should also provide information that combines the various operating modes into a single 

“merged” value reflecting an “average driver.” One group that is developing guidance for how 

individual operating mode data could be combined for an “average driver” is the Society of 

Automotive Engineers Hybrid Technical Standards Committee,127 and the agencies will continue 

to monitor the work of this and other relevant committees. 

The rationale for including a merged value is that 1) some consumers may find 

information on the individual operating modes to be “too much” and may be more likely to pay 

attention to a single set of performance information, 2) few, if any, consumers will exclusively 

drive in a single operating mode, so some kind of combined information could be helpful, and 3) 

a single, merged value can facilitate comparisons across different vehicle technologies and 

models and 4). Customers of this new technology will not know how much they will operate the 

vehicle in each mode, so an average provides more complete information to them. 

The arguments against including merged values are 1) the variability between the 

performance values for different operating modes can be very large, and so any assumptions 

about an “average driver” will be accurate for some consumers, but very inaccurate for many 

other consumers, and 2) including merged values, in addition to individual operating mode 

values, will add to an already busy label. 

 

127 SAE J2841. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 68 of 150

The agencies seek public comment on the question of whether labels for advanced 

technology vehicles with multiple operating modes should also include merged values that 

combines the various vehicle operating modes, and if so, on the best methodology for doing so. 

f. City/Highway versus Combined Values 

EPA’s conventional vehicle labels have long reported fuel economy values for both city 

and highway driving. For most conventional vehicles, highway fuel economy values are 

typically 40-50% higher than city fuel economy values. The agencies believe that this is another 

issue that is worth reexamining with respect to advanced technology vehicle labels. 

Arguments for including separate city and highway information on advanced technology 

vehicle labels include 1) focus group feedback and other research has consistently shown that 

consumers find it useful to have separate fuel economy values for both city and highway driving 

for conventional vehicles,128 and 2) since driving habits can vary widely, separate city and 

highway performance information can be helpful to those consumers who want to “customize” 

label information to their own driving habits. 

Arguments for not including separate city and highway information on advanced 

technology vehicle labels include 1) some advanced technologies, for example EVs, show less of 

a change in energy consumption values between city and highway driving than do conventional 

vehicles which was one of the primary reasons why EPA originally displayed separate city and 

highway mpg values on conventional fuel economy labels, and 2) not reporting separate city and 

highway values can reduce some information by either a factor of two (if a combined value is 

shown instead of separate city and highway values) or three (if city, highway, and combined 

values were all shown), thus reducing the “number of numbers” on the label and possibly making 

the labels more readable and accessible for consumers. Focus group participants, when viewing 

whole labels for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles, did not express a 

preference for displaying city/highway numbers for advanced technology vehicles, although they 

did express a clear preference for city/highway values for conventional vehicles. 

The agencies seek public comment on the following questions related to separate city and 

highway information for advanced technology vehicle labels. One, should EPA never report 

separate city and highway values, always report separate city and highway values, or retain 

discretion for doing so only when it is appropriate (i.e., when the differences between city and 

highway are significant enough to be meaningful)? Two, would it be acceptable for EPA to 

require the use of separate city and highway fuel economy values for conventional vehicles, but 

to not do so, in some or all cases, for advanced technology vehicles? 

g. Methodology for Merged Values for PHEVs 

 

128 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010 

and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010, p. 12EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 1 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 

2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 69 of 150

One specific issue for PHEVs is the methodology for determining a single merged value 

that combines the various operating modes into a single overall value, given that PHEVs use 

both gasoline and grid electricity. The agencies expect that consumers who purchase a PHEV 

will do so with the intention of utilizing the capability of both fuels (e.g., it seems reasonable to 

assume that most consumers who purchase a more expensive PHEV would then charge the 

PHEV as frequently as possible in order to achieve fuel savings by maximizing their use of 

electricity and minimizing their use of gasoline). It thus seems appropriate to include the 

operation on both fuels in any merged values, using a weighted average of the appropriate metric 

for each of the modes of operation. The agencies propose and seek comment on using a 

methodology developed by SAE and DOE based on utility factors (UFs) - which predict the 

fractions of total distance driven in each mode of operation (electricity and gas) - to assign 

weighting factors for gasoline and electricity use for PHEVs for the purposes of determining 

merged values for fuel economy and/or greenhouse gas ratings and for any other metrics for 

which a single, merged value is appropriate. The proposed UF methodology is described in 

detail in Section VI.B. 

h. Advertising Restrictions 

The federal lead on guidelines for the use of vehicle label information in automaker 

marketing campaigns rests with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The agencies believe that 

the unique issues, as well as in the likely increased complexity and “number of numbers,” 

associated with advanced technology vehicle labels, warrant additional consideration of whether 

there needs to be new guidelines for the use of label information in private marketing campaigns. 

The agencies intend to raise this issue with the FTC, and seek comments from the public that 

could help inform our input to the FTC. 

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies 

Labels for conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles and for certain advanced technology 

vehicles are the primary focus of this proposed rule. Conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles 

are expected to make up a majority of the fleet well into the future, and improving on the 

communication of conventional vehicle fuel economy and related information is a continued 

priority of EPA and NHTSA. Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are entering 

the fleet in the near term, and there is the potential for a rapidly increasing market penetration of 

these vehicles in the future, yet labeling these vehicles in an understandable and equitable way 

presents significant challenges. However, there are several other specific vehicle technologies 

for which EPA currently has labels, and EPA is also proposing new label templates for those as 

well. 

1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles

Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) (also called flex-fuel, dual-fueled or bi-fueled vehicles) are 

vehicles that can operate either on gasoline or diesel fuel, on an alternative fuel such as ethanol 

or methanol, or on a mixture of conventional and alternative fuels. Produced since the 1980s, 

flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are the most numerous of the currently available alternative fuel 

vehicles, with dozens of 2010 car and truck models available from General Motors, Chrysler, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 70 of 150

Ford, Mazda, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. Essentially all FFVs today are E85 vehicles, which 

can run on a mixture of up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline. These vehicles are considered 

“dual fueled vehicles” under EPCA, which states that the label for dual fuel vehicles 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.’’129

The current labeling requirements for dual-fueled vehicles are consistent with these 

requirements. While not required, manufacturers may voluntarily include the fuel economy 

estimates (and estimated annual fuel costs) for the alternative fuel on the label, in addition to the 

gasoline information.130 Consumers can view the gasoline and E85 fuel economy estimates of 

all FFVs in the Fuel Economy Guide and at www.fueleconomy.gov. In fact, EPCA requires that 

the Fuel Economy Guide contain information such as: (1) the fuel economy when operating on 

the alternative fuel, (2) the driving range when operating on the alternative fuel, and (3) 

information about how the performance might change when operating on mixtures of the two 

fuels. 

EPA did not propose changes to these requirements in the 2006 labeling rule and did not 

seek comment on the topic. However, EPA received late public comments from several 

environmental and consumer groups urging EPA to require additional information on the use of 

E85 on FFV labels. Since EPA did not propose and request comments on this topic in the 2006 

rulemaking, the agency did not finalize any such requirements. 

EPA and NHTSA request public comment on three options for FFV labels. 

One option is to make no changes to the current requirements for FFV labels and 

continue to use fueleconomy.gov and the Fuel Economy Guide to provide information on E85 

use to consumers.131 Consistent with the current requirements, EPA and NHTSA would finalize 

regulations that would allow manufacturers to display the E85 fuel economy values on the label 

on a voluntary basis. 132 The final regulations would include a template for such a label. 

A second option is to require the addition of E85 fuel economy values to FFV labels 

using the units of miles per gallon. Since E85 has a lower energy density (i.e., about 25% less 

energy per gallon) than gasoline, this means that, other things being equal, an FFV will have a 

lower fuel economy on E85 than it will on gasoline. EPA recognizes that this does not mean that 

 

129 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 130 40 CFR 600.307-08(b)(14). 131 Consumers do get some information regarding E85 efficiency on a label required by the FTC. Currently the FTC 

label for FFVs displays the driving range on both fuels and some additional information regarding the use of 

alternative fuels. See 16 CFR Part 309. 

132 Label examples for FFVs are shown in Section III, but these reflect only a transition of the currently used label 

content (some of which is required by statute) to the proposed label designs. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 71 of 150

ethanol is a “less efficient” fuel than gasoline; in fact, FFVs are typically slightly more efficient 

on E85 than on gasoline in terms of miles per unit of energy. Accordingly, one approach under 

this option would be to add text such as the following wording on the label that conveys this 

message: “While the E85 mpg values are lower than the gasoline mpg values, the use of E85 is 

actually typically slightly more energy efficient than the use of gasoline.” Under this option, it 

would also be possible to add E85 values for CO2 emissions (an FFV typically emits slightly less 

CO2 per mile on E85 than on gasoline) and fuel costs (an FFV typically costs somewhat more to 

operate on E85 than gasoline, though this can vary by region). If CO2 values are not shown, it 

would also be possible to include a statement such as “Using E85 uses less oil and typically 

produces less CO2 emissions than gasoline.” 

A third option is to utilize the concept of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (mpg-e), 

which is a way to quantitatively account for the slightly higher miles per unit of energy that an 

FFV achieves on E85 relative to gasoline. Because a gallon of gasoline has about 33 percent 

more energy than a gallon of E85, this means that an E85 mpg is multiplied by about 1.33 to 

convert it to a mpg-e value. For most current FFVs, an E85 mpg-e value will be slightly higher 

than the gasoline mpg value. The E85 mpg-e value could be in place of, or in addition to, an E85 

mpg value. As with the second option above, CO2 and fuel costs values for E85 could also be 

included. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires the use of a label that displays 

the cruising range of FFVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. If the agencies finalize one of the 

options to include E85 information, and the FTC determines that that information is duplicative 

with its own information, it opens up the possibility that the FTC might review its requirement. 

One remaining issue with FFVs is the methodology for assigning an overall combined 

value for greenhouse gas or fuel economy-based ratings or for any other metrics for which a 

single “merged” value is shown, given that two different fuels can be used. There is empirical 

evidence that approximately 99% of all FFV owners currently use gasoline rather than E85 fuel. 

Given this, the agencies propose, as a default, to base any merged values for FFVs on the 

assumption that the vehicle is operated on gasoline 100% of the time. However, if a 

manufacturer can demonstrate that some of its FFVs are in fact using E85 fuel in use, then the 

merged values can be based in part on E85 performance, prorated based on the percentage of the 

fleet using E85 use in the field. This approach is consistent with that used for vehicle GHG 

emissions compliance under the joint EPA/DOT standards for 2016 and later model year 

vehicles.133 The agencies seek comment on applying the same approach here. 

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

EPA regulations currently provide a label template for vehicles operating on compressed 

natural gas (CNG), and there is one major manufacturer currently selling a natural gas vehicle in 

selected markets. Given that a CNG vehicle is a single-fuel vehicle, EPA believes that the label 

designs developed for conventional or other alternative fuel vehicles can be easily adapted to 

gaseous-fueled vehicles, as has been done in the past. In fact, EPCA provided specific 

instructions regarding how to determine the fuel economy for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles 

 

133 75 FR 25433, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 72 of 150

such as gaseous-fueled vehicles. The statute states that for dedicated automobiles the fuel 

economy “is the fuel economy for those automobiles when operated on alternative fuel, 

measured under section 32905(a) or (c) of this title, multiplied by 0.15.”134 Section 32905(c) 

applies to gaseous-fueled vehicles, and it requires the following: 

“For any model of gaseous fuel dedicated automobile manufactured by a manufacturer 

after model year 1992, the Administrator shall measure the fuel economy for that model 

based on the fuel content of the gaseous fuel used to operate the automobile. One hundred 

cubic feet of natural gas is deemed to contain .823 gallon equivalent of natural gas. The 

Secretary of Transportation shall determine the appropriate gallon equivalent of other 

gaseous fuels. A gallon equivalent of gaseous fuel is deemed to have a fuel content of .15 

gallon of fuel.”135

This methodology is currently specified in EPA regulations. Note that 32905(c) applies a factor 

of 0.15, which is essentially a “credit” that increases the fuel economy of gaseous-fueled vehicles 

by a factor of about 6.7 for the purpose of CAFE calculations. But the statute recognizes that 

incorporation of this credit factor in the label values is not appropriate, hence the provision in 

32908(b)(3) to multiply the 32905(c) result by 0.15, thus removing the credit value and resulting 

in an appropriate real-world label value. 

The current EPA regulations interpret the statute as requiring that the label for CNG 

vehicles display a gasoline-equivalent value, and a label template for CNG is provided in the 

current regulations.136 As can be seen, the current label for CNG vehicles is fundamentally the 

same as for gasoline vehicles, except that the fuel economy values are described as “gasoline 

equivalent” values, and the estimated annual fuel cost is based on a combined city/highway 

gasoline equivalent value and the price per gallon equivalent of CNG. The current label also 

contains text that reads “This vehicle operates on natural gas fuel only. Fuel economy is 

expressed in gasoline equivalent values.” 

We are therefore proposing that labels for CNG vehicles be essentially the same in terms 

of content and appearance as those proposed for conventional vehicles, with only a few 

exceptions. First, where the proposed labels indicate the fuel type, labels for CNG vehicles 

would state “Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle.” Second, the fuel economy value(s) would be 

stated as gasoline-equivalent values. As is the case for the proposed labels for electric vehicles, 

the CNG labels would indicate the conversion factor that is used to determine the gasoline 

equivalent values (0.823 gallons-equivalent per 100 cubic feet of CNG, as required by statute).137 

Third, the estimated annual fuel cost would be calculated using the combined city/highway 

gasoline equivalent value and the cost per gallon equivalent of CNG. The use of gasolineequivalent gallons is appropriate because this is how CNG is dispensed, priced, and sold at 

current CNG fueling stations. Finally, because the cruising range of CNG vehicles is typically 

limited relative to conventional vehicles, we are proposing the addition of cruising range to the 

CNG vehicle label (in this way the label would mimic the electric vehicle label). As is the case 

 

134 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3). 135 49 U.S.C. 32905(c). 136 Appendix IV to 40 CFR Part 600, Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 and Later Model Year Vehicles. 137 49 U.S.C. 32905(c). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 73 of 150

with electric vehicles, we believe that range is a key piece of information for the consumer who 

is considering a CNG vehicle. Other information on the label, such as the greenhouse gas and 

other pollutant emissions and ratings, would be determined from emission and fuel economy test 

results and the proposed calculation methodologies as is the case for all vehicles. 

Section III presents the proposed and alternative label designs, including a proposed 

design for CNG vehicles. We request comment on the proposed approach for CNG vehicles, and 

whether there is additional information specific to CNG or alternative fuels that should be on the 

label. 

3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles

Although there is currently a template for dual fuel CNG/gasoline vehicles in the existing 

regulations, there are no manufacturers that are currently manufacturing new vehicles that run on 

CNG and on gasoline.138 Thus we request comment on whether there is a need to develop a 

template for these vehicles based on the new labels. The agencies envision that such a label 

would be based largely on the proposed approach for dual fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles 

discussed in above, in that the fuel economy and related information for both fuels would be 

displayed on the label. 

Although this proposal addresses most current technologies, it does not need to address 

every possible fuel and technology combination either in existence or that may emerge in the 

future. EPA has the authority to prescribe test procedures and label content for vehicles that are 

not specifically addressed by the regulations, and expects to do so on an as-needed basis to 

address new technologies and fuels.139 In fact, EPA expects to exercise this authority with 

respect to labels for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that arrive on the 

market before the 2012 model year. 

4. Diesel Fueled Vehicles

EPA proposes to continue to calculate the fuel economy of diesel vehicles in miles 

traveled on a gallon of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has a long history of being sold on a volumetric 

basis, and the energy content differences between a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of diesel fuel 

are relatively small.

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance 

This section presents and requests comment on three label designs. The agencies are coproposing label 1 and label 2 design options, meaning that the agencies currently expect to 

finalize one of the two options. A third label design is being presented as an alternative on 

which the agencies are requesting comment. All of these designs take into account and meet the 

variety of statutory requirements in EPCA and EISA as discussed in Section I. It is important to 

 

138 Some aftermarket aftermarket fuel conversion companies offer such vehicles, but EPA regulations do not 

currently require fuel economy labels for aftermarket fuel conversions. 139 40 CFR 600.111-08(f) (test procedures) and 40 CFR 600.307-08(k) (label format requirements). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 74 of 150

note that although all of the label designs shown in this section make use of color to varying 

degrees, this Federal Register notice is capable of only displaying gray-scale versions. Full color 

versions can be viewed and/or downloaded from the docket (search for docket number EPA-HQOAR-2009-0865 or docket number NHTSA-2010-0087 at www.regulations.gov) or from the 

agencies’ web sites where all information related to this action will be posted 

(http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). To 

the extent possible this section will describe the use of color on the labels, but interested parties 

should view the color versions to understand the full effect of the label designs. 

Each design family consists of a set of labels applicable to an array of vehicle 

technology/fuel types. Specifically, we show label examples that apply to conventional vehicles 

(that is, vehicles operating on a single fuel with internal combustion engines or hybrid electric 

drive), flexible-fuel vehicles (for example gasoline-ethanol), compressed natural gas vehicles, 

electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Each label family could be readily adapted 

to accommodate additional vehicle technologies or fuels, such as vehicles powered by fuel cells 

or other upcoming technologies. The agencies intend to finalize a label family with a consistent 

look and feel across vehicle types, in the belief that such consistency will most effectively allow 

for recognition of the label as well as comprehension of its content. 

 The agencies found through the focus groups and expert panel that many consumers will 

view the fuel economy label quickly, some using it to confirm the vehicle information they have 

previously researched on a manufacturers’ website or a third party website such as Consumer 

Reports or Edmunds.com. Other consumers, in contrast, will view the fuel economy information 

for the first time when they visit a dealer lot or showroom. While a new vehicle purchase 

represents a significant financial outlay, the agencies learned through their research that 

consumers like it simple, and do not necessarily act on details. Therefore, while the agencies 

want and need to add certain pieces of information to meet statutory requirements and to help 

consumers make informed decisions about the fuel consumption and environmental impacts of 

their vehicle choices we must balance these objectives with the need to keep the new labels 

consumer friendly. To accomplish this, the agencies were guided by a set of core principles in 

designing these labels. The labels should: 

 Create an immediate first impression for consumers 

 Be easy to read and understand quickly 

 Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, EREV, PHEV) 

 Utilize color 

 Chunk information to allow people to deal with “more information” 

 Be consistent in content and design across technologies 

 Allow for comparison across technologies 

 Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles 

The agencies are requesting comment on both the design and content of each label. 

Design issues are self-evident on the labels as presented, and we seek comment on the design 

aspects of each label family, including format, color, font, and graphical elements. Content 

issues have been extensively discussed throughout the preamble; for illustrative purposes, 

presentation of content varies somewhat from one label family to another and we seek comment 

on the various approaches. Specifically, we seek comment on the layout, prominence, and 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 75 of 150

grouping of label elements in terms of clarity, apparent relative importance, responsiveness to 

consumer information needs, and effectiveness at meeting public policy goals. These sample 

labels do not present every possible configuration of each label; for example, gas guzzler 

information is not depicted, as it is utilized on only a small subset of labels. The final rule will 

provide specific templates for these unique cases. Detailed specifications for presenting all 

required label information will be included in the regulations. 

Although we will finalize labels with a uniform look and feel, commenters should not 

view the content of the labels below as being necessarily tied to one label design. For example, 

just because Labels 1 and 3 for PHEV are the only labels that display the all-electric range for a 

PHEV does not mean that the information could not be incorporated into Label 2 or into other 

label designs. We are interested in comments that relate both to content that should be on the 

label, how it should be communicated, and what overall label presentation is most effective and 

consumer friendly. 

Finally, please note that although the agencies have made every effort to make these 

labels as realistic as possible and to ensure that the values on each label are internally consistent, 

the labels presented here should be considered examples that are not intended to represent real 

automobiles. 

A. Proposed Label Designs 

The agencies are proposing two label designs, presenting both designs as equal “coproposals” but expecting to finalize only one design based on public comments and other 

information gathered after the proposal. Although the two designs shown below have 

fundamentally different visual appearances and will no doubt elicit very different reactions from 

some viewers, they essentially present exactly the same basic information. For conventional 

vehicles, for example, each design displays the following: 

• City MPG 

• Highway MPG 

• Combined gallons/100 miles 

• CO2 grams per mile (combined city/highway) 

• Estimated annual fuel cost 

• Range of fuel economy within the class 

• The fuel the vehicle uses 

• Three “slider bars” showing the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to other 

vehicles for mpg, CO2, and other air pollutants 

• Annual fuel cost assumptions 

• A symbol that can be read by a “‘Smartphone”’ for additional consumer interactions (i.e., 

a “QR” Code) 

• A Fuel Economy Guide statement 

• EPA, DOE, and DOT logos 

1. Label 1
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 76 of 150

 Label 1 is fundamentally different from Label 2 and 3 designs presented in this section in 

three different ways: 

 First, the orientation is a portrait orientation, rather than the landscape style of the 

current label. 

 Second, a rating reflecting the energy efficiency and environmental impacts of the 

vehicle is given overall prominence. Instead of providing a series of numbers on the 

label with varying or equal prominence, which may make it difficult for consumers to 

evaluate at a glance, this label presents the energy and environment rating as a letter 

grade (a system familiar to all consumers) with major prominence at the top of the 

label. The letter grade is simply another familiar scale on which to present a linear 

rating, comparable to the star system or a 1-10 rating. This grade would be based on 

CO2 emissions and fuel economy consumption as described in Section II. To further 

help consumers identify the grade of a vehicle on the dealer sales lot, the agencies are 

proposing that different colors be used to differentiate between grade “families.” In 

other words, the dominant color on all the “A” grade labels would be one color, the 

“B” grade labels would use a different color, and so on. For example, the circle 

which surrounds the letter grade would be a different color depending on the grade. 

The color versions of the labels demonstrate this, using green for A grades, yellow for 

B grades, orange for C grades, and a dark orange for D grades. 

 Third, this label provides new fuel cost savings information not seen on any other 

label designs. Secondary only in prominence to the letter grade, and immediately 

below the letter grade, Label 1 would display the 5-year fuel cost of the vehicle in 

comparison to the average vehicle. For vehicles with fuel economy ratings above the 

median vehicle, the label would display how much the consumer would save, and for 

vehicles with ratings below average the label would display how much more the 

consumer would be spending. 

All the remaining information is displayed in the bottom portion of the label and would 

be available to consumers who want to know the more detailed information or who take a more 

analytical approach to evaluating the vehicle. The agencies believe that this approach uses a 

rating system that is easily understood by consumers and that would dramatically simplify the 

process of evaluating the overall energy efficiency and environmental impacts of the vehicles 

they are considering. The de-emphasis of mpg on this label – indeed, one purpose of directing 

consumers to the overall rating – is intended to enable consumers to make the best fuel 

consumption and environmental choices, choices made easier by the addition of the comparative 

cost information. Additionally, a consumer that uses the letter grade and cost information on this 

label may be able to avoid the effect of the “mpg illusion” described in Section II. 

[Label 1: for Fed. Reg. insert gray-scale versions of final labels] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 77 of 150

Figure III-1. Label 1 for conventional (gas) vehicle, B grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 78 of 150

Figure III-2. Label 1 for electric vehicle, A+ grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 79 of 150

Figure III-3. Label 1 for PHEV, A grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 80 of 150

Figure III-4. Label 1 for conventional (gas) vehicle, C grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 81 of 150

Figure III-5. Label 1 for conventional (gas) vehicle, D grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 82 of 150

Figure III-6. Label 1 for PHEV, Option 2. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 83 of 150

Figure III-7. Label 1 for CNG vehicle, A- grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 84 of 150

Figure III-8. Label 1 for FFV, B grade. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 85 of 150

 Option 2 for the PHEV version is offered as an alternative representation of plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles. This option was developed to be consistent with other dual-fuel 

vehicle labeling approaches. It also provides an example of how more information about the 

different modes of operation for PHEVs could be displayed on Label 1. The agencies seek 

comment on whether this alternate approach to PHEV labeling for Label 1 provides better 

information for consumers or whether the first option is more useful. 

2. Label 2

 Label 2, shown below takes a more traditional approach, similar to the current fuel 

economy label and highlights the key metrics of mpg and annual fuel cost. The agencies are 

seeking comment about whether, if this label were finalized, the prominence of gallons per 

hundred miles should be gradually increased on the label through one or more rulemakings to 

facilitate consumer familiarity with and usage of a consumption metric. As explained in Section 

II, these labels show the combined city/highway mpg with the highest prominence. The 

additional ratings are essentially identical to those of Label 1, except with the additional space 

for the mpg rating “slider bar.” Because of this extra space for the slider bars, Label 2 can also 

display the range of fuel economy of the applicable vehicle class (Label 1 provides this 

information in text form) in the context of the range of fuel economy for the whole fleet.. Label 

2 uses the slider bar approach like Label 1 for all of the specific ratings, and, like Label 1, has 

separate ratings for mpg, greenhouse gases, and other air pollutants. The electric vehicle label in 

this series does have an additional piece of information relative to Label 1 -- the battery charging 

time. And unlike Label 1 and Label 3, the PHEV label in this series provides separate annual 

cost estimates for both the electric and gas modes of operation, which may be more useful to 

consumers who want to understand the costs specifically associated with operating the vehicle 

solely on mode either when operating on electricity or in gas-only operating mode. 

[Label 2: for Fed. Reg. insert gray-scale versions of final labels] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 86 of 150

Figure III-9. Label 2 for conventional (gas) vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 87 of 150

Figure III-10. Label 2 for electric vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 88 of 150

Figure III-12. Label 2 for PHEV (predominantly blended type). 

Figure III-11. Label 2 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 89 of 150
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 90 of 150

Figure III-13. Label 2 for CNG vehicle. 

 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 91 of 150

Figure III-14. Label 2 for FFV. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 92 of 150

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3) 

The agencies also seek comment on a third label design that includes the same 

information as the other labels, but displays alternative ways of communicating the information. 

For example, this label (Label 3) combines the greenhouse gas and fuel economy ratings into one 

slider bar using a 1-10 rating scale (rather than the absolute values used in the other label 

designs), and instead of a relative “slider bar” scale for the other air pollutant rating, Label 3 uses 

a star rating system. Other than the difference in the rating systems, the Label 3 electric vehicle 

label provides essentially the same information as Label 2. For PHEVs, Label 3 provides only 

one annual fuel cost number (like Label 1) that merges the electric and gasoline modes. This 

label also displays for PHEVs an all-electric range, if the vehicle is capable of such operation. 

[Label 3. For Fed. Reg. insert gray-scale versions of final labels.] 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 93 of 150

Figure III-14. Label 3 for conventional (gas) vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 94 of 150

Figure III-15. Label 3 for electric vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 95 of 150

Figure III-16. Label 3 for PHEV, extended range electric (series) type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 96 of 150

Figure III-17. Label 3 for PHEV, predominantly blended type. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 97 of 150

IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling 

As discussed above, the fuel economy label must contain certain pieces of information by 

statute, and may additionally contain other pieces of information considered helpful to 

consumers. Given that all of the label information must be presented so as to maximize 

usefulness and minimize confusion for the consumer, EPA and NHTSA embarked upon a 

comprehensive research program beginning in the fall of 2009. Developing an effective label – 

one that conveys the required and desired information to consumers so that they can understand 

and use it to make decisions-- involves some inherent subjectivity, since what is understandable 

and useful for one consumer may be confusing or unhelpful to another. To better ground our 

proposed label designs in actual human responses, the agencies set out to better understand the 

following general issues: whether, how, and to what extent consumers use the current fuel 

economy label in the vehicle purchase process; the barriers to consumer understanding of the 

fuel efficiency of vehicles relative to one another (including both conventional vehicles and 

advanced technology vehicles); and how a newly redesigned label could most effectively convey 

information to consumers on fuel economy, fuel consumption, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and 

other emissions. 

When EPA last redesigned the fuel economy label in 2006, consumer research was 

valuable in helping to inform the development of that label.140 Since today’s proposal includes 

adding important new elements to the existing label as well as creating new labels for advanced 

technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a more comprehensive consumer research 

program than that undertaken in 2006 and have used this research to help develop the labels 

proposed in this NPRM. 

A. Methods of Research 

To gather information about the topics described below, the agencies designed a research 

plan including a review of literature on the vehicle buying process, three sets of focus groups in 

four different cities, a day-long facilitated consultation with experts in the field of shifting 

consumer behavior, and an internet survey of responses to proposed label designs (which will 

occur during the comment period following this NPRM). A more thorough discussion of each 

research method is provided below. 

1. Literature Review

EPA and NHTSA conducted a review of the existing literature to understand the vehicle 

buying process. Specifically, the literature review addressed the sources of information that 

consumers use to research vehicles, their decision-making process, and the factors that influence 

which vehicles consumers choose to buy. These include vehicle-specific factors such as price, 

fuel economy, and safety, as well as the role that demographics and psychographics play in 

purchasing decisions. Literature examining consumer attitudes toward buying more fuel 

 

140 The current label was redesigned and implemented for model year (MY) 2008 vehicles. See 71 FR 77871-77969 

(December 27 2006). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 98 of 150

efficient and environmentally friendly (i.e., “green”) vehicles was also reviewed. Understanding 

when and how consumers consider fuel economy and the environmental impact in their vehicle 

purchase decisions helped the agencies determine the most effective ways to provide useful 

information to consumers on the vehicle label. 

Additionally, the literature review report included an overview of existing educational 

campaigns aimed at helping consumers use information on the fuel efficiency and the 

environmental effects of their transportation choices. Review of these campaigns may help 

inform the agencies’ development of educational tools and messages beyond the label to provide 

consumers with useful information on fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. 

A broad range of sources were reviewed for this report, including journals in marketing, 

economics, and transportation research; business magazines; government documents; conference 

proceedings; and a variety of websites. Some of the key findings from the literature review are 

described in Section IV.B. A more detailed report is available in the docket.141 

2. Focus Groups

 The agencies felt it was critical to consider understandability and consumer reaction to a 

variety of label concepts given that the purpose of the fuel economy label is to inform consumers 

of the vehicle’s fuel economy and, with the amendments enacted by EISA, greenhouse gases and 

other emissions. EPA and NHTSA additionally saw a need to conduct research beyond that of 

the previous rulemaking due to the advancements in vehicle technology underway, the increased 

market share of vehicles that use fuels other than gasoline, and the introduction of environmental 

information to the label. The agencies determined that they would gather in-depth, qualitative 

feedback about fuel economy labeling, potential new label information, and ways of displaying 

the information through focus groups. The focus group format allowed for in-depth probing 

around a variety of topics, including comprehension of potential elements on the fuel economy 

label and how consumers may use that information in making purchase decisions. The focus 

groups were not intended to provide quantitative results, but were instead designed to help EPA 

and NHTSA discern the subtleties of the large number of decisions that are necessary when 

creating a label that should convey numerous and sometimes complicated information. 

The focus group process included a recruitment screener, on-line pre-focus group survey, 

and at least two gender-differentiated focus groups in four different cities for each of the three 

separate phases. The focus group methodology and results, including the recruitment screener 

and pre-focus group on-line surveys, are discussed in greater detail in the focus group Technical 

Memoranda available in the public docket for this rulemaking.142

The agencies concluded that conducting three phases of focus groups, each with a 

different concentration, was necessary to gather adequate information to explore the complex 

and numerous issues raised by this rulemaking. Phase 1 gathered qualitative information on 

consumer understanding and use of the current fuel economy label, consumer reaction to 

 

141 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Project Literature Review, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 142 EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 99 of 150

potential new information and metrics on the label for conventional vehicles, and also initial 

identification of effective displays for this information. Phase 2 asked consumers to identify what 

information they were interested in seeing on the label for advanced technology vehicles and 

explored the understandability and sufficiency of various information and metrics for PHEVs 

and EVs. Phase 3 explored the understandability and usefulness of new information integrated 

into whole label designs for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. Thus, overall, 

focus groups were used to obtain a qualitative understanding of consumers’ comprehension and 

reactions to fuel economy label information. 

 The agencies assumed that individuals who had recently purchased vehicles would have 

the best insight into how the current fuel economy label is used and would therefore also be best 

suited to provide input about any changes that might be made to the label. To that end, 

participants were selected based on having purchased a vehicle within the past year, but not 

during the “cash for clunkers” purchase window.143 A “participant screener” was used to ensure 

a reasonable cross-section of purchasers was represented in each group. Some of the 

demographic variations purposefully considered included the type of new vehicle purchased, 

price range of the new vehicle, average daily driving distance, and whether the individual had 

seriously considered or actually purchased an advanced technology vehicle such as a gasoline 

hybrid. 

 Each focus group participant was also asked to complete a short on-line survey before 

attending the session. This survey served three purposes: 1) to collect demographic data about 

the participants and information about their specific vehicle purchase process; 2) to provide 

participants with some background information about advanced technology vehicles so that the 

participants would have some exposure to new technologies prior to the focus group meeting; 

and 3) to gather information about how the participants had used the current fuel economy label 

in their purchase decisions, if at all. This survey data was not intended to be examined as a 

nationally representative sample and was only used as supplementary information when 

describing the focus group results. 

 The agencies anticipate that there will be additional focus groups prior to rule finalization 

in each of the four cities where focus groups were held pre-proposal. These focus groups will 

examine revised labels based on feedback the agencies receive during the comment period and 

will provide additional input on whole label designs. The agencies will place information 

obtained from these focus groups in the docket as it becomes available and encourages all 

interested parties to check the docket for updated information. 

3. Internet Survey

While the focus groups were used to develop new label designs, the internet survey is 

meant to examine how understandable the new label designs are, and whether the proposed new 

label and alternative labels will improve consumers’ knowledge about more efficient vehicles. 

 

143 “Cash for Clunkers” (Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009, Pub. L. 11132) was a NHTSA 

program that provided a tax incentive to trade-in low fuel efficient vehicles for new, higher fuel efficient vehicles. 

The purchase period in which this program operated was excluded to avoid any bias of participants, since the 

program was explicitly focused on fuel economy. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 100 of 150

The planned survey is scheduled to begin concurrent with the signing of this proposal and will 

test these questions for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. A notice of the 

survey, published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2010, requested comment on the survey 

methodology.144 No substantive comments were received. 

This survey will use two samples: self-selected U.S. new vehicle purchasers and people 

who expressed an intention to purchase a new vehicle by requesting a price quote from a 

dealer.145 Each of these samples is divided into three separate groups. One version of the survey 

was developed for each group, identical in every way except that each of the groups will see only 

one of the label designs. 

The survey tests respondents’ understanding of the labels by showing each respondent a 

series of label pairs. In each pair, all vehicle characteristics are held constant except the 

information on the vehicle label. For instance, the fuel economy of the vehicles may differ, or 

one may have a conventional vehicle and one an electric vehicle. Respondents are then asked to 

identify which vehicle is better to use for trips of specified distances.146 The key metric of 

interest is whether the label designs produce statistically significantly different results. If one 

label produces more correct responses than other labels, then it can be considered more 

understandable; if the labels do not produce statistically different results, then the labels can be 

considered equivalently understandable. 

To test the potential influence of the labels on vehicle purchases, respondents see pairs of 

labels for vehicles with all vehicle attributes constant except those varied on the label, such as 

the technologies of the vehicles, their efficiencies, and their energy costs. Instead of using the 

label to identify the better vehicle for a scenario, the respondents are asked which of these 

vehicles they would prefer to buy, based on their individual driving patterns. Comparisons 

involve both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. Because the survey asks 

respondents about their typical daily driving distances, it is possible to see whether respondents 

chose the vehicle better suited for their habits. The key variable is whether the responses differ 

for different label designs. 

The internet survey data collection is planned to occur in early to mid-August 2010. The 

results of the survey will be made public as soon as they are available. The results will be made 

available in the public docket for this rulemaking at regulations.gov. If the results are not placed 

in the docket 30 days before the end of the comment period, the agencies will accept comments 

on these results up to 30 days from when they were placed in the docket. 

 

144 U.S. EPA, “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Internet Survey 

Research for Improving Fuel Economy Label Design and Content; EPA ICR No. 2390.01, OMB Control No. 2060-

NEW,” 75 Fed. Reg. 26751 (May 12, 2010). 145 Sources of respondents were databases owned by Autobytel, http://www.autobytel.com (for those intending to 

buy new vehicles), and Focus USA (for those who purchased a vehicle in the last year), http://www.focus-usa1.com. 

146 Respondents were asked which was better, rather than which was more fuel-efficient or less costly, so as to leave 

the respondents with the choice of what information on the label to use for the comparison. A later question asked 

which information they used in their response. While this somewhat ambiguous approach may reduce the absolute 

number of correct answers to the questions, the goal is testing the relative effects of the labels, not the absolute 

effects. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 101 of 150

4. Expert Panel

In order to gather additional feedback on the label designs developed from the focus 

groups and to identify opportunities and strategies to provide more and better information to 

consumers so that they can more easily assess the costs, emissions, and energy efficiency of 

different vehicles, EPA and NHTSA convened an expert panel. “Experts” were selected based on 

their past experience in changing social norms either by successfully launching new products or 

leading national education campaigns that have had a broad and significant impact. The method 

for selecting the panel began by first generating a list of products and social changes that met the 

criteria of impacting a significant percentage of the population quickly, while also demonstrating 

staying power. Individuals who had roles critical to the success of these efforts were then 

identified and recruited. Nine “experts” participated on the panel, with experiences that included 

launching very successful public health campaigns, internet sites, new technologies, and cable 

networks. The meeting was held from 9 A.M. to 3 P.M. in Washington D.C. on June 9, 2010. 

The topics covered include: background information, review and feedback on the 

EPA/NHTSA research process, messaging techniques, outreach strategies, and feedback on 

possible label designs. The Expert Panel is discussed in greater detail in the Expert Panel 

Complete Report in the public docket for this rulemaking.147

B. Key Research Questions and Findings 

The agencies identified the following key research questions, given the overarching 

issues provided above: 

• How should labels portray information about fuel consumption and fuel economy, fuel 

cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is most 

understandable and useful to them? 

• How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray information about fuel 

economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is 

most understandable and useful to them? 

• How should the new labels be designed to meet the statutory requirements while best 

raising consumers’ understanding of fuel efficiency, fuel cost and environmental impact? 

• How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping? 

• What purchase process do consumers currently use to make new vehicle purchasing 

decisions? Given this process, when are the most effective opportunities to communicate 

fuel economy and environmental information? 

1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label Information

 

How should labels portray information about fuel consumption and fuel economy, fuel 

cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is most understandable 

and useful to them? 

 

147 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Expert Panel Report, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010.

Formatted: Normal
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 102 of 150

 As described in Section I, EPCA and EISA require the fuel economy label to provide fuel 

economy, cost, and environmental information, as well as provide a means to compare vehicles 

based on fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions. The agency’s research program 

explored how this information might be displayed on the label in a useful and accessible format 

for consumers. 

a. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy 

 EPCA requires the label to display the “fuel economy of the automobile.” However, fuel 

economy, commonly thought of as “mpg” (the number of miles that can be traveled consuming 

one gallon of fuel) is often misunderstood by consumers. As discussed more extensively in 

Section II, because mpg is not linear, when people compare vehicles with different mpg values 

they are apt to incorrectly estimate the fuel savings of one vehicle over another. For example, 

switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle will save more fuel than switching from a 

30 mpg vehicle to a 35 mpg vehicle. Thus, comparing vehicles based on mpg is not as helpful to 

consumers in making quick and accurate comparisons as consumers may believe it to be. Fuel 

consumption (the number of gallons of fuel consumed to travel a given distance), on the other 

hand, does yield the type of linear comparison that consumers should find useful. Therefore, the 

agencies explored ways to convey fuel consumption on the label. 

 Focus groups were instrumental in helping the agencies learn about communicating fuel 

consumption. Specifically, Phase 1 focus groups set out to gauge how receptive consumers were 

to a fuel consumption value and whether there were particular presentations of that value which 

were more understandable. To do this the ‘Fuel Economy (MPG) Illusion’ was introduced in the 

pre-focus group on-line survey, followed by specific probing in each group around what “fuel 

consumption” means. Phase 1 focus groups generally responded that it was the distance one can 

travel on a gallon of gas (which is fuel economy, rather than fuel consumption). Following this 

discussion the participants were presented with four different designs, each conveying fuel 

consumption and fuel economy information. The prominent value displayed within each design 

was fuel consumption, given in gallons per 100 miles while the less prominent value was fuel 

economy, given in miles per gallon. Even when participants demonstrated that they properly 

understood fuel consumption, most still indicated that they preferred miles per gallon over 

gallons per 100 miles. Participants indicated this to be the case even after the moderator 

explained the ‘MPG Illusion.’ A few participants did indicate that viewing gallons per 100 

miles, instead of miles per gallon, might get them to switch to more efficient vehicle types. 

Some participants also said that they believed they would use the gallons per 100 mile fuel 

consumption information on the label to learn about the vehicle’s city and highway gas 

consumption and to compare between different vehicles in making their purchase decision. 

However, most participants were not enthusiastic about using the fuel consumption information. 

Almost all focus group participants showed a strong attachment to mpg. They like and 

use the city and highway mpg and are not familiar with gallons per 100 miles. If a new fuel 

consumption metric, such as gallons per 100 miles, were added to the label participants would 

still want the familiar mpg metric to be prominent on the label. Recognizing that consumers 

believe they derive significant value from mpg, but that consumption information may be more 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 103 of 150

accurate and ultimately valuable to consumers, another approach to displaying fuel consumption 

was also devised and presented to focus groups: an “annual gallons used” value. The basis for 

deriving this new metric was that 1) it makes the magnitude of comparing vehicles based on 

consumption more apparent, and 2) it provides a clear link between the annual cost value and 

fuel consumption value. An annual gallons metric was also found to be one of the more effective 

ways to demonstrate the fuel economy illusion. While the agencies considered displaying the 

annual gallons of fuel information on the label we ultimately determined that the gallons per 100 

mile metric should be introduced on the label as the new consumption metric, and that the 

introduction of the five year cost or savings information would also help consumers in 

overcoming the effects of the mpg illusion while also providing important additional 

information. 

Phase 1 focus group participants also evaluated four different graphical display options 

for fuel consumption and were asked which was the most understandable design. Participants 

responded by identifying the design they felt was simple, informative and in a familiar format. 

However, participants did not agree on which design accomplished this. 

 

The agencies further explored fuel economy and fuel consumption designs in Phase 3 

where focus group participants were asked to evaluate whole label designs encompassing both 

fuel economy and fuel consumption values. In each of the three labels presented, the mpg value 

was a dominant metric.148 For each design participants were asked to determine between two 

labels, which represented the more fuel efficient vehicle. Participants were also asked to identify 

what piece of information on the label they used to make this determination. Fuel consumption 

was rarely identified as being used by participants. Instead, participants used mpg and cost 

values most often.149

In Phase 3, the agencies explored simplification of the labels by displaying on two of the 

three label designs only the combined (55% city and 45% highway) fuel economy value in lieu 

of listing the city and highway values separately. (See Section IV.B.4 for a discussion of whole 

label designs and why simplification is perceived as an overarching goal.) When participants 

were probed about why they did or did not like certain label designs, the presence of city and 

highway values was often cited as a positive for a label design, and the absence of the city and 

highway values was cited as a negative for a label design. In addition, when asked how to 

improve the label designs, several focus group participants asked for the city and highway values 

to be added to the label designs that did not include them. 

The agencies gathered additional input on the most effective approaches for portraying 

fuel economy and fuel consumption information during the expert panel meeting. After viewing 

three label designs, expert panel participants provided comments on how the label could be made 

more understandable and useful for consumers. The expert panel emphasized that in order to be 

 

148 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 

(Contains visual depictions of each of the Phase III label series.) 

149 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc. July 2010., 

p.12. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 104 of 150

effective, the fuel economy label should be simple and able to be understood by consumers 

within a short amount of viewing time. To implement this goal, the expert panel suggested that 

the agencies develop a single, overall metric for vehicles that is easy for consumers to 

understand, such as a letter grade (A±, B±, etc.).

150. 

The expert panel also suggested that the agencies consider redesigning the label such that 

the single metric is prominently featured on the top half, and any additional vehicle information 

and more specific metrics be included on the label in smaller font and in a less prominent 

location. The expert panel stated that this approach would provide interested consumers with 

more detailed information without distracting from the simpler, overall metric that all consumers 

could easily understand. The rationale for this label design is that it can provide useful 

comparative information to the consumer who may only glance at it, while also providing the 

necessary details to those who want more in-depth information. Additionally, the expert panel 

suggested prominently featuring a website URL and a QR code for smart phones to provide 

consumers with access to more detailed vehicle information elsewhere.151 For example, the 

website and smart phone application might contain tools for consumers to calculate the fuel 

economy they can expect based on their own driving habits or allow consumers to quickly 

compare fuel economy and consumption for different vehicle models. 

b. Fuel Cost 

EPCA requires the fuel economy label display the “annual fuel cost of operating the 

automobile.” Recognizing that some consumers have previously appeared to distrust or dismiss 

annual costs as not representative of their own experience, EPA and NHTSA explored whether 

there were other cost units (such as cost per month, per mile, per week, etc.) that could be 

additionally provided that would be more meaningful to consumers. 

Throughout the focus groups in Phase 1 and 2, participants indicated that they tended to 

dismiss the annual cost information on the current label because gas prices fluctuate and vary 

with location, and they do not drive 15,000 miles per year.152 Nevertheless, Phase 1 focus group 

participants identified the estimated annual fuel cost as the second most used piece of 

information on the label. In addition, in Phase 2 focus groups, where participants were asked to 

create labels from scratch, most groups placed a cost value on the label. When cost values are 

used, focus group members indicated they used it as a comparative tool to evaluate the fuel 

efficiency of different vehicles. 

When asked what they thought about cost, focus group participants indicated they 

thought about the cost to fill a gas tank, the fuel cost over a period of time (daily, weekly, 

monthly, yearly, etc.), and the fuel cost over a given distance (cost per mile, 100 miles, 1000 

miles, etc.). When Phase 1 focus group participants were presented with a variety of cost units, 

the two most popular choices among cost units were annual cost and cost per month. However, 

 

150 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, 

p. 15-17.

151 Ibid. 152 15,000 miles per year is the current annual mileage assumption used on all fuel economy labels to estimate the 

annual fuel cost of operating a vehicle. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 105 of 150

in Phase 3, when presented with labels that displayed both a monthly cost and an annual cost, 

participants suggested that the monthly cost value could be dropped. 

Participants in the expert panel meeting suggested that the agencies provide information 

on the savings consumers could achieve by purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle. One expert 

panel participant noted that the current label designs demonstrate costs, but that it would be 

better to demonstrate savings, which tends to be a very strong motivator.153 One approach to 

communicating this information on the label would be to display the savings a consumer might 

expect over five years by purchasing and driving a vehicle with a higher overall letter grade. 

 

c. Environmental Metrics 

Environmental information on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other emissions has not 

been previously displayed on the fuel economy label, so the agencies were interested in learning 

how a label might best convey to consumers information about the emissions impact of a new 

vehicle. The available literature on the impact of “eco-labeling” vehicles is mixed.154 Some of 

the research indicates that consumers may welcome an eco-label on their vehicle, although they 

say that it is unlikely to impact their purchase decision. Through its consumer research, the 

agencies investigated what combination of metrics and ratings might be displayed on the fuel 

economy label to provide this information in an effective and consumer-friendly way, including 

a stand-alone CO2 performance metric, relative versus absolute rating systems, a comparison 

system, and an environmental certification mark. 

 For the most part, Phase 1 focus group participants indicated that they did not research 

environmental information (beyond fuel economy) as part of the vehicle purchase process. 

While some participants indicated that they would use environmental information to compare 

different vehicles if it was placed on the fuel economy label the majority of focus group 

participants were indifferent to the inclusion of environmental impact information on the label 

and indicated they were not likely to visit a website for environmental information. However, 

when presented with whole label designs in Phase 3 many respondents indicated that the 

environmental metric should be on the label, so that it is available for those who were interested. 

In Phase 1, participants were presented with four different environmental metric options 

and approaches to displaying environmental information, and were asked to rate the most 

understandable and least understandable. Participants stated that they understood the 

environmental information in general, but did not understand what “grams of CO2” meant. The 

display featuring a rating for other emissions in stars and grams of CO2 numerically was most 

frequently chosen by Phase 1 participants to be the most understandable. Participants generally 

favored presentations that showed information in a simple format, though there was no 

consensus on which format achieved this. In general Phase 1 and 2 focus group findings indicate 

that we must keep environmental information simple if we want consumers to pay any attention 

to this information on a label. An overall environmental rating was most favorably received with 

 

153 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Expert Panel Report, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010,. p. 1217. 154 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Project Literature Review, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010., p. 24. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 106 of 150

the general reaction being that EPA was trusted to decide how to combine environmental impacts 

into a single rating. 

 Phase 1 focus groups were also asked if they recognized and knew what the “SmartWay” 

logo meant. None of the participants recognized the logo. However, when probed, most 

ascertained that it was an EPA designation of some sort. While some participants indicated the 

logo may confer credibility to an environmentally friendly vehicle, none indicated they would be 

less likely to purchase a vehicle without the logo. 

 In Phase 3 focus groups the agencies sought to examine further how environmental 

information might be displayed most effectively. Several permutations of graphical rating 

systems were shown to participants. These included designs in which “greenhouse gases” and 

“other air pollutants” were displayed as one combined environmental rating or separately. 

Rating scales were examined that were based on relative values, such as a “5 leaf” rating system 

as well as a linear scale that had the vehicle’s absolute CO2 value identified on a scale that had 

end-points identifying the approximate highest and lowest emitting vehicles available.155 

 

 The expert panel, when shown the labels designed by the agencies based on focus group 

input, stated that they neither understood the environmental information presented nor found it 

compelling. As described in Section IV.B.4, the expert panel recommended developing an 

overall rating for vehicles, which could combine fuel economy and environmental impacts. The 

expert panel noted that additional metrics (e.g., CO2 performance) could be included in a less 

prominent position on the label for consumers interested in more detailed environmental 

information. Expert panel participants also suggested that environmental performance 

information could be made available on a web site and accessed through the smart phone 

interactive (QR Code) featured on the label.156 

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology Vehicles

 How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray information about fuel 

economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for consumers in a way that is most 

understandable and useful to them? 

 In addition to the issues discussed above for conveying information generally on labels, 

advanced technology vehicles that operate on fuels which differ from conventional gasoline and 

diesel fuel require new strategies to communicate and display fuel economy information 

effectively.157 Through the research program, we explored potential approaches to 

communicating useful fuel economy, cost, and environmental information about electric vehicles 

and several variations of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. As discussed further below, the 

research probed consumers to identify what specific information they would need if they were to 

 

155 See Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 

2010,EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 3 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 

p. 39-40 for a detailed description of the metrics examined. 

156 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 

2010,EPA Fuel Economy Label Expert Panel Report, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. p. 1145-17. 157 See Section III.B. and III.C. for a discussion of the challenges that advanced technology and other non-traditional 

vehicles present for consumers when making vehicle purchase decisions. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 107 of 150

seriously consider purchasing an advanced technology vehicle and what information would be 

most helpful on an advanced technology fuel economy label.158 

 Phase 2 focus groups were devoted to exploring what label information consumers 

believed was most important to display for advanced technology vehicles given the limited space 

provided on the fuel economy label. The focus group discussions were broken into segments 

based on three different vehicle technologies: EVs, extended range PHEVS, and blended 

PHEVs. Focus group discussions thus separated the different technologies in order to ascertain 

more accurately what information would be most useful to consumers to understand these new 

technologies. Phase 2 focus groups were tasked with “building” three different labels, each for 

different advanced technology vehicles and were given a large number of metrics from which to 

choose the building blocks. Almost all of the labels built by each focus group included the 

following elements: (1) the range that the vehicle could travel while depleting a full battery, the 

charge depleting operation; (2) the length of time it takes to charge the battery; (3) the cost of 

charging the battery, and if operating in two separate fuel modes, the cost associated with each 

mode of operation; and (5) an environmental metric.159 When asked to identify the two most 

important pieces of information on the label, participants said, regardless of the city, gender, or 

technology discussed, that information on the range an advanced technology vehicle can travel 

on a fully changed battery and the length of time is takes to charge the battery were the most 

important information they needed to have in order to seriously consider purchasing these type of 

vehicle. 

 The expert panel’s label recommendations did not differentiate between conventional and 

advanced technology vehicles. The recommendations they made for the conventional vehicle 

label would apply to the advanced technology vehicle label as well. 

 a. Range 

Focus group participants stated that for any vehicle that operates, even just part of the 

time, on electricity, it is important for them to know the distance the vehicle can travel on a fully 

charged battery. Participants saw this as vital to their understanding of the vehicle’s fuel 

economy. While Phase 2 focus groups expressed interest in seeing the range displayed for both 

city and highway values, when Phase 3 participants were presented with full labels, no one asked 

for the range to be broken down by city and highway values. 

 b. Fuel Cost 

 

 Across all advanced technologies, participants were interested in battery charging costs. 

There was a fairly even split between cost per mile, annual cost and monthly cost values, 

regardless of technology. For any vehicle with a gasoline-only mode of operation, participants 

expressed a desire to see the cost expressed annually. The groups also indicated that labels for 

 

158 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 159 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Phase 2 Focus Groups Technical Memorandum, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010. 

Appendix K. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 108 of 150

any vehicle that operated in a combined gas and electric mode should provide cost information 

on an annual basis. In Phase 3, when presented with annual fuel cost and monthly fuel cost 

options, many participants used the annual fuel cost when comparing across advanced 

technology vehicles. Some indicated that the monthly cost was useful for these advanced 

technology vehicles. In particular, people equated the electricity consumption to their monthly 

home electricity statements. 

 c. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy 

For any advanced technology vehicle that operates in a gas-only mode, the Phase 2 focus 

groups indicated a strong desire to see fuel consumption expressed in miles per gallon. In any 

vehicle that had an electric-only mode of operation, the focus groups favored seeing the electric 

consumption information expressed in an MPG equivalent of “MPGs”. (See Section II.B for a 

detailed discussion of MPGe). The second most understandable metric of electric-only operation 

was kilowatt-hour per 100 miles, but many participants felt strongly that kilowatt hours are very 

unfamiliar and should not be chosen as a metric. For the PHEVs with a blended mode (gas and 

electric), focus groups were interested in seeing an MPGe that combined the MPGe of electric 

operation and the MPG of gas operation. In any vehicle that could operate in more than one 

mode of operation, such as an EREV or PHEV, participants were interested in seeing fuel 

consumption values for each mode of operation, although some were interested in seeing a 

consumption value for the two modes expressed in MPGe160 in addition to displaying the 

separate consumption information. 

 d. Environmental Information 

Focus group participants did not independently identify the need to have environmental 

information on the label. However, in Phase 2, with the exception of one group, when given the 

option, all the groups elected to include environmental information on the label. Of the designs 

provided many participants selected a horizontal slider scale that ranked the vehicle’s impact as 

the most understandable conveyance of environmental information. 

Other displays of environmental metrics were examined in Phase 3. These displays 

included sliding scales segmented with relative rating systems as well as those with absolute 

values. Relative ratings such as stars or leaves were also shown. Participants commented that 

they wanted something that was quick and easy to read. Most focus group participants preferred 

something that was quick with little detail while some wanted more detailed information to help 

inform their decisions. Based on this finding, the agencies incorporated this approach into the coproposed label designs in attempt to find the right balance of simple and detail information 

presentation. See section IV.B.1 for more comprehensive discussion of the environmental 

information focus group findings. 

3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison

How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping? 

 

160 Participants were given this option using existing utility factor data as the method for combing the two modes of 

operation. See Section VI.B for a discussion about utility factors. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 109 of 150

Beyond the statutory requirement to develop rating systems for fuel economy, GHGs, and 

other emissions, with designations of the “best” vehicles in terms of fuel economy and GHG 

emissions, the agencies recognize that the labels need to be consumer-friendly in terms of 

facilitating cross-vehicle and cross-technology comparisons. If consumers first encounter 

advanced technology vehicles on the dealer’s lot, and are not predisposed to buy one, a label that 

effectively conveys the benefits of purchasing such a vehicle through a clear and understandable 

rating system will be helpful in informing consumers and potentially educating consumers about 

the benefits of these vehicles. Through the research program, the agencies also investigated how 

the fuel economy labels might be designed so that consumers could easily compare the fuel 

economy, costs, and environmental impacts across a range of vehicle technologies -- from 

conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

Focus groups also provided feedback about various metrics which were intended to help 

a consumer compare a vehicle to other vehicles, as required by statute. In Phases 1 and 3, 

participants were shown not only rating scales such as a numerical or five stars system, but also a 

slider scale similar to the bar that exists on the current fuel economy label for within-class 

comparisons, both of which the agencies believed would meet the statutory requirement to 

provide a rating system. The participants seem to be split into two camps: those that prefer the 

analytical detail of the value scale, and those that prefer the simplicity of a star-type rating scale. 

For fuel economy and fuel consumption, Phase 1 participants were shown two kinds of 

examples: one that compared vehicles only within their current fuel economy class, and one that 

showed both a within-class comparison and a comparison among all vehicles. These 

comparisons were shown using gallons per hundred mile values and miles per gallon values. 

The majority of participants preferred the metric that showed the subject vehicle as it compared 

to all vehicles and as it compared to its fuel economy class in units of miles per gallon. 

In Phase 2 most focus group participants said that they would like an effective way to 

compare among disparate vehicle technologies. Many settled on miles per gallon equivalent as a 

comparative metric, but most did not know what the equivalency was based upon. In Phase 3, 

when comparing advanced technology vehicles, most participants either used the MPGe value or 

the annual cost value to compare across vehicles. Some used the fuel economy rating systems 

that were provided. In general, the findings from the focus groups established no clear 

preference or approach for how to effectively communicate comparative vehicle information that 

would be useful to most consumers. 

 The expert panel disagreed that the focus group generated labels could be used 

effectively to compare across vehicle technologies-- especially to the level of information found 

on the advanced technology labels, which they described as “scary” and “unfriendly.” They 

were clear to point out, however, that their issues were with the label design, and that they were 

not rejecting the information contained on the label. The expert panel stated that there are 

inherent differences in reviewing labels in a focus group compared to on a dealership lot, where 

you have, on average, very short viewing time. The expert panel suggested that processing this 

amount of information quickly would be challenging, which could lead many consumers to tune 

out the label completely. As mentioned above, the panel recommended that the agencies roll up 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 110 of 150

fuel economy, environmental impacts and cost information into a single easily understood 

letter/grade approach that will be intuitive for most consumers. The grade could be used across 

all technologies providing consumers easy comparative information. The expert panel allowed 

that the more complicated information could be made available in the bottom half of the label but 

argued that it would be crucial to retain a simple compelling comparison in the top portion of the 

label. The panel also suggested including a comparative metric that shows the potential savings 

from buying a more fuel efficient vehicle, as saving money historically has been a very strong 

motivator for consumers. 

4. Effective Whole Label Designs 

How should the new labels be designed to meet the statutory requirements while best 

raising consumers’ understanding of fuel efficiency, fuel cost and environmental impact? 

 In addition to the examination of individual label elements described above, consumer 

research designed by EPA and NHTSA investigated the effects of various whole label designs on 

consumer comprehension and utilization, in order to test whether the labels would still be useful 

when all of the elements were put together. This inquiry is important because there is only so 

much space that information can occupy both on the label and in the consumer’s mind when 

standing on the dealer’s lot and confronted with so much other information. In order to provide 

sufficient information while ensuring that it remains understandable for the greatest number of 

consumers, a balancing act is inevitable. The consumer research attempted to assess how best 

the balance could be struck, as discussed further below in Section III. 

The expert panel offered very strong opinions on what, given their experience, would 

make a label effective in engaging the public. They strongly recommended that the top portion 

of the label contain only one element – a “grade” that would combine as many of our required 

metrics as possible. This information should be big, bold, and easy to process while walking 

around a dealership. The label space under the grade would be reserved for the specific 

information required in the statute or deemed important in focus groups and other market 

research. When the panel was presented with label designs that had multiple metrics, 

explanatory text, and graphical icons, with no one element standing out, they felt that the labels 

were confusing and intimidating. The expert panel’s consensus view, after viewing the draft 

labels developed through the focus groups, was that these labels would be daunting for most 

consumers to process, making them inclined to “tune out” even the most basic information. 

Their strongest recommendation: Keep it simple.161

5. Tools beyond the Label

What purchase process do consumers currently use to make new vehicle purchasing 

decisions? Given this process, when are the most effective opportunities to communicate fuel 

economy and environmental information? 

a. Vehicle Purchase Process 

 

161 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, 

p. 15-17.
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 111 of 150

The vehicle purchase process is complex and iterative. There may be many opportunities 

to inform consumers about the fuel economy and environmental impact of the vehicles they are 

considering. Although much of this proposal focuses on the actual fuel economy label, the 

agencies recognize that consumers seek out fuel economy and environmental information at 

other times in the purchase process beyond simply viewing the fuel economy label on vehicles 

during visits to dealerships. In order to determine the most effective means to provide fuel 

economy and environmental information to consumers, the agencies sought to better understand 

when and how consumers encounter or search for this type of information in their vehicle 

purchase decision-making process. 

Information on this vehicle buying process was obtained in an on-line survey of focus 

group participants prior to the actual focus groups. In addition, at the start of each session, 

participants were asked to discuss their purchase process so we could better understand the 

nuances associated with the responses we had received through the on-line survey. The pregroup online survey indicated that a majority of respondents already had a vehicle type in mind 

when they began the process. Consumers appear to narrow the spectrum from all available 

vehicles to the vehicle type or types they will research depending on their specific needs and 

interests. In general, the focus groups used broad categories to describe vehicle groupings, such 

as SUVs, minivans, sport cars, trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars.162 For example, some 

focus group respondents said they narrowed their search based on vehicle cargo space, for others 

it was sedans, and for others it was SUVs and minivans. 

According to the pre-focus group online survey and the focus groups themselves, a 

majority of the participants indicated that price/affordability was one of the top five factors that 

influenced their vehicle choice. Other key factors that influenced participants’ vehicle choice 

included gas mileage/fuel economy, safety, reliability, size, interior and exterior appearance, 

comfort, brand name and performance. The agencies also reviewed existing literature on the 

factors that influence vehicle choice. For example, a 2009 survey of people between the ages of 

18 and 30 (“Generation Y”) found gas mileage to be the top factor indicated by participants as 

critical to vehicle purchasing decisions, followed by affordability/price.163 Both demographic 

and psychographic factors (e.g., ‘what a vehicle says about me’) also play a role in the vehicle 

purchase process.164

At present however, environmental impacts are not top purchasing considerations for 

most consumers. Focus group participants indicated that environmental impacts were not a 

consideration in the type of the vehicle they purchase. Only a small fraction of the participants 

in the pre-group online survey considered “low emissions” to be key factor when making a 

vehicle purchase decision. This finding is also supported by the literature review. Consumer 

 

162 These categories are not necessarily related to the current 14 EPA-designated classes of vehicles. Vehicle classes 

are described in 40 CFR 600.315-08. 

163 Deloitte. “Connecting with Gen Y: Making the short list,” 2010, p.2. Available at 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomUnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_automotive_Deloitte%20Automotive%20Gen%20Y%20Executive%2

0Summary_0107.pdf (last accessed August 13June 30, 2010). 164 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Project Literature Review, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010, p. 30-3923–30. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 112 of 150

research indicates that although consumers have a growing interest in purchasing “greener” 

vehicles, environmental impact is not sufficient by itself for most consumers to be willing to pay 

a premium.165 

Another important aspect of the vehicle purchase process is how consumers research 

vehicles. Two-thirds of the respondents to the pre-focus group online survey reported they had 

researched fuel economy prior to buying their vehicle. Based on the available choices in the prefocus group survey, respondents reported gathering fuel economy information from 

manufacturer websites, Consumer Reports, auto dealers, vehicle search websites, automobile 

magazines, others with similar vehicles, government websites, television advertisements, and the 

Fuel Economy label itself. The literature review found that consumers increasingly research fuel 

economy information online. For example, traffic on the DOE and EPA web site 

www.fueleconomy.gov increased from 400,000 user sessions in 1999 to more than 30 million in 

2008.166 Other Internet sources used to research vehicles during the purchase process include 

consumer-to-consumer tools such as blogs and web forums.167 

Another finding from the literature review is that consumers are likely to be closer to 

purchasing a vehicle when by the time they visit the dealership than they were in the past.168 This 

highlights the value of educational tools beyond the label to provide consumers with information 

on a vehicle’s fuel economy and environmental impact. Online tools may be particularly 

important. In addition to the Internet being a source of information for consumers, online sales of 

cars have been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years (although they still represent a 

small percentage of total car sales).169 

b. Consumer Education 

As described above, the vehicle purchase decision is not based entirely on the fuel 

economy label information, but is complex and iterative, and messages presented in contexts 

beyond the label may be even more helpful in getting consumers the information they need about 

fuel economy, fuel cost, GHGs, and other emissions. Several resources maintained by EPA and 

DOE are already available to help consumers obtain information about comparative vehicle fuel 

economy and environmental information, including www.fueleconomy.gov,170 the Fuel 

Economy Guide,171 and the Green Vehicle Guide.172 In addition to the information sources and 

tools already available, under EISA, Congress requires NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and 

 

165 Ibid., p. 87. 166 Greene, D.L., Gibson, R., and Hopson, J., “Reducing Oil Use and CO2 Emissions by Informing Consumers’ Fuel 

Economy Decisions: The Role for Clean Cities,” prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 

August 2009, p.1. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/fuel_economy_strat_paper.pdf (last 

accessed August 13June 30, 2010). 167 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August

2010,“EPA Fuel Economy Label Project: Literature Review,” Prepared by PRR Inc., July 2010, p. 2315–17. 168 Ibid., p.118-193. 169 Deloitte. “A new era: Accelerating toward 2020 – An automotive industry transformed,” 2009, p.12. Available at 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-India/Local%20Assets/Documents/A%20New%20Era%20-

%20Auto%20Transformation%20Report_Online.pdf (last accessed August 13June 30, 2010). 170 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ 171 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm 172 http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 113 of 150

DOE, to develop a consumer education program to improve consumer understanding of 

automobile performance with regard to fuel economy, greenhouse gas and other emissions. 

While this campaign is still in its very early stages and is not the subject of this 

rulemaking, it will be investigating modifications to existing tools, new collaborations for 

information dissemination and, potentially, new forms of media utilization in communicating the 

relationship of automobile performance to fuel economy and emissions. Particularly given the 

changes to the label that we anticipate will result from this rulemaking, introducing consumers to 

the new information available to them and how it can be used as they consider their next vehicle 

purchase will be very important. 

Since the vehicle purchase process is multifaceted, EPA and NHTSA would like to better 

understand how various information tools beyond the label can provide critical fuel economy 

information to consumers. EPA and NHTSA especially seek to understand what additional types 

of consumer information and tools are most important and what level of individualized 

information is needed by consumers in the future. 

There are a variety of existing education campaigns and resources to help enable 

consumers to make more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly transportation choices. 

These include the Federal Highway Administration’s initiative “It All Adds Up to Cleaner 

Air,”173 the “Cleaner Cars for Maine”174 program, and the “Drive Smarter Challenge” 

campaign.175 Brief descriptions of these and other education campaigns are available in the 

literature review report.176 Such campaigns may inform the agencies’ development of 

educational tools to help consumers make more informed vehicle purchasing decisions. 

The agencies request comment on ideas for the most effective means to educate 

consumers about the new elements and metrics being proposed on the label. In addition, EPA 

and NHTSA request specific comment on what additional tools we could provide to increase 

consumer comprehension about complex advanced technology vehicles and automobile 

performance related to fuel economy and emissions. We are proposing that this campaign 

potentially include both traditional marketing mechanisms, such as brochures, public service 

advertisements, media placements, and dealership-distributed checklists, along with more 

innovative approaches, which may include crowdsourcing with social media, interactive web site 

displays at dealerships that would allow consumers to “personalize” their fuel economy label, 

smart phone applications. In addition, per the recommendation of the expert panel, we are 

proposing to develop a web site that would be launched in conjunction with the new label. This 

consumer-focused, user friendly web site would provide more specific information on the label, 

along with access to the tools, applications, social media, and materials mentioned above. 

 

173 See http://www.italladdsup.gov (last accessed June 30August 13, 2010). 174 See http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/lev4me/index.html (last accessed August 13June 30, 2010). 175 See http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/ (last accessed August 13June 30, 2010). 176 Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August

2010EPA Fuel Economy Label Literature Review, Prepared by PRR, Inc, July 2010..
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 114 of 150

All messages and materials will be tailored according to the method of communication 

and the target audience. EPA is requesting comment on effective messaging, materials, and 

methods of communication. 

V. Implementation of the New Label 

A. Timing 

As previously noted, the agencies are proposing that the new label regulations initially 

take effect with the 2012 model year. Model year 2012 vehicles can be introduced as early as 

January 2011, and in fact EPA has already heard from at least one manufacturer that plans such 

an early introduction. Given that this regulatory action is not scheduled to be finalized until 

December of 2010 and that it is possible, based on when the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register for the effective date of the new regulations to be a date in March of 2011, it is clear 

that not all of the 2012 model year can be captured by the proposed regulations. There may also 

be cases where a manufacturer prints label “blanks” early in the model year, even if they plan to 

introduce vehicles in the more typical time frame of late summer and early fall. Although the 

proposed regulations do not presume anything regarding the date of finalization of the new label 

and only specify applicability to the 2012 model year, we expect that the final rule will have to 

take these issues into account. 

The final rule will likely specify a date of applicability of the new regulations that is 

some date certain after publication of the final rule that would allow manufacturers adequate 

time to plan for and implement the new designs. We believe that a date on the order of 90-120 

days after publication would be appropriate, where vehicles produced after that date would have 

to use the new label format. We would of course encourage the voluntary use of the new label to 

the greatest extent possible prior to any specified absolute effective date. The agencies request 

comments on the appropriate timeframe for implementing these new label requirements. The 

agencies recognize that some of the potential changes in label design, including color graphics 

that would be printed at production run-time and differing footprints that necessitate redesign of 

the overall Monroney label may impact the amount of lead time required by manufacturers. 

While we believe that it is extremely important for the final label changes to take effect as soon 

as possible, we seek comment on these specific potential lead time issues. 

To introduce the new label and ensure that the public understands the new information 

and format, the agencies plan to conduct extensive public outreach concurrent with the 

implementation of a final rule. We will provide information about the new label and how to use 

it via web-based information, fact sheets, and other communication methods. This information 

will be designed to explain all aspects of the new label. 

B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles 

The new fuel economy label will address advanced technology vehicles, such as EVs and 

PHEVs, which some manufacturers are planning to introduce into the U.S. market prior to the 

2012 model year. EPA issued regulations in 2009 that provided EPA discretion to authorize 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 115 of 150

appropriate changes to the current fuel economy label with individual manufacturers, 

specifically with respect to advanced technology.177 These regulations are applicable until this 

rule is finalized. 

 To address labels for advanced technology vehicles introduced before this rule is 

finalized, EPA may allow any manufacturer of such vehicles that will be introduced prior to the 

2012 model year to use one of the co-proposed labels, or an alternative label that meets EPA’s 

approval. Manufacturers intending to introduce an advanced technology vehicle as a 2011 model 

year vehicle should meet with EPA to discuss the details of actual implementation. For example, 

EPA would discuss with the manufacturer the fact that the label format and information may 

only be used for the 2011 model year and may change for 2012 depending on the outcome of the 

final label regulations. EPA would also discuss in conjunction with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) what aspects of the label information could be advertised and would also 

discuss with the manufacturer the details of specific test values used, such as mile per gallon 

equivalent, kW-hr per 100 miles, blended mode operation for a PHEV, etc. 

C. Implementation of Label Content 

Although much of the information presented on the label is determined from test data 

specific to the labeled vehicle or can be codified in the regulations, there are elements that will 

require annual (or in some cases, possibly less frequent) information provided by EPA. This is 

no different from today’s label and the annual guidance letter published by EPA that includes the 

fuel economy ranges for each class of automobile, the fuel price information to be used to 

calculate costs, and other relevant information. This information will have to continue to be 

provided by EPA on an annual basis, but the new ratings proposed for the new labels will also 

require that EPA provide annually the range of fuel economy of all vehicles as well as the range 

of CO2 emissions of all vehicles. 

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals 

A. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures 

1. Electric Vehicles

There currently is no federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy for electric 

vehicles. EPA has periodically performed fuel economy testing for electric vehicles utilizing test 

procedures and protocols developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), specifically 

J1634. Manufacturers may continue to use SAEJ1634 test protocols, as cancelled in October 

2002, with the exception of not using the C coefficient adjustment in paragraph 4.4.2. Until 

recently, there have been very few electric vehicles sold in the U.S. market. The few exceptions, 

such as the EV1 from General Motors (GM), were only made available to a select few customers 

for a limited time. As such, there was not a pressing need for an electric vehicle test procedure. 

However, with the imminent release of several new battery electric vehicles from manufacturers 

 

177 74 FR 61537, Nov 25, 2009. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 116 of 150

such as Ford and Nissan, the need for a federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy or 

fuel consumption for electric vehicles is apparent. 

Fuel economy estimates are measured for “city” and “highway” operation. Prior to the 

2008 model year, all vehicles were fuel economy tested over just two test cycles: the Federal 

Test Procedure (FTP or “city” test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or “highway” 

test). In December, 2006, EPA published revisions to improve the calculation of fuel economy 

estimates to better reflect real world fuel economy performance178. These revisions included 

three additional chassis dynamometer test cycles to the current FTP and HFET for fuel economy 

testing purposes. The three additional cycles were the US06, SC03, and the Cold Temperature 

FTP. Prior to the 2008 model year, all three test cycles were used for emissions purposes for 

either the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) emissions standards (US06 and SC03) or 

the cold temperature (20oF) emission standards. Beginning in the 2008 model year, all vehicles 

tested for fuel economy labeling purposes had to use the new “5-cycle” fuel economy 

methodology which either required testing all vehicles over the five test cycles discussed above 

or apply an equivalent 5-cycle correction referred to as the derived MPG- based approach. For 

alternative fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles, manufacturers have the option for fuel 

economy testing to test their vehicle over all five test cycles or use a derived MPG-based 

approach 

a. FTP or “City” Test 

The procedure for testing and measuring fuel economy and vehicle driving range for 

electric vehicles is similar to the process used by the average consumer to calculate the fuel 

economy of their personal vehicle. The distance the vehicle can operate until the battery is 

completely discharged and can no longer provide sufficient propulsive energy is measured and 

divided by the total amount of electrical energy necessary to fully recharge the battery, similar to 

refueling the gas tank of a gasoline powered vehicle. 

The first step of the procedure is to determine the distance the vehicle operates before the 

battery becomes fully discharged. This begins with the preconditioning of the vehicle. The 

electric vehicle is preconditioned per 40 CFR Part 86, Section 132. Following preconditioning, 

the Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) will be brought to full charge. The RESS will 

remain plugged into the electrical source for a minimum of 12 hours. For the FTP or city test 

cycles, the chassis dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 86.135 with 

the exception that the vehicle will run consecutive test cycles until the vehicle is unable to 

maintain the FTP speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78. To clarify, an FTP 

historically consisted of 2 Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules. The Ftp was later shortened 

to one full UDDS and only the first bag or phase of the second UDDS. The second phase of the 

second UDDS was considered just a repeat of the second phase of the first UDDS. In the context 

of electric vehicles, an FTP is two full consecutive UDDS’s. If an electric vehicle cannot reach 

the FTP top speed, then the vehicle will terminate once the vehicle top speed cannot be 

maintained. For low powered electric vehicles that cannot reach the FTP top speed, the vehicle 

top speed is the maximum speed the vehicle reached during the first FTP. The Administrator 

may approve alternate end of test criteria. For low powered electric vehicles that by design 

 

178 71 FR 77931, Dec. 27, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 117 of 150

cannot maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78, low powered vehicles, 

the vehicle will continue testing if the vehicle is operated at maximum power. This provision is 

intended to apply uniformly throughout all the consecutive FTP cycles. A vehicle that can 

maintain trace speed on the first FTP cannot then be declared a low powered vehicle for 

proceeding FTP cycles. Upon reaching the end of test criteria, the distance driven shall be 

recorded and the vehicle decelerated to a stop. The second UDDS of any FTP cycle will be 

started 10 minutes after the cold start as per 86.135. Subsequent FTP cycles may require up to 

30 minutes between starts due to test facility limitations. Between starts, the RESS is not to be 

charged. During the 10 minute or other longer soaks, the vehicle should have the hood closed 

and the cooling fans shut off. Measurement of DC watt-hours shall be taken for each phase of 

testing (2 bags or phases per UDDS). 

The final stage of the electric vehicle test procedure is the measurement of the electrical 

energy used to operate the vehicle. The end of test recharging procedure is intended to return the 

RESS to the full charge equivalent of the pre test conditions. Within three hours of completing 

the EV testing, the RESS should be brought to full charge. The vehicle will remain on charge for 

a minimum of 12 hours to a maximum of 36 hours. After reaching full charge and the minimum 

soak time of 12 hours has been reached, the manufacturer may physically disconnect the RESS 

from the grid. The alternating current (AC) watt-hours must be recorded throughout the charge 

time and soak time. It is important that the vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The 

measured AC watt-hours must include the efficiency of the charger system. The measured AC 

watt hours are intended to reflect all applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, 

battery and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption 

during the drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity consumption is calculated by dividing the 

recharge AC watt-hours by the distance traveled before the end of the test criteria is reached. 

b. HFET or “Highway” Test 

Similar to the FTP test procedure, the first step of the procedure is to determine the 

distance the vehicle operates before the battery becomes fully discharged. This begins with the 

preconditioning of the vehicle. Vehicle preconditioning is to be conducted as per 40 CFR Part 

86, Section 132. Following preconditioning, the RESS will be brought to full charge. The RESS 

will remain plugged into the electrical source for a minimum of 12 hours. The vehicle may 

remain plugged into the electrical source up to 36 hours. 

Dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 600.111 with the 

exceptions that electric vehicles will run consecutive cycles of the HFET until the end of test 

criteria is reached. Subsequent HFET cycle pairs may require up to 30 minutes of soak time 

between HFET cycle pairs due to facility limitations. If a pause between cycle pairs is required 

and exceeds 1 minute, the vehicle hood is to be closed and the cooling fans shut off. Between 

starts, the RESS is not to be charged. 

If an electric vehicle cannot reach the HFET top speed, then the vehicle will terminate 

once the vehicle top speed cannot be maintained. For low powered electric vehicles that cannot 

reach the HFET top speed, the vehicle top speed is the maximum speed the vehicle reached 

during the first HFET. The Administrator may approve alternate end of test criteria. For low 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 118 of 150

powered electric vehicles that by design cannot maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 

CFR 86.115-78, the vehicle will continue testing if the vehicle is operated at maximum power. 

This provision is intended to apply uniformly throughout all the consecutive HFET cycles. A 

vehicle that can maintain trace speed on the first HFET cannot then be declared a low powered 

vehicle for proceeding HFET cycles. 

Similar to the FTP test procedure, the final stage of the HFET test procedure is the 

measurement of the electrical energy used to operate the vehicle. The end of test recharging 

procedure is intended to return the RESS to the full charge equivalent of the pre test conditions. 

Within three hours of completing the EV testing, the RESS should be brought to full charge. 

The vehicle will remain on charge for a minimum of 12 hours to a maximum of 36 hours. After 

reaching full charge and the minimum soak time of 12 hours has been reached, the manufacturer 

may physically disconnect the RESS from the grid. The alternating current (AC) watt-hours 

must be recorded throughout the charge time and soak time. It is important that the vehicle soak 

conditions must not be violated. The measured AC watt-hours must include the efficiency of the 

charger system. The measured AC watt hours are intended to reflect all applicable electricity 

consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and 

soak, and the electricity consumption during the drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity 

consumption is calculated by dividing the recharge AC watt-hours by the distance traveled 

before the end of the test criteria is reached. 

c. Other EV Test Procedures 

The Administrator may approve or require equivalent or additional EV test procedures 

including incorporating via reference SAEJ1634 published after this notice. 

2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

a. PHEV Test Procedure Rationale 

Test procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) are required to quantify 

some operation unique to plug-in hybrids. The intent in developing new PHEV test procedures 

is to use existing test cycles and test procedures where applicable. PHEV operation can be 

generally classified into two modes of operation, charge depleting and charge sustaining 

operation. Charge depleting operation can be described as vehicle operation where the 

rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), commonly batteries, is being depleted of its “wall” 

charge. Charge sustaining operation is vehicle operation where the RESS in is not being 

depleted or charged more than could be expected due to regenerative braking or vehicle 

optimization beyond the limits specified by the Administrator. Charge sustaining operation can 

best be described as conventional hybrid operation. For the purposes of clarification, charge 

depleting operation would include any operation not included in charge sustaining operation. 

New procedures for charge depleting operation would consist of existing test cycles 

repeated until the PHEV RESS is depleted to charge sustaining operation. Whereas in the past a 

conventional vehicle would be expected to consume fuel and emit emissions over repetitive 

identical test cycles consistently, the same cannot be said of PHEVs. PHEV fuel consumption, 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 119 of 150

fuel mix, and emissions may change as the RESS is depleted. In order to accurately assess the 

emissions and fuel efficiency of a PHEV, the PHEV requires testing over the entire charge 

depleting range. Testing over the entire charge depleting range requires new test provisions to 

address vehicle setup and prep, measuring and charging the RESS, operation over repetitive test 

cycles, and calculating any new values that are now measured over repetitive test cycle. 

Charge sustaining operation can best be described as “conventional” hybrid operation. 

EPA would continue to use existing hybrid electric vehicle test procedures. The primary 

differences between HEV and other conventional vehicle testing are the need to monitor RESS 

state of charge and the extra drive time required to insure vehicle warm operation during the 

Federal Test Procedure. The RESS is measured and subject to the state of charge tolerances, 

below, to insure all energy is accurately accounted. The fully warm operation is satisfied by 

running a full 4 phase Ftp instead of the abbreviated 3 phase Ftp as traditionally used for 

conventional vehicle testing. 

For the purposes of fuel economy label testing, PHEVs would be subject to the same test 

cycles as other light duty vehicles with a few exceptions. While operating in charge depleting 

mode, a PHEV is using electricity originally from an off board source. This is to say that a 

PHEV is operating at least partially on an alternative fuel while operating in charge depleting 

mode. For the purposes of fuel economy, PHEVs could continue to use the derived 5-cycle 

adjustment while in charge depleting mode. The derived 5-cycle adjustment would be applied to 

the total city and total highway fuel economies separately. For the purposes of applying the 5-

cycle correction, the total fuel economies in charge depleting mode include both of the fuels 

consumed, typically gas and electricity, as expressed in a miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent 

unit. The 5-cycle correction is to be applied to the combined energy of each mode of operation 

even if the energy consumption is ultimately fuel specific. Applying a correction to the gasoline 

and electricity consumption separately could lead to a smaller adjustment than other vehicles 

since the 5-cycle correction is not linear. While in charge sustain mode, PHEVs would be 

subject to the same test procedures as conventional hybrid electric vehicles. 

 

PHEVs must meet all applicable emissions standards regardless of RESS state of charge. 

EPA will consider a RESS as an adjustable parameter for the sake of emissions testing. It is the 

manufacturer’s responsibility to insure vehicles are emissions compliant. EPA typically allows 

good engineering judgment in applying worse case emission testing criteria. For the purposes of 

certification compliance, EPA will consider charge sustain operation as worse case. EPA may 

confirmatory test or request the manufacturer to provide test data for any test cycle at any state of 

charge. Evaluation of fuel economy testing emissions may be used to change worse case 

emissions assumptions. 

b. PHEV Test Procedure and Calculations 

The EPA proposes intends to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711, in part, for PHEV test 

procedures. 

Charge Depleting Operation – FTP or “City” Test and HFET or “Highway” Test
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 120 of 150

The EPA proposes intends to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 and 4 for 

definitions and test procedures, respectively, where appropriate, with the following exceptions 

and clarifications. 

Test cycles will continue until the end of the phase in which charge sustain operation is 

confirmed. Charge sustain operation is confirmed when one or more phases or cycles satisfy the 

Net Energy Change requirements below. Optionally, a manufacturer may terminate charge 

deplete testing before charge sustain operation is confirmed provided that the RESS has a higher 

SOC at charge deplete testing termination than in charge sustain operation. In the case of Plug In 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles with an all electric range, engine start time will be recorded but the test 

does not necessarily terminate with engine start. PHEVs with all electric operation follow the 

same test termination criteria as blended mode PHEVs. Testing can only be terminated at the 

end of a test cycle. The Administrator may approve alternate end of test criteria. 

For the purposes of charge depleting CO2 and fuel economy testing, manufacturers may 

elect to report one measurement per phase (one bag per UDDS). Exhaust emissions need not be 

reported or measured in phases the engine does not operate. 

End of test recharging procedure is intended to return the RESS to a full charge 

equivalent to pre test conditions. The recharge AC watt hours must be recorded throughout the 

charge time and soak time. Vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The AC watt hours 

must include the charger efficiency. The measured AC watt hours are intended to reflect all 

applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle conditioning 

during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption during the drive cycles. 

Net Energy Change Tolerance, NEC, is to be applied to the RESS to confirm charge sustaining 

operation. The EPA is proposing intends to adopt the 1% of fuel energy NEC state of charge 

criteria as expressed in SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve alternate NEC tolerances 

and state of charge correction factors. 

Hybrid Charge Sustaining Operation – FTP or “City” Test and HFET or “Highway” Test

The EPA proposes intends to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 and 4 for 

definitions and test procedures, respectively, where appropriate, with the following exceptions 

and clarifications. 

The EPA proposes intends to adopt the 1% of fuel energy NEC state of charge criteria as 

expressed in SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve alternate NEC tolerances and state of 

charge correction factors. 

 Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional “warm” test cycles that are 

now required to test starting at full RESS charge due to charge depleting range testing. If the 

vehicle is equipped with a charge sustain switch, the preconditioning cycle may be conducted per 

600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust emissions are not taken in 

preconditioning drives. Alternate vehicle warm up strategies may be approved by the 

Administrator. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 121 of 150

Charge Depleting Range Determination 

 Actual Charge Depleting Range (RCDA) will be a calculated value that uses the charge 

sustaining state of charge of the RESS to define the RCDA endpoint. Due to the nature of PHEVs, 

RCDA will require calculation and is not necessarily when the engine first starts. Defining RCDA 

using only engine on could leave PHEVs with three modes of operation. These three modes 

would be charge depletion, charge regeneration, and charge sustaining. If the regeneration of the 

RESS from the engine is not accounted for in the charge depleting mode, the RESS could be 

deep cycled beyond the CS SOC to gain range while the increase in CO2 emissions due to the 

RESS regeneration would not be captured in the charge sustaining testing. 

 

Calculation of RCDA will require monitoring the RESS SOC throughout charge depleting 

testing. The RCDA for each cycle would be the driven cycle distance from start of CD testing until 

the charge sustaining SOC is “crossed”. The EPA is proposing to incorporate intends on 

incorporating by reference the SAEJ1711 calculation for Actual Charge Depleting Range. 

c. Other Test Cycles 

PHEV and Electric vehicle testing over the SC03, US06, or Cold CO test cycles would 

follow the same general procedure as the FTP and HFED. EPA would consider the use of 

alternate or equivalent PHEV test procedures and may incorporate by reference SAEJ1711. 

d. Test Tolerances 

State of Charge tolerance correction factors may be approved by the Administrator. RESS 

state of charge tolerances beyond the 1% of fuel energy may be approved by the Administrator. 

e. Mileage and Service Accumulation 

The EPA is seeking comment on modifying the minimum and maximum allowable test 

vehicle accumulated mileage for both EVs and PHEVs. Due to the nature of PHEV and EV 

operation, testing may require many more vehicle miles than conventional vehicles. 

Furthermore, EVs and PHEVs either do not have engines or may use the engine for only a 

fraction of the miles driven. 

f. Test Fuels 

Electric Vehicles and PHEVs are to be recharged using the supplied manufacturer 

method provided that the methods are available to consumers. This method could include the 

electricity service requirements such as service amperage, voltage, and phase. Manufacturers 

may employ the use of voltage regulators in order to reduce test to test variability with prior 

Administrator approval. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 122 of 150

B. Utility Factors 

1. Utility Factor Background

Utility Factors are a method of combining CO2 emissions, fuel consumption, or other 

metrics from multiple modes of operation into one value. The extent to which utility factors are 

used on a fuel economy label is completely dependent upon label format. That is to say, some 

PHEV label formats may not require utility factors at all or possibly only for CO2. This 

discussion on utility factor is required to understand the different PHEV label formats within this 

proposal. 

As discussed previously, PHEVs can use two types of energy sources: (1) an onboard 

battery charged by plugging the vehicle into the electrical grid possibly via a conventional wall 

outlet to power an electric motor, as well as (2) a gas or diesel-powered engine to propel the 

vehicle or power a generator used to provide electricity to the electric motor. Depending on how 

these vehicles are operated, they can use electricity exclusively, never use electricity and operate 

like a conventional hybrid, or operate in some combination of these two modes. This can make 

it difficult to estimate fuel economy, fuel consumption, annual cost, or CO2 emissions from these 

vehicles. 

The EPA has worked closely with stakeholders including vehicle manufacturers, the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the State of California, the Department of Energy 

(DOE), and others to develop an approach for estimating fuel economy, fuel consumption, cost, 

CO2 emission, or any other metric for vehicles that can operate using more than one energy 

source. EPA believes the appropriate method for combining the operation of vehicles that can 

operate with more than one fuel would be a weighted average of the appropriate metric for the 

two modes of operation. A methodology developed by SAE and DOE to predict the fractions of 

total distance driven in each mode of operation (electricity and gas) uses a term known as a 

utility factor (UF). UF’s were developed using data from the 2001 Department of Transportation 

“National Household Travel Survey”. A detailed method of UF development can be found in the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2841 “Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles Using Travel Survey Data”. At the time of this proposal, SAEJ2841 was in the 

process of balloting prior to publishing. SAE reference documents can be obtained at 

www.SAE.org. By using a utility factor, it is possible to determine a weighted average of the 

electric and gasoline modes. For example, a UF of 0.8 would indicate that a PHEV operates in 

an all electric mode 80% of the time and uses the gasoline engine the other 20% of the time. In 

this example, the weighted average fuel economy value would be influenced more by the 

electrical operation than the gasoline operation. 

For the purposes of PHEVs, UF development makes several assumptions. These 

assumptions may be changed by the Administrator with the emergence of new data. 

Assumptions include: the first mode of operation is always electric assist or all electric drive, 

vehicles will be charged once per day, and that future PHEV drivers will follow drive patterns 

exhibited by the drivers in the surveys used in SAEJ2841. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 123 of 150

2. General Application of Utility Factors

While acknowledging the assumptions above, a UF could be assigned to each successive 

test or phase of testing until the battery charge was depleted to the point where the PHEV sole 

source of power was from the gasoline or diesel engine. One minus the sum of all the utility 

factors would then represent the fraction of driving performed in this “gasoline or diesel mode.” 

Carbon dioxide emissions could then be expressed as: 

Equation VI.B.2-1 

Where: 

Ym is the Utility Factor averaged mass of carbon dioxide for a specific 

drive cycle. 

Yi are the C0CO2mass emissions or C0CO2 equivalent mass emissions 

for each phase or test cycle. For electricity, a carbon dioxide 

equivalent may be used as determined by the Administrator. 

Ycs is the charge sustain carbon dioxide mass emissions and for 

hybrids in the case of the FTP can be expressed as Ycs= 0.43* Yc + 

0.57* YH., where Yc is the charge sustain cold start test and YH is the 

charge sustain hot start mass emissions of carbon dioxide. 

UFi is the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility factor. 

Likewise, the electrical consumption would be expressed by adding the electricity 

consumption from each mode. Since there is no electrical consumption in hybrid mode, the 

equation for electricity consumption would be as follows: 

Equation VI.B.2-2 

Where Em is the utility factor averaged electricity consumption, Ei is the 

electricity consumption proportioned to each successive drive cycle, and UFi

is the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility factor. 

3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility Factors

Utility factors could be cycle specific not only due to different battery ranges on different 

test cycles but also due to the fact that “highway” type driving may imply longer trips than urban 

driving. This would lead to different utility factors for urban and highway driving. The 

∑ ×=

i

Em EUF ii 1 )(

CS

i

i

i

Ym ∑ YUF ii ∑ )1()( ×−+×= YUF

1

1
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 124 of 150

following section explains the EPA proposal of assigning a utility factor to each successive phase 

or test cycle performed in charge depleting or “PHEV” mode. 

Utility factors can be assigned to each mode of operation according to the distance driven 

in each mode. Rather than calculating a unique UF for each cycle based on measure distance 

driven, UF’s will be assigned to each successive phase of consecutive Urban Dynamometer 

Driving Schedules, and each successive Highway Fuel Economy Driving schedule of 

consecutive HFEDs. Composite Combined city and combined composite highway C0CO2

emissions will first be calculated using test results and UFs from the respective cycles. Final 

combined values will then be an averaged 55% city and 45% highway value. The proposed 

cycle specific utility factors for UDDS or “city” driving are provided in Table VI.B.2-1 and the 

proposed cycle specific utility factors for HFEDS or “highway” driving are provided in Table 

VI.B.2-2. The method used to develop cycle specific utility factors can be found in SAEJ2841. 

Finally, example CO2 calculations are provided below. 

Table VI.B.2-1 

FTP Phase Specific Utility Factors 

 Urban Driving, “City” 

Phase 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF UF 

1 3.59 0.125 0.125 

2 7.45 0.243 0.118 

3 11.04 0.340 0.096 

4 14.9 0.431 0.091

5 18.49 0.505 0.074 

6 22.35 0.575 0.070 

7 25.94 0.632 0.057 

8 29.8 0.685 0.054 

9 33.39 0.729 0.044 

10 37.25 0.770 0.041 

11 40.84 0.803 0.033

12 44.7 0.834 0.031 

13 48.29 0.859 0.025 

14 52.15 0.882 0.023 

15 55.74 0.900 0.018 

16 59.6 0.917 0.017 

Table VI.B.2-2 

HFED Cycle Specific Utility Factors 

 Highway Driving 

HFEDS 

Distance, 

mi Cumulative UF UF 

1 10.3 0.125 0.125 

2 20.6 0.252 0.127 

3 30.9 0.378 0.126 

4 41.2 0.500 0.121 

5 51.5 0.610 0.111 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 125 of 150

6 61.8 0.707 0.097 

7 72.1 0.787 0.080 

Example CO2 Calculations 

A PHEV was tested with the following results. The example PHEV operated over four 

consecutive UDDS to quantify charge depleting or “PHEV” mode and ran the required bag 

hybrid UDDS test to represent charge sustaining or “hybrid” mode. 

Table VI.B.2-3 

Charge Depleting Example CO2Emissions 

UDDS Bag 

Cycle 

Miles 

CO2

g/mi 

CO2

g 

Dc 

Integrated 

Amp Hrs 

Proportioned 

W hrs 

Measured 

Distance, mi UF Whr/mi 

1 1 3.59 50.0 180.5 4 705.88 3.61 0.125 195.5 

1 2 7.45 35.0 134.8 3.8 670.59 3.85 0.118 174.2 

2 3 11.04 30.0 107.4 3.7 652.94 3.58 0.096 182.4 

2 4 14.9 37.0 143.2 3.5 617.65 3.87 0.091 159.6 

3 5 18.49 55.7 198.3 2 352.94 3.56 0.074 99.1 

3 6 22.35 232.5 902.2 0 0 3.88 0.07 0.0 

4 7 25.94 249.2 877.3 0 0 3.52 0.057 0.0 

4 8 29.8 230.0 897.0 0 0 3.90 0.054 0.0 

Table VI.B.2-4 

Charge Sustaining Example CO2Emissions 

UDDS Bag 

Cycle 

Miles CO2 g/mi CO2 g Measured Distance, mi 

1 1 3.59 251.4 910 3.62 

1 2 7.45 233.8 900 3.85 

2 3 11.04 251.4 890 3.54 

2 4 14.9 228.1 885 3.88 

Applying the above data for the example PHEV to the General UF formula in Equation 

VI.B.2-1 using Table VI.B.2-1 will yield the City CO2 value. Ym=50 CO2 g/mi x 0.125+ 35 CO2

g/mi x 0.118 + 30g CO2 g/mi + 0.096 + 37g CO2 g/mi x 0.091+ 55.7 CO2 g/mi x 0.074 + 232.5 

CO2 g/mi + 0.070 + 249.2 CO2 g/mi x 0.057 + 230 CO2 g/mi x 0.054 + (1-

(0.125+0.118+0.096+0.091+0.074+0.070+0.057+0.054) x (Ycs). Where Ycs = 0.43 x 

(910+900)/(3.62+3.85) + 0.57 x ( 890+885)/(3.54+3.88) = 241g CO2 g/mi. The total CO2 g/mi, 

Ym, excluding any electricity CO2 equivalence would then be 139 g/mi. 

To determine electricity consumption one would apply utility factors in a similar fashion 

using equation VI.B.2-2 and Table VI.B.2-1. Em= 195.5 W hr/mi x 0.125+ 174.2 W hr/mi x 

0.118 + 182.4 W hr/mi + 0.096 + 159.6 W hr/mi x 0.091+ 99.1 W hr/mi x 0.074 = 84.4 W hr/mi 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 126 of 150

The combined CO2 from engine operation and the CO2 from the electrical consumption 

could be calculated by summing the two values, given a CO2 equivalency for electricity. For 

example, if the Watt hour CO2 equivalent was 0.26g CO2 per Watt hour, the total CO2 emissions 

could then be expressed as the sum of the if the CO2 and CO2-equivalent emissions from both 

modes of operation. From the example above, the overall CO2 emissions would be 139 gCO2 per 

mile + (84.4 Whr/mi) 22gCO2equiv per mile = 161g CO2 per mile. 

Utility factors can also be used to calculate a miles per gallon equivalent measurement 

similar to the CO2 example above. Additional assumptions are required, however, when 

applying utility factors to a Corporate Average Fuel Economy and possibly a fuel economy 

labeling miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent measure. 

Previously, when calculating PHEV CO2 emissions, the CO2 emissions where part of a 

manufacturer fleet average. The same is true of Corporate Average Fuel Economy. CAFE is a 

fleet average. Except where explicitly noted for dual fueled vehicles, both CAFÉ and CO2 fleet 

calculations would use the cycle specific fleet utility factors. For the purposes of a possible label 

fuel economy, a fleet average is not the aim, but rather what the average driver would likely 

experience or expect. For this reason, the EPA is proposing the use of the cycle specific 

Multiday Individual Utility Factors. The individual utility factors do not weight vehicle miles 

traveled towards the longer trips like fleet utility factors. For a detailed explanation on utility 

factor development see SAEJ2841. 

Similar to determining a total CO2 emissions value for PHEVs, calculating a miles per 

gallon total for PHEVs will require an electricity to gasoline conversion. This miles per gallon 

equivalent of gasoline would be calculated differently for CAFÉ and label. For a FE label 

number, EPA would use a miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent energy factor for electricity of 

33,705 watt hours per gallon.179 This same gasoline equivalency would be used for CAFÉ 

calculation, if the PHEV did not meet the minimum distance requirements of a dual fueled 

vehicle.180 In the case of PHEVs with diesel engines, EPA proposes to similarly require 

calculation of a miles per gallon equivalent for battery operation, but specifying instead to rely 

on a conversion using the energy content of diesel fuel. We propose to specify an energy content 

of 36,700 Watt hours per gallon of diesel fuel. This is based on the approximately 9 percent 

higher energy density for diesel fuel relative to gasoline. We request comment on this approach 

to calculating fuel economy values for diesel-fueled hybrid electric vehicles.

If the PHEV met the dual fuel range minimums for electricity a Petroleum Equivalency 

Factor would be used instead of the gasoline equivalent energy factor. For a PHEV without fuel 

fired accessories, the PEF would be 82,049 watt hours per gallon of gasoline. For details on PEF 

and gasoline equivalent energy content see FR Vol.65 No113. Using the procedure for 

calculating a dual fueled vehicle FE for CAFÉ the fuel economy of both modes of operation 

would be harmonically averaged 50/50 and a utility factor would not be necessary.181

 

179 65 FR 36990, June 12, 2000. 180 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) and 49 CFR 538.5 Minimum Driving Range. 181 49 U.S.C. 32905(b). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 127 of 150

4. Low Powered Vehicles. 

Vehicles using the low powered vehicle provision in 40 CFR 86.115-78(b)(4) shall use 

the actual distance driven in calculating cycle specific utility factors. The coefficients used in 

determining UF shall be as follows in table VI.B.2-5 

Table VI.B.2-5 

City/Highway Specific Utility Factor Coefficients 

 City Hwy 

norm_dist 399 399 

C1 14.86 4.80 

C2 2.97 13.00

C3 -84.05 -65.00 

C4 153.70 120.00 

C5 -43.59 -100.00 

C6 -96.94 31.00 

C7 14.47 

C8 91.70 

C9 -46.36 

Equation VI.B.2-5 

∑ ∑

−

= =

−

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ × ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ −=

1

1 0

1

i

i

i

k

j

j

j

i

i c UF

ND

d eUF

Where ND is the normalized distance, j is the coefficient index, k is the number of coefficients 

for city (9) and for highway (6), c are the coefficients listed in table VI.B.2-5, d is distance 

driven in each cycle or phase, and i is each cycle or phase. 

The calculated cycle specific utility factors for low powered vehicles would be applied in 

the same manner as paragraph B.3, except that the utility factors would be calculated based on 

measured distance and not assigned based on phase or cycle distance. 

C. Comparable Class Categories 

EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles of 

all manufacturers.182 EPA’s comparable class structure provides a basis for comparing a 

vehicle’s fuel economy to that of other vehicles in its class.183 The definitions of vehicle classes 

were last revised by EPA’s 2006 labeling final rule. That action finalized two specific changes 

to the vehicle class structure. Separate new classes were added for sport utility vehicles (SUVs) 

and minivans (these were previously included in the Special Purpose Vehicle category), and the 

weight limit for Small Pickup Trucks was increased from 4,500 pounds gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) to 6,000 pounds GVWR. These were non-controversial changes that were 

generally seen as a move to keep the class structure as current as possible given the changing 

 

182 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). 183 40 CFR 600.315-08. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 128 of 150

vehicle market. The resulting structure is one that contains nine car categories, five truck 

categories, and a “special purpose vehicle” category. It should also be noted that the EPAdefined vehicle classes are used only to provide consumer information about fuel economy and 

serve no other regulatory purpose. 

EPA is proposing one modification to the class categories. Consistent with the 

distinction currently made between small and large pickup trucks, EPA is proposing to divide the 

SUV class into small and large SUVs. We do not believe that it is appropriate, for example, to 

include a Toyota RAV4 in the same class as a Toyota Sequoia, or a Ford Escape in the same 

class as a Ford Expedition. The single SUV category currently described in the regulations 

would be replaced by the two following proposed categories: 

• Small sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating less than 6,000 pounds. 

• Standard sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 6,000 pounds up to 10,000 pounds. 

Although the standard pickup truck class only goes up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, SUVs between 

8,500 and 10,000 pounds GVWR are defined as medium-duty passenger vehicles, and they will 

be subject to fuel economy labeling starting with the 2011 model year. EPA requests comment 

on whether this is an appropriate way to distinguish the SUV classes. 

Although EPA received many comments on the 2006 rule regarding the class structure, 

some of its inherent problems, and how people may or may not shop within classes, there were 

no specific suggestions on how to revise the structure to resolve the issues that were raised. We 

believe that with the refinement to the SUV category we are proposing, the comparable class 

structure would generally represent the physical distinctions between vehicle types offered in the 

fleet today. However, there may be other distinctions between vehicles not captured in these 

categories, such as the luxury vehicle segment. The DOE/EPA web site 

(www.fueleconomy.gov) incorporates vehicle cost into the sedan category, for example, dividing 

sedans into “family,” “upscale,” and “luxury.” EPA requests comment on incorporating such an 

approach into the comparable class categories, and specifically, how it might be done given the 

changing nature of vehicles and vehicle prices. 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 structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking. EPA requests general 

comments on the proposed modifications to comparable classes, and also welcomes comments 

on other possible ways to classify vehicles for comparison purposes. Comments should address 

how the classifications will be useful for the consumer who is comparison shopping. 

D. Using Smart Phone QR Codes to Link to Fuel Economy Information 

For all the label designs being considered, EPA is proposing that manufacturers place a 

QR CodeTM on the label that will link the web browser of a properly configured smart phone to 

the mobile version of the EPA/DOE fuel economy information web site, or alternatively, to the 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 129 of 150

vehicle-specific information located on the EPA/DOE website.184 (Note that although the 

proposed Label 1 design incorporates a different website URL, the intent would remain the 

same: to use the QR Code to directly link the users smart phone to vehicle-specific information 

while providing additional tools for making vehicle comparisons, learning more about the 

vehicle, etc.) Many focus group participants expressed excitement and interest in the prospects 

of being able to access information in this way using their mobile devices, and EPA believes it is 

a potentially useful and valuable tool for consumers. 

QR Codes, like other two-dimensional bar codes, are simply used to store information. 

QR Codes were originally developed for use in tracking parts in vehicle manufacturing, and are 

now being used for other purposes, such as storing a web site URL into an encoded graphic that 

can be scanned. These codes – the use of which is growing in popularity in the U.S. – are twodimensional black and white codes (like a bar code) that eliminate the need to type a web link 

into a mobile phone (an action that can be cumbersome and that many mobile users might prefer 

avoiding). Reading a QR Code requires that scanning software be installed on the mobile phone. 

Many smart phone manufacturers have begun to pre-install QR Code readers, but for those that 

do not, the readers are very easy to download, and many are available for free for nearly every 

type of mobile device. Once equipped with the correct scanning application, consumers can point 

and scan to instantly connect to information they actually want, versus information pushed to 

them. 

For example, scanning the proposed code would link the phone’s web browser to the 

mobile version of the DOE/EPA website. At that point the user could view additional 

information about the efficiency and environmental impacts of the vehicle, with available 

options such as creating customized estimates based on the user’s personal driving habits and 

distances. The user could also look up other vehicles and compare those to the vehicle they are 

viewing. 

EPA is proposing that the manufacturer place one of two QR Codes on the fuel economy 

label. These QR Codes would be determined based on an international standard that would be 

incorporated by reference in the regulations.185 The default option would be to insert the QR 

Code that would take the user’s web browser to the mobile version of the DOE/EPA fuel 

economy information web site. The QR Code for this site, including the text that EPA proposes 

accompanies it, would look like this: 

Smartphone Interactive 

Scan QR Code for more information about 

this vehicle, to get customized estimates, or 

to compare it with other vehicles. 

 

184 The term QR Code is a registered trademark of Denso Wave Incorporated, which owns the patent rights to the 

QR Code. However, the patent right is not exercised, allowing the specification of the QR Code to be disclosed and 

open for widespread use. For more information, see http://www.denso-wave.com/en/adcd/index.html. 185 International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 18004:2006, Information technology – automatic 

identification and data capture techniques – QR Code 2005 bar code symbology specification, August 31, 2006. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 130 of 150

Alternatively and preferably, the manufacturer would use the QR Code that represents the URL 

where information for the specific labeled vehicle is available. However, this would depend 

upon resolving some specific data issues. For example, the manufacturer would have to know 

the vehicle-specific URL at the time the label is printed. This could require that EPA issue more 

frequent updates to the web site throughout the year, or that EPA assign a vehicle identification 

early in the process. It may be the case that even if the vehicle is not yet included on the 

DOE/EPA web site that a URL, and thus a QR Code, could be easily assigned or determined. 

EPA is confident that we can work with DOE to resolve any potential implementation issues 

prior to the 2012 model year. 

 E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the “Monroney” Sticker 

As noted in Section VIII, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) requires 

the affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of new automobiles 

indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of the vehicle and other required vehicle 

information. AIDA is more commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike Monroney 

was the chief sponsor of AIDA) or Price Sticker Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. This sticker is 

commonly called the “Monroney” label. EPCA states that EPA “may allow” a manufacturer to 

comply with the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel economy information on the 

label required by AIDA, a practice that has been used by most manufacturers. See 49 U.S.C. 

32908(b)(2). In fact, EPA regulations express a specific preference that manufacturers do this, 

“provided that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label is maintained.” See 40 

CFR 600.306-08(c). 

In the third phase of focus groups we had participants consider the placement of the fuel 

economy on the Monroney label, and whether participants had a specific preference for where to 

locate the fuel economy information. Although participants expressed a variety of opinions, a 

slight preference emerged for displaying the fuel economy information in the upper right portion 

of the Monroney label. 

The agencies recognize that EPCA does not require that the fuel economy information be 

on the Monroney label, and that there are instances when auto manufacturers may want to 

display the fuel economy information separately (e.g., if window space is limited on a small 

vehicle and the Monroney label size needs to be reduced). EPA does not intend to preclude the 

option of placing the new label in any appropriate and prominent location on the vehicle. 

However, the agencies request comment on whether we should require that the fuel economy 

information be placed in a specific location on the Monroney label (such as the upper right 

corner, or on the right side) as a condition of allowing the information to be included on that 

label.186 Although consumer preference for a specific location on the Monroney was vague, the 

agencies believe that consumers would be able to locate the new label information on the vehicle 

more easily if it appeared in a consistent location within the Monroney sticker. 

 

186 Based on 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2), EPA currently conditions placement of the fuel economy label in the 

Monroney label on a general requirement that the prominence and legibility of the label be maintained. EPA is 

inviting comment on expanding the conditions for placement in the Monroney label through addition of more 

specific requirements related to the location of the fuel economy label in the Monroney label. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 131 of 150

 The agencies also seek comment concerning the potential for the new label information 

to create confusion about other information found on the Monroney Label, in particular, the star 

safety ratings. Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether consumers might interpret 

the large letter grade on Label 1 as applying to other aspects of the vehicle’s performance (such 

as safety) besides fuel economy and environmental impacts. To mitigate this concern, the 

agencies have created a prominent black border and title indicating the purpose of the 

information. Nevertheless the agencies seek comment on whether additional measures should be 

required under 32908(b) and (g) to address this potential confusion. 

The agencies also seek comment on whether the co-proposed labels, in particular Label 1 

with its use of color and large font for the overall letter grade, might inadvertently distract 

consumers from the black-and-white star safety ratings. As one way of addressing this potential 

issue, NHTSA proposes to require under 49 CFR 575.301 that the star safety ratings be located 

as close as physically possible to the new fuel economy and environmental label to help ensure 

that the star safety ratings do not get “lost” on the Monroney Label. Similarly, the agencies seek 

comment on whether their regulations for the new fuel economy and environmental label should 

require that it be located as close as physically possible to the star safety ratings. 

Another way of addressing this potential issue is by re-visiting the minimum size 

requirements for the safety rating label and the font of information on it. In a final rule187

implementing the requirement in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for placing safety rating information on the 

Monroney vehicle price label, the agency interpreted that Act’s specification of a minimum size 

for the label as indicating the agency did not have any discretion regarding minimum size, 

instead of interpreting the specification as merely establishing a floor on the discretion of the 

agency to specify a minimum size. In comments made in response to a subsequent proposal188 to 

place an overall safety rating on the safety rating label, the Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety questioned that interpretation. In a recent meeting with Bosch, representatives of that 

company also questioned that interpretation. In light of the issues in this rulemaking and those 

questions, the agency is re-examining that interpretation. 

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections 

EPA is also proposing a number of non-controversial amendments and corrections to the 

existing regulations. 

First, we are making a number of corrections to the recently finalized regulations for 

controlling automobile greenhouse gas emissions.189 These changes include correcting 

typographical errors, correcting some incorrect regulatory references, and some simple 

clarifications. 

 

187 71 FR 53572, 53576, September 12, 2006. 188 75 FR 10740, March 9, 2010. 189 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 132 of 150

Second, we are correcting an oversight from the 2006 labeling rule regarding the 

applicability of testing requirements to independent commercial importers (ICIs). Currently 

several vehicle categories (dedicated alternative fuel, dual fuel while operating on alternative 

fuel, and MDPVs) are exempted from having to perform full 5-cycle fuel economy testing. 

These categories are allowed to use the “derived 5-cycle” method, whereas other vehicles must 

use data from all five test cycles at certification to perform an evaluation that determines whether 

the test group can use the derived 5-cycle method or whether they must complete full 5-cycle 

testing. The reason for exempting these vehicles is that the evaluation required at certification 

requires the use of all 5 cycles as run for emissions certification, but these categories are not 

subject to the SFTP requirements, and thus such vehicles do not perform two of the five test 

procedures (the US06 high speed/acceleration test and the SC03 air conditioning test). Thus 

when EPA finalized the 2006 label rule we recognized that these categories would not have the 

data required to perform the certification evaluation, and we decided to exempt them from five 

cycle testing. However, this same exemption should have been applied to ICIs. Like the vehicle 

categories noted above, vehicles imported by ICIs are not required to perform the SFTP emission 

tests, and thus also won’t have the necessary data to perform the 5-cycle certification evaluation. 

Therefore, we are proposing to extend the allowance to use the derived 5-cycle method to ICIs. 

VII. Projected Impacts Of The Proposed Requirements 

Vehicle manufacturers have been required to provide fuel economy labels on vehicles 

since 1977. The costs and benefits of label revisions would be those associated with changes to 

the current label, not the costs and benefits associated with production of the label itself. The 

change in cost from this proposed rule comes in the physical revisions to the label itself and the 

possible efficiencies achieved by meeting EPCA and EISA labeling requirements in one label, as 

well as proposed modified vehicle testing procedures. The benefits of the rule come from 

providing labels for mass-market advanced technology vehicles for the first time, and from any 

improvements in the effectiveness of labels for conventional vehicles in providing accurate and 

useful consumer information on fuel consumption and environmental performance. 

A. Costs Associated with this Rule 

Testing requirements for vehicles are not new. Advanced technology and alternative fuel 

vehicles have been required to undergo testing requirements in the past. For advanced 

technology vehicles, though, the test procedures have not previously been standardized; they 

have been handled on a case-by-case basis. Because EPA expects more advanced technology 

vehicles to come to market, we propose to codify testing procedures in a public process and are 

requesting comment on them. See section VI of this preamble. The testing costs described here 

therefore are not really new costs for manufacturers, since they would have to test the vehicles 

even in the absence of this rule. The cost estimates are provided here because they have 

previously not been presented, and EPA seeks comment on the analysis of costs presented here. 

 The analysis of the projected costs of this rule follows conceptually the approach in the 

2006 (“five-cycle”) fuel economy labeling rule. Increased on-going operations and maintenance 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 133 of 150

(O&M) costs and labor hours result from the costs of printing the labels and increases in testing 

costs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). We also allow for the costs of 

increased facility capacity to accommodate the increased testing time involved for these two 

categories of vehicles. Startup costs are treated as capital costs, and are amortized over ten years 

at 7% interest. Startup costs for this rule include some one-time graphic design work for each 

manufacturer subject to the rule and updating information systems and testing equipment for 

those manufacturers subject to new testing. As an aid to the analysis and to help articulate the 

range of uncertainty, we include both low and high cost estimates for each of these cost and labor 

hour elements. The cost estimates are $649,000 per year for the low estimate, and $2.8 million 

per year for the high estimate. For details of this analysis, see the “Draft Supporting Statement 

for Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed 

Rule)”, in the docket.190 

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours

 a. New Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles 

i. Testing requirements for Electric Vehicles 

 As explained in Section VI of this Preamble, EPA currently has no federal test procedure 

for measuring fuel economy for electric vehicles (EVs). 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, 

as cancelled in October 2002. This proposal spells out EV testing requirements that are similar to 

SAE J1634, as cancelled in October 2002, and allows continued use of that procedure. 

 In estimating the costs of this action, there is no clear baseline 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 gas emissions. For 

purposes of the analysis, we 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 assume no carryover applications for EVs. Both these assumptions are more likely to lead to an overstatement of 

costs than an understatement. 

 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 EVs but not plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). 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 to the same SAE J1634 testing 

requirements allowed in this rulemaking for several years. However, for purposes of the analysis 

 

190 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “Draft Supporting Statement 

for Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Proposed Rule), EPA ICR 

2392.01.” Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division and Assessment and Standards Division, July, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 134 of 150

below 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, 

 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. 

Preparation costs are estimated to be $3,163 and 30 hours per vehicle, per Information 

Collection Request (ICR) 0783.54 (OMB 2060-0104), the certification ICR for conventional 

vehicles. Preparation includes several coast downs, a UDDS, and a soak period. The low and 

high EV test distances for FTP and HFET tests are estimated as 50 to 250 miles. For purposes of 

this estimate, the cost of an FTP/HFET pair is $1,860, allocated 70% to the FTP and 30% to the 

HFET and incremented either by 50 or 250 divided by 7.45 (the distance of a normal FTP), or by 

50 or 250 divided by 10.3 (the distance of the normal HFET). These increases are applied to an 

estimated five to eight EV families in the years through MY2013. Labor hours, estimated at 30 

hours per FTP/HFET pair, are allocated and incremented in a similar manner. The bottom line is 

a cost between $75,300 and $486,784, and 1,073 to 7,625 hours, per year for the EV industry. 

ii. Testing Requirements for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles 

 As explained in Part VI, the proposed EPA test procedure for PHEVs 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 five-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 “chargedepleting” 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 is estimated as 7.45 to 50 miles over the repeated 7.45 mile FTP or 10.3 

mile HFET test cycles. These together, applied to 5 to 8 families with no carryovers, add an 

estimated $8,528 to $80,564 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and 138 to 923 labor 

hours to existing hybrid testing costs. 

 b. Printing Costs for New Labels 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 135 of 150

The primary variable cost for the new label design is the difference in cost between 

black-and-white and color printing. To estimate this cost difference, the agencies note two 

sources. First, in 2007 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) examined the effects of 

requiring an 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;191

CARB expected small-scale manufacturers to switch to pre-printed color labels at an incremental 

cost of $0.05 per label, for a 4-by-6-inch label. Secondly, in 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated the 

per-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.192 

The existing fuel economy label measures 4.5 by 7 inches, slightly larger than the CARB 

label but about 1/3 the size of a standard page. For the cost estimates developed here, the 

agencies consider a low estimate of $0.03 per label in additional printing costs (based on the 

CARB label, adjusted for size), and a high estimate of $0.08 per label (based on the HP estimate, 

which may overestimate the cost based on page size). 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,193 taking MY2009’s 9.83 million as the low and MY2005’s 15.9 million 

as the high estimate. This yields a new printing cost of $294,690 to $1,274,634 per year. 

The O&M costs and labor hours discussed above can be summarized as follows: 

Table VII.A.1-1 

Testing Costs (Labor And O&M Costs For Running The Tests) 

 

191 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 , (last accessed May 3, 2010). 192 Hewlett-Packard, “Head to head comparison: color versus black-and-white printing,” 

http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/hpc2447wpcolorvsbwgov.pdf, (last accessed May 4, 2010). 193 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Summary of Fuel 

Economy Performance,” 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_Performance_Report_April_2010.pdf , accessed June 

17, 2010. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 136 of 150

2. Facility 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, 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 assumption is more likely to 

produce an overestimate of costs rather than an underestimate, since it does not attempt to 

account for the current 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. Applying 

these costs to a low and high estimate of 5 to 8 EV families and 5 to 8 PHEV families per year 

yields an annualized facilities cost between $25,278 and $210,779 per year. 

Facility costs can be summarized as in Table VII.A.2-1: 

Vehicle 

Type/Test Cycle 

Increase In Number of Tests Increase in Hours 

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 

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

EV Total $75,300 $486,784 1,073 7,625 

PHEV 

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

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

PHEV Total $8,528 $80,564 138 923 

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

PRINTING COSTS 

 Number Vehicles Min@$0.03 Number Vehicles Max@$0.08 

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

 

TOTAL O&M $378,518 $1,841,981 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 137 of 150

Table VII.A.2-1 

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 

3. Startup Costs

 Startup costs are counted as one-time costs that are amortized or discounted at an interest 

rate of 7% over ten years. 

 a. Updating Information Systems and Testing Equipment 

 The estimate includes the cost of upgrading information systems for the estimated 8 to 10 

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, resulting in an industry cost of $768,000 to $960,000. In addition, 

each manufacturer who has not previously produced hybrid-electric vehicles is assumed to need 

new testing equipment costing $25,000 for an ammeter and $50,000 for voltage stabilizers; we 

estimate that 5-8 manufacturers will fall in this category. 

 b. Label Redesign 

 The proposed label designs are presented in Section III. The changes being proposed in 

this rule 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. 

Many specific automotive brands are parts of marketing groups or are owned and managed by 

other, parent companies. 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. Applied to 35 companies, then, the label redesign 

cost is estimated to be $56,000 to $84,000. 

 

c. Annualized Startup Costs 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 138 of 150

Total startup costs are between $1.2 and 1.6 million. When annualized and subjected to 

7% loan repayment/discounting, the startup costs total $170,711 to $234,069 per year. These are 

summarized in Table VII.A.3-1: 

Table VII.A.3-1 

Startup Costs 

 Item 

Cost 

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 

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

4. Cost Summary

Table VII.A.4-1 summarizes the costs presented here. The total costs of this rule, excluding 

labor, are estimated to be about $575,000 to $2,287,000 per year. Adding the cost of labor 

(estimated to be $61.49 per hour overall) to the above estimates brings the total cost to $648,952 

to $2,812,465. Note that startup capital is not budgeted as labor. EPA and NHTSA request 

comment on the costs estimates, including any omitted costs and any other information regarding 

the costs of these requirements. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 139 of 150

Table VII.A.4-1 

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 

Total 1,211 8,548 

Labor Cost $74,446 $525,635 

Total Costs, Including Labor $648,952 $2,812,465 

B. Impact of Proposing One Label to Meet EPCA/EISA 

As discussed in Section I.C., EPCA and EISA create similar but not identical 

requirements for labeling vehicles. EPA conducts a labeling program under EPCA, and NHTSA 

is required to conduct a labeling program under EISA, in consultation with EPA. While the 

agencies could require that manufacturers produce two separate labels to meet the requirements 

of the statutes, much of the information on the two labels would be duplicative. In addition, two 

different fuel economy labels might confuse vehicle purchasers, frustrating the purpose of 

providing fuel economy information to purchasers. Requiring that auto makers put two fuel 

economy labels on vehicles would also crowd the limited labeling space on vehicles. For these 

reasons, EPA and NHTSA are proposing to combine both the EPCA and the EISA requirements 

into one label. 

Because NHTSA’s labeling under EISA is a new requirement that has not previously 

been implemented, there is no cost reduction associated with the proposal to use a joint label. 

The use of the joint label avoids a cost increase that would result from two separate labels. EPA 

and NHTSA are not including this cost saving in the cost analysis because we believe that the 

benefits of coordinating labeling requirements outweigh any possible disadvantages. 

C. Benefits of Label Changes 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 140 of 150

 The benefits of this rule would come from improved provision of information to vehicle 

buyers, and more informed consumer decisions resulting from the changes. These benefits are 

difficult to estimate. Doing so would require predictions of changes in consumer behavior as a 

result of the label modifications. The internet survey discussed in Section IV.A.2 is intended to 

provide some insights into the comprehensibility and usefulness of the labels, but the results are 

not available at this time. 

 Improved fuel economy reduces costs of driving a mile, but the technology to improve 

fuel economy may increase the cost of a vehicle. Evaluating this tradeoff requires comparing 

future fuel savings based on expectations of future fuel prices and driving patterns with known 

and immediate increases in vehicle purchase price. Some evidence suggests that consumers may 

not accurately compare future fuel savings with the up-front costs of fuel-saving technology 

when buying vehicles.194 As a result, consumers may buy less or more fuel-saving technology 

than is financially sensible for them to buy. This problem may be compounded by the presence 

of miles per gallon (mpg) as a primary metric for fuel economy comparison.195 As discussed in 

Section II.A.2, consumers can save much more fuel by choosing a 1-mpg improvement in fuel 

economy for a low-mpg vehicle than by choosing a 1-mpg improvement for a high-mpg vehicle. 

However, research on the “mpg illusion” finds that consumers expect a 1-mpg improvement to 

produce the same fuel savings regardless of the efficiency of a vehicle.196 Thus, the tendency of 

consumers to use mpg as a primary metric for fuel economy increases the difficulty of estimating 

the fuel savings resulting from increased fuel economy. As a result, consumers may not be able 

to find the most cost-effective amount of fuel economy for their driving habits. For gasoline 

vehicles, new metrics on the label, such as gallons per hundred miles, fuel savings over 5 years, 

or environmental metrics, may make it easier for consumers to identify the fuel savings they are 

likely to receive from a vehicle, and therefore to judge better between vehicles with different fuel 

savings, costs, and environmental impacts. 

Finding the most cost-effective vehicle may be even more confusing with the advent of 

advanced technology vehicles such as EVs or PHEVs. Most consumers are not accustomed to 

shopping for vehicles that use energy sources other than gasoline. In addition, the cost 

effectiveness of different technologies depends on a person’s driving patterns. A person with a 

short commute may have lower per-mile costs with a vehicle with some all-electric range, but 

someone with a long commute may have higher per-mile costs or insufficient range with such a 

vehicle and may want to consider different technologies. For advanced technology vehicles, the 

label can help vehicle shoppers to understand the new technologies, and it can present metrics 

that allow consumers to make useful comparisons across different vehicle technologies. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the benefits described here, and on any additional 

benefits. 

D. Summary 

 

194 Turrentine, Thomas S., and Kenneth S. Kurani, “Car buyers and fuel economy?” Energy Policy 35 (2007): 1213- 1223.

195 Larrick, Richard P., and Jack B. Soll, “The MPG Illusion.” Science 320 (5883) (June 20, 2008): 1593-94. 196 Ibid. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 141 of 150

The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule are associated with improved 

consumer decision-making resulting from improved presentation of information. At this time, 

EPA and NHTSA do not have data to quantify these impacts. 

The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from revisions to the fuel 

economy label and additional testing procedures. These costs are estimated to be $649,000 – 

$2.8 million per year. 

EPA and NHTSA request comment on this assessment of the benefits and costs. 

VIII. Agencies’ Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Relationship of EPA’s Proposed Requirements With Other Statutes and 

Regulations 

1. Automobile Disclosure Act

 The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) requires the affixing of a retail price 

sticker to the windshield or side window of new automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's 

Suggested Retail Price, the “sticker price.”197 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, EPA may allow manufacturers of new automobiles to comply with the 

EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel economy information on the label required by 

AIDA .198 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). The Internal Revenue 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 proposal would 

not impact these provisions. 

3. Clean Air Act

 

197 More commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of the Act) or 

Price Sticker Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. 

198 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 142 of 150

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.199 EPA is not proposing 

additional emissions tests. 

4. 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.”200 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, 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.201 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.” 

5. California Environmental Performance Label

 California requires each new and used vehicle offered for sale in the state to affix a 

“Smog Index Number” and “Global Warming Index” decal to the car window which indicates 

the pollution standard that applies to that particular car, and its exhaust emissions.202 This 

proposal would not impact California’s regulations. 

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)

 Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

"significant regulatory action” because the action raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget 

 

199 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). 200 40 FR 42003, Sept. 10, 1975. 201 43 FR 55747, Nov. 29, 1978; and 60 FR 56230, Nov. 8, 1995. 202 SB 2050 (Presley), Chapter 1192, Statutes of 1994, and AB 1229 (2005). 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 143 of 150

(OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented as OMB requests in the docket for this action. 

 NHTSA is also subject to the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. This proposed rule is also significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures. E.O. 12866 also requires NHTSA to submit this action to OMB for 

review and document any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

 In addition, EPA and NHTSA both prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. This analysis is available in Section VII of this document. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 2239.01. Since this is a joint proposal, the burden 

associated with these information collection requirements could be attributed to either agency. 

However, since a significant portion of the burden result from new EPA testing requirements, 

EPA has agreed to assume responsibility for the complete paperwork burden. Both agencies will 

consider the comments submitted regarding these potential costs as part of their decision in the 

final rule.

The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the fuel economy estimates 

that appear on new automobile, light truck and 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 proposed 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 yearly increased cost within the three-year horizon of the pending 

information collection request is $2,812,000 including $2,286,000 in operations and maintenance 

costs and $526,000 in labor costs. 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 fuel economy information authorization, an average of 12.2 responses a year are 

approved for each of 33 respondents requiring 451.2 hours per response and 80 hours of 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 144 of 150

recordkeeping at a total cost of $10,012 per response for an industry total of 184,127 hours and 

$4,274,932 million annually, including capital and operations and maintenance costs. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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. 

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

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a 

public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0865. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of 

publication in the Federal Register.], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.]. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires agencies 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 agencies certify 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 proposed 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. 

Table VIII.B.3-1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories 

included in the light-duty vehicle sector that are subject to the proposed rule: 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 145 of 150

Table VIII.B.3-1 Primary SBA Small Business Categories in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector 

Industry 

Defined as small 

entity by SBA if less 

than or equal to: 

NAICS Codesa

 

Light-duty vehicles:

- vehicle manufacturers

- independent commercial importers

- automobile dealers

- stretch limousine manufacturers and 

hearse manufacturers

1,000 employees

$7 million annual sales

$23 million annual sales

100 employees

$29 million annual sales

1,000 employees

336111

811111, 811112, 811198

441120

423110

441110

336211

Notes: 

a North American Industrial Classification System

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, we 

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule cover severaltwo main

types of small businesses including vehicle manufacturers, automobile dealers, limousine and 

hearse manufacturers, and independent commercial importers (ICIs). ICIs are companies that 

import used vehicles into the U.S. that must be certified for emissions compliance and labeled 

for fuel economy purposes. Small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations as 

described above will not be impacted. We have determined that the estimated effect of the 

proposed rule is to impact 1 small business vehicle manufacturer and 11 ICIs who currently 

certify vehicles with costs less than one percent of revenues. These 12 companies represent all 

of the small businesses impacted by the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations will 

have no new impacts on small business automobile dealers or small business limousine and 

hearse manufacturers. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses has 

been prepared and placed in the docket for this rulemaking.203

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities, we nonetheless have tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA 

is proposing to reduce the testing burden on ICIs that would be needed for the fuel economy 

label. Under the proposal, ICIs would be allowed to test over two driving cycles when 

determining the fuel economy estimate for the fuel economy label instead of testing over five 

driving cycles as required for vehicle manufacturers. 

 

203 “Screening Analysis: Small Business Impacts from Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,” EPA 

report, August 12June 30, 2010. 

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 146 of 150

Both agencies continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities and welcome comments on the small business analysis and other issues related to 

impacts on small businesses. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 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. The proposed rule only affects vehicle 

manufacturers and the agencies estimate annual costs of less than $100 million (adjusted for 

inflation). EPA and NHTSA believe that the proposal represents the least costly, most costeffective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule. The agencies’ estimated costs 

are provided in section VI. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of UMRA. 

 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

As noted above, the proposed rule only affects vehicle manufacturers.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action 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. This rulemaking would apply to manufacturers of motor 

vehicles and not to state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA and 

NHTSA did consult with representatives of state governments in developing this action. 

 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the agencies’ policy to 

promote communications between Federal, State and local governments, the agencies 

specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would be implemented at the Federal level 

and imposes compliance costs only on vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be 

affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. The agencies specifically solicit additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 147 of 150

7. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks

 EPA and NHTSA interpret E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (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 proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to 

improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their vehicles. The purpose of this proposed 

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.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do 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 the agencies to 

provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

 EPA’s portion of this proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 

to use elements of testing standards developed with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 

Where possible, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference portions of SAEJ1711, SAE J2841, 

and SAE J1634. At the time of this proposal, all the above SAE documents are either open for 

update or in the process of balloting prior to publishing. SAE reference documents can be 

obtained at www.SAE.org. In the absence of final published reference documents, EPA is 

proposing procedures that may differ from final SAE procedures. Also, differences between EPA 

proposed procedures and final SAE procedures may be due to statutory or existing regulatory 

EPA requirements, worst case emissions testing requirements by EPA, and the need for EPA to 

address policy concerns and concerns of manufacturers not involved in developing SAE 

procedures. 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 148 of 150

 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain 

why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

 Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

 The agencies have determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. 

The proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the 

emissions control or fuel economy of their vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is 

to provide consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle purchasing 

decisions. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 86 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy, Labeling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Add NHTSA Subjects 
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 149 of 150

[Insert regs]
Fuel Economy Labeling NPRM for OMB Review 8-14-10 

Page 150 of 150

Dated: 

____________________ 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, Department of Transportation 

Dated: 

____________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency