Final

Supporting Statement

for

Information Collection Request

Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Final Rule)

EPA ICR 2392.02

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Transportation and Climate Division

and

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2

Part A SUBMISSION 

Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles (Final Rule), EPA ICR number 2392.02, 

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

0783 series (OMB 2060-0104) after other pending adjustments have received clearance.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

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

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

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

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

and environmental impacts associated with purchasing new vehicles beginning with model 

year 2013 cars and trucks. This action will also develop new labels for advanced 

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

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

These new requirements will apply to model year 2013 and later vehicles. The 

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

ICR should cover the startup period and approximately the first year of operation of the 

new requirements.

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

testing requirements that generate the data on fuel economy that manufacturers of EVs and 

PHEVs must submit to EPA in applications for certification of conformity with the Clean 

Air Act. These costs in turn are broken down into startup costs for information technology

and testing-related equipment, testing operations costs, and a component to reflect 

increased capital facility costs. The rulemaking also entails costs for redesigning and 

printing the new label under the required new format. The label itself is not reported to 

EPA; it is deemed to be an information collection for disclosure to the public falling within 

the definition in 40 CFR 1320.3(c). The numbers that go on the label, however, are 

reported to EPA, and the costs and hours for manufacturers to obtain these numbers are 

included in this analysis. Because the data are reported to EPA, the burden associated with 

the new label, which is mandated by statute upon NHTSA, is here treated as an EPA 

burden for simplicity. 

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

EVs and PHEVs entering the marketplace. A count of current such vehicles and EPA’s 

information about those likely to appear in the next three years indicates that the number of 

manufacturers and test groups is likely to be more limited in the near term. This ICR is 

written to accommodate all those families in existence or contemplated plus a margin of 

error; beyond that any increases in burden are speculative and will have to await the next 
3

collection authority renewal. 

This ICR estimates that 35 manufacturers will incur up to $4,986,806 yearly in new 

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

result of the rule.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHTSA for CAFE requirements.

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

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

establish regulations to implement several new labeling requirements for new automobiles 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

technologies. 

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

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

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

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for one year, a statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in making a 

comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers in 

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

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

This joint rule is designed to update the current label in two main respects. First, it 

would also bring EVs and PHEVs into the labeling scheme in a manner which accounts for 

the fact that the normal ways of measuring fuel economy based on exhaust emissions need 

to be modified. Second, the rule suggests possible modifications of the label format that 

are intended to comply with the Congressional mandate to provide consumers information 

on performance with respect to “fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions” 

over the automobile’s useful life and display a rating system that would make it easy for 

consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of 

automobiles at the point of purchase, including designations of automobiles with the lowest 

GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel economy. 

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

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

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

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

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

are jointly finalizing the revised label that give rise to this collection request. 
5

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

requirement for “alternative fuel vehicles” including EVs and flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) 

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

that the cruising range of EVs be determined using the procedures in SAE J1634 (16 CFR 

309.22(a)(2)). Consequently, EV manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States have 

already been subject for several years to the SAE J1634 testing requirements in the rule. It 

is expected that tests conducted to satisfy FTC labeling requirements in previous years will 

be carried over to EPA certification applications under the new rule, so that this overlap is 

primarily an information cost accounting issue, discussed below. In addition, however, the 

FTC regulations specify the 1993 version of the SAE J8634, which is more elaborate and 

expensive than the 1999 version suggested by EPA in its existing testing guidance and 

contemplated by the EV testing provisions in the rule. Second, The FTC label displays the 

cruising range of the vehicle on each fuel; the rule would similarly require fuel economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

economy label, and EPA has had this consultation. 

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

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

Rulemaking published on September 23, 2010, 75 Federal Register 58078; a copy can be found 

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

3(c) Consultations

The regulations were developed with extensive consultation with the affected 

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

major manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the convening of and 

report by a nine-member expert panel, consultations with environmental groups, a threestage focus group effort that was the subject of ICRs 2343.01 and 2390.01 (OMB 2060-

NEW), and an internet-based survey discussed in ICR 2060-0643. Numerous public 

comments were received on the proposed rule and can be found at www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

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

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

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

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

corresponding to the models that will be for sale; this information is used to calculate the 
6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

year to the next. 

3(e) General Guidelines

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

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

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

longer than 3 years. 

This information collection activity complies with the remaining guidelines in 5 

CFR 1320.5. The rule makes no changes in the reporting and recordkeeping provisions that 

impact any of the guidelines for information collections as approved in the existing 

approved collection.

3(f) Confidentiality

Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific 

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

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

public. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7542(c)) all information, other 

than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available. Proprietary information 

is granted confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of General 

Counsel.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

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

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

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

The respondents are involved in the industries shown in the following table:
7

Category NAICS Codes AExamples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Industry 336111

336112

Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Industry 811112

811198

541514

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle 

Components.

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

purposes of the fuel economy label. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

generating fuel economy data. 

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

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

preceding paragraph. 
8

(ii) Respondent Activities

Respondents are car and truck manufacturers and ICIs who submit certification 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

request. 

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

Information Management

5(a) Agency Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

collecting those taxes from manufacturers.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

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

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

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

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

format and content of some of the information reported within it. 
9

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

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

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

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

available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The analysis of the rule prepared in response to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 concluded 

that the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. One of the 24 manufacturers and all of the 11 ICIs identified by EPA as 

subject to the rule can be considered small entities under the definition in 13 CFR 121.201. 

It is anticipated that the one manufacturer, with one EV test group, will be able to carry

over its previous test results in compliance with the new label EV testing requirements. For 

ICIs, a significant flexibility added by the regulation is to eliminate the requirement for 5-

cycle testing of vehicles that would otherwise apply starting in 2011. Under the rule, ICIs 

would be allowed to continue predicting their 5-cycle fuel economy estimates from data 

collected over the FTP and HFET driving cycles. ICIs and any new small entity entrants 

into the market will need to design and post labels in conformance with the regulations and 

perform the necessary tests to generate the information on the labels. 

5(d) Collection Schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

over.”

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

analysis contained in the preamble of this rule. The analysis uses the cost assumptions in 

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

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

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

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

same number of significant digits as the unrounded numbers reported. 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

Labor hours are associated, first, with startup costs for installing (updating) 
10

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

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

included under that heading, following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A31). Label redesign startup costs are based on comments from manufacturers on the proposed 

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

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

testing, or 960 hours per affected manufacturer. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

full FTP), and a soak period. 

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

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

determination. The new FTP procedure would essentially run repeated FTPs until the charge is 

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

battery. The battery would then be recharged and a single additional four-phase FTP would be 

conducted in what is denominated as the “charge sustain” operation. Following this the vehicle 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hybrid testing costs. 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating labor costs

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

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

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

cost assumptions of ICR 0783.47, 0783.51, 0783.54 and 0783.57. This labor cost estimate in 
11

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

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

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

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

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

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

raises the cost per hour to $61.49. Future renewal requests in the OMB 2060-0104, ICR 0783 

series will be similarly incremented.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cancelled in 2002). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

applications for EVs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

testing requirements similar to those in the rulemaking. However, for purposes of the analysis in 

this ICR we treat the costs of compliance for manufacturers subject to the rule as new costs in 

order to insure that they are fully considered in this rulemaking. It is not clear from the cost 

analysis in the FTC final rule preamble (at 26954-26955) or in the final rule ICR ((OMB 3084-

0094) that the FTC considered the cost of testing in its analysis. The entire cost for the industry

was estimated as 30 minutes each for 58 members of the alt fuel vehicle industry. Including the 

full cost of EV testing for each estimated test group subject to the rule is therefore conservative 

in that it ignores the likelihood that any EV test group previously satisfying the FTC labeling 

requirements will have its testing data carried over to the model year certification applications 

subject to this rule, but has the advantage of insuring that information collection-driven testing 

costs are included in OMB’s information budget. 
12

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 rule. 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. Non-labor preparation 

costs are estimated to be $3,163 per vehicle, per ICR 0783.54 (OMB 2060-0104), the 

certification ICR for conventional vehicles. The low and high EV test distances for FTP 

and HFET tests is estimated as 50 to 250 miles. (The cost of the FTP is not incremented to 

reflect the extra phase 2 compared to the normal three phase cycle because that would be 

double counting in view of the 50 or 250 divided by 7.45 conversion factor.) For purposes 

of this estimate, the non-labor cost of an FTP/HFET pair is $1,860, allocated 70% to the 

FTP and 30% to the HFET and incremented by 50 or 250 divided by 7.45 (the distance of a 

normal FTP) or 50 or 250 divided by 10.3 (the distance of the normal HFET). These costs 

total $15,060 to $60,848 per test group/engine family complying with the label 

requirements . 

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

hybrid vehicles. Off-cycle tests are already required for test groups that do not meet the

“litmus test”; others would use the derived 5-cycle adjustment. Hybrid vehicles already do 

FTP and HFET tests for fuel economy determination. The new FTP procedure would 

essentially run repeated FTPs until the charge is depleted. This is the “charge depleting” 

operation when the vehicle is mainly running on its battery. The battery would then be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.3 mile FTP and HFET test cycles. These together add an estimated $1,706 to $10,070 in 

non-labor O&M costs to each test group/engine family conservatively assuming no 

carryovers.

The proposed labels in the NPRM included different colors, reflecting either different 

technologies or differences in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. For the final rule, 

the agencies have decided to use one color that can be pre-printed on the feedstock that will go 

into the printers used for the vehicle labels. The printing itself will be entirely in black and 

white, as with current labels. The Monroney labels for many automakers already include preprinted color. The acceptance of this approach from most auto manufacturers who commented 

on the proposal suggests that the addition of color in a manner that allows it to be pre-printed on 

feedstock does not have a material effect on costs. Thus, printing costs associated with the final 
13

label are not expected to change from the baseline costs. Because of this change in label 

requirements from the proposal, the agencies believe that there will be no additional costs 

associated with label printing. Thus, the additional printing costs estimated in the proposal to be 

$294,690 to $1,274,634 per year are now estimated to be zero. 

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

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

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

fueled vehicles could be lowered. 

(iii) Facility Capital Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) Start-up Costs

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

beginning with model year 2013. Startup costs are accounted as one-time costs that are 

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

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

and label redesign. 

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

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

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

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

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

for each manufacturer. Similarly, each of these manufacturers is assumed to need new testing 
14

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

In comments on the proposed rule, GM and Suzuki provided estimates for the startup 

costs for the label redesign. GM stated that its “initial estimate,” which includes designing, 

releasing, testing, and validating the system, would cost “more than $800,000.” Suzuki 

estimated its costs as $70,000 for software, $111,144 for printers, and $20,250 for IT costs, for a 

total of $201,394. Because color printers are no longer required, these costs are therefore

estimated to be $90,250. 

For this cost analysis, EPA is using these two estimates as upper and lower bounds. 

These estimates are then 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 between $3.2 million and $28 million. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

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

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division and Laboratory Operations Division. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yielding an estimated total agency cost of $5.44 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

overhead times 1.16 overall EPA overhead). This estimate does not include Agency

burdens incurred prior to the effective date of the rule, such as costs of developing the rule 
15

and preliminary consultations with manufacturers on database issues. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

likely to be tested under the modified testing requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuel Economy Trends Report (for Trends Reports see 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm ). The count of ICIs is from a search for light-duty

ICIs listed in the Verify database. 

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

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

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

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

million as the high estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

and high cost estimates. 

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

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

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

contemplate 10 to 16 test groups a year. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

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

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

the text. These are annualized estimates.
16

(i) Respondent Tally

RESPONDENTS 35

BURDEN HOURS 8,548

LABOR COST $525,635

OPERATING COST $567,348

FACILITY CAPITAL $210,779

STARTUP CAPITAL $4,208,679

TOTAL CAP & O&M $4,986,806

TOTAL COST WITH LABOR $5,512,441

(ii) Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES 26

STARTUP $72,943

OPERATING $100,000

LABOR HOURS 483

(f) Reasons for change in burden

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

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

above.

6(g) Burden Statement

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

is estimated to average 279.3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 

transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

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

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

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

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

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

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
17

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. An electronic version of the public 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

correspondence.

TOTAL ANNUAL COST AND HOURS INCREASE

COST BURDEN

Min Max

O&M: testing and label $83,828 $567,348 

Facility Capital $25,278 $210,779 

Startup: one-time IT, label 

redesign, and reg 

familiarization, 10 yrs 7% $612,472 $4,208,679 

Total $721,578 $4,986,806 

HOURS BURDEN

Min Max

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

Facility Capital 0 0

Startup: one-time IT, 

equipment, label 

redesign, and reg 

familiarization, 10 yrs 7% 0 0

Total 1,211 8,548

Labor Cost $74,446 $525,635 

Total Cost $796,024 $5,512,441 
18

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

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

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

PHEV 5.0

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

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

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

INCREASE IN TEST FACILITIES

Undepreciated capital costs Minimum Maximum

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

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

Total $177,188 $1,480,420

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

STARTUP COSTS

Item

Cost

Minimum Maximum

Updating Information systems $768,000 $960,000

Ammeter/stabilizer $375,000 $600,000

Label redesign $3,158,750 $28,000,000

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

Depreciate 10 years at 7% $612,472 $4,208,679