Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates
Posted Date: 2006-02-01T13:54:42Z

[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 5425-5513]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-23]                         

[[Page 5425]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600

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

[[Page 5426]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8021-8]
RIN 2060-AN14

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes 
to the test methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates that 
are posted on window stickers of all new cars and light trucks sold in 
the United States. A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy 
estimates is that the underlying test procedures do not fully represent 
real-world driving conditions. Although no single test or set of tests 
can ever account for the wide variety of conditions experienced by 
every driver, the new fuel economy estimates would more accurately 
reflect a number of important factors that drivers are likely to 
experience on the road. These changes will take effect starting with 
2008 model year vehicles. Under the new methods, the City MPG estimates 
for most vehicles would drop 10 percent to 20 percent from today's 
labels, depending on the vehicle. The Highway MPG estimates would 
generally drop 5 percent to 15 percent for most vehicles. Although 
today's proposed fuel economy test methods would provide more accurate 
estimates for many consumers, there will always continue to be drivers 
who get higher or lower fuel economy than the window sticker numbers. 
Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window sticker 
estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a 
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE). However, this 
proposal would not alter the test procedures, driving cycles, 
measurement techniques, or the calculation methods used to determine 
CAFE.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2006. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before March 3, 
2006. See Section VII.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
more information about written comments.
    Hearings: We will hold a public hearing in Romulus, Michigan, on 
March 3, 2006. See Section VII.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section for more information about public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0169, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. 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: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. OAR-2005-0169. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://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 http://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. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, go to Section VII of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Public Hearing: The public hearing will be at the Crowne Plaza 
Hotel, Detroit--Metro Airport, 8000 Merriman Road, Romulus, Michigan.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center 
telephone number is (202) 566-1742. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734) 
214-4636; E-mail: french.roberts@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or 
sell new light-duty motor vehicles. Regulated categories and entities 
include:

[[Page 5427]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Examples of potentially
            Category                             NAICS codes \A\                        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).

    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 proposed regulations. You may 
direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the 
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements
    B. Why is Today's Action Warranted?
    C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?
    D. Today's Proposal Does Not Impact or Change CAFE Test 
Procedures
    E. When Will the New Fuel Economy Estimates Take Effect?
    F. How Will EPA Communicate to the Public the Transition Between 
the Old Label Values and New?
    G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy Label Methodology
    A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae
    B. Application of the Formulae To Develop Fuel Economy Labels 
for Specific Vehicles
    C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-Cycle Fuel Economy Formulae
    D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach
    E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel Economy Label Values
    F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
III. What Major Alternatives Were Considered?
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
    A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
    B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
    C. ``Your mileage will vary * * *'' Range of Expected Fuel 
Economy Information
    D. Other Format Changes
V. Other Related Proposals
    A. Comparable Class Categories
    B. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy 
Booklet
    C. Testing Provisions
    D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for Vehicles Exceeding 8500 
Pounds GVWR
    E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a 
Metric
    F. Environmental Information on Fuel Economy Labels
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements
    A. Information and Reporting Burden
    B. Fees
    C. Aggregate Costs
VII. Public Participation
    A. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
    B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
    C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

    The EPA fuel economy estimates have appeared on the window stickers 
of all new cars and light trucks since the late 1970's and are well-
recognized by consumers. The fuel economy estimates essentially serve 
two purposes: to provide consumers with a basis on which to compare the 
fuel economy of different vehicles, and to provide consumers with a 
reasonable estimate of the range of fuel economy they can expect to 
achieve. While the estimates historically have been a valuable tool for 
comparison shopping purposes, attention has been focused recently on 
how closely the EPA estimates approximate consumers' real-world fuel 
economy experience.
    Today, we are proposing changes to EPA's fuel economy test methods 
to bring the estimates closer to the fuel economy consumers are 
achieving in the real-world. We believe these estimates will provide 
car buyers with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of 
different vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy 
varies from driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as 
different driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of 
accessories, loads, weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different 
drivers of the same vehicle will experience different fuel economy as 
these and other factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a 
``perfect'' fuel economy test that will provide accurate real-world 
fuel economy estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there 
will always be consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy. 
The EPA estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers, 
particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to 
another. Nevertheless, we do believe that today's new fuel economy test 
methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate 
estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world.
    It is essential that our fuel economy estimates continue to be 
derived from controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. However, the 
inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual real-world 
driving behavior and conditions. Because the test is controlled and 
repeatable, an EPA fuel economy test result can be used for comparison 
of different vehicle models and types. EPA and manufacturers test over 
1,250 vehicle models annually and every test is run under identical 
conditions and under a precise driver's trace, which assures that the 
result will be the same for an individual vehicle model no matter when 
and where the laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature, 
road grade, driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the 
result of the test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy 
on a trip-to-trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result. 
Therefore, a repeatable test provides a level playing field for all 
vehicles, which is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one 
vehicle to another. Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm 
the values achieved by the manufacturers' testing, and this can only be 
achieved with a highly repeatable test or set of tests. No other fuel 
economy test program provides the level of repeatability as the EPA 
program.
    However, the EPA fuel economy test methods need to reflect real 
world conditions as well as being a repeatable test. While some 
organizations have issued their own fuel economy numbers based on on-
road driving, this approach introduces a wide number of variables--
different drivers, driving patterns, weather conditions, temperatures, 
etc.--that make repeatability impossible. Our proposed fuel economy 
test methods are more representative of real-world

[[Page 5428]]

conditions than the current fuel economy tests--yet we would retain our 
practice of relying on controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests.
    The methods used today for calculating the city and highway mpg 
estimates were established in the 1970's, and were adjusted in the mid-
1980's. Since these adjustments were made, America's driving behavior 
has changed. In the past 20 years, speed limits have increased and 
vehicles have been designed for higher power--as a result, Americans 
are driving faster and more aggressively than ever before. Vehicle 
technology has changed markedly, and many more vehicles are equipped 
with energy-consuming accessories like air conditioning. These and 
other factors are not accounted for in the current test procedures used 
to determine the city and highway mpg estimates. Our analyses indicate 
that if these factors were better accounted for, the city and highway 
fuel economy label estimates would be generally lower and closer to the 
average real-world experience of consumers.
    A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy estimates is that the 
underlying test procedures do not fully represent real-world driving 
conditions. Some of the key limitations are that the highway test has a 
top speed of only 60 miles per hour, both the city and highway tests 
are run at mild climatic conditions (75 deg. F), both tests have mild 
acceleration rates, and neither test is run with the use of 
accessories, such as air conditioning. However, since the time of the 
last fuel economy labeling revisions in the mid-1980's, EPA has 
established several additional test procedures, used for emissions 
compliance purposes, which capture a much broader range of real-world 
driving conditions. Specifically, these emissions test cycles capture 
the effects of higher speeds, more aggressive driving (i.e., higher 
acceleration rates), the use of air conditioning at higher ambient 
temperatures, and colder temperature operation. Our analysis indicates 
that these factors can have a significant impact on fuel economy, and 
that the impacts can vary widely across different vehicles.
    Today, we are proposing that three additional emission tests, 
already used by manufacturers, could be utilized to derive more 
accurate fuel economy estimates. These three test procedures encompass 
a much broader range of real-world driving, as they incorporate the 
effects of higher speeds, more rapid accelerations, air conditioning 
use, and cold temperatures. Our proposed approach would utilize these 
additional emission tests, together with the current two fuel economy 
tests, so that our fuel economy test methods reflect a much broader 
range of driving conditions.
    In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to update 
or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world 
factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of the Act directs EPA to 
``* * * update or revise the adjustment factors in [certain sections of 
the fuel economy labeling regulations] to take into consideration 
higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations in 
temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test cycle lengths, 
current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel depleting 
features.'' \1\ Today's proposal does take into account these 
conditions and would address this statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past few years, there have been several independent 
studies comparing EPA's fuel economy estimates to the real-world 
experience of consumers. These studies confirm that there is 
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy, and provide further 
evidence that EPA's mileage ratings often overestimate real-world fuel 
economy. Although these studies differ in a number of variables, 
including their test methods, driving conditions, and fuel economy 
measurement techniques, they indicate that EPA's approach to estimating 
fuel economy needs to be improved to better represent some key real-
world fuel economy impacts.
    Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window 
sticker estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a 
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE), although the 
label estimates are adjusted downward. This proposal would not alter 
the test procedures, driving cycles, measurement techniques, or the 
calculation methods used to determine CAFE. The Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 requires that CAFE values be determined from 
the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that give 
comparable results), meaning that whatever action we take to improve 
the window sticker estimates must leave in place the existing tests 
used for CAFE determination. The proposed test methods for determining 
the new fuel economy label estimates would be incorporated in sections 
of the regulations that are entirely separate from the CAFE 
regulations.
    This section begins with a history of EPA's involvement in fuel 
economy programs. Then we discuss why we are taking action, including 
discussions of the limitations of the current tests, various data 
sources of real-world fuel economy, the additional real-world driving 
conditions captured by other emissions tests procedures, and the impact 
of these factors on fuel economy. We then provide an overview of our 
proposed new fuel economy test methods (which are discussed in detail 
in Section II), and conclude with a discussion of the relevant Federal 
statutes and how they bear on this proposal.

A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established 
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information, 
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on 
window stickers of all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an 
annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to 
the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's 
average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this 
compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
(CAFE) program). The responsibilities for these requirements were split 
between EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department 
of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods 
and procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates to be 
posted on the window stickers and in the annual booklet, and for the 
calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT is 
responsible for administering the CAFE compliance program, including 
establishing standards for non-passenger automobiles and determining if 
manufacturers were complying with the applicable CAFE standards, 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.\2\ The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 
model year, established 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

[[Page 5429]]

CAFE calculations combined the city and highway fuel economy into a 
single number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 41 FR 38685, which is promulgated at 40 CFR Part 600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates 
on the window stickers of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that 
drivers were disappointed that they were not often achieving these 
estimates on the road and that they 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.\3\ 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, 404 (November 9, 1978).
    \4\ See House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile 
Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,'' Report 96-948, May 13, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\5\ In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling 
procedures that were applicable to 1985 and later model year 
vehicles.\6\ The decision was made to retain the FTP and highway test 
procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used for other 
purposes--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 more accurately reflect 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``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.
    \6\ See 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December 
10, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\7\ 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. They 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.\8\ 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 fuel economy labels today as small 
print text. Further in this section, we discuss, in the context of 
today's proposal, similar issues regarding how best to communicate to 
the public the level of the city and highway mpg estimates, as well as 
the range of drivers' fuel economy experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 49 FR 13832, April 16, 1984.
    \8\ See 49 FR 13835, April 16, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why Is Today's Action Warranted?

    The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is 
that the test procedures on which they are based do not reflect a broad 
enough range of in-use driving conditions. The current test procedures 
omit several critical factors that are prevalent in the real-world and 
that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Key among these are 
higher speeds, faster accelerations, the use of air conditioning, and 
colder temperatures. The impact of these factors on fuel economy can 
vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. However, for emissions compliance, 
we have already developed additional test procedures to account for 
these factors, and these test procedures are already being regularly 
used by the auto companies. Today, we are proposing to use these tests, 
in conjunction with the existing fuel economy tests, as an input into 
the calculation of fuel economy estimates. In doing so, the fuel 
economy test methods would reflect a much broader range of real-world 
conditions than they do today.
    There is broad-based support among automobile manufacturers and 
other stakeholders proposing changes to current fuel economy estimates. 
Congress recognized the need for action by including a provision in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring EPA to revise its fuel economy 
estimates. EPA has worked closely with auto manufacturers, states, and 
other organizations in developing this proposed rule.
    Bluewater Network petitioned EPA to revise the fuel economy 
labeling test procedures.\9\ EPA published a Federal Register notice 
requesting comments on the petition, and received over 33,000 
comments.\10\ Nearly all of these comments support the revision of 
EPA's fuel economy estimates to better reflect real world driving. 
Today's proposal is responsive to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Bluewater Network petition was submitted to EPA on June 
7, 2002.
    \10\ See 69 FR 16188, March 29, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fuel Economy Labels Could Be Improved To Better Reflect Real-World 
Driving
    First, it is important to stress that the EPA city and highway mpg 
ratings are estimates--they are not intended to give consumers an exact 
indication of the fuel economy they will achieve. The complete range of 
consumer fuel economy experience can not be represented perfectly by 
any one estimate. Fuel economy varies based on a wide range of factors, 
which we have discussed above. There will always be consumers that 
achieve real-world fuel economy both better and worse than a given 
estimate.
    In the past few years, there have been a number of studies, 
conducted by a variety of sources, suggesting that there is often a 
shortfall between the EPA estimates and real-world fuel economy. 
Several organizations have provided consumers with their own fuel 
economy estimates, which in some cases vary from EPA's estimates. For 
example, Consumer Reports utilizes on-road driving to measure fuel 
economy under a variety of conditions. They derive city, highway, and 
overall fuel economy estimates, and their methods clearly demonstrate 
the large degree of variation across vehicles. While their city fuel 
economy estimates fall on average below the EPA label values, their 
highway estimates are, on average, higher than the EPA label values. 
Consumer Reports' overall fuel economy estimates range from 27 percent 
below to 20 percent above the EPA overall rating. The Automobile 
Association of America (AAA) likewise publishes the

[[Page 5430]]

fuel economy results they achieve in their annual auto guide for new 
cars and trucks. In their 2004 auto guide, about half of their 
estimates were below the EPA combined city/highway value, and about one 
half were above the EPA city/highway combined value. Their estimates 
ranged from 40 percent lower than EPA's to 22 percent higher, again 
reflecting a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle variation. Other sources 
of fuel economy data include Edmunds.com, the Department of Energy's 
(DOE) ``Your MPG'' database on the fueleconomy.gov Web site, and DOE's 
FreedomCar program.
    Each of these studies differs in its test methods, driving cycles, 
sampling of vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel economy. There are 
strengths and weaknesses of each study, which we discuss further in 
Section II and in the Draft Technical Support Document. Collectively, 
these studies indicate there are many cases where real-world fuel 
economy falls below the EPA estimates. The studies also indicate that 
real-world fuel economy varies significantly depending on the 
conditions under which it is evaluated. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, 
these studies reflect a wide range of real-world driving conditions, 
and show that fuel economy can be much lower than EPA's estimates if 
more real-world conditions are considered.
    The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is 
that the test procedures on which they are based are missing a number 
of critical factors that exist in real-world driving and have a 
significant impact on fuel economy. The following section discusses the 
limitations of our existing fuel economy test procedures.
2. Today's Fuel Economy Tests Do Not Represent the Full Range of 
Driving Conditions
    The current city and highway fuel economy tests do not represent 
the full range of real-world driving conditions. The 1985 adjustment 
factors were designed to ensure that the fuel economy estimates across 
the vehicle fleet reflected the average impacts of a number of 
conditions not represented on the tests. However, as we noted earlier, 
many changes have occurred since then that make it once again a 
reasonable time to reevaluate the fuel economy test methods. Given the 
significant degree of variation that is apparent across vehicles, we 
believe it is important to reconsider the approach of ``one-size-fits-
all'' adjustment factors and instead move to an approach that more 
directly reflects the impacts of fuel economy on individual vehicle 
models.
    The city fuel economy estimate is based on the Federal Test 
Procedure (FTP), which was designed to measure a vehicle's tailpipe 
emissions under urban driving conditions. The driving cycle used for 
the FTP is called the LA-4, which was developed in the mid-1960's to 
represent home-to-work commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of 
the tests used to determine emissions compliance today. The FTP 
includes a series of accelerations, decelerations, and idling (such as 
at stop lights). It also includes starting the vehicle after it has 
been parked for an extended period of time (called a ``cold start''), 
as well as a start on a warmed-up engine (called a ``hot start''). The 
total distance covered by the FTP is about 11 miles and the average 
speed is about 21 mph, with a maximum speed of about 56 mph.
    The highway fuel economy estimate is based on the Highway Fuel 
Economy Test (HFET), which was developed by EPA in 1974 and was 
designed to represent a mix of interstate highway and rural driving. It 
consists of relatively constant higher-speed driving, with no engine 
starts or idling time. The HFET covers a distance of about 10 miles, at 
an average speed of 49 mph and a top speed of about 60 mph.
    There are several key limitations in the FTP and HFET tests that 
cause them to not adequately reflect real-world driving today. First, 
most consumers understandably think ``highway'' fuel economy means the 
fuel economy you can expect under freeway driving conditions. In fact, 
the highway test has a top speed of only 60 mph, since the test was 
developed more than 20 years ago to represent more rural driving 
conditions at a time when the national speed limit was 55 miles per 
hour. The national speed limit since has been eliminated, states have 
established speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and much driving 
is at even higher speeds. Recent real-world driving studies indicate 
that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at 
speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This analysis is detailed in the Draft 
Technical Support Document). These studies also show that 33 percent of 
real-world driving VMT falls outside the FTP/HFET speed and 
acceleration activity region. Thus, a substantial amount of high speed 
driving is not captured at all in today's FTP or HFET tests. This is a 
critical weakness in our current fuel economy test procedures. Since 
higher speed driving has a negative impact on fuel economy, 
incorporating these higher speed driving conditions into the fuel 
economy tests would lower the fuel economy estimates.
    Second, the maximum acceleration rates of both the FTP and HFET 
tests are a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per second, considerably 
lower than the maximum acceleration rates seen in real-world driving. 
Recent real-world driving studies indicate that maximum acceleration 
rates are as high as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant activity occurs 
beyond 3.3 mph/sec. Even at the time these tests were first developed, 
the real-world accelerations were higher than 3.3 mph/sec, but the test 
cycle's acceleration rates needed to be constrained to the mechanical 
limitation of the dynamometer test equipment. These constraints no 
longer exist with today's dynamometers, so we now have the ability to 
incorporate higher maximum acceleration rates that more closely reflect 
those of actual driving. In fact, we have incorporated higher 
acceleration rates into a test recently developed for emissions 
compliance, which we discuss in the next section. As with high speed 
driving, higher acceleration rates have a negative impact on fuel 
economy; thus, if these higher accelerations were factored into our 
fuel economy methods, the estimates would be lower.
    The maximum deceleration rate of the FTP and HFET tests is 
important to consider as well, because it relates to the regenerative 
breaking effect of hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and HFET tests 
include a mild maximum deceleration rate of -3.3 mph/sec; yet in recent 
real-world driving rates as high as -11 to -17 mph/sec were recorded. 
Under higher deceleration rates, the effects of regenerative breaking 
for hybrid electric vehicles are diminished, thereby lowering fuel 
economy. In this regard, today's FTP and HFET tests result in better 
fuel economy, which is seldom achieved under actual driving conditions.
    Third, both tests are run at mild ambient conditions (approximately 
75 degrees Fahrenheit), while real-world driving occurs at a wide range 
of ambient temperatures. Fuel economy is lower at temperatures colder 
or warmer than the 75 degree F test temperature. Only about 20 percent 
of VMT occurs between 70 and 80 degrees F--approximately 15 percent of 
VMT occurs at temperatures above 80 degrees F, and 65 percent occurs 
below 70 degrees F. Moreover, neither the FTP nor HFET tests are run 
with accessories operating, such as air conditioners, heaters, or 
defrosters. These accessories, most notably air conditioning, can have 
a significant impact on a vehicle's fuel economy.

[[Page 5431]]

    Finally, there are many factors that affect fuel economy that 
cannot be replicated on dynamometer test cycles in a laboratory. These 
include road grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g., tire pressure), 
snow/ice, precipitation, fuel effects, and others. It is not possible 
to develop a test cycle that captures the full range of factors 
impacting fuel economy. However, it is clear that the FTP and HFET 
tests alone are missing some critical elements of real-world driving. 
All of these factors have a negative impact on fuel economy. This 
largely explains why our current estimates often do not reflect 
consumers' real-world fuel economy experience. However, since the 1985 
adjustment factors were established, EPA has adopted several new test 
cycles for emission compliance purposes, which collectively represent a 
much broader range of in-use driving conditions than those captured by 
the FTP and HFET tests. These additional emission tests, discussed 
below, can be brought into the fuel economy estimate calculations.
3. Additional Emissions Tests Reflect a Broader Range of Real-World 
Driving Conditions
    Since 1984 when we last updated the fuel economy estimate 
methodology, EPA has established several new test cycles for emissions 
certification. EPA was concerned that the FTP omitted many critical 
driving modes and conditions that existed in actual use, and that 
emissions could be substantially higher during these driving modes 
compared to the FTP. Manufacturers were frequently designing their 
vehicles' emission control systems to meet the specified FTP test 
conditions, and actual emission levels could be quite different under 
the broader range of real-world ``off-cycle'' conditions.
    The need for these actions was recognized by Congress, in the 
passage of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990 (CAAA).\11\ Section 206(h) required EPA to study and revise as 
necessary the test procedures used to measure emissions, taking into 
consideration the actual current driving conditions under which motor 
vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel, temperature, 
acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA required EPA to 
establish emission standards for carbon monoxide under cold (20 deg. F) 
temperature conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 42 U.S.C. 7525(h), 42 U.S.C. 7521(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1992, EPA published rules implementing the 202(j) cold 
temperature testing requirement, acknowledging that the ambient 
temperature conditions of the FTP test (run between 68 and 86 [deg]F) 
do not represent the full range of ambient temperature conditions that 
exist across the United States and that cold temperature had different 
emissions effects on different vehicle designs.\12\ EPA's cold 
temperature emission regulations required manufacturers to conduct FTP 
testing at 20 [deg]F. By promulgating this new test procedure and 
associated emission standard, EPA sought to encourage manufacturers to 
employ better emission control strategies that would improve ambient 
air quality across a wider range of in-use conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 57 FR 31888, July 17, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA requirement, EPA published a 
report in 1993 which concluded that the FTP cycle did not represent the 
full range of urban driving conditions that could impact the in-use 
driving emission levels.\13\ Consequently, EPA promulgated a rule in 
1996 that established two new test procedures, with associated emission 
standards, that addressed certain shortcomings with the current 
FTP.\14\ Known as the ``Supplemental FTP,'' or ``SFTP,'' these 
procedures, similar to the cold temperature FTP, encouraged the use of 
the better emission controls across a wider range of in-use driving 
conditions in order to improve ambient air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test 
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993. 
Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.

    \14\ See 61 FR 54854 published on October 22, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the new test cycles, the US06, was designed to address high 
speed, aggressive driving behavior (with more severe acceleration rates 
and speeds) as well as rapid and frequent speed fluctuations. The US06 
test contains both lower-speed city driving and higher-speed highway 
driving modes.\15\ Its top speed is 80 mph, and average speed is 48 
mph. The top acceleration rate exceeds eight mph per second. The other 
new SFTP test, the SC03, was designed to address air-conditioner 
operation under a full simulation of high temperature (95 [deg]F), high 
sun-load, and high humidity. The SC03 drive cycle was designed to 
represent driving immediately following a vehicle startup, and rapid 
and frequent speed fluctuations.\16\ Its top speed is about 55 mph and 
average speed is 22 mph. The top acceleration rate is about five mph 
per second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (g).
    \16\ Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the SFTP rulemaking was a study of real-world driving 
in four cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and Los Angeles, where 
driving activity was measured on instrumented vehicles as well as by 
chase cars.17 18 At that time, it was found that 18 percent 
of the driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the speed/
acceleration distribution of the FTP drive schedule. More recent real-
world driving activity data indicates that driving has become even more 
aggressive than it was in 1992. Recent real-world activity data 
collected in California and Kansas City found that about 28 percent of 
driving (vehicle miles traveled) is at speeds greater than 60 mph. 
Further, about 33 percent of recent real-world driving falls outside of 
the FTP/HFET speed and acceleration activity 
region.19 20 21 22 This is based on extensive chase car 
studies in California and instrumented vehicle studies in Kansas City. 
Our assessment of these recent real-world driving activity studies is 
described in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Final Technical Report on Aggressive Driving Behavior for 
the Revised Federal Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
1995. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.

    \18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test 
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993. 
Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.

    \19\ Sierra Research, Inc., ``Task Order No. 2 SCF Improvement--
Field Data Collection,'' Sierra Report No. SR02-07-04, July, 2002.
    \20\ U.S. EPA Draft Technical Support Document ``Fuel Economy 
Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel 
Economy Estimates,'' December, 2005.
    \21\ Brzezinski, D., E. Nam, J. Koupal, G. Hoffman. Changes in 
Real World Driving Behavior: Analysis of Recent Driving Activity 
Data. Proceedings of the 15th Coordinating Research Council On Road 
Vehicle Emissions Workshop, 2005.
    \22\ Eastern Research Group. Late Model Vehicle Emissions and 
Fuel Economy Characterization Study: Addendum to the Kansas City 
Exhaust Characterization Study-Draft Report. ERG No. 
0133.18.004.001, September 26, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone do not fully capture the 
broad range of real-world driving conditions. In order for EPA's fuel 
economy tests to be more representative of key aspects of real-world 
driving, it is critical that we consider the test conditions 
represented by these additional emission tests.
4. Fuel Economy on Driving Modes Represented by Additional Emissions 
Tests is Lower for Many Vehicles
    As discussed above, there are several key conditions missing from 
the current fuel economy test procedures that are prevalent in real-
world driving. These conditions--higher speeds, faster

[[Page 5432]]

accelerations, air conditioning operation, and cold temperatures--have 
already been incorporated into our test procedures for emissions 
compliance, as a result of our finding in the 1990's that they have a 
significant impact on emissions. Our analysis below demonstrates that 
these additional driving conditions can also have a significant impact 
on fuel economy--and that these impacts vary widely from vehicle to 
vehicle. Thus, we believe that these factors need to be included in our 
fuel economy test methods.
    We analyzed fuel economy data collected by manufacturers for 
emissions certification purposes in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 model 
years. This analysis included data from all five tests used for 
emissions compliance today, including the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and 
Cold Temperature FTP. The fuel economy measured on the standard fuel 
economy tests (FTP and HFET) was compared to the fuel economy on the 
other emissions certification tests (US06, SC03, and Cold FTP) in order 
to assess the impact of these factors on fuel economy. The analysis 
includes data from more than 400 vehicles. Comparisons were made to the 
unadjusted city and highway fuel economy test results, and the findings 
are summarized below. Because so many other factors bear on real-world 
consumer experience, it is important to point out that these 
comparisons are not intended to indicate the exact impact of a given 
factor on real-world fuel economy. However, comparing these different 
test results is informative because we establish the relative magnitude 
of the impacts and of the variation across vehicles. The entire report 
of this analysis is in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, ``Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling and 
The Effect of Cold Temperature, Air-Conditioning Usage and 
Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,'' Draft Staff Report, August 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Cold Temperature Operation. To assess the impact of cold 
temperature operation on fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy 
measured over the Cold FTP test directly to that over the standard FTP 
test. The driving cycles in these two tests are identical (i.e., the 
LA4 cycle). Both tests include both cold and hot starts at their 
respective ambient temperatures, and both tests are generally run with 
accessories turned off. The difference in fuel economy should therefore 
be entirely due to the difference in ambient temperature: 20 [deg]F 
versus 75 [deg]F.
    On average, fuel economy over the Cold FTP was about 12 percent 
lower than over the standard FTP. There was wide vehicle-to-vehicle 
variation, with the loss in fuel economy due to the cold conditions as 
much as 40 percent. Figure I.B-1 below shows the range of cold 
temperature impacts. Hybrid vehicles tended to show the greatest 
sensitivity to cold temperature. Of the six vehicles showing a cold 
temperature impact of greater than 30 percent, five are hybrids. 
Overall, conventional gasoline vehicles averaged a cold temperature 
effect of about -11 percent, while the impact on hybrid vehicles 
averaged about -32 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.000

    b. Air Conditioning. To assess the impact of air conditioning on 
fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy measured over the SC03 test 
to a comparable portion of the FTP. The SC03 test is run with the air-
conditioning turned onto its maximum setting in a test cell set at 95 
[deg]F with strong sun load and moderate humidity. On average, air 
conditioner operation at 95 [deg]F reduced fuel economy by about 21 
percent. The impact of air conditioning ranged from -41 percent to -25 
percent for more than a third of the vehicles. Similar to the cold 
temperature impacts, there was a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle 
variation in the impact of air conditioning on fuel economy. Figure 
I.B-2 shows the distribution of the percentage differences (negative 
numbers indicate lower fuel economy over SC03). As can be seen in the 
figure, the vast majority of vehicles show an impact of -27.5

[[Page 5433]]

percent to -7.5 percent. Hybrid vehicles tended to show greater 
sensitivity to air conditioning operation than conventional vehicles. 
The effect of air conditioning operation reduced hybrid fuel economy by 
31 percent, 50 percent greater than the 20 percent impact on 
conventional vehicle fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.001

    c. Aggressive and High-Speed Driving. The US06 test was designed to 
address aggressive driving behavior, such as high acceleration rates 
and high speeds. The US06 test contains both lower-speed but aggressive 
urban driving and higher-speed highway driving modes. Because of the 
different driving modes contained on the US06 test, for the purpose of 
assessing the impacts of high speed and aggressive driving we developed 
a combination of the city and highway tests which is roughly comparable 
to that contained in the US06 cycle.
    On average, the fuel economy over the US06 cycle was almost 30 
percent lower than over the composite FTP and HFET fuel economy. The 
observed impacts ranged from -44 percent to -25 percent for more than 
80 percent of the vehicles. Figure I.B-3 shows the distribution of per 
vehicle impacts due to the aggressive driving of the US06 cycle. Hybrid 
vehicles showed a slightly greater impact of aggressive driving on fuel 
economy than conventional gasoline vehicles (33 percent versus 29 
percent, respectively).

[[Page 5434]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.002

    d. Conclusions. Many of the vehicles whose fuel economies were most 
affected by these driving conditions were hybrids and other high mile-
per-gallon vehicles. In general, high mpg vehicles will be more 
sensitive to changes in driving conditions for two reasons. One, 
because they use relatively little fuel in the first place, any 
increase in fuel consumption will show up as a relatively larger 
percentage fuel consumption increase. Two, because of the non-linearity 
of fuel economy with respect to fuel consumption, an increase in fuel 
consumption will lower the fuel economy of a high mpg vehicle much more 
than it will lower the fuel economy of a low mpg vehicle. For example, 
the fuel consumption increase associated with a 35 mpg rating that 
actually achieves 30 mpg in the real-world is the same as a 15 mpg 
rating that actually achieves 14 mpg.
    Hybrids, most of which achieve relatively high mpg and therefore 
share the issues discussed above, also face some additional challenges. 
Hybrids may well be the most significant powertrain technology 
innovation driven to market commercialization primarily because of its 
fuel economy potential. In addition, the nature of hybrid technology 
(the addition of a battery as a second source of on-board power, 
sophisticated control systems, sometimes a smaller engine) suggests 
that fuel economy will likely be more sensitive to certain conditions 
such as high acceleration and deceleration rates, cold ambient 
temperatures, etc. Finally, by industry standards, hybrids are a 
relatively young technology, and there is every reason to believe that 
as the technology matures, hybrid vehicle fuel economy will become much 
more robust over a broader range of driver behavior and climate 
conditions.
    This analysis clearly shows that the driving conditions represented 
by US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests can have substantial, measurable 
negative impact on fuel economy. There also is a large amount of 
vehicle-to-vehicle variation--that is, different vehicles are impacted 
differently by these factors. These findings call into question the 
appropriateness of the continued use of the current ``one-size-fits-
all'' 10 and 22 percent adjustment factors applied, respectively, to 
FTP and HFET fuel economy test results. The FTP and HFET tests clearly 
do not adequately reflect the broad range of conditions that exist in 
today's real-world driving. The additional emission test cycles 
incorporate several critical factors that are present in real-world 
driving, and that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Thus, 
these additional emission test cycles need to be brought into the fuel 
economy test methods, so that the estimates themselves will be more 
representative of the fuel economy consumers can expect to achieve in 
the real-world.

C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?

    We are proposing to revise and improve the methods used to 
determine the city and highway fuel economy estimates by incorporating 
fuel economy results over a broader range of driving conditions. An 
overview of this proposal is provided below. Section II provides a 
detailed explanation of the proposed new test methods, as well as the 
data and analysis upon which it is based.
    In addition, we are proposing minor changes to revise the format 
and content of the fuel economy label to make the information more 
useful to consumers. We also are proposing minor changes related to the 
fuel economy information program, including revising the comparable 
vehicle classes and adding a new provision for the electronic 
distribution of the annual Fuel Economy Guide. An overview of each of 
these proposals follows.
1. Revised Test Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy 
Estimates
    Today's proposal would revise the test methods by which the city 
and highway fuel economy estimates are calculated. We are proposing to 
replace the current method of adjusting the city (FTP) test result 
downward by 10 percent and the highway (HFET) test result downward by 
22 percent. Instead, we are proposing a new approach that incorporates 
additional test methods that address factors that impact fuel economy, 
but are missing from today's tests--specifically, higher speeds, more 
aggressive driving (e.g., higher acceleration rates), the use of air 
conditioning, and the effect of cold temperature. The proposed test 
methods

[[Page 5435]]

would bring into the fuel economy estimates the test results from the 
five emissions tests in place today: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold 
FTP. Thus, we refer to this as the ``5-cycle'' method. Under our 
proposal, rather than basing the city mpg estimate solely on the 
adjusted FTP test result, and the highway mpg estimate solely on the 
adjusted HFET test result, each estimate would be based on a 
``composite'' calculation of all five tests, weighting each 
appropriately to arrive at new city and highway mpg estimates. The new 
city and highway estimates would each be calculated according to 
separate city and highway ``5-cycle'' formulae that are based on fuel 
economy results over these five tests. The conditions represented by 
each test would be ``weighted'' according to how much they occur over 
average real-world city or highway driving. For example, we have 
derived weightings to represent driving cycle effects, trip length, air 
conditioner compressor-on usage, and operation over various 
temperatures. This methodology is described in detail in Section II.
    We also are proposing a downward adjustment to account for effects 
that are not reflected in our existing five test cycles. There are many 
factors that impact fuel economy, but are difficult to account for in 
the test cell on the dynamometer. These include roadway roughness, road 
grade (hills), wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice, 
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicle loads (e.g., trailers, 
cargo, multiple passengers), and others. Current data indicates that 
these impacts can lower fuel economy from 9 to 13 percent. Thus, we 
need to account for these factors in our new test methods, as they will 
lower a driver's fuel economy beyond those factors we are accounting 
for from our existing test cycles. We are proposing an 11 percent 
downward adjustment to account for these non-dynamometer effects. Our 
basis for this downward adjustment factor is detailed in Section II.C.3 
and the Draft Technical Support Document.
    The 5-cycle approach, including this 11 percent downward adjustment 
factor to account for non-dynamometer effects, will result in city and 
highway estimates that reflect average fuel economy. We are proposing 
to continue to set the city and highway mpg estimates at the average, 
or mean, level. However, we understand that many drivers expect to 
achieve or exceed the fuel economy indicated by these mpg estimates. By 
continuing to set the estimates at the average level, by definition, 
half of drivers will get worse fuel economy than the label values. We 
seek comment on whether the city and highway estimates should be set a 
level that is lower than average--for example, to ensure that 75 
percent, or even more, of drivers achieve or exceed the label values.
    Because the 5-cycle method is inherently vehicle-specific, the 
difference between today's values and the new fuel economy estimates 
could vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. Today's proposed approach 
would result in city fuel economy estimates that are between 10 to 20 
percent lower than today's labels for the majority of conventional 
vehicles. For vehicles that achieve generally better fuel economy, such 
as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new city estimates would be about 
20 to 30 percent lower than today's labels. The new highway fuel 
economy estimates would be 5 to 15 percent lower for the majority of 
vehicles, including hybrids.
    Today's proposal would greatly improve the EPA fuel economy 
estimates, so that they come closer to the fuel economy that consumers 
achieve in the real-world. However, as discussed previously in this 
notice, these are still estimates. Even with the improved fuel economy 
test methods proposed today, some consumers will continue to get fuel 
economy that is higher or lower than the new estimates.
    Under this new 5-cycle approach, some auto manufacturers have 
expressed concern about the potential for increased test burden. The 
three additional emission tests that we propose to include in the fuel 
economy calculation are run today on a much more limited number of 
vehicle groups than are the FTP and HFET tests. Typically, for every 3-
4 FTP and HFET tests conducted, only one US06 or SC03 test is run, and 
cold FTP testing is even more limited. If we were to require full 5-
cycle testing across all vehicle types, the testing demands for the 
auto industry could increase dramatically, and could trigger the need 
for a major expansion of their testing facilities.
    Thus, we are proposing to implement the new fuel economy test 
methods in a way that gives the auto industry sufficient lead time to 
plan for their increased testing needs. This enables us to implement an 
improved fuel economy label methodology as soon as possible--in the 
2008 model year. We also are implementing an approach that mitigates 
the testing burden where warranted. We have done this in two key ways.
    First, for the first three model years (2008 through 2010), we 
would provide manufacturers with the option of using a scale of 
adjustments based on an analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle 
method. This approach, called the mpg-based approach, incorporates the 
effects of higher speed/aggressive driving, air conditioning use, and 
colder temperatures, but less directly than the 5-cycle vehicle-
specific method. The mpg-based adjustments were derived by applying the 
5-cycle formulae to a data set of recent fuel economy test data, and 
developing a regression line through the data. (See Section II for a 
full description of this approach). These adjustments differ based on 
the mpg a vehicle obtains over the FTP (City) or HFET (Highway) tests. 
In other words, every vehicle with the same mpg on the FTP test would 
receive the same adjustment for its city fuel economy label. Likewise, 
every vehicle with the same mpg on the HFET test would receive the same 
adjustment for its highway fuel economy label. This method of 
adjustment would not require any testing beyond the FTP/HFET tests 
already performed today, thus, it can be implemented sooner than the 5-
cycle approach as an interim improvement to our fuel economy test 
methods. However, during this timeframe, manufacturers may choose to 
run full 5-cycle testing for any of their vehicle models. This approach 
would provide consumers with more accurate estimates, while allowing 
the industry the necessary lead time to prepare for the necessary 
testing under the 5-cycle approach.
    Second, when we move to the 5-cycle vehicle-specific approach in 
model years 2011 and beyond, we are proposing criteria that would 
select specific vehicle groups for full 5-cycle testing, rather than 
requiring complete 5-cycle data generation for every vehicle. We 
believe this approach would result in fuel economy estimates that are 
generally as accurate as they would be under full 5-cycle testing. In 
other words, we are only requiring full 5-cycle testing where we can 
predict with reasonable certainty that the fuel economy results under 
the 5-cycle method would yield a significantly different result than 
the mpg-based adjustments.
    We propose to establish a tolerance band around the mpg-based city 
and highway adjustment lines. Manufacturers would be required to 
calculate a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate for each vehicle group for 
which 5-cycle data exists for emissions purposes. If the 5-cycle fuel 
economy estimate for this vehicle group falls below the respective 
tolerance band around the mpg adjustment line, then the manufacturer 
would be eligible to use the mpg-based adjustments for each

[[Page 5436]]

vehicle configuration represented by that set of 5-cycle data. That is, 
the 5-cycle vehicle group may include within it several vehicle 
groupings, or specific vehicle model types, for which additional FTP/
HFET data is available. The manufacturer would be able to use the MPG 
line to determine the fuel economy label adjustments for each of these 
model types with associated FTP/HFET test data. Fuller 5-cycle testing 
would be required for all vehicles represented by a vehicle group for 
which the 5-cycle fuel economy is below the tolerance bands. Section II 
further describes the level of these tolerance bands and how this 
concept would be implemented. A full discussion of our proposed 
methodology and results is contained in Section II.
2. Revised Label Format
    To make the label more easily understood by consumers, we are also 
proposing changes to the fuel economy label format specified in the 
regulations. The proposed changes include updating the look of the 
label, simplifying its contents, and improving its graphics, among 
others. The purpose of these changes is to present the fuel economy 
information in a manner that is easier for the consumer to understand 
and use. The proposed changes are discussed in detail in Section IV.
3. Revised Comparable Vehicle Classes
    The comparable vehicle classes are currently defined in EPA's fuel 
economy regulations. They are needed to fulfill the EPCA statutory 
requirement to provide fuel economy information about comparable 
vehicles on the label.\24\ These classes were last revised in 1984. 
Since that time, there have been some significant changes to vehicle 
designs which warrant changes to the defined classes. Briefly, we are 
proposing to add SUV and Minivan classes, and to consolidate some 
classes which have become less prevalent in the market. This is 
discussed in more detail in Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Minor Changes in Certain Test Procedures
    We are proposing minor procedural changes in certain test 
procedures. First, the US06 drive cycle contains elements of both city 
and highway types of driving, yet the exhaust sample is collected in 
only one ``bag,'' yielding one overall fuel economy result. In order to 
more accurately reflect the city portion of the drive cycle into the 
city fuel economy estimate, and the highway portion of the US06 into 
the highway fuel economy estimate, we are proposing a revised test 
protocol that would require collecting the exhaust sample into two 
bags, thus providing separate results from the city and highway 
portions. This has the benefit of more accurately capturing how a 
vehicle's fuel economy would be impacted over the various types of 
driving reflected in the cycle, but with very minimal cost impact.
    Second, today diesel vehicles are not required to run the cold FTP 
test since they are currently exempt from the cold carbon monoxide 
standard. We are proposing that diesel vehicles be required to run this 
test for 5-cycle fuel economy purposes.
    Finally, the current cold FTP test gives manufacturers the option, 
but does not require them to, run the heater or defroster while 
performing this test at 20 degrees F. We expect that in most cases in 
the real world, consumers would indeed be running these accessories in 
colder temperatures, which will impact their fuel economy. We also 
understand that some, but not all, manufacturers today do run these 
accessories during the test. Therefore, to ensure this test most 
accurately reflects real-world conditions, and to ensure these 
conditions are run uniformly across manufacturers, we are seeking 
comment on requiring manufacturers to run the heater and defroster 
while performing the cold FTP test.
5. Other Fuel Economy-Related Topics
    In addition to the proposed fuel economy label calculations and 
label formats, we are proposing a few other changes related to the fuel 
economy labels and annual fuel economy booklet. These topics are 
discussed in Section V.

D. Today's Proposal Does Not Impact or Change CAFE Test Procedures

    Today's proposal does not alter the FTE and HFET driving cycles, 
the measurement techniques or the calculation methods used to determine 
CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE be determined from the EPA test 
procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that give comparable 
results), which are the city and highway tests of today, with a few 
small adjustments for minor procedural changes that have occurred since 
1975.\25\ Today's proposal will not adjust the CAFE calculations; the 
new method for calculating fuel economy label estimates will fall under 
regulations that are separate from the CAFE regulations (currently, the 
regulations for calculating CAFE are in 40 CFR 600.501-85 through 513-
91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. When Will the New Fuel Economy Estimates Take Effect?

    We want the public to benefit from the improved information 
provided by the new fuel economy estimates as soon as possible. 
Therefore, we propose that these new regulations take effect with the 
2008 model year, which will be available for sale at dealers in the 
fall of 2007. We believe this is the earliest possible date for 
implementation, since some manufacturers typically begin certifying 
model year 2008 vehicles as early as late 2006. We also encourage 
manufacturers to voluntarily utilize these new methods sooner, and are 
therefore proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the 
new regulations as soon as the final regulations are published.

F. How Will EPA Communicate to the Public the Transition Between the 
Old Label Values and New?

    To ensure that the public understands the relationship between the 
old estimates and the new, EPA plans to conduct extensive public 
outreach concurrent with the implementation of a final rule. We will 
provide information about the new estimates and how to use them via 
web-based information, fact sheets, and other communication methods. 
This information will be designed to explain all aspects of any new 
calculation methods, including their impact on label estimates from 
previous model years.

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. EPCA
    The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Most of the labeling 
provisions applicable to vehicle labeling and information are found at 
49 U.S.C. 32908. This section restricts EPA's requirements for fuel 
economy labeling to automobiles rated at no more than 8,500 pounds 
gross vehicle weight. It requires manufacturers of automobiles to 
attach a fuel economy label to a prominent place on each automobile 
manufactured in a model year and also requires the dealers to maintain 
the label on the automobile.\26\
    EPCA requires EPA to promulgate regulations to measure and 
calculate fuel economy.\27\ To the extent practicable, EPCA requires 
that fuel

[[Page 5437]]

economy tests be carried out with emissions tests performed under 
section 206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525).\28\
    EPA's resulting fuel economy regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 
600. EPA has broad discretion in determining how to measure and 
calculate fuel economy for purposes of labeling under 49 U.S.C. 
32908(b).\29\ The fact that EPA's current fuel economy labeling 
regulations includes the reporting of separate ``city'' and ``highway'' 
fuel economy is a result of a series of EPA regulations as discussed in 
Section I.A. above. Thus, in developing today's proposal (discussed in 
Section III below), we considered, but ultimately are not proposing, 
other methodologies for reporting fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
    \27\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ EPCA places testing restrictions on corporate average fuel 
economy (CAFE), discussed below. Today's proposal does not impact 
those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA imposed some specific requirements for the information to be 
included on the fuel economy label.\30\ Today's proposal retains these 
items:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The fuel economy of the automobile.
    b. The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.
    c. The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all 
manufacturers.
    d. A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to 
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles 
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year.
    e. The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the 
sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064).
    f. Other information required or authorized by the Administrator 
that is related to the information required [within items a. through 
d.]
    EPCA also defines ``fuel economy'' as the average number of miles 
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent 
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by EPA.\31\ Thus, today's 
proposal retains the requirement to report fuel economy as miles-per-
gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA requires EPA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing 
information that is ``simple and readily understandable.'' \32\ It 
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.'' \33\ This booklet is more 
commonly known as the annual ``Fuel Economy Guide.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA also contains statutory provisions for average fuel economy 
(known widely as ``Corporate Average Fuel Economy,'' or CAFE).\34\ 
Under these provisions, EPA is required to prescribe testing and 
calculation procedures to measure fuel economy for each model and 
calculate average fuel economy for a manufacturer, using the same 
procedures that were used for 1975 model year passenger automobiles 
(weighted 55 percent urban cycle and 45 percent highway cycle), or 
procedures that give comparable results.\35\ This requirement does not 
apply to the fuel economy information manufacturers apply to the fuel 
economy label required in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902-32904.
    \35\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also required to consult with the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC), DOT and DOE in carrying out the fuel economy information 
requirements in EPCA.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy Policy Act of 2005
    Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) directs EPA to 
``update or revise the adjustment factors in sections 600.209-85 and 
600.209-95, of the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 (1995) 
Fuel Economy Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles to 
take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, 
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test 
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel 
depleting features.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's proposal, the 5-cycle approach changes the adjustment 
factors by establishing a new method to calculate fuel economy 
estimates that uses fuel economy results from additional test 
procedures combined with a changed adjustment factor. The mpg-based 
approach uses the same test methods as the current fuel economy program 
(i.e., the FTP and HFET tests), but changes the adjustment factors 
applied to those test results. These options satisfy the EPAct 
provisions as follows.
    First, the 5-cycle method proposed today directly includes the 
effects of higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations 
in temperature, and use of air conditioning by including fuel economy 
measured during tests that incorporate these features. The mpg-based 
approach also takes these factors into consideration, but less 
directly, as it incorporates the effects of these factors by basing the 
adjustment factor on an analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle 
method. Under our proposal, we use the mpg-based approach as an interim 
option to establish an appropriate period of lead time for 
manufacturers. We also allow its continued use only where the average 
effects reflected under the mpg-based adjustments (of higher speed/
acceleration, air conditioning, and cold temperature) on a specific 
vehicle configuration would be representative of those measured under 
actual 5-cycle testing.
    Second, we interpret the statute's reference to ``shorter city test 
cycle lengths'' to mean shorter than the current FTP cycle used to 
determine city fuel economy. We have addressed that concern in the 
proposal by weighting in updated factors for ``cold starts'' and ``hot 
starts'' (where the engine is not warmed up or has been parked for a 
brief amount of time and then restarted) into the equation for 
determining city fuel economy. This simulates shorter city test cycle 
lengths where a vehicle's engine is more frequently shut down and 
restarted than in the current FTP test. Also, the US06 and SC03 test 
cycles are physically shorter in length than the FTP (the FTP is about 
11 miles in length, whereas the US06 is about 8 miles, and the SC03 is 
about 3.6 miles.)
    Third, we interpret the statutory reference to ``current reference 
fuels'' to mean the laboratory fuels used to perform the fuel economy 
tests, and that the underlying concern of Congress was that the high-
quality lab fuels would give higher fuel economy than the typical fuel 
used by consumers. The quality of the laboratory test fuel is specified 
in EPA regulations for emission compliance.\39\ The test gasoline fuel 
is roughly equivalent to premium, high-octane fuel available at the 
pump. It is necessary that all vehicles use the same grade of fuel to 
provide a level playing field for manufacturers to compare the emission 
compliance results to the federal emission standards, since certain 
fuel specifications can have an impact on tailpipe emissions. The 
impact of the higher-octane test fuel on fuel economy is less 
significant but there are other real-world fuel differences that can 
have a noticeable impact, as discussed in Section II. For instance, 
ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, and

[[Page 5438]]

when blended with gasoline, with all other things being equal, will 
slightly lower fuel efficiency. Other seasonal variations in fuel 
composition (e.g., oxygenates in winter fuel) may also cause a slight 
reduction in fuel economy. EPA is proposing an adjustment factor to 
account for fuel differences and other fuel-depleting features as 
described further in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 40 CFR 86.113-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Relationship of Today's Proposal With Other Statutes and Regulations
    a. Automobile Disclosure Act. A provision in EPCA (at 49 U.S.C. 
32908(b)(2)) allows the fuel economy information to be included on the 
window sticker label of vehicle manufacturing and price information 
required by the Automobile Disclosure Act at 15 U.S.C. 1232 (the so-
called ``Monroni'' label.). To that end, the Federal Trade Commission 
issued a ``Fuel Guide'' concerning the fuel economy advertising for new 
automobiles, published in the Federal Register at 16 CFR Part 259. This 
guide refers back to EPA's fuel economy regulations and specifically to 
how manufacturers are permitted to advertise the city and highway fuel 
economy of their vehicles.
    b. Internal Revenue Code. This code contains the provisions 
governing the administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax.\40\ 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). Today's proposal does not impact these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 26 U.S.C. 4064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Clean Air Act. Reference is made in EPCA to the Clean Air Act 
statute. Specifically, EPCA states that fuel economy shall to the 
extent practicable include the emissions tests required under Section 
206 of the Clean Air Act.\41\ Today's proposal incorporates three 
additional types of emissions tests required under the Clean Air Act 
for fuel economy testing, as discussed in detail in Section II. We also 
propose to make several changes to existing emissions tests. These 
changes are being proposed under the statutory authority of Section 206 
of the Clean Air Act, which permits the Administrator to define, and to 
revise from time to time, the test procedures used to determine 
compliance with applicable emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005. This action is expected to have no 
impact on the alternative motor vehicle federal income tax credits the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is establishing under Section 1341 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. IRS is in the process of preparing the 
final guidance for these new federal income tax credits for consumers 
who purchase new hybrid, diesel, dedicated alternative fuel, or fuel 
cell vehicles beginning on January 1, 2006. The Energy Policy Act of 
2005 requires EPA to coordinate with and support IRS' implementation of 
these new tax credits, and EPA is providing input on a number of 
technical issues. EPA anticipates that the fuel economy values used to 
help determine tax credit eligibility for light-duty vehicles will be 
``unadjusted'' laboratory city fuel economy test values. Accordingly, 
the changes being proposed today are anticipated to have no impact on 
the tax credit program.
    Similarly, this action is expected to have no impact on the ``HOV 
Facilities'' regulations EPA is establishing under section 1121 of the 
Transportation Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in the process of developing 
proposed regulations to identify low emission and energy-efficient 
vehicles for the purpose of assisting states administering high-
occupancy lane transportation plans. EPA anticipates that the fuel 
economy values used to identify these vehicles will be the 
``unadjusted'' FTP-based fuel economy test values. Accordingly, the 
changes proposed today are anticipated to have no impact on the HOV 
facilities program.

II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy Label Methodology

    The current fuel economy label values utilize measured fuel economy 
over city and highway driving cycles and adjust these values downward 
by 10 and 22 percent, respectively, to account for a variety of factors 
not addressed in EPA's vehicle test procedures. These factors include 
differences between the way vehicles are driven on the road and over 
the test cycles, air conditioning use, widely varying ambient 
temperature and humidity, varying trip lengths, wind, precipitation, 
rough road conditions, hills, etc. The purpose of the new formulae for 
city and highway fuel economy labels is to widen the base for the 
labels to include actual vehicle testing over a wider range of driving 
patterns and ambient conditions than is currently covered by the FTP 
and HFET tests.
    For example, vehicles are often driven more aggressively and at 
higher speeds than is represented in the FTP and HFET tests. The 
incorporation of measured fuel economy over the US06 test cycle into 
the fuel economy label values would make the label values more 
realistic. Drivers often use air conditioning in warm, humid 
conditions, while the air conditioner is turned off during the FTP and 
HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the SC03 
test cycle into the fuel economy label values would reflect the added 
fuel needed to operate the air conditioning system. Vehicles also often 
are driven at temperatures below 75 degrees Fahrenheit (F), at which 
the FTP and HFET tests are performed. The incorporation of measured 
fuel economy over the cold temperature FTP test into the fuel economy 
label values would reflect the additional fuel needed to start up a 
cold engine at colder temperatures.
    The proposed vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach to fuel economy 
label estimation would incorporate estimates of the fuel efficiency of 
each vehicle during high speed, aggressive driving, air conditioning 
operation and cold temperatures into each vehicle's fuel economy label. 
It would combine measured fuel economy over the two current fuel 
economy tests, the FTP and HFET, as well as that over the US06, SC03 
and cold FTP tests into estimates of city and highway fuel economy for 
labeling purposes. The test results from each cycle (and in some cases, 
portions of cycles or emission ``bags'')\42\ would be weighted to 
represent the contribution of each cycle's attributes to onroad driving 
and fuel consumption. The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach would 
eliminate the need to account for the effect of aggressive driving, air 
conditioning use and colder temperatures on fuel economy through 
generic factors (as done today) which may not reflect that particular 
vehicle's sensitivity to these factors. A generic adjustment would 
still be necessary to

[[Page 5439]]

account for factors not addressed by any of the five dynamometer tests. 
The magnitude of such an adjustment is comparable to today's 10 and 22 
percent generic adjustments. Overall, under the vehicle specific 5-
cycle approach, each vehicle's label fuel economy would better reflect 
the capabilities of that vehicle on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the 
regulations as the ``cold start'' test and the ``hot start'' test. 
Each of these parts is divided into two periods, or ``phases': A 
``transient'' phase and a ``stabilized'' phase. Because the 
stabilized phase of the hot start test is assumed to be identical to 
the stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold start 
stabilized phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called 
``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the 
exhaust samples are collected. The phases are run in the following 
order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2), 
and hot start transient (Bag 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests are only performed on 
a sub-set of new vehicle configurations. In contrast, for fuel economy 
purposes, FTP and HFET tests are performed on many more vehicle 
configurations. In order to minimize the number of additional US06, 
SC03 and cold FTP tests resulting from this proposal, we are proposing 
that manufacturers be allowed to estimate the fuel economy over these 
three tests for vehicle configurations that are not normally tested for 
emission compliance purposes using the fuel economy measurements that 
are normally available. This is currently done on a more limited basis 
for both the FTP and HFET, and is referred to as analytically derived 
fuel economy (ADFE).\43\ We are also proposing that manufacturers be 
allowed to use the interim approach to fuel economy label estimation, 
the mpg-based approach, indefinitely when the available 5-cycle fuel 
economy data indicate that a vehicle's specific 5-cycle fuel economy is 
very close to that estimated by the mpg-based curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EPA's current policy for analytically derived fuel economy 
estimates for the FTP and HFET tests is contained in the EPA 
memorandum entitled, ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy 
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,'' March 11, 2004, CCD-04-06 (LDV/
LDT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even with these policies, we expect that some manufacturers would 
have to perform some additional US06, SC03, or cold FTP tests to 
address differences in vehicle designs which are not covered by the 
analytical derivation methodology. Other manufacturers may decide to 
perform additional tests simply to improve accuracy over the analytical 
derivation methodology. Depending on how manufacturers choose to apply 
this method, this additional testing could involve the construction of 
additional test facilities. (Test burden issues are discussed further 
in Section VI of this preamble.) Therefore, in order to allow 
sufficient lead-time for the construction of these facilities, we are 
proposing to allow manufacturers the option of using an alternative, 
interim set of adjustments through the 2010 model year until the 5-
cycle approach becomes mandatory with the 2011 model year. However, a 
manufacturer can still use the 5-cycle formula prior to the 2011 model 
year for specific vehicle models, if it so desires.
    The interim set of adjustments is termed the ``mpg-based'' 
adjustment. (See Figure II-1 in the following section for a graphical 
depiction of these adjustments.) The mpg-based approach is a sliding 
scale of adjustments which varies according to a vehicle's measured 
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET tests. The mpg-based adjustment 
factors were developed from applying the 5-cycle formulae to 423 recent 
model year vehicles and determining the average difference between the 
5-cycle and current city and highway fuel economies. Thus, because the 
data used to develop the average adjustment factors were derived from 
5-cycle fuel economies, the mpg-based adjustment factors include the 
effect of high speeds, aggressive driving, air conditioning, and colder 
temperatures. However, they do so based on the impact of these factors 
on the average vehicle, not the individual vehicle, which is the case 
with the 5-cycle formulae. For example, for vehicles with FTP fuel 
economy of 20-30 mpg, the mpg-based approach would adjust the FTP fuel 
economy downward by 22-24 percent, versus today's 10 percent downward 
adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label values under the mpg-based 
approach tend to be about 13-15 percent lower than today's label 
values. For vehicles with HFET fuel economy of 25-35 mpg, the mpg-based 
approach would adjust the HFET fuel economy downward by 29 percent, 
versus today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, highway fuel 
economy label values under the mpg-based approach would tend to be 
about 9 percent lower than today's label values.
    As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations described above were 
developed from the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003-2005 
model year vehicles. We propose to update the mpg-based curves 
periodically using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates 
for the previous three or more model years. These revised mpg-based 
equations would be issued through the publication of an EPA guidance 
document. EPA would publish the mpg-based equations by January 1 of the 
calendar year prior to the model year to which the equations first 
apply (e.g., for model year 2010 fuel economy calculations the 
equations would be made available before January 1, 2009). In order to 
keep the mpg-based equations up-to-date and based on recent technology 
vehicles, EPA would update these equations periodically, but no more 
than on an annual basis. However, rather than publish the equations 
applicable to 2008 model year vehicles via guidance, the proposed 
regulations contain the equations that would be applicable to 2008 
model year vehicles, as well as the components of the equations to be 
utilized for future model year vehicles. We request comment on this 
updating of the mpg-based equations.
    In addition to proposing the mpg-based adjustment factors for the 
2008-2010 model years, as mentioned above, we propose to allow use of 
this method of label estimation to be used for 2011 and later model 
years for those vehicles which meet certain criteria (discussed in 
detail below) that indicate that the full 5-cycle testing would not 
likely result in significantly different fuel economy label values. 
Each year, a number of vehicles are tested over all five dynamometer 
test cycles for emission certification purposes (i.e., emission data 
vehicles). The fuel economy data for the five dynamometer test cycles 
for each emission data vehicle can be inserted into the 5-cycle 
formulae and the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
determined. Emission data vehicles also undergo testing over the FTP 
and HFET. Thus, the mpg-based city and highway fuel economy values for 
each emission data vehicle can also be determined using the available 
FTP and HFET fuel economy values. The 5-cycle city and highway fuel 
economy values can be compared to the mpg-based city and highway fuel 
economy values, respectively, for each emission data vehicle.
    The mpg-based line represents the effects of high speed, high 
acceleration, air conditioning, and colder temperatures of the average 
new vehicle. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable to allow 
continued use of the mpg-based line when the available 5-cycle fuel 
economy data (from emissions certification testing) indicates that the 
particular vehicle design reflects at least these average effects. To 
accomplish this, we defined the lower bound of a tolerance band around 
the mpg-based line as the criteria for whether the mpg-based line could 
be used or whether 5-cycle testing would be required. We chose four and 
five percent as the tolerance bands for the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle 
highway fuel economy values, respectively. Mathematically, the 
tolerance line is defined by Y x mpg-based fuel economy, where Y is 
0.96 for city fuel economy and 0.95 for highway fuel economy. In other 
words, if the 5-cycle city fuel economy value is greater than 0.96 
times the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations

[[Page 5440]]

represented by the emission data vehicle (i.e., all vehicles within the 
vehicle test group) would be eligible to use the mpg-based approach. 
Similarly, when the 5-cycle highway fuel economy is less than the mpg-
based highway fuel economy minus five percent, all vehicle 
configurations represented by the emission data vehicle would be 
required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach. This could be 
done using ADFE estimates, when appropriate. This approach is 
appropriate because those vehicles above the upper tolerance band that 
used the mpg-based line would simply be reducing their fuel economy 
down to the average level, even though the 5-cycle data indicated 
better than average performance was likely for that vehicle group. 
Because of the better-than-average performance, we expect that most 
manufacturers will want to do complete 5-cycle testing for vehicles 
likely to be above the upper tolerance band. However, we request 
comment on whether there may be some inherent variability regarding all 
outliers above and below the tolerance band that would make it 
desirable to require 5-cycle testing in all of these cases.
    If the 5-cycle city fuel economy fell below the mpg-based city fuel 
economy by more than four percent, but the 5-cycle highway fuel economy 
did not fall below the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five 
percent, all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission 
data vehicle would be required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach for both city and highway fuel economy, since fuel economy 
values for all five cycles are important in estimating 5-cycle city 
fuel economy. However, if the 5-cycle highway fuel economy was less 
than the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent, but 
the 5-cycle city fuel economy was not more than four percent lower than 
the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations 
represented by the emission data vehicle would use mpg-based approach 
to estimate the city fuel economy label. For highway label estimation, 
all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission data vehicle 
would use an approximate 5-cycle formula for highway fuel economy which 
includes vehicle-specific fuel economy measurements for the FTP, HFET 
and US06 tests, but the values for the SC03 and cold FTP tests could be 
estimated based on relationships developed from other vehicles. This is 
appropriate because the impact of the cold FTP test on highway fuel 
economy is not vehicle-specific, but modeled. Also the impact of the 
SC03 test on highway fuel economy is very small, particularly compared 
to that for the US06 test.
    The proposed criteria for long term use of the mpg-based approach 
(5-cycle city fuel economy above -4.0 percent and 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy above -5.0 percent) are based on the balance of three factors. 
One, we designed them to be sufficiently large so that simple test-to-
test variability would not cause an emission data vehicle to fail the 
criteria. This was a greater concern for the highway fuel economy 
comparison, due to the dominance of the US06 fuel economy (which 
inherently has greater test-to-test variability than the other tests) 
in the 5-cycle formula. Two, we desired to minimize the potential error 
in the fuel economy label. Label fuel economy values are rounded to the 
nearest one mpg. Thus, we desired to keep the difference between the 5-
cycle and mpg-based fuel economy values within roughly one mpg, if 
possible. Three, we desired to avoid additional fuel economy testing 
that had little impact on the label values.
    The four percent tolerance band for city fuel economy is equivalent 
to roughly 0.6-0.7 mpg on average. Due to the contribution of a number 
of independent fuel economy measurements in the 5-cycle city fuel 
economy formula, the effect of test-to-test variability should be much 
lower than 4.0 percent. Based on the 5-cycle test results of 423 recent 
model year vehicles, we estimate that 90 percent of all emission data 
vehicles would meet the 4.0 percent. Thus, we believe that this 
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
    The five percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy is 
equivalent to roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is slightly higher 
than the typical error associated with rounding. However, due to the 
dominant contribution of the US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy formula, and the fact that this test tends to have 
relatively high variability, we are concerned that test-to-test 
variability could be on the order of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy formula. We estimate that 75 percent of all emission data 
vehicles would meet the 5.0 percent. Thus, again, we believe that this 
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
    Overall, allowing the continued use of the mpg-based approach would 
reduce the number of additional SC03 and cold FTP tests by about 90 
percent and reduce the number of additional US06 tests by about 75 
percent indefinitely. We request comment on the continued use of the 
mpg-based approach beyond the 2010 model year and on the 4.0 and 5.0 
percent criteria for its use.
    Section II.A presents the proposed interim mpg-based formulae and 
the proposed vehicle-specific 5-cycle formulae for city and highway 
fuel economy label values. Section II.B describes how these formulae 
would be applied to develop labels for specific grouping of vehicles. 
Section II.C describes how the 5-cycle formulae were derived. Section 
II.D describes how the mpg-based formulae were derived. Section II.E 
describes how the current city and highway fuel economy values would 
change under the proposed formulae.

A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae

    Currently, manufacturers test their vehicles over two dynamometer 
tests in order to develop their fuel economy label values: the FTP or 
city test and the HFET or highway test. Fuel economies measured over 
these two tests are multiplied by 0.90 and 0.78, respectively. These 
``adjusted'' fuel economies are then sales-weighted using procedures 
outlined in Subpart D of Part 600 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) to develop fuel economy label values by model type.
    Under today's proposal, we would replace the 0.90 and 0.78 factors 
with new factors which are not simply constants. For model years 2008-
2010, a manufacturer would have the option of using two distinct 
methodologies to calculate the city and highway fuel economy values for 
any specific test vehicle. One approach is called the mpg-based 
approach or formula, since the city and highway label values are based 
on the fuel economy (or MPG) measured over the FTP and HFET, 
respectively. The other approach is called the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach, since the city and highway label values are based on the test 
results of five test cycles, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP. 
Beginning with the 2011 model year, we propose that manufacturers would 
use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method, but that the mpg-based 
approach could still be used by qualifying vehicles. Below we present 
the specific equations under the two approaches which would be used to 
convert fuel economies measured over the dynamometer cycles into city 
and highway fuel economy values prior to sales weighting. We are not 
proposing any changes to the methods for combining city and highway 
fuel economy values for specific vehicles into label values for a model 
type.

[[Page 5441]]

    The formulae for the 5-cycle approach are, as indicated by its 
name, based on the fuel economy measurements over the five test cycles 
(FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP). Both approaches also include an 
additional downward adjustment to represent effects impossible to 
incorporate in laboratory dynamometer testing. However, the formulae 
for the mpg-based approach are also based on fuel economy measurements 
over the five test cycles. The difference is the set of 5-cycle fuel 
economy measurements that are used. Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach, the fuel economy measurements over the 5 dynamometer test 
cycles would all be performed on (or estimated for) a specific vehicle 
in the current model year. Under the mpg-based approach, historic fuel 
economy data over the 5 test cycles would have been analyzed to produce 
a fleet-wide average relationship between (1) FTP fuel economy and 5-
cycle city fuel economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy. Under the mpg-based approach, a specific vehicle's city 
and highway fuel economy labels are based on this fleet-wide average 
relationship, as opposed to that vehicle's own results over the 5 test 
cycles. In other words, every vehicle with the same measured FTP fuel 
economy would receive the same city fuel economy label value. Likewise, 
every vehicle with the same measured HFET fuel economy would receive 
the same highway fuel economy label value. Figure II-1 shows the 5-
cycle city fuel economy for 423 recent model year vehicles and the mpg-
based city fuel curve which has been developed from these data. The 
horizontal axis is the measured FTP fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.003

Application of the 5-cycle approach to these vehicles would have 
produced the city fuel economy values indicated by the diamonds in the 
plot. (The nine hybrid vehicles are indicated by large squares.) 
Application of the mpg-based formula to these vehicles would have 
produced city fuel economy values by reading a number off of the curved 
line in the plot.
    Figure II-2 shows the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for the same 423 
recent model year vehicles and the mpg-based highway fuel economies 
which have been developed from these data. The horizontal axis is the 
measured HFET fuel economy.

[[Page 5442]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.004

    Both Figure II-1 and II-2 include several data points which are 
represented by large squares. These are vehicles which incorporate 
hybrid technology. Hybrids appear to fall well below the mpg-based 
curve for city fuel economy, but not for highway fuel economy. This 
issue will be discussed in more detail below.
    Given that both approaches utilize the 5-cycle fuel economy 
formulae in some fashion, it is useful to begin this section with a 
description of how the fuel economy measured over the 5 test cycles are 
combined to represent onroad city and highway fuel economy. Then we 
will describe how the fleet-average formulae for the mpg-based approach 
were derived from these 5-cycle fuel economy estimates.
    The 5-cycle formulae are derived from extensive data on real-world 
driving conditions, such as driving activity, temperatures, air 
conditioner operation, trip length, and other factors. In this section 
and in the Draft Technical Support Document, we fully describe the 
basis for developing these formulae. We seek comment on all aspects of 
the formulae and the underlying data upon which they are based. We also 
encourage interested parties to submit any additional data that would 
be relevant in our final analysis. Further, we want to ensure the 5-
cycle approach continues in future years to reflect updated conditions 
impacting real-world fuel economy. Therefore, we encourage the public 
to submit any such data in the future so that EPA may assess such new 
information and evaluate the need for changes to this approach over 
time.
    Since our goal is to develop a consistent, objective approach that 
applies to all vehicles, we have assumed that all types of vehicles are 
driven and maintained similarly, and we have proposed to weight the 
five driving cycles and apply non-dynomometer adjustments in the same 
way for all types of vehicles. However, if data showed that a specific 
type of vehicle is driven or maintained very differently, and this 
impacted fuel economy significantly (e.g., an unusually low incidence 
of aggressive driving, A/C usage, etc.), then one might consider 
different weights or adjustment factors on this basis. We seek comment 
on any data that would inform whether unique weighting factors or non-
dynomometer adjustments should be considered for specific vehicle 
technologies (e.g., hybrids or diesels). For example, hybrids may be 
purchased preferentially by people whose driving patterns take 
advantage of their performance characteristics, and hybrid owners may 
be more conscious of driving techniques (such as mild braking) that 
improve fuel economy. Even if this were the case today, this difference 
would not necessarily persist as hybrids become more prevalent in the 
fleet. Moreover, it is not clear how such vehicle technology-specific 
factors can or should be reflected in EPA's fuel economy test methods 
or calculations. We seek comment on the contribution of such factors to 
the on-road fuel economy experience of consumers, and on the relevance 
of these factors to the fuel economy label. We also seek comment on the 
extent to which such unique factors might reduce the perceived 
objectivity of the fuel economy estimates if they presume differences 
in driving behavior.
    1. MPG-Based Approach (Available in 2008-2010 Model Years)
    Under the mpg-based approach, the city fuel economy value would be 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.005

where

FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the FTP 
test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.
    This value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle 
models included in the ``fuel economy grouping'' (e.g., model type) as 
defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.
    Likewise, the highway fuel economy value would be calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.006

where

[[Page 5443]]

HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test.
    This value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle 
models included in the ``fuel economy grouping'' (e.g., model type) as 
defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.
    The rationale for the various constants in Equations (1) and (2) is 
described in Section II.B.
2. Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Approach (Applicable to 2011 and Later 
Model Years and Optional in Prior Model Years)
    Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, the city fuel economy 
value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.007

, where[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.008

where,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.009

or,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.010

where
Bag y FEx = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75 [deg] or 20[deg]
    F. The rationale for the various constants in the equations is 
described below in Section II.B. Likewise,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.011

where

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

    Vehicles tested over a 4-bag FTP would substitute the fuel economy 
over Bag 4 for Bag 2 in the above equation.
    Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle formula, the highway fuel 
economy value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.012

, where[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.013

[[Page 5444]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.014

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

B. Application of the Formulae To Develop Fuel Economy Labels for 
Specific Vehicles

    We are not proposing any major changes to the way that vehicle 
configurations are grouped for fuel economy labeling purposes. For 
model years 2008-2010, when the mpg-based formulae are applicable, 
there would be no change in the procedure by which specific vehicle 
labels are developed.\44\ Since the mpg-based formulae are based solely 
on the current fuel economy test cycles, no additional tests would need 
to be conducted. Only the effective adjustment factors would be 
modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 40 CFR 600 and relevant EPA guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting with the 2011 model year, vehicle manufacturers would 
first utilize their available 5-cycle fuel economy testing of emission 
data vehicles to determine which test groups could utilize the mpg-
based approach and which would have to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach. The test groups for which their emission data vehicles passed 
the 4.0 percent and 5.0 percent criteria described above would face no 
additional testing requirements. Just as in 2008-2010, the mpg-based 
formulae would be applied to fuel economy values measured over the FTP 
and HFET already being performed and city and highway label values 
determined.
    Figure II-3 shows how the 4.0 percent criterion would work for city 
fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.015

    The upper line in the figure is the mpg-based formula for city fuel 
economy. The lower line represents a difference of 4.0 percent from 
city fuel economy based on the mpg-based formula. The points shown in 
Figure II-3 represent city fuel economy of emission data vehicles 
estimated by the 5-cycle fuel economy formula. The model types 
represented by emission data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel economy 
values fall above the lower line would be allowed to use the mpg-based 
approach for that model year. The model types represented by emission 
data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel economy values fall below the 
lower bounding line would be required to use the 5-cycle approach for 
that model year. Implicit in this proposal is that manufacturers would 
be allowed to use the mpg-based approach for a particular test group if 
the 5-cycle fuel economy for an emission data vehicle exceeded the mpg-
based curve by more than the 4.0 or 5.0 percent criteria on the high 
side, since this would result in a lower fuel economy label value.
    The test groups for which their emission data vehicles did not pass 
the 4.0 percent and 5.0 percent criteria described above could face 
some additional testing requirements. All the vehicle sub-
configurations contained in these test groups would require fuel 
economy values over all five cycles for

[[Page 5445]]

use in the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy formulae. The city and 
highway label values produced by the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae 
would then be averaged and sales-weighted just as they are today. 
However, the fuel economy values over the five test cycles could be 
generated in either of two ways in most instances. One way would be to 
test the vehicle over the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests (the FTP and 
HFET tests already being performed under current requirements). The 
other way would be estimate fuel economy values over the US06, SC03 and 
cold FTP tests analytically (i.e., ADFEs) from testing of a similar 
vehicle over these three cycles. Specifically, we propose to allow 
manufacturers to estimate the effect of differences in inertial test 
weight, road load horsepower and N/V ratio (the ratio of engine 
revolutions to vehicle speed when the vehicle is in its highest gear). 
A procedure to estimate the effect of these three vehicle parameters on 
FTP and HFET fuel economy has already been developed. We plan to work 
with manufacturers to develop analogous formulae for the US06, SC03 and 
cold FTP tests. We would implement these estimation procedures using 
agency guidance, as is currently done for FTP and HFET fuel economy.
    It is possible for the 5-cycle fuel economy values to meet the 
above criteria for either city or highway fuel economy, but not the 
other. If the 5-cycle fuel economy values for a specific emission data 
vehicle are more than four percent below the mpg-based estimate for 
city fuel economy, but no more than five percent below the mpg-based 
estimate for highway fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations 
represented by that emission data vehicle would be required to use the 
5-cycle formulae in complying with the fuel economy label requirements 
for both city and highway fuel economy. All five cycles play a 
significant role in the 5-cycle city fuel economy formula. Once the 
five tests have been performed for the city estimate, there is little 
reason not to use the same information to derive the highway fuel 
economy estimate.
    We propose a different approach for the opposite situation. If the 
5-cycle fuel economy values for a specific emission data vehicle are no 
more than four percent below the mpg-based estimate for city fuel 
economy, but more than five percent below the mpg-based estimate for 
highway fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations represented by 
that emission data vehicle would be allowed to use the mpg-based 
formulae in deriving the city fuel economy label value. The highway 
fuel economy value, however, would be based on an alternative, 
simplified 5-cycle formula as opposed to the full 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy formula. This alternative 5-cycle highway formula would be 
based on fuel economy values over the FTP, HFET and US06 tests. The 
impact of the SC03 and cold FTP tests is relatively small in the 5-
cycle highway fuel economy formula, as explained in the Draft Technical 
Support Document.
    This approach requires that we develop a simplified 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy formula which is consistent with the full 5-cycle formula. 
We developed this simplified formula using estimates of the average 
impact of the SC03 and cold FTP test results on 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy. In both cases, we estimated this average impact by regressing 
the impact of these test cycles on the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for 
the 423 vehicles in our certification database against fuel economy 
values which would be available from FTP, HFET and US06 testing. This 
analysis (described in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document) 
results in the following alternative calculation for highway fuel 
economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.019

    We expect that the continued use of the mpg-based approach and the 
development of analytical estimation procedures for US06, SC03 and cold 
FTP fuel economy would allow manufacturers to avoid the vast majority 
of additional tests that would have been required if every vehicle 
currently tested over the FTP and HFET tests had to be tested over the 
US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests. The option to use the mpg-based approach 
after 2010 should alone eliminate 90 percent of the potential need for 
additional SC03 and cold FTP testing and 75 percent of the potential 
need for US06 testing. At the same time, we expect that there would be 
some need for additional testing when the available estimation 
procedures mentioned above do not apply. For example, the current 
estimation procedures for FTP and HFET fuel economy address changes in 
axle ratio, tractive road load horsepower and inertia test weight. 
Differences involving changes in transmission design, engine 
displacement, turbo-charging, etc., require actual testing. We expect 
that a similar situation would exist with the estimation of US06, SC03 
and cold FTP fuel economy.
    We request comment on the appropriateness of the continued use of

[[Page 5446]]

the mpg-based approach beyond the 2010 model year. We also request 
comment on the appropriateness of the 4.0 and 5.0 percent tolerance 
bands for city and highway fuel economy, respectively. We also seek 
comment on alternative approaches that may employ concepts similar to 
the tolerance band, or other ways of extrapolating fuel economy test 
results to a broader group of vehicle configurations. We specifically 
request comment on an approach which would employ tighter criteria 
(e.g., a tolerance of 3 percent) that would allow the use of the mpg-
based approach beyond 2010 model year, but which would include other 
aspects which would avoid full 5-cycle testing of all the model types 
which failed to pass the criteria. For example, failing the initial 
criteria might require the manufacturer to generate fuel economy data 
over the US06, the least expensive of the three additional cycles. City 
and highway fuel economy values could then be calculated using three 
cycles (the FTP, HFET, and US06), and tested with additional criteria 
(e.g., comparison to a tolerance band around the appropriately 
generated mpg-based line) to assess whether the mpg-based approach 
could be used or whether full 5-cycle testing would be required.

C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-cycle Fuel Economy Formulae

1. Five-Cycle Fuel Economy Estimates
    The purpose of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae is to best 
represent city and highway fuel economy in the U.S. using the test 
results from the 5 test cycles. To the fullest extent possible, we 
desire to account for the effect of seasonal and geographical 
variations on automotive fuel economy, as well as the different driving 
habits of individual drivers. As described in Section I., we chose to 
base the fuel economy label values on 5 vehicle emission and fuel 
economy tests which are already being performed. This maximizes the use 
of fuel economy information that is already currently being collected, 
while at the same time minimizes the costs associated with the 
proposal, as described in more detail below in Section VI. The five 
current emission and fuel economy tests and their key aspects are 
described below in Table II-1. Actual second by second descriptions of 
these driving cycles can be found in Section 86 of Title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations.

                                      Table II-1.--Key Features of the Five Current Emission and Fuel Economy Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Test                                        Driving                         Ambient  temperature        Engine start          Accessories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP.............................  Low speed.............................................  75 [deg]F...........  Cold and hot............  None.
HFET............................  Mid-speed.............................................  75 [deg]F...........  Hot.....................  None.
US06............................  Aggressive; low and high speed........................  75 [deg]F...........  Hot.....................  None.
SC03............................  Low speed.............................................  95 [deg]F...........  Hot.....................  A/C on.
Cold FTP........................  Low speed.............................................  20 [deg]F...........  Cold and hot............  None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have highlighted in bold the distinctive features of the five 
current vehicle tests. The FTP, HFET and US06 are all performed at an 
ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F. Each test consists of a distinctive 
driving pattern. In addition, the FTP test consists of three distinct 
measurements, called bags. Bags 1 and 3 consist of the exact same 
driving pattern, but Bag 2 consists of a different pattern. Given that 
separate emission measurements are already made for each bag, we 
considered each bag of the FTP to be its own driving cycle. In 
addition, as discussed in Section V, the US06 cycle includes both low 
and high speed driving. We are proposing that separate emission 
measurements be made for these two types of driving, again providing 
separate estimates of fuel use for these two driving patterns. 
Therefore, we have available fuel economy estimates for five distinct 
driving patterns:
    (1) Bags 1 and 3 of the FTP,
    (2) Bag 2 of the FTP,
    (3) HFET,
    (4) the city portion of US06 and
    (5) the highway portion of US06.

We propose to combine the results of these five tests to represent 
typical city and highway driving patterns. (The separation of the US06 
test into two distinct sections is discussed further below.)
    The FTP and the cold FTP are the only tests which include a cold 
start (i.e., an engine start after an overnight soak); the fuel needed 
to warm up the engine at 75 [deg]F is taken from the FTP results. The 
SC03 test is the only test to be performed with the air conditioning 
system operational. Therefore, its results are used to augment the fuel 
economy from the five driving pattern tests for the fuel needed to 
operate air conditioning. The cold FTP is the only test performed at a 
temperature below 75 [deg]F. Therefore, its results are used to 
represent the additional fuel needed to warm up an engine after a cold 
start, as well as any fuel needed to operate a warmed up engine, at 
colder temperatures.
    As implied above, we estimate the fuel needed to start and warm up 
the engine separately from fuel used to operate the engine after start-
up, or running fuel use. This is consistent with the approach taken in 
EPA emission models, such as MOBILE6.2 and MOVES. In terms of a 
mathematical formulae,
    Total fuel use = start fuel use + running fuel use

and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.020

    We describe the estimation of start fuel use in Section II.B.1 and 
the estimation of running fuel use in Section II.B.2. In Section 
II.B.3, we discuss other aspects of driving which are not addressed by 
the dynamometer tests and which are addressed by applying an overall, 
or off-test adjustment factor to the city and highway fuel economy 
formulae. The reader is referred to Chapter II of the Draft Technical 
Support Document for a more detailed discussion of each of the inputs 
to the fuel economy formulae.

[[Page 5447]]

1. Start Fuel Use
    For a specific vehicle, the fuel needed to warm up the engine 
depends primarily on two factors:
    (1) The ambient temperature at which the vehicle has been sitting, 
and
    (2) the length of time which the vehicle has been sitting since it 
was last used (commonly referred to as soak time).

Emissions during engine start up have been studied for some time. Most 
recently, estimates of start fuel use as a function of ambient 
temperature were made for use in EPA's new emission inventory model, 
MOVES (MOtor Vehicle Emission inventory System).\45\ The relationship 
between start fuel use relative to that at 75 [deg]F at other ambient 
temperatures is as follows: \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ A draft of MOVES2004 was released for public comment on 
Dec. 31, 2004.
    \46\ Koupal, J., and L. Landman, E. Nam, J. Warila, C. Scarbro, 
E. Glover, R. Giannelli. MOVES2004 Energy and Emissions Report--
Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-P-05-
003, March 2005, pp 57-63. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf
.

Start Fuel Use Relative to that at 75 [deg]F =
    1 + 0.01971 x (Ambient Temperature - 75) + 0.000219 x (Ambient 
Temperature - 75)\2\

As will be seen below, we do not need an absolute estimate of start 
fuel use, simply an estimate of start fuel use relative to some 
specified ambient condition, such as 75 [deg]F, which is the nominal 
temperature of the FTP test.
    MOVES does not yet include the effect of soak time on start fuel 
use. Therefore, we obtained a relationship between start fuel use and 
ambient temperature which was developed by the California Air Resources 
Board for use in their emission inventory model, EMFAC2000.\47\ EPA 
utilizes the results of this study in our current emission model, 
MOBILE6.2, to estimate the effect of soak time on regulated emissions 
during start-up. The equation for fuel use versus soak time (in 
minutes) relative to the fuel use after a 12 hour soak is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ California Air Resources Board. Public Meeting to Consider 
Approval of Revisions to the State's On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Inventory--Technical Support Document. California Environmental 
Protection Agency, March 2000. See Section 6.7 (Start Correction 
Factors). Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/doctable_test.htm
.

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

For soaks of 90 minutes or less:

Start Fuel Use = 0.00433672 x Soak Time - 0.000002393 x (Soak Time)\2\

For soaks greater than 90 minutes:

Start Fuel Use = 0.25889542+0.0014848 x Soak Time - 0.0000006364 x 
(Soak Time)\2\

As is assumed in EMFAC2000 and MOBILE6.2, we assumed that these 
relationships are independent of ambient temperature.

    In order obtain the combined effect of ambient temperature and soak 
time, we multiplied the two above equations together, as follows:

For soaks of 90 minutes or less:

Start Fuel Use = [lfloor]0.00433672 x Soak Time - 0.000002393 x (Soak 
Time)\2\[rfloor]x[1+0.01971 x (Ambient Temperature - 75)+0.000219 x 
(Ambient Temperature - 75)\2\]

For soaks greater than 90 minutes:

Start Fuel Use = [lfloor]0.25889542+0.0014848 x Soak Time - 
0.0000006364 x (Soak Time)\2\[rfloor]x[1+0.01971 x Ambient Temperature 
- 75)+0.000219 x (Ambient Temperature - 75)\2\]
    The hot and cold starts contained in the standard and cold 
temperature FTP tests occur after 10 minute and 12 hour soaks, 
respectively. The above equations relating the effect of soak time on 
start fuel use indicate that the start fuel use after a 10 minute soak 
is only 4 percent of that after a 12 hour soak. The above equation 
relating the effect of temperature on start fuel use indicates that 
start fuel use at 20 [deg]F is 2.75 times that at 75 [deg]F. Combining 
these effects, the start fuel use after a 10 minute soak at 20 [deg]F 
is about 11 percent that of a 12 hour soak at 75 [deg]F. Thus, the 
start fuel use after the hot starts of both standard and cold 
temperature FTP tests are relatively small compared to that of a cold 
start at 75 [deg]F.
    In contrast to the cold start after a 12 hour soak, the hot starts 
for Bag 3 of the standard and cold temperature FTP tests and the US06, 
SC03 and HFET tests occur after only a 10 minute soak. The above 
equation indicates that the fuel use for a hot start is only 4 percent 
of that for a cold start.
    In order to estimate start fuel use throughout the U.S. under 
average ambient conditions, we need estimates of the soak times for 
typical vehicle operation, as well as the ambient temperature at start 
up. The amount of time a vehicle has sat prior to start up varies 
dramatically depending on the time of day at which it is started. For 
example, for vehicles started up at 6 a.m., nearly all have sat idle 
overnight. However, for vehicles started at noon, most have been driven 
in the past 4-5 hours. Ambient temperature varies significantly during 
the day. Thus, it is more accurate to evaluate start fuel use by hour 
of the day rather than simply at the daily average temperature. Ambient 
temperatures also vary dramatically across the U.S., as does the 
distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, we combined 
estimates of vehicle starts and prior soak times by hour of the day 
with estimates of ambient temperature and VMT by county in order to 
reflect the effects of both soak time and ambient temperature on start 
fuel use.
    We obtained estimates of each of these input parameters from EPA's 
MOBLE6.2 and MOVES emission models. The draft MOVES2004 model includes 
estimates of ambient temperature by hour of the day for each month of 
the year for each county in the U.S. These estimates were obtained from 
the National Weather Service and represent 30-year averages. The draft 
MOVES2004 model includes estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 
vehicle type for every county in the U.S. during 2002. We used these 
estimates to determine the percentage of VMT by cars and light trucks 
in each county. MOBILE6.2 includes estimates of the frequency 
distributions of vehicle soak times by time of day, as well as the 
frequency distribution of vehicle starts by hour of the day. Draft 
MOVES2004 also includes estimates of VMT by month of the year for the 
nation as a whole.
    We first estimated the effect of soak time on start fuel use by 
hour of the day. These estimates ranged from a low of 0.25 of an 
overnight soak at 2 p.m. to a high of 0.68 of an overnight soak at 6 
a.m. This makes sense, as most vehicles being started at 6 a.m. in the 
morning have sat overnight, while most vehicles being started in the 
middle of the afternoon have been used in the past few hours. These 
estimates are independent of temperature, because the temperature 
during any particular hour is assumed to be constant.
    In order to estimate start fuel use across the nation throughout 
the year, we calculated the start fuel use for each hour of the day by 
month for each county in the U.S. and then weighted each estimate by 
the relative number of starts occurring in each hour of the day and by 
the relative amount VMT in each month and county. Finally we summed the 
weighted start fuel use estimates across all hours of the days, months 
and counties and found the average.
    The average start fuel use resulting from this process was 0.4665 
of an overnight soak at 75 [deg]F. We can simulate this average start 
fuel use with a variety of combinations of hot and cold starts at 20 
[deg]F and 75 [deg]F. For example, the level of start fuel use is equal 
to a 0.4665 weighting of the cold start fuel use in Bag 1 of the FTP at 
75 [deg]F and no weighting of the start fuel use at 20 [deg]F.

[[Page 5448]]

Or, this level of start fuel use is also equal to a lower weighting of 
the cold start fuel use in Bag 1 of the FTP at 20 [deg]F and no 
weighting of the start fuel use at 75 [deg]F. In order to select a 
single combination which best incorporated the measured start fuel use 
at both 20 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F, we evaluated start fuel use only as a 
function of soak time and time of day, assuming temperature was 
constant throughout the day. We found that the typical start fuel use 
was 0.330 times that of a cold start (12 hour soak). We then determined 
that a weighting of 0.24 for a cold start at 20 [deg]F and 0.76 for a 
cold start at 75 [deg]F, combined with an overall weighting of 0.330 
for cold starts produced the same level of start fuel use as 0.4665 
times a cold start at 75 [deg]F, or the average level of start 
emissions estimated to occur in-use.
    In terms of the use of the FTP test results, Bag 3 contains the 
start fuel use after a 10-minute soak, and Bag 1 contains the start 
fuel use after a 12 hour soak. Other aspects of Bag 1 and Bag 3 are the 
same (i.e., the vehicle is driven exactly the same, only the soak time 
prior to start up differs). As indicated above, however, the start fuel 
use after a 10 minute soak can be assumed to be negligible compared to 
that after the 12 hour soak.\48\ This means that the difference between 
fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 is the start fuel use following a 12 hour 
soak. Thus, the average start fuel use in the U.S. is 0.24 times 0.330 
times the difference between fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of the cold 
temperature FTP plus 0.76 times 0.330 times the difference between fuel 
use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of the standard FTP at 75 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Draft MOVES2004 model also assumes that start fuel use 
after a hot start is negligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hybrids are tested over what is commonly referred to as a 4-bag FTP 
test, with Bag 4 consisting of a Bag 2 repeated after Bag 3. In this 
case, the cold start fuel use would be determined exactly as described 
above. However, these four bags can also be combined into two bags, 
with Bag 1 consisting of a typical Bag 1 and Bag 2 and Bag 2 consisting 
of a typical Bag 3 and Bag 4. In this case, cold start fuel use would 
be determined from the difference in fuel use between Bags 1 and 2 of 
the 2-bag FTP test.
    This estimate of start fuel use is in terms of total fuel use per 
start. In order to combine this with running fuel use in terms of 
gallons per mile, start fuel use must be divided by the average trip 
length. We based our estimate of the average trip length in the U.S. on 
the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The NHTS was performed in 
2001 and statistically surveyed approximately 26,000 households in the 
U.S. This survey represents the sixth in a series of surveys dating 
back to 1969. (The name of the survey has changed a few times and the 
precise survey methods have varied to some degree.) NHTS found that the 
average trip taken using a personal vehicle in the U.S. was 9.8 miles 
long. This estimate excludes very long trips, such as those taken on 
vacations, as well as commercial trips, such as those by taxi cabs. 
Based on the survey questionnaire, we believe that the survey also 
excludes brief stops (e.g., those at gas stations or convenience 
stores), as well as extremely short trips (e.g., moving a vehicle out 
of a driveway to allow another vehicle to exit, moving from one 
shopping center to another just across the street). Using trip 
information from instrumented vehicles in Baltimore and Spokane 
(described in more detail below), about 27 percent of all trips fall 
into one of these two categories. Thus, we believe that a more precise 
estimate of trip length, and one that is more consistent with our 
estimate of the fraction of cold starts described above, is 7.7 miles 
(9.8 miles divided by 1.27).
    This trip length of 7.7 miles includes all driving, both city and 
highway oriented. NHTS does not attempt to split driving into city and 
highway categories. Therefore, additional information was needed to 
perform this split. As will be described in more detail below, we 
estimate that 43 percent of all U.S. driving falls under our definition 
of city driving, while 57 percent falls into the highway driving 
category. The highway fuel economy label assumes no cold starts (i.e., 
it is based solely on the HFET, which is a hot start test), except 
insofar that the effect of a cold start is included in the 22 percent 
adjustment factor. Since even long trips have a beginning and often 
begin with a cold start, we assumed that the average highway trip had a 
length of 60 miles. This is somewhat arbitrary. However, once trip 
length is over 20 miles, start fuel use has very little impact on fuel 
economy. Still, the inclusion of some start fuel use in the highway 
fuel economy estimate makes this estimate more realistic. Assuming an 
average trip length of 60 miles for highway driving, the average length 
of a city trip must be 3.5 miles for the overall average to be 7.7 
miles. Using these two estimates of average trip length allows us to 
convert fuel use per engine start into fuel use per mile.
    The total volume of fuel used in either Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the FTP 
can be determined by dividing the number of miles of driving during 
these portions of the test (3.59 miles for either bag) by the fuel 
economy measured during that bag. Thus, the equation for fuel use per 
start at either 20 [deg]F or 75 [deg]F is as follows:
    For vehicles tested over either a 3-Bag FTP or 4-Bag FTP:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.021
    
For vehicles tested over either a 2-Bag FTP:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.022

where x is either 20 [deg]F or 75 [deg]F.

    The equation for start fuel use in terms of gallons per mile is:
    For city driving:

[[Page 5449]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.023

    For highway driving:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.024
    
2. Running Fuel Use
    Running fuel use depends primarily on how the vehicle is driven and 
the use of fuel to power accessories. Of the latter, air conditioning 
is the most significant and the primary accessory addressed in the 
emission and fuel economy dynamometer tests. Once the vehicle is warmed 
up, ambient temperature has only a modest effect on fuel use.
    The five dynamometer tests include four distinct driving cycles, or 
patterns of driving. In addition, the FTP and US06 cycles (the latter 
as proposed to be modified) each include two distinct driving patterns. 
Two basic characteristics of these driving patterns are depicted in 
Table II-2: average speed and a basic measure of the average power 
required by the engine.

  Table II-2.--Driving Characteristics of the Current Dynamometer Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Average power
                  Cycle                    Average speed         A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP (Bags 2 and 3)......................            19.6            40.9
    FTP: Bag 3..........................            25.6            53.6
    FTP: Bag 2..........................            16.1            33.8
HFET....................................            48.2            34.9
US06....................................            48.0           104.3
    US06: City Bag......................            21.5           152.9
    US06: Highway Bag...................            61.0            78.2
SC03 (run with air conditioning on).....            21.4            49.2
Cold Temperature FTP (same driving cycle            19.6           40.9
 as FTP)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Power defined as velocity times the change in velocity per second
  during cruise or accelerations. Power is set equal to zero during
  decelerations and not considered in the determination of average
  power.

    The FTP and the cold temperature FTP both involve the same driving 
cycle, just at different ambient temperatures. Thus, their average 
speeds and power are identical, both for the total cycle and for each 
bag of emissions measured. The FTP and SC03 involve distinct, but 
similar driving cycles. Both are low speed cycles having similar 
average speeds and power levels. As the SC03 test is only run with the 
air conditioning on and all the other tests are run with air 
conditioning off, it is not possible to isolate the effect of the 
driving cycle differences between the FTP and SC03 tests directly. 
Thus, this leaves five distinct driving patterns which can be used to 
represent typical U.S. driving: Bag 2 of the FTP, Bag 3 of the FTP, 
HFET, City Bag of US06 and Highway Bag of US06.
    As shown in Table II-2, both Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP are low speed 
cycles, but their average power requirements differ by a factor of 1.7. 
As will be seen below, it is useful to consider each bag separately in 
simulating typical city and highway driving.
    The current US06 test currently consists of 600 seconds of driving 
and the emissions are collected in one bag (i.e., one single collection 
of pollutants emitted during the test). Thus, the fuel economy result 
is over the entire cycle. The US06 driving cycle consists of 5 hills, 
or 5 driving segments which begin and end with the vehicle at idle. All 
but the second and third hills consist of relatively low speed driving, 
while the second hill reaches 71 mph and the third hill reaches 80 mph. 
Therefore, in terms of predicting fuel economy, it is useful to 
separate the low speed driving from the high speed driving. For 
practical reasons, when separating the city into ``city'' and 
``highway'' portions, we grouped the second hill with the four low 
speed hills in the city bag and the highway bag consists of the 
relatively long third hill. Overall, seconds 0-131 and 496-600 of the 
cycle would comprise the city bag and seconds 132-495 would comprise 
the highway bag. The description of the hills within US06 and their 
designation is summarized in Table II-3 below.

                                             Table II-3.--Split of US06 Cycle Into City and Highway Portions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                   Maximum speed
               Hill                               Portion of driving cycle (cumulative seconds)                        (mph)             Designation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  0-43                                                                                       44.2  City.
2................................  44-134                                                                                     70.7  City.
3................................  134-499                                                                                    80.3  Highway.
4................................  500-563                                                                                    29.8  City.
5................................  564-600                                                                                    51.6  City.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5450]]

    As described in the Introduction, driving at an average speed below 
45 mph is defined as city driving, while that above 45 mph is defined 
as highway driving. We obtained a description of average U.S. driving 
from the Draft MOVES2004 motor vehicle emissions model. This 
description included a distribution of vehicle speeds and levels of 
vehicle specific power. Using the definition of city and highway 
driving, we separated the MOVES description of driving into city and 
highway categories. We then performed a linear regression to estimate 
what two combinations of the five driving cycles or bags best fit 
average U.S. city and highway driving patterns, respectively. The 
results are two sets of cycle combinations in terms of time spent 
driving. These are shown in Table II-3. We then used the average speeds 
of the various cycles and bags to convert these to combinations to a 
mileage basis. The combinations of cycles found to best represent 
onroad driving in terms of both time spent driving and mileage driven 
are shown in Table II-4.

                    Table II-4.--Weighting Factors for the Five Dynamometer Cycles (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    City driving             Highway driving
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                            Cycle                                 Time       Mileage        Time       Mileage
                                                               (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 3 FTP...................................................           32           41            0            0
Bag 2 FTP...................................................           60           48            0            0
HFET........................................................            0            0           25           21
US06 City...................................................            8           11            0            0
US06 Hwy....................................................            0            0           75           79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the results shown in Table II-4, over 90 percent of the time 
spent in city driving, and nearly 90 percent of the mileage, is best 
explained by Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP cycle. Roughly 80 percent of both 
driving time and mileage of highway driving is best explained by the 
highway portion of the US06 cycle. These findings confirm that the FTP 
(the current basis for the city fuel economy label) is still generally 
representative of most low speed driving in the U.S. However, the 
relatively low speed and mild accelerations of the HFET (the current 
basis for the highway fuel economy label) is not representative of 
higher speed driving in the U.S.
    These results also confirm the separation of the two types of 
driving contained in the US06 cycle. Only the city portion of US06 
appears in the description of city driving and only the highway portion 
of US06 appears in the description of highway driving. At the same 
time, the relative weights for Bags 2 and 3 in the description of city 
driving are similar to that implicit in the FTP, which is 52 percent 
and 48 percent, respectively.
    As mentioned above, the fuel use over the three dynamometer cycles, 
when combined using these weighting factors, best matches the fuel use 
which would occur during typical city and highway driving. The 
weighting is performed in terms of fuel use, or fuel consumption per 
mile. For example, fuel use during city driving is 0.48 times the 
multiplicative inverse of the fuel economy measured over Bag 2 of the 
FTP cycle plus 0.41 times the multiplicative inverse of the fuel 
economy measured over Bag 3 of the FTP cycle plus 0.11 times the 
multiplicative inverse of the fuel economy measured over the city bag 
of the US06 cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.026

    These estimates of running fuel use accounts for a wider variety of 
city and highway driving patterns than the FTP and HFET cycles alone. 
However, these combinations of fuel use still do not include any fuel 
use related to air conditioning or cold temperature. Fuel use related 
to air conditioning is estimated using the SC03 test. As shown in Table 
II-2, the driving pattern contained in the SC03 test is similar to that 
of the FTP, but not identical.
    Using the MOVES2004 methodology for modeling fuel use, we estimated 
the combination of Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP which would match the fuel 
use over the SC03 cycle with the air conditioning turned off. This 
combination is 0.39 times the fuel consumption over Bag 2 and 0.61 
times the fuel consumption over Bag 3. Thus, we propose to estimate the 
incremental fuel use due to the operation of the air conditioner as the 
difference in fuel use measured over the SC03 versus this combination 
of fuel use over Bags 2 and 3 of the standard FTP.
    This difference in fuel use between the two tests provides a direct 
estimate of the impact of air conditioning use for the conditions 
present during the SC03 test. The SC03 test is performed at 95 [deg]F 
and 40 percent relative humidity. The test only lasts 10 minutes and 
the vehicle is pre-heated with radiant lamps for 10 minutes prior to 
the test. Thus, the air conditioning compressor is generally engaged 
throughout the entire test. As shown in Table II.-2., the speed of the 
vehicle during the SC03 test is also relatively low, at an average 
speed of 21.5 mph. Of course, onroad, vehicles operate at different 
speeds and ambient temperatures and the compressor may not be engaged 
100 percent of the time, particularly during longer trips. All three of 
these factors can affect the impact of air conditioning on fuel 
economy. We therefore adjust the estimate of the impact of air 
conditioning on fuel use from the SC03

[[Page 5451]]

test in three ways to account for these three factors.
    The largest factor is portion of driving time during which the 
compressor is actually engaged to cool inlet air to the vehicle. The 
Draft MOVES2004 model contains an algorithm which estimates the 
percentage of time which the compressor is engaged as a function of 
ambient temperature and humidity. This algorithm was developed from the 
direct measurement of air conditioning operation of 20 vehicles in 
Phoenix, Arizona during the summer and fall of 1992.\49\ The algorithm 
considers both the frequency that the system is turned on by the driver 
and the frequency that the compressor is engaged once the system is 
turned on. We combined this algorithm with long term average 
meteorological conditions for each county in the U.S. to estimate the 
percentage of driving time during which the compressor was engaged 
under those conditions. We considered both diurnal and seasonal 
temperature variations, as well as variations in the amount of driving 
performed throughout the day and across seasons. We estimate that 
drivers have the air conditioning turned on 23.9 percent of the time on 
average across the U.S., and the compressor is engaged 15.2 percent of 
the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Koupal, J. W. Air Conditioning Activity Effects in MOBILE6 
(M6.ACE.001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-01-
054, November 2001. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobile6/r01054.pdf
.

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

    We then adjusted this latter percentage to account for reduced 
compressor loads at temperatures less than 95 [deg]F and higher loads 
above 95 [deg]F.\50\ Again this was done for each county in the U.S., 
accounting for diurnal and seasonal temperature and driving 
differences. From this, we estimate that the average load of the air 
conditioning compressor in-use is about 87 percent of that at 95 [deg]F 
(i.e., during the SC03 test). Thus, the average load of the compressor 
in-use is the same as 13.3 percent (15.2 percent x 0.87) of the load 
experienced during the SC03 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Nam, Edward K., ``Understanding and Modeling NOX 
Emissions From Air Conditioned Automobiles,'' 2000, SAE 
2000-01-0858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the impact of air conditioning on fuel economy varies with 
vehicle driving pattern. Most air conditioning compressors are belt-
driven by the engine. The efficiency of both the engine and compressor 
varies with engine speed and load. This variation is difficult to 
model, as the speed and load of engines in various vehicles varies 
dramatically based on the vehicle's drivetrain design, even over the 
same driving cycle. Therefore, we assume that the efficiency of the 
engine and air conditioning compressor implied in the SC03 test applies 
to other types of driving, as well. However, a more basic effect 
related to driving pattern is that the faster a vehicle is moving, the 
shorter the amount of time that the vehicle needs to be cooled while it 
travels a specific distance. Other factors being equal, this reduces 
the amount of energy needed to cool the vehicle per mile of travel. 
Therefore, for a specific set of ambient conditions, we assume that the 
impact of air conditioning on fuel use is constant with driving time 
(i.e., fuel use in terms of gallons per hour is constant). This means 
that the excess fuel use due to operating the air conditioner varies 
inversely proportional to vehicle speed. In other words, at low vehicle 
speeds, like that of the SC03 test, excess fuel use is relatively high 
on a per mile basis. At high vehicle speeds, like that of highway 
driving, the excess fuel use due to operating the air conditioner is 
relatively low on a per mile basis. We confirmed this assumption by 
testing five vehicles over a variety of test cycles at EPA's Ann Arbor 
laboratory with both the air conditioning turned on and off. The 
results of this test program and an analysis of the data are described 
in the Draft Technical Support Document.
    The air conditioning compressor is also often engaged when the 
defroster is turned on to keep the windshield from fogging up. The air 
conditioning dehumidifies the air and excesses the effectiveness of the 
defroster. Today's proposal does not include a specific weighting for 
demisting activity. We lack a direct estimate of the frequency that the 
defroster is turned on or the compressor is engaged during demisting. 
Due to the fact that the defroster tends to be operated at lower 
ambient temperatures than the air conditioner, the load on the engine 
is generally much lower than that during summertime air conditioning. 
Thus, the impact of demisting on fuel economy is likely much smaller 
than that of summertime air conditioning.
    Given the above, the impact of air conditioning on running fuel use 
is estimated as 13.3 percent of the difference between fuel use per 
mile over the SC03 and a combination of Bags 2 and Bag 3 of the FTP 
times 21.5 mph and divided by the average speed of either city or 
highway driving. Based on the descriptions of city and highway driving 
from Draft MOVES2004, the average speeds are 19.9 mph and 57.1 mph, 
respectively. Thus, the excess fuel use due to air conditioning 
operation is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.027

[[Page 5452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.028

    Finally, we have to add the impact of colder ambient temperatures 
on running fuel use. We can obtain a direct estimate of the impact of 
colder ambient temperatures on running fuel use by comparing the fuel 
use over the standard and cold temperature FTP tests. By focusing on 
Bag 2 of each FTP test, we exclude the impact of cold temperature on 
start up fuel use, which was already addressed in Section II.B.1 above. 
For hybrid vehicles, which are tested over the bag 2 driving cycle 
twice (the first time as Bag 2 and the second time as Bag 4), we 
propose to harmonically average the fuel economies from Bags 2 and 4.
    We considered including Bag 3 in the determination of the effect of 
cold temperature on running fuel use. Bag 3 includes some higher speed 
driving, so its inclusion broadens the overall driving pattern included 
in the estimate. This would particularly improve the representativeness 
of the estimate for highway driving. However, Bag 3 begins with a hot 
start, unlike Bag 2 which simply follows directly after Bag 1 with no 
engine shut-off and restart in between. At 75 [deg]F, a hot start 
requires a negligible volume of additional fuel use. However, at 20 
[deg]F, even a hot start can require some excess fuel use. Thus, 
including the difference between Bag 3 fuel use at 20 and 75 [deg]F in 
the estimate of the impact of cold temperature on running fuel use 
could also include some excess fuel use related to engine warm up, as 
well. Available data indicate that the relative impact of operation at 
20 [deg]F versus 75 [deg]F is nearly identical for the two bags (10 
percent for Bag 2 and 11 percent for Bag 3). However, the fuel economy 
over Bag 3 is lower than over Bag 2, so the absolute difference in fuel 
use between 20 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F is actually lower in Bag 3 than Bag 
2. We request comment on whether the impact of cold temperature on 
running fuel use should only involve Bag 2 or should involve both Bags 
2 and 3.
    Neither MOBILE6.2 nor MOVES2004 include correlations of the effect 
of ambient temperature on running fuel use. However, as just described, 
the impact of colder ambient temperatures on running fuel use is small 
(i.e., 10 percent over a drop in temperature of 55 [deg]F). We believe 
that the additional fuel use is primarily due to the loss of heat to 
the cooler ambient air, higher friction in the slightly cooler moving 
parts, as well as slight changes in the properties of the cooler intake 
air and air fuel mixture during combustion. All of these changes are 
expected to be gradual and fairly linear. Therefore, we assume that the 
excess fuel use increases linearly as temperatures decrease below 75 
[deg]F. Above 75 [deg]F, we assumed that there was no further reduction 
in running fuel use. (This latter assumption was confirmed as part of 
the five vehicle test program described above.) We also assume that the 
excess fuel use is independent of driving pattern. In other words, the 
excess fuel use is the same for city and highway driving on an absolute 
basis. We request comment on assuming that the excess running fuel use 
due to colder temperatures is independent of driving pattern on a 
relative basis (i.e., in percentage terms).
    Using the same meteorological and VMT inputs described above 
related to start fuel use, we estimate the average temperature in the 
U.S. at which driving occurs is 58.7 [deg]F. This temperature is 70 
percent of the way from 75 [deg]F to 20 [deg]F. Thus, any excess fuel 
use associated with operation at 20 [deg]F should be weighted by 100 
percent minus 70 percent, or 30 percent.
    Given the fact that over 80 percent of city driving is represented 
by Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP, we decided to use the fuel economy measured 
during Bags 2 and 3 of the cold FTP directly to represent the fuel 
economy of city driving at 20 [deg]F. We repeated the regression of the 
VSP distribution of city driving from Draft MOVES2004 against the VSP 
distributions of just Bags 2 and 3. The best fit produced a 50/50 
weighting of the two bags. Thus, we propose to represent the fuel 
economy of city driving at 20 [deg]F by a 50/50 harmonic average of the 
fuel economy over Bags 2 and 3 of the cold FTP. Mathe- matically, then, 
for city driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.029

    Highway driving occurs at higher speeds than those typical of the 
cold FTP. We conducted a detailed review of past test programs which 
evaluated the impact of colder temperatures on fuel economy at highway 
driving speeds. This review is described in the Draft Technical Support 
Document. There, we concluded that the effect of cold temperature on 
fuel economy at city driving speeds could overestimate the effect at 
higher speeds. Thus, we decided not to use the fuel economy measured 
over the cold FTP directly to represent the impact of cold temperature 
on highway fuel economy. Instead, we believe that it is more prudent at 
this time to simply assume that running fuel use at 20 [deg]F at 
highway speeds is 4 percent greater than that at 75 [deg]F. Thus, 
mathematically, for highway driving:

[[Page 5453]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.030

    Combining the estimates of running fuel use at 75 [deg]F without 
the air conditioning system running with the estimate of excess fuel 
use of running the air conditioning system and the estimate of excess 
fuel use due to colder ambient temperatures produces the following 
formulae for running fuel use:
For city driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.031

For highway driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.032

3. Adjustment Factor for Non-Dynamometer Effects
    Fuel economy estimated using the five current dynamometer tests can 
account for many factors, including vehicle design, driving pattern, 
trip length, cold temperature and air conditioning. However, there are 
still a large number of factors which affect vehicle fuel economy that 
cannot be addressed by dynamometers tests. These include roadway 
roughness, road grade (hills), fuel quality, large vehicle loads (e.g., 
trailers, cargo, multiple passengers), wind, precipitation, to name 
just a few. Even when a factor is addressed by a dynamometer test, such 
as driving pattern or air conditioning, the effect can only be 
approximated, as all realistic driving patterns cannot possibly be 
included in a test having a reasonable length of time. Nor can all the 
possible ambient conditions affecting air conditioner operation be 
tested. Thus, any estimate of in-use fuel economy derived from the five 
dynamometer tests is necessarily approximate, both with respect to 
factors addressed directly by the tests and those which are not.
    The impacts of a number of these factors on onroad fuel economy 
relative to that measured on a dynamometer is possible to estimate, 
while others are difficult to estimate. One factor which can be 
estimated is fuel quality. EPA's certification test fuel contains no 
oxygenates, while commercial gasoline contains significant volumes of 
ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Both ethanol and MTBE 
contain less energy per gallon, so vehicles operating on fuel 
containing these oxygenates tend to achieve lower fuel economy, 
generally in proportion to the reduction in the energy content of the 
finished gasoline. For example, the driver of a vehicle operating on 
gasoline containing ten percent ethanol by volume would experience a 
3.5 percent decrease in fuel economy compared to gasoline not 
containing any ethanol or other oxygenate. We expect the nation's 
gasoline supply to contain roughly 5.4 billion gallons of ethanol by 
2008. This is equivalent to 37 percent of the nation's gasoline supply 
containing 10 percent ethanol by volume. Thus, by 2008, we expect 
commercial gasoline on average to contain about 1.2 percent less energy 
per gallon than EPA test fuel. Thus, this difference in energy content 
means that onroad fuel economy will be about 1.2 percent less than that 
estimated using the 5-cycle formulae described in the previous section. 
This effect could increase beyond 2008 as more ethanol is used in the 
nation's gasoline supply.
    Another factor which can be estimated is tire pressure. In February 
2001, NHTSA conducted a survey of the tire pressure of in-use vehicles. 
Tire pressures were measured on over 11,500 vehicles at 24 locations 
throughout the U.S. The results of the study and our analysis of the 
data are described in the Draft Technical Support Document. We found 
that the tires of the average car were under-inflated by 1.1 pounds per 
square inch (psi), while those on light trucks were under-inflated by 
1.9 psi. Using estimates of the effect of tire pressure on fuel economy 
presented by NHTSA, we estimate that the fleet-wide effect of under-
inflation is 0.5 percent.
    Another factor which can be estimated, though more approximately, 
is wind. Wind affects vehicular fuel economy in two ways. First, 
aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of vehicle speed (i.e., 
the higher the vehicle speed, the faster aerodynamic drag increases for 
a given increase in speed). Thus, increasing wind speed by 1 mph 
increases aerodynamic drag, and thus, reduces fuel economy, more than 
the effect of decreasing wind speed by 1 mph. Second, both the 
effective area of a vehicle and its drag coefficient increases as the 
true wind direction moves to either side from head-on. Basically, 
vehicles are designed to move forward through the air, not sideways. 
Thus, any side wind increases drag and decreases fuel economy. Based on 
a distribution of wind speeds (yielding an average wind speed in the 
U.S. of 9.4 mph), we estimate that these two effects reduce onroad fuel 
economy on average by 5-6 percent.
    Several other factors are still relevant to a 5-cycle fuel economy 
estimate, namely altitude, road grade, road surface, road curvature, 
brake drag, wheel alignment, tire switching, and vehicle load. EPA 
estimated the impact of these factors to be 8 percent at the time of 
the 1984 label adjustment rule.

[[Page 5454]]

We have reduced the impact of road surface from 4 percent to 1-3 
percent due to increased urbanization and road paving which has 
occurred since that time. Thus, we estimate these other factors to 
reduce onroad fuel economy by 5-7 percent. Combining this estimate with 
those of fuel quality, tire pressure and wind produces an overall 
downward effect of 11-15 percent.
    As described further in Section II.E below, we also compared the 5-
cycle fuel economy values to fleet-wide estimates of fuel economy made 
by FHWA for 2002 and 2003, after we made several adjustments to improve 
the comparability of the two estimates. The 5-cycle fuel economy values 
best match the FHWA-based estimates when we include a factor of 0.88-
0.91 in the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae (i.e., a reduction of 9-12 
percent due to factors not addressed by the 5-cycle formulae). We 
propose to average these two ranges (i.e., the 9-12 percent range based 
on FHWA, and the 11-15 percent range based on the analysis of non-
dynamometer effects discussed above) and account for these factors by 
including a factor of 0.89 in the 5-cycle city and highway formulae 
(i.e., a reduction of 11 percent in both city and highway fuel 
economy).

D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach

    The mpg-based approach to fuel economy label adjustments utilizes 
the results of applying the 5-cycle formulae to all vehicles for which 
we were able to gather fuel economy data for all five dynamometer 
cycles. We requested that all manufacturers submit to us all their 
available fuel economy data for vehicles which had been tested over at 
least one of the US06, SC03 or cold FTP tests. We combined this data 
with our own fuel economy data to develop a database of 423 recent 
model year vehicles which had been tested over all five cycles. We 
applied the above 5-cycle formulae to these vehicles. We then developed 
a relationship between the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economies and 
the city and highway fuel economies using the current adjustment 
factors, respectively.
    We evaluated two options for developing this relationship. One 
option plotted 5-cycle fuel economy versus fuel economy using the 
current adjustment factor. The other option plotted the inverse of 5-
cycle fuel economy (i.e., fuel consumption) versus the inverse of fuel 
economy using the current adjustment factor. As indicated from the 
description of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae, most of the modeling 
of fuel economy is performed in terms of fuel consumption (i.e., 
gallons of fuel burned per mile versus miles traveled per gallon of 
fuel burned). While both types of plots produce relationships with a 
high degree of correlation, the plots in terms of fuel consumption are 
linear, while those in terms of fuel economy are non-linear. Given that 
the linear relationship is simpler and the degrees of correlation are 
essentially the same, we are proposing to base the mpg-based 
adjustments on the correlations in terms of fuel consumption. However, 
the label values themselves would remain in terms of fuel economy, as 
required by EPCA. We request comment on the use of the correlations 
performed in terms of fuel consumption versus those performed in terms 
of fuel economy. Both approaches are described in detail in the Draft 
Technical Support Document.
    Figures II-5 and II-6 show the relationship between the inverse of 
5-cycle city (or highway) fuel economy (i.e., fuel consumption) versus 
the inverse of FTP (or HFET) fuel economy. Figure II-5 shows city fuel 
consumption, while Figure II-6 shows highway fuel consumption.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.033

[[Page 5455]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.034

    The results of regressing 5-cycle fuel consumption versus fuel 
consumption over the FTP or HFET are shown in the above figures. In 
terms of fuel economy:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.036

    The standard deviation of the difference between the mpg-based 
equations and the 5-cycle fuel economies are 2 percent for city and 5 
percent for highway. These differences are roughly equivalent to 0.5 
mpg for city fuel economy and 1-2 mpg for highway fuel economy. Thus, 
while the mpg-based equations represent much of the difference in fuel 
economy represented by the 5-cycle formulae, differences between the 
fuel efficiency of individual vehicles on the order of 0.5-2 mpg are 
muted by the mpg-based approach.
    As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations described above were 
developed from the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003-2005 
model year vehicles. We propose to update the mpg-based curves annually 
using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the 
previous three model years. EPA would publish the mpg-based equations 
for the upcoming model year's labels by March 1 of the previous year 
(i.e., by March 1, 2007 for the 2008 model year).

E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel Economy Label Values

    The impact of today's proposal on city and highway fuel economy 
label values was assessed using the same database of 423 late model 
year vehicles used to develop the mpg-based adjustments above. Table 
II-5 presents the results of this comparison for all 423 vehicles, as 
well as various sub-sets of vehicles.

                                     Table II-5.--Effect of 5-Cycle Formulae on City and Highway Fuel Economy Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            City                         Highway                     Combined *
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Current   5-cycle   Percent   Current   5-cycle   Percent   Current   5-cycle   Percent
                                                                  (mpg)     (mpg)    change     (mpg)     (mpg)    change     (mpg)     (mpg)    change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrids.......................................................        42        32       -23        41        37        -9        41        34       -16
Diesels.......................................................        26        23       -13        35        31       -11        30        27        -9
---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Conventional vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Highest FE.................................................        30        26       -15        36        33        -8        33        30       -10

[[Page 5456]]

12 Lowest FE..................................................        11        10       -11        15        14        -8        12        12        -6
Average.......................................................        19        16       -13        25        22        -9        21        19       -8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively.
Combined fuel economy for 5-Cycle MPG is based on weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively.

    As can be seen from Table II-5, use of the 5-cycle formulae would 
reduce both current city and highway fuel economy label values. For 
conventional vehicles, city and highway fuel economy values would be 
reduced an average of 13 percent and 9 percent, respectively. The 
reduction in city fuel economy label values for higher than average 
fuel economy vehicles would be slightly higher, while that for lower 
than average fuel economy vehicles would be slightly lower. The 
reduction in highway fuel economy label values varies only slightly.
    The impact on hybrid vehicles would be greater, averaging a 23 
percent reduction for city fuel economy and 9 percent for highway fuel 
economy. This greater impact occurs primarily because a number of the 
fuel efficient aspects of hybrid vehicles produce their maximum benefit 
under conditions akin to the FTP and HFET tests, and are somewhat less 
beneficial during aggressive driving, colder ambient temperatures and 
when the air conditioner is turned on. However, these vehicles would 
still remain among the top fuel economy vehicles.
    There is one diesel vehicle in our 5-cycle fuel economy database. 
The impact of the 5-cycle formulae on this one diesel is very similar 
to that for the average conventional, gasoline-fueled vehicle.
    The impact of the mpg-based formulae would be very similar on 
average to those shown in Table II-5 above for conventional vehicles. 
This is not surprising, since the mpg-based formulae are based 
essentially on the average results of the 5-cycle formulae. However, 
the mpg-based formulae would increase the city fuel economy of hybrid 
vehicles slightly, as indicated in Table II-6. This occurs because 
there are only 9 hybrid vehicles in the database, compared to 413 
gasoline-fueled, conventional vehicles. The mpg-based regression of 
city fuel economy, therefore, represents essentially the impact of the 
5-cycle formulae on conventional vehicles, which is less than that for 
hybrids. The mpg-based regression of highway fuel economy is 
essentially the same for conventional and hybrid vehicles.

                Table II-6.--Effect of MPG-Based Formulae on Conventional and Hybrid Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     City                                 Highway
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current     MPG-based     Percent      Current     MPG-based     Percent
                                       (mpg)        (mpg)        change       (mpg)        (mpg)        change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional......................           19           16          -13           25           22           -9
Hybrids...........................           42           34          -18           41           37          -10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates

    In the 1984 label adjustment rule, EPA was able to compare 
fleetwide estimates of a variety of city and highway fuel economy label 
options to a number of independent estimates of onroad fleet fuel 
economy. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, EPA and several auto 
manufacturers had collected onroad fuel economy estimates from tens of 
thousands of drivers which could be compared to the EPA city and 
highway fuel economy labels. The fleetwide combined EPA fuel economy 
estimate could also be compared to onroad fuel economy based on 
estimates of total VMT and total fuel consumption from the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA). EPA primarily used the driver-based fuel 
economy estimates to develop the current 10 percent and 22 percent 
adjustments to fuel economy over the FTP and HFET, respectively.
    Repeating this type of comparison is more complicated today than it 
was in 1984. First, 5-cycle fuel economy estimates are not available 
for the current car and light truck fleet. Emission standards based on 
the US06 and SC03 tests just began to be phased in with the 2001 model 
year. Also, these tests are only performed on a limited number of 
vehicle configurations. Second, studies of driver-based fuel economy 
similar to those available in 1984 have not been performed of late. At 
the same time, as mentioned in the Introduction above, a number of 
consumer organizations have begun conducting their own fuel economy 
tests. Several governmental organizations have been monitoring onroad 
fuel economy, focused particularly on new hybrid technology. While the 
findings of these various organizations were compared to the current 
EPA label fuel economy values in the Introduction, here they will be 
compared to the 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy estimates.
    We begin with a comparison of the 5-cycle fuel economy values with 
the fleetwide fuel economy estimates developed by FHWA. Because we do 
not have fuel economy data for all vehicles over all 5 dynamometer 
cycles, and therefore cannot develop a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate 
for the current onroad fleet directly, this comparison requires a 
three-step process.
    The first step in this process compares fleetwide fuel economy 
estimates based on EPA's current fuel economy labels to the FHWA 
estimate of onroad fuel economy. The second step in this process is to 
compare combined city-highway fuel economy using the 5-cycle formulae 
to that using the current EPA city and highway label procedures. This 
comparison is performed for vehicles for which we have 5-cycle fuel 
economy data. We will assume that this relationship also applies to 
those

[[Page 5457]]

vehicles for which we do not have 5-cycle data. The third step 
evaluates changes in FTP and HFET test procedures which accompanied the 
implementation of the US06 and SC03 testing requirements. The most 
important change was the removal of a 10 percent increase in tractive 
road load horsepower which was intended to represent the use of air 
conditioning in the summer. This effectively increased fuel economy 
label values with no accompanying change in onroad fuel economy. The 
vehicles assessed by FHWA were nearly all tested with the 10 percent 
adjustment in road load, while those in the 5-cycle certification 
database were not. Therefore, this difference needs to be accounted for 
when connecting the results of the two previous comparisons.
    Overall, the difference between 5-cycle fuel economy and FHWA 
onroad fuel economy is the combination of the percentage differences 
from the three comparisons:
    (1) Current EPA label fuel economy (with 10 percent road 
adjustment) to FHWA onroad fuel economy,
    (2) 5-cycle fuel economy to current EPA label fuel economy (without 
10 percent road load adjustment), and
    (3) the effect of the removal of the 10 percent road load 
adjustment.
    FHWA publishes fleet-wide estimates of onroad fuel economy for cars 
and light trucks in their annual Highway Statistics publication.\51\ We 
will focus on the combined estimates for cars and light trucks here, 
since various states use different criteria to distinguish between the 
two vehicle classes. At the same time, the criteria used to distinguish 
between cars plus light trucks and other vehicles are very consistent. 
The FHWA definition of light trucks (actually 4-tire, 2-wheel trucks) 
includes some vehicles which EPA classifies as heavy-duty vehicles. We 
have adjusted the FHWA estimates upward to provide a more direct 
comparison. After this adjustment, the FHWA-based estimate of fleet-
wide onroad fuel economy for cars and light trucks is 20.3 mpg for 2002 
and 20.5 mpg for 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration. Highway Statistics 2003. See Table VM-1. Web site: 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/vm1.htm.

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

    We used the EPA MOBILE6.2 in-use emission model to calculate fleet-
wide average EPA combined fuel economy label values for these two 
years. For both years, average label fuel economy was 21.1 mpg. Thus, 
for 2002 and 2003, the FHWA-based onroad fuel economy was 4 percent and 
3 percent lower than the current combined EPA label value, 
respectively. Thus, the result of the first step in this process is an 
indication that the current labeling formulae, based on FTP and HFET 
testing with the 10 percent road load adjustment, could be over-
estimating onroad fuel economy by 3-4 percent.
    Moving to the second step, in Table II-5 above, we presented city 
and highway fuel economy label values using both current and 5-cycle 
formulae for 423 2003-2005 model year vehicles. The FHWA estimates 
apply to all driving, both city and highway. Therefore, we are 
primarily interested in combined city-highway fuel economy values. 
Also, we are using FHWA estimates for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years, 
as these are the most recent available. The number of hybrid vehicles 
on the road was negligible during this timeframe. Therefore, we will 
only use the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the 414 non-hybrid 
vehicles in our database. There is no need to perform this comparison 
separately for the mpg-based formulae, since the average fuel economy 
from the 5-cycle and mpg-based formulae are identical for non-hybrid 
vehicles.
    The combined fuel economy using the current label formulae is a 55/
45 harmonic weighting of the current city and highway fuel economy 
labels. The average combined fuel economy using the current EPA label 
values for these 414 vehicles is 20.9 mpg. However, it is important to 
note that the FTP and HFET testing upon which these values are based 
were performed without the 10 percent increase in road load horsepower 
to account for air conditioning and other accessories. For the proposed 
5-cycle formulae, combined fuel economy is a 43/57 harmonic weighting 
of the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economies. This city/highway split 
for the 5-cycle fuel economies is based on:
    (1) The assumption that driving generally less than 45 mph is city 
driving and that above 45 mph is highway driving, and
    (2) the description of onroad driving patterns contained in MOVES.
    We seek comment on any other data that may indicate what 
constitutes city and highway driving. The mathematical formula for 
converting the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values into an 
estimate of average onroad fuel economy is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.037

    The average combined 5-cycle fuel economy using this formula for 
the 414 conventional vehicles is 19.2 mpg, which is 8 percent lower 
than that based on the current label values. This is the result of the 
second step in the process.
    Moving to the third step, prior to the implementation of the 
Supplemental FTP standards and the running of the US06 and SC03 tests, 
EPA approximated the occasional load on the engine of the air 
conditioner and other accessories by increasing the tractive road load 
horsepower setting on the dynamometer by 10 percent of each vehicle's 
normal road load. This increase was equivalent to increasing the 
rolling resistance of the tires and aerodynamic drag of moving the 
vehicle through the air by 10 percent. When the explicit testing of 
emissions with the air conditioning system turned on during the SC03 
test, EPA removed this 10 percent adjustment on the FTP and HFET tests. 
This was appropriate for emissions testing, given the direct 
measurement of emissions with the air conditioning on during the SC03 
test. However, since the fuel economy over the SC03 test is not 
included in the calculation of the fuel economy label values, the 
removal of the 10 percent adjustment during FTP and HFET testing 
effectively increased the city and highway label values with no 
accompanying change in onroad fuel economy.
    Using a detailed model of a vehicle's energy use on the road 
(please see the Draft Technical Support Document for details), we 
estimate that removing the 10 percent adjustment in road load increased 
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET by 2 percent and 5 percent, 
respectively. Decreasing the FTP and

[[Page 5458]]

HFET fuel economy values for the 414 conventional vehicles in our 5-
cycle certification database by these amounts decreased combined EPA 
fuel economy on average by 3 percent. The average combined fuel economy 
using the current label formulae decreased from 20.9 mpg to 20.2 mpg. 
Thus, instead of decreasing the current combined label value by 8 
percent, when considered in terms of test procedures effective for the 
2002-2003 onroad fleet, the 5-cycle formulae only decrease label fuel 
economy by an average of 5 percent. This 5 percent decrease represents 
the combined effects of steps 2 and 3 in our process.
    Overall, then, from step 1, the current label values over-estimate 
onroad fuel economy per FHWA (with some adjustments by EPA) by 3-4 
percent, while the 5-cycle formulae decrease current label values (of 
the 2002-2003 fleet) by 5 percent. Thus, the proposed 5-cycle formulae 
should move the combined fuel economy label values to within 1-2 
percent of a comparable estimate of fleetwide fuel economy using FHWA 
techniques.
    Next, several governmental and non-governmental organizations 
perform their own fuel economy assessments. Of these, the American 
Automobile Association (AAA) and Consumer's Union (CU) have tested the 
greatest number of vehicles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has 
recently begun a program where drivers can submit their own fuel 
economy measurements via the Internet. Argonne National Laboratory 
(ANL) has also been operating an extensive hybrid demonstration project 
for a few years as part of DOE's Freedom Car project.
    Each of these estimates of onroad fuel economy have their relative 
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the non-governmental 
organization testing include the fact that the vehicles are tested on 
actual roads, usually in traffic and under real environmental 
conditions. The primary weaknesses of this testing include:
    (1) The fact that the driving patterns involved are not typically 
published, so they may or may not be representative of average U.S. 
driving,
    (2) Vehicles are tested throughout the year, so some vehicles are 
tested in hot weather and others in cold weather and some under 
moderate conditions, and
    (3) In some cases, the actual test procedures used to measure the 
volume of fuel consumed during the test are not described, leaving some 
doubt as to their accuracy. Still, because of the public interest in 
these estimates, we believed that they should be considered here.
    Consumer Report recently published their fuel economy estimates for 
303 2000-2005 model year vehicles. Consumer Report makes three fuel 
economy measurements: one for city driving, one for highway driving and 
one for a 150-mile trip. They also publish a combined fuel economy 
value which is a harmonic average of the three fuel economy 
measurements.
    We were able to match 151 of these vehicles with those in our 5-
cycle fuel economy database. For these 151 vehicles, we compared 
Consumer Report's city, highway and combined fuel economy measurements 
to the analogous current EPA label, 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy 
estimates. The results show that the Consumer Report city fuel economy 
values are well below both the current label or 5-cycle label values, 
though the difference for the 5-cycle values are half those of the 
current label values. The reverse is true for highway fuel economy. The 
current EPA combined label values average 10 percent higher than the 
Consumer Report values. However, the average of the combined 5-cycle 
values is only 1 percent higher than the average combined Consumer 
Report fuel economy.
    More specifically, the vehicles tested by Consumer Report include 6 
hybrid vehicles. We have 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for five of 
these vehicles. A comparison of the Consumer Report, current EPA label 
and 5-cycle label fuel economy values shows that the current combined 
EPA label fuel economy values average 27 percent higher than the 
combined fuel economy measured by Consumer Report. The difference 
between EPA and Consumer Report combined fuel economy decreases 
dramatically with the 5-cycle approach. On average, the EPA 5-cycle 
combined fuel economy is only 5 percent higher than that measured by 
Consumer Report. This is slightly higher than the zero percent 
difference found for non-hybrids. Thus, the vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
approach appears to reflect some of the factors measured with Consumer 
Report testing which are missed by the current fuel economy tests (FTP 
and HFET). As expected, the differences increase with the mpg-based 
approach, since the mpg-based adjustments are based essentially on non-
hybrid vehicle results. Additional discussion and analysis of the 
Consumer Reports data can be found in the Draft Technical Support 
Document.
    As discussed above, AAA also develops its own fuel economy 
estimates. In their 2004 report, AAA presented their test results and 
the EPA label values for 163 models. As AAA only develops a single fuel 
economy estimate for each vehicles (i.e., no separate city or highway 
estimates), we compared their estimates to a combined mpg-based fuel 
economy value. As discussed above, the mpg-based city fuel economy was 
weighted 43 percent and the highway value was weighted 57 percent. We 
did not compare the 5-cycle fuel economy values to the AAA estimates 
due to the relatively low number of models which were in both the AAA 
and EPA certification fuel economy database.
    The average mpg-based combined fuel economy for the 163 vehicles 
was 2 percent higher than the average AAA fuel economy. The combined 
mpg-based fuel economy was higher than the AAA estimate for 91 models 
and lower for 71 models. The two estimates matched for one model. These 
comparisons are quite similar to those between the current label fuel 
economy values and the AAA values. However, the mpg-based fuel economy 
more closely matches those of AAA for the two hybrids in the AAA 
database. For the Insight and Prius, the current combined EPA fuel 
economy values exceed those of AAA by 6-8 percent. The combined mpg-
based fuel economy values straddle the AAA estimates, one being one 
percent higher and the other being two percent lower.
    The ORNL Your MPG data discussed in Section I are similar in nature 
to the much larger databases analyzed for the 1984 label adjustment 
rule. Drivers measure their own fuel economy and provide a perceived 
split of their driving into city and highway categories. The strength 
of this type of data is the fact that the vehicle is being operated by 
the owner or regular driver in typical use. The weaknesses are the 
unknown representativeness of the sample, the unknown nature of the 
technique used by the owner/driver to measure fuel economy and the 
short time period over which fuel economy is generally assessed (e.g., 
a couple of tanks full). In the particular case of the ORNL database, 
its current size is still small (2544 estimates of fuel economy for 
1794 vehicles) compared to those available in 1984, though it is 
growing daily.
    We compared the fuel economy estimates submitted to the ORNL 
website with the mpg-based fuel economy values. We did not attempt to 
estimate 5-cycle fuel economy values for these vehicles, as we lacked 
5-cycle fuel economy data for most of the vehicles. However, on average 
for non-hybrid vehicles, the mpg-based values match the 5-cycle values. 
We combined the mpg-based city and highway values using each driver's 
estimate of the

[[Page 5459]]

percentage which was city and highway. If a driver did not provide an 
estimate of the breakdown of their driving pattern, we assumed that 
their driving was 43 percent city and 57 percent highway. We also 
conducted separate comparisons for conventional gasoline vehicles, 
hybrids and diesels. The results are shown in Table II-9 below.

                           Table II-9.--Your MPG Versus Current EPA Label Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fuel economy (mpg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 MPG-based EPA
                                                 Number of                      combined label:  Difference from
                Vehicle type                     estimates         Your MPG      vehicle city/    MPG-based (%)
                                                                                 hwy weighting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Gasoline.......................             2315             23.7             23.4              1.3
Hybrid Gasoline.............................              239             46.1             47.1             -2.2
Diesel......................................               88             41.0             38.8              5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to 
their mpg-based fuel economy values, outperforming the proposed mpg-
based combined label by 5.7 percent. Conventional gasoline vehicles 
also appear to slightly outperform the mpg-based label values by 1.3 
percent. Hybrids are the only category to fall short, but do so by a 
small margin of 2.2 percent.
    The Department of Energy has overseen the real world operation of a 
number of electric hybrid vehicles for a period of years. The Advanced 
Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA), conducted jointly by the Idaho 
National Laboratory (INL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
(NREL), has been benchmarking hybrid electric vehicle performance as 
part of the FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program. The strength of 
the FreedomCAR program testing of hybrid vehicles lies in the fact that 
the vehicles are operated on the road over long term periods similar to 
what consumer-purchased vehicles experience, albeit often in commercial 
applications. Over a million miles of operation have been assessed and 
careful fuel consumption and mileage records are kept. The weaknesses 
are that some of the vehicles are in commercial use (e.g., company pool 
vehicles) for accelerated mileage accumulation and that the vehicles 
are operated exclusively in the Southwest, mainly Phoenix, Arizona and 
surrounding areas. Nevertheless, the vehicles are operated just as any 
other vehicle would be in that application and the vehicles are subject 
to all of the environmental and roadway factors which affect the fuel 
economy of typical vehicles, such as winds, rough roads, hills, traffic 
congestion, etc. Because of the limited geographic area of the program, 
the vehicles are more likely to experience hot temperatures and air 
conditioning use than cold temperatures.
    The vehicles' operators report mileage and fuel usage to FreedomCAR 
which posts the monthly and cumulative fuel economy of each electric 
hybrid fleet on a monthly schedule.\52\ Therefore, seasonal changes in 
fuel economy can be observed. The results of the fleets are shown in 
Table II-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ http://energy.inel.gov/x-web/other/framed.shtml?http://http://avt
.inel.gov.

                                 Table II-10.--FreedomCAR Hybrid Fleet Cumulative Versus EPA Combined Label Fuel Economy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Fuel economy (mpg)                   Difference (%)
                                                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Accumulated     Fleet                EPA combined label \A\
                         Vehicle                              mileage       size             ------------------------------                       MPG-
                                                                                     Onroad                         MGP-     Current   5-cycle    based
                                                                                               Current   5-cycle    based
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Honda Insight......................................         417,000         6      45.2      61.0      51.5      52.6        35        14        16
2002 Toyota Prius.......................................         458,000         6      41.0      48.6  ........  ........        19  ........  ........
2003 Honda Civic........................................         378,000         4      37.6      46.3      38.0      40.0        23         1         6
2004 Toyota Prius.......................................         102,000         2      44.4      54.6      45.9      46.0        23         3         4
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2wd............................          21,000         1      18.5      18.8  ........  ........         2  ........  ........
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 4wd............................          28,000         1      17.7      16.9      14.9      15.3        -5       -16       -14
2005 Ford Escape 2wd....................................          28,000         1      28.1      33.6  ........  ........        20  ........  ........
2005 Ford Escape 4wd....................................          29,000         1      25.5      29.9      24.1      25.9        17        -5        -2
2005 Honda Accord.......................................          62,000         2      27.6      32.3      26.3      29.1        17        -5         5
2005 Lexus RX400h.......................................          20,000         2      26.3      28.1      24.8      24.8         7        -6        -6
Average.................................................         154,000       2.6      31.2      37.0      32.2      33.4        16        -2        2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ Current combined is a \55/45\ weighting of city/highway fuel economy. 5-cycle combined is a \43/57\ weighting of city/highway fuel economy, as
  explained further in this section.

    As can be seen, EPA's current label formulae over-estimate the 
onroad fuel economy achieved by all but one of the hybrid vehicle 
fleets. It should be noted that the values for current combined fuel 
economy are those from EPA's certification database and are not the 
official label values. The official label values are even higher due to 
differences between the worse case vehicles tested over the 
Supplemental FTP cycles and the average vehicle sold. The largest 
shortfall was 35 percent for the Honda Insights. The Chevrolet 
Silverado was the only model which

[[Page 5460]]

exceeded the current label value of the test vehicle in our 
certification database. This is likely related to the fact that its 
hybrid design includes limited fuel economy targeted features. Except 
for the Chevrolet Silverado, the onroad fuel economy for each fleet 
never exceeded either the city or highway fuel economy label. This 
indicates that regardless of whether the vehicles were driven 
predominantly in city or highway driving modes, other real world 
factors reduced onroad fuel economy beyond that captured in the FTP and 
HFET and the current 10 percent and 22 percent adjustment factors.
    Table II-10 also presents combined fuel economy values using the 
proposed 5-cycle and mpg-based formulae for those vehicles for which we 
have 5-cycle fuel economy data. The proposed combined 5-cycle label 
values exceed onroad fuel economy for three out of seven models, while 
the proposed mpg-based values do so for five out of seven models. The 
average of the differences is very small in both cases. On average, the 
combined 5-cycle value is 2 percent lower than those measured onroad. 
However, as mentioned above, the specific vehicles in our 5-cycle 
database tend to be worse case. For example, the current official label 
values exceed those shown in Table II-10 by 3 percent. If we increased 
the combined 5-cycle values commensurately, they would exceed the 
onroad values by 1 percent. Thus, while both of the proposed approaches 
do a much more reasonable job at predicting the onroad fuel economy 
achieved in the DOE FreedomCar program than the current label formulae, 
the proposed 5-cycle formulae appear to be particularly accurate when 
compared to the FreedomCar experience.
    When analyzing monthly reported fuel economy, large seasonal 
fluctuations in fuel economy were observed on most of the hybrid 
fleets. The seasonal fluctuations are especially noticeable on the 
fleets that had been in service for over one year. The fuel economy 
during the hot and often humid summer weather months when heavy air 
conditioning usage could be expected was as much as 15 mpg lower than 
observed fuel economy during mild Phoenix area winter months. Fuel 
economy over the SC03 air conditioning test for the three hybrids with 
the highest rated fuel economy shown in Table II-10 (Prius, Insight and 
Civic) tends to be 15-20 mpg lower than that over the FTP. No cold 
weather operation similar to northern states or the Cold FTP (20 
[deg]F) was reported which would likely have resulted in further 
shortfalls.
    The FreedomCAR program is continuing to accumulate mileage on all 
of the 2004 and 2005 models listed above. While the time in service and 
accumulated mileage is relatively low compared with the original fleets 
that have completed service, the initial results support similar 
substantial shortfall likely due to the same real world factors not 
currently captured during the FTP or HFET.

III. What Major Alternatives Were Considered?

    As explained in Section I, the current city and highway test 
results for fuel economy are adjusted downward by 10 and 22 percent, 
respectively, to derive the current fuel economy label values. One 
possible approach that we evaluated would be to simply revise these 
adjustment factors, presumably to further ``discount'' the test 
results, to achieve results that more closely mirror real-world fuel 
economy. However, this is a fundamentally flawed approach that does not 
solve the problems with the current fuel economy estimates.
    There is little doubt that revising the current adjustment factors 
could result in city and highway fuel economy values that better 
approximate real-world values on average across the U.S. vehicle fleet. 
This approach might be more accurate for certain vehicle models. 
However, the fundamental problem with this approach is that it ignores 
the variation in how different vehicle models respond to factors that 
impact fuel economy. As we discussed in Section I, there is a wide 
variation in how different vehicles respond to factors such as the use 
of air conditioning, cold temperature operation, and higher speeds and 
accelerations. For example, in our database of about 420 vehicles, 
operation on the city test cycle at 20 degrees F resulted in fuel 
economy that was anywhere from 0 to 40 percent worse than fuel economy 
achieved on the same test cycle at 75 degrees F. Because there are now 
additional tests in place (for emissions compliance) that have the 
ability to measure a vehicle's fuel economy over this wider range of 
driving operation, we have an opportunity to design the new fuel 
economy label methodology in a way that relies on these test results, 
and is thus inherently more vehicle-specific. In this way, our fuel 
economy test methods would yield results that are not only more 
accurate across the fleet, but also more reflective of the fuel economy 
consumers can expect to achieve from a given vehicle in the real-world.

IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content

    In addition to our proposal to revise the methods for calculating 
the ``city'' and ``highway'' mpg estimates, we are proposing revisions 
to the way these estimates and the other information on the label are 
presented to the consumer.
    Our goal is to improve the label format and content so that 
consumers more readily understand and use it. To gain a better 
understanding of how consumers are using the current fuel economy 
label, we conducted a series of focus groups in five cities around the 
country in March 2005. The input received from the participants 
confirmed some of our perceptions about weaknesses of the current 
label, and also brought up some constructive suggestions for 
improvements that we could address. The contractor that conducted the 
focus groups issued a report to EPA of their findings, which is 
included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ PRR, Inc. ``EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups--Report of 
Findings,'' prepared for EPA by PRR Inc., March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the focus groups, we clearly heard that people are very familiar 
with the big, bold City and Highway estimates on the label. We tested 
whether consumers preferred to see the estimates continue to be 
expressed as City and Highway mpg values or replacing the City and 
Highway designations with a fuel economy range. Consumers agreed that 
the City and Highway distinction is useful information and wanted it to 
remain intact. Consumers had a very strong negative reaction to a 
range, and indicated it was not something they could easily compare to 
other cars. Thus, we are proposing to retain the City and Highway mpg 
estimates. As discussed in Section I, our new test methods are designed 
to reflect the average fuel economy, so the City and Highway mpg 
estimates on the label will reflect the fuel economy expected to be 
achieved by half of drivers. We seek comment on whether the average is 
the appropriate value for the large, bold, City and Highway estimates. 
In other words, we invite comment on whether it would be more 
appropriate to capture a greater proportion of consumers' experience by 
using a lower fuel economy estimate, for example, an estimate that 
would capture 75 percent, or even a greater percentage, of drivers' 
experience.
    Further, the consumer focus groups indicated that people are not 
noticing or reading the current ``fine print'' range of fuel economy 
expressed on today's label. Yet, we believe it is important to

[[Page 5461]]

continue to report an expected fuel economy range in smaller print, in 
addition to the City and Highway mpg estimates, so that consumers can 
better understand how much their fuel economy in actual driving can 
vary from the estimate. To accompany the City and Highway mileage 
estimates, we propose to express the range of expected fuel economy as 
a 10th percentile to a 90th percentile fuel economy. In that way, the 
range represents 80 percent of driving experience--10 percent of 
drivers may get fuel economy below the lower end of the range, and 10 
percent may get fuel economy greater than the higher end. We seek 
comment on other approaches to expressing the expected fuel economy 
range on the label. For example, we ask for comments on whether this 
range should be wider to capture even more of drivers' experience, such 
as a 5th percentile to a 95th percentile, which would capture 90 
percent of all drivers' fuel economy experience.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Based on the assumption of a normal distribution and 
available data that allows us to estimate the standard deviation, 
the 10th and 90th percentiles are equal to the mean 17 
percent, and the 5th and 95th percentiles are equal to the mean 
21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we are interested in commenters' feedback on what 
additional information could be made available either in the annual 
Fuel Economy Guide or the http://www.fueleconomy.gov Web site, administered 

jointly by EPA and DOE. We recognize that some of the ideas we are 
presenting here may become too much information to include on the label 
itself. We would like to make additional information available to those 
consumers who are most interested in more detail, and the Fuel Economy 
Guide, or http://www.fueleconomy.gov Web site, may be good places to include 

such information. Some have suggested the idea of a fuel economy 
calculator on the Web site, that would enable consumers to calculate an 
estimated fuel economy that is more tailored to their specific driving 
conditions. A similar tool already exists on the Web site in the form 
of a calculator to estimate individualized annual fuel costs, based on 
specific cost and mileage data input by the user. A fuel economy 
calculator could be designed that would allow the user to input their 
specific driving conditions, such as the amount of time spent with air 
conditioning on, what climate they live in, how much driving is done 
under higher speed/aggressive driving conditions, etc. These inputs 
could go into an algorithm that would estimate the fuel economy for a 
specific vehicle under the conditions input by the user. For instance, 
drivers in areas of climactic extremes may want to know the fuel 
economy impact of driving exclusively in those conditions. EPA requests 
comments on the merits of adding such a calculator to the 
fueleconomy.gov Web site, and welcomes further input on how such a tool 
might best be designed.
    Based on input from the focus groups, as well as our own 
observations from implementing the fuel economy labeling program for 
the past 20 years, we are proposing to revise the fuel economy label as 
discussed below. For a point of reference, a sample of the current Fuel 
Economy Label is provided below, followed by four proposed label 
formats on which we are requesting comment. Sample A takes a more 
traditional approach by preserving some of the ``look and feel'' of the 
current label. Samples B and C are graphical updates and offer 
different ways of presenting the same information. Sample D has the 
same look as Sample B, but presents a different option for illustrating 
the comparable class information. One benefit of adopting a less 
traditional look is to signal to consumers that the new label design 
coincides with our new way of calculating the fuel economy estimates.
    We are planning to conduct a series of focus groups after 
evaluating the public comments received on these label designs, to 
assure that the final design will be understood and useful for 
consumers. More details about this proposal are in section VIII.B 
below.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.038

[[Page 5462]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.039

[[Page 5463]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.040

[[Page 5464]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.041

[[Page 5465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.042

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 5466]]

A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost

    The EPCA statute requires the label to include the estimated annual 
fuel cost. EPA's current regulations specify that this information just 
include the dollar amount, but gives manufacturers the option to also 
include the per-gallon fuel costs and annual miles driven (i.e., to 
explain how annual fuel costs were derived). However, most 
manufacturers do not take that option, so most labels include only the 
cost number. It was clear from the focus group research that consumers 
care a lot about this information but currently do not find it 
adequate. They desired more information about how this cost was 
determined, including the assumed per-gallon fuel costs and miles-per-
year driven. Therefore, we are proposing to require this information on 
the label in addition to the estimated annual fuel cost. The per-gallon 
fuel costs and annual miles driven will be that which EPA provides to 
manufacturers each year via guidance letters.\55\ Providing per-gallon 
fuel costs each year through guidance ensures that the information 
stays as current as possible while still providing a common basis to 
allow comparisons of annual fuel cost information across all vehicles. 
The fuel economy basis on which the estimated annual fuel costs are 
determined would be the adjusted combined fuel economy (as determined 
by the proposed weighting of 43 and 57 percent for city and highway, 
respectively, as discussed in Section II). The label information is 
proposed to read: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Costs = $XXXX (based on 
XX,XXX miles at $X.XX per gallon).'' We also seek comment on whether 
the label text should include the combined fuel economy number as part 
of the derivation for Estimated Annual Fuel Cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The estimated annual fuel costs are derived from 
information provided by DOE's Energy Information Administration. 
Separate costs are determined for regular and premium gasoline, 
diesel, CNG, LPG, ethanol (E85), electricity and hydrogen. See EPA's 
Guidance Letter CCD-05-11 in the Docket for this rulemaking for an 
example of how EPA transmits this information to manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

    The EPCA statute requires the label to include the fuel economy of 
comparable vehicles. This requirement was intended to help car shoppers 
compare the fuel economy of similar vehicles. EPA's current regulations 
require that the label include the following statement: ``For 
comparison shopping, all [vehicles/trucks] classified as [insert 
category as determined in Sec.  600.315] have been issued mileage 
ratings ranging from -- to -- mpg city and -- to -- mpg highway.'' 
Based on the focus group research, it appears that car buyers do not 
notice this statement since it appears in small print and has lengthy 
text. Some perceived it as ``fine print,'' and thus less important. 
There are two ways to address these concerns. The first would shorten 
the statement to lessen its ``fine print'' look. The sample labels A 
through C above contain a revised statement as follows: ``For 
comparison shopping, the range of fuel economy for all [INSERT 
COMPARABLE CLASS] is -- to -- MPG city and -- to -- MPG highway.''
    After completion of the focus groups, we considered another option 
for presenting the fuel economy of comparable vehicles that might aid 
consumers by replacing the ``fine print'' text with a graphic 
representation. This approach would use combined fuel economy as the 
comparison basis (versus separate city and highway comparisons), to 
simplify the fuel economy values presented. Combined fuel economy has 
not previously appeared on the label, but is used as an input to 
calculate the estimated annual fuel costs. The graphic presentation is 
similar in concept to DOE's ``EnergyGuide'' label, which has been 
effectively used for years to illustrate where an electrical appliance 
falls on an energy-usage comparison scale. Therefore, we believe this 
visual may be familiar to consumers. A sample label with the graphical 
presentation of comparable fuel economy appears in the Sample D label 
above. The graphic would replace the text regarding comparable class 
fuel economy. We request comment on the merits of this graphical 
concept for depicting the fuel economy of comparable class vehicles, 
and whether it would enhance consumers' understanding.
    In addition, we welcome comment on whether it would be useful to 
include additional information, either on the label or a Web site, that 
would give consumers a better understanding of how a given vehicle's 
fuel economy compares with the range of fuel economy of other vehicle 
classes. This may be particularly useful for those consumers shopping 
for cars across vehicles classes (e.g., SUVs vs. large sedans). 
However, including this much information on the label may be 
problematic due to space limitations. The annual Fuel Economy Guide 
already includes graphical information on the fuel economy range for 
all comparable classes, so that consumers can identify where a given 
vehicle fits within these ranges. We welcome input on whether 
additional information on comparable class fuel economy would be 
useful, and if so, how best to present that information in a user-
friendly way for consumers.
    Another change that will help improve the usefulness of this 
information to consumers is to revise the comparable vehicle class 
categories themselves, since they have not been updated in twenty 
years. A discussion of proposed changes to the comparable vehicle 
classifications is in Section V below.

C. ``Your mileage will vary * * *'' Range of Expected Fuel Economy 
Information

    The current label has a statement explaining why actual fuel 
economy will vary from the EPA estimates, and gives an expected range 
of fuel economy for that vehicle, determined by 15 percent 
of the city and highway estimates. While not statutorily required to be 
on the label, as discussed in Section I above, EPA included it in the 
1984 fuel economy rule since many drivers would not precisely achieve 
the estimated fuel economy. EPA agrees that it is important to 
emphasize on the label that the city and highway numbers are estimates 
and do not necessarily reflect the actual fuel economy a driver can 
expect at any given time. Providing the range of expected city and 
highway fuel economy on the label gives the consumer a better 
understanding of what fuel economy they can expect across a wider 
spectrum of real-world driving conditions. The current label format 
does this in a single statement that gives a few reasons why mileage 
will vary, as well as the range of expected city and highway fuel 
economy. Unfortunately, this information is often disregarded by car 
buyers. Similar to the comparable class information, focus group 
participants viewed this information as ``fine print,'' and as a sort 
of disclaimer. Once they had taken the time to consider it, the focus 
groups understood why actual in-use fuel economy may vary from the 
estimates, and concluded that this type of information was useful.
    To improve consumer comprehension, the proposed statement has been 
reworded and reformatted to be more noticeable. The proposed text for 
presenting the range of expected fuel economy is ``Your actual mileage 
can vary significantly depending on how you drive and maintain your 
vehicle and other factors.'' We propose to place the range of expected 
fuel economy underneath (or on the side of, depending on the label) the 
actual city and highway estimates to provide

[[Page 5467]]

consumers with a clearer understanding of the fuel economy they can 
expect to achieve on the road. We request comments on the effectiveness 
of this format in conveying this message, as well as on the specific 
wording of this statement.

D. Other Format Changes

    Based on the focus group research, the current label would benefit 
from some graphic updating. In the sample labels, we have included a 
more modern-looking fuel pump. Many focus group participants did not 
understand that EPA was the source of the fuel economy estimates (many 
thought that the auto manufacturers or dealers were responsible). Once 
they did, they thought the association with the government added 
credibility to the ratings. We believe that more prominent government 
logos (EPA and DOE), will make it clearer to consumers that these 
Agencies are responsible for the fuel economy estimates. The web link 
to the EPA-DOE Fuel Economy Guide Web site, http://www.fueleconomy.gov, has 

also been added so that interested consumers may obtain additional 
information related to fuel economy.

V. Other Related Proposals

A. Comparable Class Categories

    The EPCA statute requires that the label contain ``the range of 
fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers,'' but does 
not specify what constitutes ``comparable automobiles.'' \56\ 
Therefore, EPA has discretion to interpret how to best define these 
categories. The comparable class categories in place today are the same 
as those established in 1976.\57\ Cars were split according to size 
based on their interior volume (with one exception), and trucks were 
split according to their utility and GVWR into the following groups:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908.
    \57\ See 41 FR 49752, November 19, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cars: Two-seater; mini-compact; compact sedan; medium sedan; large 
sedan; station wagon.
    Trucks: Small pickup truck; standard pickup truck; van; special 
purpose vehicle.
    Clearly, the U.S. vehicle fleet looks significantly different that 
it did nearly 30 years ago. Since the time these classes were created, 
there have been many vehicle design changes that are not reflected in 
the above class designations. For example, the sport utility vehicle 
(SUV)--one of the most popular vehicle types today--does not even have 
its own class designation. The same is true for minivans. Another trend 
in vehicle design is vehicles that defy classification in design and 
utility. Known commonly as ``crossover'' vehicles, they do not fit 
neatly into any of EPA's existing classifications. All of the above 
shortcomings have limited the usefulness of the comparable vehicle fuel 
economy information on the label. Having more clearly-defined classes 
that reflect the current market will improve the usefulness of this 
information on the label. There are several challenges with assigning 
comparable class categories: we need to accommodate a dynamic market of 
changing vehicle designs; the categories should be as objective as 
possible and not rely upon subjective qualities that are difficult to 
define (such as ``luxury'' or ``sporty''); and there should be enough 
classes to allow consumers to differentiate, but not so many as to 
cause confusion.
    The following discussion explains the specific issues associated 
with the existing comparable classes, and how we propose to address 
them. It should be noted that the comparable vehicle categories are 
used only for fuel economy labeling, and in no way determine if a 
vehicle is a ``passenger vehicle'' or ``nonpassenger vehicle'' for the 
purpose of CAFE compliance. That determination is made by DOT-NHTSA.
1. Create New Classes for SUVs and Minivans
    The ``Special Purpose Vehicle'' class was created to contain 
vehicles that had off-road capability and other features that weren't 
covered by the pickup truck or van category. Since it was first 
created, the ``special purpose vehicle'' class has come to include two 
widely-popular, high-selling, but very different, vehicle types--SUVs 
and minivans. EPA and DOE have recognized the evolution of these two 
classes informally by including them in the annual Fuel Economy Guide 
as subdivisions of the ``special purpose'' vehicle class. The 
determination of these classes was left to individual manufacturer's 
discretion.\58\ However, these subdivisions are not used on the fuel 
economy label because EPA's current regulations have clear instructions 
that manufacturers must use the comparable classes as defined by those 
regulations. This means a consumer looking at the label on an SUV will 
see the range of fuel economy for all ``special purpose vehicles.'' We 
believe it is appropriate to update the comparable class regulations by 
creating separate classes for SUVs and minivans. We are also proposing 
to revise the ``special purpose vehicle'' class to capture vehicles 
that do not fit into any other category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ EPA Guidance Letter VPCD-99-08, June 23, 1999, provides 
guidance to manufacturers on using SUV and minivan designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minivan: Minivans have not neatly fit into EPA's ``Van'' class due 
to the way vans are defined in the regulations: ``* * * any light truck 
having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and 
load carrying device, and having no body sections protruding more than 
30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.'' \59\ Minivans 
generally do not meet the last criterion, thus they have been placed in 
the ``Special Purpose Vehicle'' class. In general, minivans are smaller 
than full-size vans, and have rear seats that are designed to be easily 
removable or stowable. Taking those distinguishing characteristics into 
account, we are proposing that minivans be defined as vehicles which 
are designed primarily to carry no more than eight passengers having an 
integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver, passenger, and load-
carrying compartments, with a total interior volume at or below 180 
cubic feet and rear seats readily removed or folded to floor level to 
facilitate cargo carrying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 40 CFR 600.002-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SUV: Sport Utility Vehicles likewise do not fit into the ``van'' 
class because of the 30 inch protuberance criterion. The class of 
vehicles which may be closest in design to the SUV is a station wagon, 
defined in the regulations as ``* * * a passenger automobile with an 
extended roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo 
compartment open to the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or 
more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo 
carrying.'' The most significant difference is that SUVs are 
``nonpassenger automobiles.'' \60\ The proposed definition of SUVs is a 
nonpassenger automobile with an extended roof line to increase cargo or 
passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger 
compartment, and

[[Page 5468]]

one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo 
carrying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ ``Nonpassenger automobile'' is a term used in EPCA and by 
EPA's current comparable class definitions. It includes vehicles 
which do not fall under the EPCA definition of passenger automobiles 
and that are ``capable of off-highway operation that the Secretary 
decides by regulation (A) has a significant feature (except 4-wheel 
drive) designed for off-highway operation; and (B) is a 4-wheel 
drive automobile or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle 
weight.'' The DOT regulations that further define the distinguishing 
features of these vehicles are found at 49 CFR 523.5(a). It should 
be noted that the methods of classification of ``nonpassenger 
automobiles'' or ``light trucks'' for the purpose of creating 
comparable vehicle classes for fuel economy labeling are not related 
to those used to administer the federal emission compliance 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Redefine ``Small Pickup Truck'' Class
    Pickups are currently divided into ``small'' and ``standard'' 
categories, with ``small'' pickups distinguished from ``standard pickup 
truck'' by GVWR (greater than 4500 lbs is ``standard''). For the past 
several years, no vehicles certified have been classified as ``small 
pickup trucks.'' To provide better comparable classes for pickup 
trucks, we are proposing to increase the weight limit distinguishing 
small and standard standard pickups to 6000 pounds GVWR. Pickups less 
than 6000 pounds GVWR would be considered ``small'' and those at or 
above would be considered ``standard.''
3. ``Crossover'' Vehicles
    These are vehicles that may not fit neatly into one classification. 
Examples are SUVs or station wagons that may have characteristics of 
both classes. Our policy in that regard has been to work with the 
manufacturer to determine which of the prescribed comparable classes 
the vehicle is most appropriate. We are concerned that by defining 
specific parameters for crossover classes, we will be building 
obsolescence into our regulation. Our preference is to retain our 
current policy in which manufacturers propose to EPA which of the 
existing comparable classes their ``crossover'' vehicles best fit, with 
the caveat that if they advertise within-class fuel economy it must be 
with the selected class. We request comments on whether we should 
continue this policy for crossover vehicles or whether we should create 
a new class.
    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.

B. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet

    A statutory provision in EPCA requires car dealers to provide to 
consumers a copy of the annual fuel economy booklet (Fuel Economy 
Guide).\61\ Historically, DOE has printed and sent copies of the Guide 
to dealers at government expense, although this is not an EPCA 
requirement. At the time that these EPA regulations were written, the 
internet was non-existent, and personal computers were not readily 
available. Today's proposal modifies the ways in which the Fuel Economy 
Guide can be distributed by giving dealers the option to provide it 
electronically. There are a number of ways that this can happen. 
Dealers can present the Guide on an on-site computer that customers can 
view, or they can provide them with a diskette or CD containing the 
Guide, or they can print paper copies directly from the government Web 
site that has the Guide (http://www.fueleconomy.gov). These methods are 

superior to the current hard-copy method for a number of reasons. 
First, it spares the government the large expense of printing many 
thousands of copies and mailing them to dealers. Second, it allows 
consumers to have more up-to-date information. The deadline for 
manufacturers to provide fuel economy data for inclusion in the annual 
printed Guide is generally October of the calendar year prior to the 
model year (e.g. the deadline for the 2005 Guide was October, 2004). In 
reality, some manufacturers are not able to meet this deadline, due to 
late introduction of models or other timing issues, so those vehicles 
will not appear in the printed Guide, which is printed only once per 
year. However, the electronic version on the Guide posted on the 
internet is updated regularly to include new models. Thus consumers can 
get more accurate information from the internet than from the printed 
Guide. This method has been used on a trial basis for the 2004 and 2005 
model years with much success, and EPA is today proposing to codify the 
electronic dissemination of the Guide. This change would be effective 
with the 2008 model year. EPA has consulted with DOE on this topic and 
DOE concurs it would be an effective means of providing information to 
car buyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Testing Provisions

1. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From Certain 
Emission Tests
    Certain vehicles are currently exempt from some of the emission 
tests that we are including in the 5-cycle method. In order to use the 
5-cycle method for these vehicles, additional fuel economy testing 
provisions are necessary.
    a. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles. There are two types of alternative-
fueled vehicles: (1) Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs; also known as dual-
fueled or bi-fueled vehicles) that can operate on gasoline or diesel 
and/or some alternative fuel (i.e., ethanol, methanol, etc.), and (2) 
dedicated alternative fueled vehicles that operate only on some 
alternative fuel.
    FFVs are subject to the SFTP and Cold CO emission standards and 
test requirements, but only when operating on gasoline. Therefore, we 
propose that the fuel economy label values of FFVs when operating on 
gasoline be determined using the same mpg-based or 5-cycle approaches 
applicable to dedicated gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles and, thus, 
additional testing for US06, SC03 and Cold FTP while operating on 
alternative fuel would not be required. In addition, although the fuel 
economy values when operating on an alternative fuel are not required 
to be reported on the label, they are included in the annual Fuel 
Economy Guide. Accordingly, we propose that the city and highway fuel 
economy label values must reflect the same adjustment factors relative 
to FTP and HFET fuel economy, respectively, developed using the 
applicable mpg-based or 5-cycle approach for gasoline. In other words, 
if the city FTP fuel economy is 24 mpg for operation on gasoline and 
the calculated label value using the mpg-based or 5-cycle approach is 
20 mpg, then the city label value for operation on alternative fuel 
would be the FTP fuel economy measured when the vehicle is operated on 
alternative fuel multiplied by the ratio of 20 over 24.
    Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles are exempt from the SFTP and 
Cold CO emission standards according to 40 CFR 86.1810(i)(4) and 40 CFR 
86.1811-04(g). As a result, these vehicles will not have the SFTP and 
Cold CO fuel economy data needed to determine 5-cycle fuel economy 
values. We propose that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-fueled 
vehicles be able to use the mpg-based approach in 2011 and beyond, as 
well during 2008-2010 in order to avoid conducting additional tests for 
fuel economy reasons only. Since the mpg-based approach uses fuel 
economy values measured in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline or 
diesel fuel, the fuel economy of dedicated alternative fuel vehicles 
must be expressed in terms of its gasoline equivalent prior to using 
the mpg-based formula. Currently, all dedicated alternative-fueled 
vehicle fuel economy values are expressed in terms of gasoline 
equivalent. In this case, the fuel economy values for a dedicated 
alternative vehicle expressed in gasoline equivalents can be directly 
determined using the mpg-based approach. However, if the fuel economy 
values for a dedicated alternative vehicle is expressed in alternative 
fuel equivalents, then, the fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon 
of the alternative fuel would be adjusted by

[[Page 5469]]

the ratio of the mpg-based value to the FTP or HFET value, as 
applicable, just as described above for FFVs.
    We are also proposing that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-
fueled vehicles may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at their 
discretion. In this case, all the fuel economy values used in the 
formulae would be expressed in terms of operation on the alternative 
fuel. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be required to 
conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures and use both the 5-cycle 
city and highway calculation methods to determine fuel economy label 
values.
    b. Diesel Vehicles. Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently subject 
to Cold CO emission standards and, thus, do not have a 20 degree 
Fahrenheit (F) FTP fuel economy result to use in the 5-cycle based 
approach. Therefore, beginning with the 2008 model year for 
certification diesel vehicles, we are proposing that a 20 degree F FTP 
be performed for the purpose of collecting fuel economy data. 
Accordingly, for a 20 degree FTP only, the manufacturer must use a 
1-D (winter-grade) diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c 
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' \62\ and that complies 
with 40 CFR Part 80,\63\ where the level of kerosene added shall not 
exceed 20 percent. Alternatively, manufacturers may use, with EPA 
approval, a manufacturer-specified diesel fuel in lieu of conventional 
diesel fuel under alternate test procedure provisions in 40 CFR Sec.  
86.113-94, where the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 
percent. We request comment on these proposed winter-grade diesel fuel 
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ASTM International Specification D975-04C ``Standard 
Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels'' (November 1, 2005) describes 
the seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of 
diesel engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM 
Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is the direct 
responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-
Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.
    \63\ 40 CFR Part 80--Control of Air Pollution from New Motor 
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle Standards and Highway 
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation 
of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway 
Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that the impact of extending the cold FTP test 
requirement to light-duty diesel vehicles will be very small, given 
that there are so few diesel vehicles currently certified. In model 
year 2006, for example, only five diesel light-duty vehicles were 
certified for sale in the U.S. Further discussion of how we evaluated 
this requirement in our estimated cost impacts is contained in Section 
VI.
2. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures
    To ensure that the 5-cycle method is reflective of real-world 
operating conditions, there are a few minor procedural changes that 
need to be made to certain existing emission tests procedures. First, 
we are proposing minor procedural changes in the US06 tests, as 
described below. Second, we are seeking comment on the issue of 
requiring manufacturers to run the heater and/or defroster during the 
cold FTP test. Third, we are proposing to codify the existing practice, 
which has been done through special test procedure provisions, of 
requiring four-bag FTP measurements for gasoline-electric hybrid 
vehicles.
    a. Revisions to US06 Bag Measurements. The US06 drive cycle 
contains elements of both city and highway driving, yet the exhaust 
sample is collected in only one sample, or ``bag.'' In order to more 
accurately reflect the city portion of the drive cycle into the city 
fuel economy estimate, and the highway portion of the cycle into the 
highway fuel economy estimate, we are proposing a revised test protocol 
that would require collecting the exhaust sample into two bags. This 
has the benefit of more accurately capturing how a vehicle's fuel 
economy would be impacted over the various types of driving reflected 
in the cycle, but with very minimal cost impact.
    In assessing the split of US06 into two bags, we undertook a test 
program to determine that it was technically feasible to do so, and 
that it would not have a significant impact on emission results for 
compliance purposes. To do this, we evaluated the effects of conducting 
a US06 split-phase emissions test versus the current US06 single-phase 
emission test on ten vehicles at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel 
Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. Based on this evaluation, 
the US06 split-phase sampling methodology was shown to be feasible for 
fuel economy purposes and required only initial software reprogramming 
for the revised sampling periods and minimal hardware changes to enable 
the emissions analyzers to perform US06 split-phase emission testing. 
In addition, creating a US06 split-phase sampling period did not result 
in any significant difference in criteria pollutant emissions results. 
The full report on this US06 split phase evaluation program is 
available in the docket.\64\ Our proposed changes to the US06 test 
procedure to incorporate the split-phase sampling are found in the 
proposed regulations at 40 CFR 86.159-08. We have also accounted for 
any additional costs to manufacturers in making the necessary changes 
to their testing equipment and data collection software in our cost 
analysis discussed in Section VI. We estimate these costs to be 
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Mitcham, A. & Fernandez, A., ``Feasibility of Revising the 
US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase Sampling Test Procedure'' U.S. 
EPA, Office of Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP. The current Cold FTP 
conducted at 20 degrees F includes the option to use the heater and/or 
defroster.\65\ While we understand that some manufacturers today are 
using the heater and/or the defroster during the Cold FTP, it is not 
mandatory and therefore subject to inconsistent usage across 
manufacturers and vehicle lines. We expect that, in the real-world, it 
would be highly unusual for drivers not to use the heater/defroster 
when the temperature is cold, including at 20 degrees F experienced 
during the Cold FTP. In order to more closely reflect real world 
operation, and to ensure a level playing field across manufacturers and 
vehicle lines when performing this test, we are seeking comment on 
requiring that manufacturers operate the heater and/or defroster during 
the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See 40 CFR 86.230-94(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better understand the potential impact of heater and/or 
defroster usage on fuel economy at cold temperatures, we attempted to 
determine the fuel economy impacts of heater and defroster usage at 20 
degrees F. In order to quantify the impact of heater and/or defroster 
usage on fuel economy, we conducted testing through the Southwest 
Research Institute (SwRI). This program measured the impacts of heater 
and defroster operation on fuel economy for three vehicles during a 20 
degree Cold FTP. We compared the fuel economy results with heater/
defroster operational with the results of the heater/defroster non-
operational on each vehicle. The Cold FTP fuel economy with the heater/
defroster on was significantly lower than that with the heater/
defroster off, ranging from -6.0 percent (~1 mile per gallon lower on a 
non-hybrid vehicle) to -17.9 percent (~8 miles per gallon lower on a 
hybrid vehicle). We did not observe a significant impact on CO or other 
measured emissions as a result of the use of the heater/defroster on 
the Cold FTP. The results of this test program indicated that different 
vehicles were impacted more than others, suggesting that it would be 
important to capture the impact on fuel economy of heater

[[Page 5470]]

and defroster use during cold conditions. The full report of this test 
program is contained in the docket.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Fernandez, A. & Mitcham, A., ``Fuel Economy Impacts of 
Interior Heater/Defroster Usage on Conventional and Hybrid Gasoline 
powered Vehicles'', U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation & Air 
Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since heater and defroster operation can have an additional impact 
on fuel economy beyond cold temperature operation, and since these 
accessories are used in the real-world at cold temperatures including 
20 degrees F, we are seeking comment on how this condition should be 
captured in the fuel economy label estimates. Specifically, we are 
seeking comment on requiring the use of heater/defroster during the 
Cold FTP, rather than to continue to allow it as an option only.
    There are many approaches for how the heater and defroster usage 
could be incorporated into the Cold FTP test procedures, including 
specifying appropriate fan speed settings, timing of turning on the 
heater/defroster during the test, and accounting for various vehicle 
climate control designs. One concept that we have considered is as 
follows. This concept would involve starting the test with the airflow 
directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow source 
set to outside air (not recirculation), and the air temperature set to 
high. Approximately two minutes into the test, the fan speed could be 
turned to maximum and left there for the duration of the test. This 
would mimic typical driver behavior in that we expect many drivers 
typically would not turn the fan to maximum until the engine is 
producing some level of heat, which most vehicles will do within a 
couple minutes of driving. Automatic climate control systems could be 
set to achieve an inside air temperature of 72 degrees F, and the fan 
speed, if independently selectable, would be operated as described 
above. Vehicles with multiple zones (either driver and passenger, or 
front and rear) could be required to operate the controls for all zones 
as described above. We anticipate that some climate control systems 
might not be compatible with these instructions, and to address these 
we could allow a manufacturer to request the use of special test 
procedures, subject to EPA approval. We seek comment on this possible 
concept for how heater/defroster usage could be specified in the cold 
FTP procedure, as well as comments on alternative approaches.
    c. Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicle Testing Provisions. The FTP 
consists of two parts, referred to in the regulations as the ``cold 
start'' test and the ``hot start'' test. Each of these parts is divided 
into two periods, or ``phases'': a ``transient'' phase and a 
``stabilized'' phase. Because the stabilized phase of the hot start 
test is assumed to be identical to the stabilized phase of the cold 
start test for conventional vehicles, only the cold start stabilized 
phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called ``bags,'' 
terminology that results from the sample bags in which the exhaust 
samples are collected. The phases are run in the following order: cold 
start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2), and hot start 
transient (Bag 3). The virtual hot start stabilized phase (Bag 4) is 
accounted for in the emission and fuel economy results mathematically 
by including Bag 2 twice in the calculation.
    Because gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles have two energy sources 
that can be combined in many ways, EPA and manufacturers recognized 
that the assumption regarding the equivalence of the stabilized phases 
of the hot and cold start tests may not be valid for hybrid vehicles. 
Consequently, we have been requiring vehicles with gasoline-electric 
hybrid systems to perform the complete set of four phases of the FTP, 
under existing provisions in the regulations that allow special test 
procedures. However, rather than continue to do this under the special 
test procedures, we believe it is appropriate to codify this practice 
in the testing regulations. Additionally, the 5-cycle formula for 
gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles requires the four phases of the FTP 
as inputs for these vehicles. Therefore, we are proposing to require 
that gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles conduct all four phases of the 
FTP for both emissions and fuel economy testing. We propose that four 
bags be required for all tests using the FTP, including the cold 
temperature FTP, for those vehicles defined as hybrid electric 
vehicles. We request comment on this proposal, and on whether use of 
the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and 
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.

D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for Vehicles Exceeding 8500 Pounds 
GVWR

    The EPCA statute explicitly excludes automobiles weighing over 8500 
pounds GVWR from fuel economy labeling requirements.\67\ However, over 
the past several years there has been a growing market for these 
heavier vehicles, which fall into a number of utility classes, such as 
SUVs, pickups, and vans (including heavier versions of such models as 
Hummer, Ford Excursion, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram). We believe that 
consumers would be interested in using fuel economy estimates for these 
vehicles when comparison shopping. The rising fuel prices of recent 
times certainly have increased consumer awareness of the costs 
associated with owning a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We encourage auto manufacturers of vehicles weighing over 8,500 
pounds to voluntarily provide fuel economy information for these 
vehicles, and we request comments on the value of such a voluntary 
program and how it could be implemented.

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

    EPCA defines fuel economy as ``* * * the average number of miles 
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent 
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator under 
section 32904(c) of this title.'' Thus, EPA's fuel economy information 
program has always expressed fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. It is 
a metric that Americans have come to know and understand.
    Notwithstanding this requirement, a few auto manufacturers have 
suggested that it may be more meaningful to express fuel efficiency in 
terms of consumption (e.g., gallons per 100 miles) rather than in terms 
of economy (miles per gallon). A fuel consumption metric is currently 
used in Canada and in Europe. Fuel consumption numbers speak directly 
to the amount of fuel used, to which a consumer can relate in terms of 
cost when filling up.
    A fuel consumption metric also directly reflects the impacts of 
fuel economy variations in very fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers that 
are disappointed that their highly-rated vehicle may have fuel economy 
that is 5 mpg lower than expected may have fewer concerns if they saw 
that a 5 mpg difference for that vehicle really amounts to very little 
difference in actual fuel consumption (and, therefore, cost at the 
pump) compared with a 5 mpg difference in a vehicle with a lower mpg 
rating. For example, a very fuel-efficient vehicle at 60 miles per 
gallon will burn 1.67 gallons per 100 miles, whereas a vehicle 
achieving 5 mpg less, at 55 miles per gallon, will burn 1.82 gallons 
per 100 miles, an increase in consumption of only 0.15 gallons every 
100 miles. On the other hand, a less fuel-efficient vehicle at 25 miles 
per gallon will burn 4 gallons every 100 miles, whereas a vehicle 
achieving 5 mpg less, at 20 mpg, will burn 5 gallons per 100 miles, an 
increase of consumption of 1 gallon every 100 miles.

[[Page 5471]]

    The ``estimated annual fuel cost'' information on the label is 
actually based on a fuel consumption metric: the cost of X number of 
gallons consumed over 15,000 miles. Thus we believe the inclusion of 
the estimated annual fuel cost on the label is already a valuable 
metric for consumers, which relates directly to fuel consumption. Given 
that we are obligated statutorily to report fuel economy in terms of 
miles per gallon, we cannot change the metric on the fuel economy 
label. Moreover, we believe it would be a long-term educational process 
for consumers to begin to relate to the fuel consumption metric of 
gallons per mile. There may be an option to also provide additional 
fuel consumption information in the annual Fuel Economy Guide.
    Our experience is that consumers are very comfortable with the 
miles-per-gallon estimates given on the label. We are concerned that 
consumers would not understand a different fuel efficiency metric and, 
without a long-term, comprehensive public awareness campaign, it would 
be very confusing to the public. We also understand that some 
manufacturers plan to pursue some public outreach and education in 
regard to using the fuel consumption metric. At this time we view 
presenting fuel consumption information on the vehicle label as a 
future, long-term effort. We request comments on the gallons-per-mile 
fuel consumption metric, and how it could be best used and presented 
publicly, including comments on whether it should be included in the 
Fuel Economy Guide.

F. Environmental Information on Fuel Economy Labels

    For a number of years, EPA has presented fuel economy and emissions 
information about vehicles in the form of a 0-10 rating system on the 
Green Vehicle Guide Web site (http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles). This 

information has been well-received (over 50 million ``hits'' to date) 
and apparently well-understood by consumers, judging from feedback 
about this site and third-party market research comparing interest in 
and comprehension of such information. Some have suggested that adding 
similar information to the fuel economy label would provide the 
consumer with a more complete picture of the overall environmental 
performance of that vehicle and provide a more graphical way to make 
vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons. It would also complete the information 
loop by allowing consumers to identify the vehicles on the dealer lot 
that match those on the Web site with the environmental criteria they 
are seeking. This would be useful because many vehicle models are 
available in multiple versions that receive different Air Pollution and 
Greenhouse Gas scores, and it is often difficult for the consumer to 
identify these variations when buying a vehicle. When conducting the 
focus group research discussed in Section IV above, participants were 
shown examples of fuel economy labels that included environmental 
ratings (for Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas) and asked for their 
impressions. Although there was some confusion due to the newness of 
the information, there was general agreement that it could be useful in 
the future. At this time, we are not proposing to require environmental 
ratings on fuel economy labels. However, we are considering 
implementing a voluntary environmental labeling program and request 
comments on this subject. An example of how the environmental scores 
could look is below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.043

VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements

A. Information and Reporting Burden

    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 
information to EPA in conjunction with this program. Manufacturers must 
submit an application for emission 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. Currently, the pertinent emissions 
tests for fuel economy purposes are the FTP and the HFET. The vehicles 
that are tested for emissions purposes and for fuel economy purposes 
are overlapping but not identical classes: because fuel economy ratings 
are based on the sales-weighted fuel economy ratings, different 
vehicles may sometimes be tested to determine an appropriate average so 
that its ratings accurately reflect the entire fleet.
    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/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 ensure 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.
    No changes are contemplated by this rulemaking in the methodology 
for the sales-weighted calculations based on configurations of vehicles 
summarized in the preceding paragraph. That methodology would simply be 
extended to the additional test cycles that would be included in 
calculating the label values under the five-cycle proposal. For 
example, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP data would be grouped and sales

[[Page 5472]]

weighted in the same way that FTP and HFET data are now. The system for 
reporting and calculating the resultant fuel economy label values would 
be the same as that currently in use. Likewise, the requirement for 
manufacturers to publish the fuel economy information on the labels of 
new vehicles would be the same as the current requirements. 
Consequently, the purely reporting burdens are those associated with 
updating information formats and databases to comply with the new fuel 
economy computations.
    To the extent that information costs are taken to include new 
capital costs associated with gathering the information under the rule, 
as is the case for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, these costs 
must also be considered. These information burdens corresponding to the 
various parts of the proposal are discussed below. Additional details 
are given in the Draft Technical Support Document.
1. Incorporation of Other Driving Conditions Into the City and Highway 
Fuel Economy Label Calculations
    The proposal would require calculation of fuel economy values based 
on the five-cycle formulae beginning with model year 2011 for some 
engine families. As discussed in detail elsewhere in this preamble, for 
model years 2008 through 2010, manufacturers may use the mpg-based 
calculation for the five-cycle fuel economy values or they may conduct 
voluntary testing. For model year 2011 and after, if the five-cycle 
city and highway fuel economy values for an emission data vehicle group 
are within 4 percent and 5 percent of the mpg-based regression line, 
respectively, then all the vehicle configurations represented by the 
emission data vehicle (e.g., all vehicles within the vehicle test 
group) would use the mpg-based approach. Vehicles within a test group 
falling outside the 5 percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy 
values would be required to conduct US06 tests; those falling outside 
the city fuel economy band would be required to conduct SC03, US06, and 
Cold FTP tests. In addition, we expect that some of these vehicles 
falling outside the tolerance level may be eligible to estimate fuel 
economy for a given test through the application of analytically 
derived fuel economy (ADFE) values. Some data is currently available 
for vehicles that have conducted all five tests; based on this data, 
EPA has estimated the number of vehicles for which additional testing 
would be required because they fall outside the 4 and 5 percent bands, 
as discussed below.
    We have prepared a range of burden estimates for this analysis and 
the discussion will mention minimum and maximum burden scenarios. These 
low and high estimates are intended to provide EPA's estimate of the 
outer boundaries of the likely testing and information costs, and EPA 
solicits comments on the basis of these estimates, including the number 
of additional tests and costs for performing those tests and additional 
tests that will be likely under the proposal.
    a. Testing Burden for 2008 through 2010 Model Years. EPA estimates 
no additional tests during MY 2008 through MY 2010 based on the fact 
that the mpg-based fuel economy estimates will be available for all 
manufacturers. No additional testing would be required because 
manufacturers simply apply the mpg-based scale of adjustments to the 
same FTP and HFET test results that they otherwise would conduct for 
the fuel economy labeling program. While manufacturers have the option 
of conducting and reporting full five-cycle test results, such tests 
are not required, and most manufacturers have indicated it is unlikely 
they will do so. This cost analysis is limited to burdens that are 
mandated by the proposal.
    b. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years. Based on MY 2004 
data, 1250 fuel economy vehicles were tested with the FTP and highway 
fuel economy tests. (The figure is approximate because the city FTP 
test may be used and recorded primarily as a fuel economy test, an 
emissions test, or both.) Data show that 330 Supplemental FTP (US06 and 
SC03) tests were conducted and 220 Cold CO tests. Consequently, if all 
fuel economy vehicles were required to conduct full five-cycle tests, 
approximately 920 additional Supplemental FTP tests and 1,030 Cold CO 
tests would be required. EPA estimates, based on an analysis of our 423 
vehicle dataset, that 8 percent of the test groups will fall outside a 
band of [lang][equiv]~ 4 percent of the regression for the city test 
and 23 percent outside a band of [lang][equiv]~ 5 percent of the 
highway regression. Taking the 2004 numbers above as a baseline, 92 
percent of the additional SC03 and Cold CO tests otherwise required 
would be avoided for city fuel economy; 77 percent of the additional 
USO6 tests would be avoided. Thus, for example, the initial estimate of 
increased testing burden for SC03 would be 8 percent of the difference 
between 1250 and 330.
    The estimated cost impact of requiring cold FTP testing for light-
duty diesel vehicles (as discussed in Section V.C.1.b) is small. As an 
example, in model year 2006, only five light-duty diesel vehicles were 
certified for sale in the U.S. A total of eight city/highway tests were 
performed on those vehicles to determine fuel economy estimates. As 
applied to the 2006 model year, our proposal would require that an 
additional eight cold FTP tests be performed in addition to the city/
highway tests. Our cost analysis has accounted for additional cold FTP 
testing across the entire automotive industry, including diesel 
vehicles.
    Finally, the high and low estimates under these assumptions are 
generated by differing estimates of the effect of another feature that 
will be available for MY 2011 and after: an expanded use of 
analytically derived fuel economy (ADFE) as an alternative to 
conducting vehicle tests. Current guidance (CCD-04-06) limits ADFE to 
20 percent of the values that would otherwise be derived from tests; 
the 1250 test baseline already excludes such analytically derived 
results. Expanded ADFE guidance will be prepared in time for MY 2011 to 
allow for derivation of fuel economy values for some of the additional 
test cycles that otherwise would be required as described above. The 
low and high burden estimates assumes that 20 percent and 0 percent of 
the additional tests would thereby be avoided, respectively.
    c. Cost Analysis. The information and paperwork burden, consistent 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, is considered to consist of labor 
hours and costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and costs 
associated with gathering, reporting, and storing the information newly 
mandated by this rule. These costs include the costs associated with 
gathering the information that has to be reported to EPA, such as test 
results, and the capital costs needed to construct and maintain 
facilities to conduct the tests. It does not include other burdens 
associated with compliance with the fuel economy requirements of 
federal law and regulations. The analysis below follows this 
conceptualization and considers capital, labor and O&M associated with 
testing, and one-time startup costs primarily for information 
technology and paperwork, in turn.
    i. Capital Costs. For capital costs, the largest component of the 
information burden estimate, we have used an FTP facility cost of $4 
million per facility able to perform 750 US06 tests per year, a cost of 
$9 million for an environmental test facility able to conduct 300 to 
428 SC03 tests per year, and $10 million for an environmental facility 
able to conduct 300 to 428 Cold

[[Page 5473]]

FTP tests per year. The new tests were deemed to require these 
facilities in proportion to the number of tests needed, and the costs 
were then annualized over ten years with a seven percent depreciation. 
This is likely a very conservative assumption 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. Furthermore, consistent with other 
information burden analyses for the emissions and fuel economy 
programs, we have considered these as ongoing rather than startup costs 
(i.e., as the facilities depreciate they are continually being 
replaced). Annualized and depreciated over ten years at seven percent, 
these capital costs per year under the above analysis are $0 for each 
of model years 2008, 2009 and 2010, and range from $524,000 to $866,000 
per year for model years 2011 and after.
    ii. Labor and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs. For the labor 
and O&M costs of conducting tests, costs and hours for the differing 
categories are derived from prior Information Collection Requests 
submitted for EPA's light duty certification program. Those estimates 
are based on the number of tests and the hours of labor used at EPA's 
testing facility combined with industry data supplied in response to 
questionnaires; these have been somewhat adjusted to reflect current 
information. These costs are estimated to range from $1,860 to $2,441 
per test. These costs per test are applied to the numbers of tests 
estimated under the minimum and maximum scenarios above, and amount to 
$606,000 to $757,000 and 8,800 to 11,000 hours per year for MY 2011 and 
after.
    iii. Startup Costs. The incremental startup costs and hours, in 
contrast, are considered to be one-time costs beginning with model year 
2008. These startup burdens are primarily information technology and 
paperwork costs involving familiarization with the new data reporting 
requirements and reformatting management information systems to carry 
out and report the necessary data and calculations. All these burdens 
are add-ons to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers 
already submit data to EPA on all five test cycles, have the option of 
applying analytically derived fuel economy numbers, and report vehicle 
class determinations and supporting information. These costs also 
include one-time costs for implementing US06 split phase sampling, as 
described in Section V of this preamble, which entails software and 
instrumentation reprogramming and a limited number of US06 validation 
tests. EPA estimates all startup costs, depreciated at 7 percent and 
annualized over ten years, as $526,100 to $614,900 and 3,800 to 4,700 
hours.
2. Revised Label Format and New Information Included
    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the 
fuel economy label are set forth in 40 CFR sections 600.312 to 600.314. 
These sections require that manufacturers supply EPA with the label 
values and the data used to derive them, and provide schedules for the 
updating of this information. Under the proposed rule, these values 
will be recalculated and new data will be submitted. The costs for 
these efforts are very minimal and are addressed above. There will be a 
one-time set-up charge associated with the new label format based on 
the effort required for each manufacturer to apply the new EPA 
templates to the labels they must print. This cost item has been 
included in the paperwork startup costs portion of the cost analysis.
3. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06 and Cold CO Tests
    Current regulations do not require manufacturers to measure and 
report fuel economy values for vehicles undergoing the SC03, US06, and 
Cold FTP. The proposed rule would require fuel economy values to be 
reported, along with the existing reporting requirements, under these 
tests whenever they are conducted. Providing this additional 
information is not expected to involve any additional capital or 
operating costs for manufacturers because the fuel economy data can be 
obtained without any modification of these test procedures and without 
the need for any new testing equipment. The only burden associated with 
this new requirement would be an initial startup paperwork burden of 
modifying information and reporting systems to report and store the 
fuel economy results for these tests. These burdens are included within 
the paperwork and information burden estimate in Section VI.A.1 above.
4. Impact on Confirmatory Testing
    Confirmatory testing is additional testing performed either by EPA 
or by the manufacturer to confirm the results of the initial vehicle 
tests. EPA regulations describe confirmatory testing of fuel economy 
vehicles in 40 CFR 600.008-01 and of emission certification vehicles in 
40 CFR 86.1835-01. We are not proposing to change those regulations in 
today's proposal, but we need to consider the potential burden impact 
of today's proposal based on these existing regulations. There are two 
primary considerations.
    First, the regulations permit EPA to perform confirmatory testing 
of any vehicle. EPA's policy is to randomly test a small percentage of 
vehicles and other targeted vehicles (such as new-technology vehicles 
or previously uncertified models). EPA performs confirmatory testing on 
roughly ten percent of the vehicles that the manufacturers test. The 
cost to manufacturers associated with EPA confirmatory testing includes 
the cost of preparing and transporting vehicles to EPA testing 
facilities. (EPA bears the burden of testing). EPA is not proposing to 
increase the number of vehicles it targets for confirmatory testing; 
thus no additional burden is anticipated.
    Second, manufacturers are required to perform their own 
confirmatory testing using criteria specified in the regulations, 
including failed or high emission levels, unexpectedly high fuel 
economy, fuel economy leader within class, and fuel economy near the 
Gas Guzzler tax threshold. The only criterion that could potentially 
cause an increase in the number of manufacturer-performed confirmatory 
tests under the proposal is failed or high emission levels. This is 
because more US06, SC03 and Cold CO tests will be needed to determine 
the label estimates, thus increasing the possibility for failed or high 
emission levels. This possibility is slight, however, and very 
difficult to quantify. Thus we do not anticipate any additional burden. 
In the event that confirmatory testing is increased as a result of 
today's proposed rule, this will be reflected in the next renewal 
request for EPA information collection authorization.

B. Fees

    Under the Clean Air Act, EPA collects fees to cover its costs of 
issuing certificates of conformity for the classes of vehicles and 
engines covered by this proposal. On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees 
based upon a study of the costs associated with its motor vehicle and 
engine compliance program (69 FR 51402). At the time that cost study 
was conducted the current rulemaking was not considered.
    The proposed rule does not place additional burden upon the EPA. 
There may be a slight increase in compliance testing when the rule is 
initially implemented, but it is expected to be minimal. Because EPA 
does not expect an increase in the costs of the motor

[[Page 5474]]

vehicle and compliance program at this time, there will be no increase 
in the fees collected as a result of this proposal. We may need to add 
additional testing capacity at our laboratory facilities in the future. 
EPA will monitor its compliance testing and associated costs and, if 
necessary, in the future may change fees by rulemaking to include these 
new costs.

C. Aggregate Costs

    Aggregate annual costs, as discussed above and summarized in Table 
VI-1 below, are estimated to be between $526,000 and $2.2 million.

                                          Table VI-1.--Aggregate Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               MY 2008 through MY 2010      MY 2011 and after
                        Cost element                         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum      Maximum      Minimum      Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Volume.................................................           $0           $0     $605,672     $757,090
Facilities..................................................            0            0      524,112      866,111
Startup.....................................................      526,128      614,928      526,128      614,928
                                                             --------------
    Total...................................................      526,128      614,928    1,655,122    2,238,129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

    This rule is being proposed under the authority of the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),\68\ and Section 774 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005.\69\ We request comment on all aspects of this 
proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908.
    \69\ See Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document. 
We will accept comments for the period indicated under DATES above. If 
you have an interest in the program described in this document, we 
encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking.
    Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and 
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with 
parts of the proposal, we encourage you to suggest and analyze 
alternate approaches to meeting the goals described in this proposal. 
You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary 
information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end of the 
comment period.
    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the body of your comment. 
Submit your comments within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to 
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, 
please follow the instructions in Section VI.B below. Do not use EPA 
Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, we 
recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows us to contact you if we cannot read your comment or if we 
need further information on the substance of your comment. Our policy 
is that we will not edit your comment; any identifying or contact 
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If we cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment.
    a. EPA Dockets. To submit comments to EPA's electronic public 
docket, go directly to the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. 
The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means we will not 
know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless 
you provide it in the body of your comment.
    b. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that 
you send to the mailing address identified in Section VI.A.2 below. 
Avoid the use of special software, characters, and any form of 
encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential 
business information (CBI) electronically through EPA's electronic 
public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as 
CBI only to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. You may 
claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or 
all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, 
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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of

[[Page 5475]]

the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must 
be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic 
public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk 
or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. 
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 
please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

    We will hold a public hearing on this proposal on March 3, 2006 in 
Ann Arbor, Michigan. The hearing will start at 10 a.m. and continue 
until testimony is complete. See ADDRESSES above for location and phone 
information.
    If you would like to present testimony at a public hearing, we ask 
that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days 
before the hearing. You should estimate the time you need for your 
presentation and identify any needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest 
that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA 
panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy 
of your statement or other materials before the hearing.
    We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based 
on the notification we receive. This schedule will be available on the 
morning of each hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time 
for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
    We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of 
evidence won't 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.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 the Agency must determine whether the 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of this 
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule 
that may:
     Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
     Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
     Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
     Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    A Draft Technical Support Document has been prepared and is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address 
listed under ADDRESSES above. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 
12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a ``significant 
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has 
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record.

B. 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) documents prepared by EPA have 
been assigned EPA ICRs number 0783.48 (OMB control number 2060-0104) 
and 2211.01.
1. ICR 0783.48
    The information collection burden associated with this rule 
(testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) is estimated to 
total between 3,703 and 15,634 hours yearly, and between $1,639,965 and 
$2,222,183 yearly ($510,181 to $598,982 for each of calendar years 2008 
and 2009). This includes $10,290,300 in one-time startup and ongoing 
capital costs for test facilities annualized over ten years and 
depreciated at 7 percent for the highest estimate. The annual costs and 
hours for information collection activities by a given manufacturer 
under any of the options in this proposed rule depend upon 
manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of different test 
groups and the number of vehicles tested for fuel economy 
determinations. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers 
is 35. The responses will be submitted annually as a part of the 
existing EPA certification and fuel economy process. 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.
2. ICR 2211.01
    EPA is planning to conduct a series of focus groups as a result of 
comments received on the proposed label design formats. The specific 
questions to be asked of the groups will depend upon the comments 
received, but will generally fall into the areas described in the 
following two sections.
    a. Fuel Economy Background Questions. These questions will be 
designed to assess the respondents' familiarity with the current fuel 
economy label and to lay the groundwork for the discussion about the 
revised labels. Examples of possible questions are: Have they seen the 
city and highway numbers anywhere else besides the label? If so, where? 
What do the various pieces of information on the label mean? Is this 
information useful? What is their overall opinion of the label? What 
improvements would they make?
    b. Questions About New Label Designs. These questions could be 
either about those designs proposed by EPA or variations thereof, if 
indicated by the comments received on the proposal. Examples of 
possible questions are: What is their first impression of the label? Do 
they think the new label(s) looks better than the old label? Is it more 
easy to understand and, if so, why? Is any of the information presented 
in a better way or a more confusing way? Is any one of the alternatives 
better/worse than the others?
    The information from the focus groups would be used as additional 
information to guide EPA in

[[Page 5476]]

determining the final fuel economy label format. The burden associated 
with conducting the focus groups can be roughly estimated, based on the 
assumption that there would be 10 groups total with 9 participants in 
each group. The groups would be situated at about 5 different 
geographical locations. Each group would take about 2 hours, with an 
additional 2 hours allotted for traveling and screening. The 
participants would be chosen based on some very nominal screening 
criteria, such as having a valid driver's license and owning or leasing 
a vehicle. The screening would be done via telephone, and take no 
longer than 30 minutes. Thus the burden associated with the focus 
groups would be approximately 4.5 hours per participant, for a total of 
about 405 burden-hours.
    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 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 rule, which 
includes these ICRs, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. 
Submit any comments related to the ICRs for this proposed rule 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 February 1, 2006, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 3, 2006. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of business 
using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and 
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A small 
business that manufactures automobiles has a NAIC code of 336111. Based 
on Small Business Administration size standards, a small business for 
this NAIC code is defined as a manufacturer having less than 1000 
employees. Out of a total of approximately 80 automotive manufacturers 
subject to today's proposal, EPA estimates that approximately 10 of 
these could be classified as small entities based on SBA size 
standards. Unlike large manufacturers with complex and diverse product 
lines, we expect that the small entities (generally these are vehicle 
importers and vehicle converters) will be able use the results of tests 
they are already conducting for emissions compliance to satisfy the 
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements. Therefore, we expect that 
these small entities will face minimal additional burden due to the 
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements.
    Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) have averaged about 50 
imported engine families per year for the last three model years. There 
are approximately 10 ICIs subject to today's proposal. If we assume 
that the ICIs and other small entities account for five percent of the 
vehicle models for which fuel economy labels are needed (a proportion 
that is certainly an overestimate, but useful for placing an upper 
bound on the estimated cost impacts for small entities), then these 
entities must generate about 65 different fuel economy labels. Using 
the total estimated costs from Section VI of this preamble, the average 
annual cost per labeled vehicle configuration is about $1280-$1760, and 
the total annual cost for 20 small entities can be estimated to be 
$85,000-$114,000. The total average annual cost for an individual 
importer or small manufacturer can therefore be estimated to be a 
maximum of $4,250-$5,700. We have recently collected data on the 
currently operating small entities in the ICI and vehicle conversion 
categories; this data indicates that the average annual revenue for 
these companies is approximately $4.8 million. Therefore, the projected 
cost increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent of the average revenue for 
small importers or manufacturers. Because of the limited range of 
vehicle configurations typically offered by these small entities, we 
believe that the maximum cost for these entities will be even lower 
than the low end of the ranges shown above. Our methodology for 
estimating costs in Section VI assumes that manufacturers have diverse 
product lines, and thus ultimately will need to perform some level of 
additional testing in 2011 and later model years. Using costs based on 
such an assumption will tend to overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle 
converters, who typically produce or import a single model or 
configuration.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. 
Additionally, there are numerous existing regulatory relief provisions 
in the emissions compliance regulations for such small entities. Those 
provisions remain in effect and would not be impacted by today's 
proposed rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of 
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and to 
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least

[[Page 5477]]

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal 
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental 
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.
    We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to 
the private sector in any single year. We believe that this proposed 
rule represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to 
achieve the goals of the proposed rule. The costs are discussed in 
Section VI and in the Draft Technical Support Document.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements 
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not 
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules 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). Those 
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials 
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the 
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on 
expressed or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the 
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials 
regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected 
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that 
may disproportionately affect children.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As specifically stated 
in section I.D, the proposed regulations do not affect the CAFE 
program. The proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to 
improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their vehicles. The 
purpose of this proposal is to provide consumers with better 
information on which to base their vehicle purchasing decisions.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB,

[[Page 5478]]

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.
    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.

IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the fuel economy labeling program proposed 
today can be found in 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, 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.

    Dated: January 10, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 
parts 86 and 600 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

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

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

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

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

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

    The procedures described in Sec. Sec.  86.158-08, 86.159-08, 
86.160-00, and 86.162-00 discuss the aggressive driving (US06) and air 
conditioning (SC03) elements of the Supplemental Federal Test 
Procedures (SFTP). These test procedures consist of two separable test 
elements: A sequence of vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions 
with a driving schedule (US06) that tests exhaust emissions under high 
speeds and accelerations (aggressive driving); and a sequence of 
vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions with a driving schedule 
(SC03) which includes the impacts of actual air conditioning operation. 
These test procedures (and the associated standards set forth in 
subpart S of this part) are applicable to light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks.
    (a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust emissions of THC, CO, 
NOX, CH4, and CO2. For diesel-cycle 
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.110.
    (b) Each test procedure follows the vehicle preconditioning 
specified in Sec.  86.132-00.
    (c) US06 Test Cycle. The test procedure for emissions on the US06 
driving schedule (see Sec.  86.159-00) is designed to determine gaseous 
exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks while 
simulating high speed and acceleration on a chassis dynamometer 
(aggressive driving). The full test consists of preconditioning the 
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as specified in Sec.  86.132-00, 
and an engine idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after which the vehicle is 
accelerated into the US06 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted 
exhaust is collected continuously in two bag samples, one representing 
US06 city driving and the other representing US06 highway driving, for 
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution) 
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler. For petroleum-fueled diesel-
cycle vehicles for which THC is sampled and analyzed continuously 
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.110, the analytical system 
shall be configured to calculate THC for the US06 City phase and the 
US06 Highway phase as described in Sec.  86.159-08.
    (d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test procedure for determining exhaust 
emissions with the air conditioner operating (see Sec.  86.160-00) is 
designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions from light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks while simulating an urban trip during 
ambient conditions of 95 [deg]F, 100 grains of water/pound of dry air 
(approximately 40 percent relative humidity), and a solar heat load 
intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test consists of vehicle 
preconditioning (see Sec.  86.132-00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)), an 
engine key-off 10 minute soak, an engine start, and operation over the 
SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust is collected 
continuously during the engine start and the SC03 driving cycle for 
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution) 
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler.
    (e) The emission results from the aggressive driving test (Sec.  
86.159-08), air conditioning test (Sec.  86.160-00), and a FTP test 
(Sec.  86.130-00 (a) through (d) and (f)) (conducted on a large single 
roll or equivalent dynamometer) are analyzed according to the 
calculation methodology in Sec.  86.164-08 and compared to the 
applicable SFTP emission standards in subpart A of this part 
(Sec. Sec.  86.108-00 and 86.109-00).
    (f) These test procedures may be run in any sequence that maintains 
the applicable preconditioning elements specified in Sec.  86.132-00.
    3. A new Sec.  86.159-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) Overview. The dynamometer operation consists of a single, 600 
second test on the US06 driving schedule, as described in appendix I, 
paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle is preconditioned in 
accordance with Sec.  86.132-00, to bring it to a warmed-up stabilized 
condition. This preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2 minute idle 
period that proceeds directly into the US06 driving schedule during 
which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are 
collected for analysis. The US06 test is divided into three periods 
collected in two bag samples. The first period, representing the first 
portion of city driving, terminates at the end of the deceleration 
which is scheduled to occur at 128 seconds of the driving schedule. The 
second period, representing highway driving, starts at the conclusion 
of the first phase of city driving and terminates at the end of the 
deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 493 seconds of the driving 
schedule. The third period, representing the second portion of city 
driving, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule including 
engine shutdown. The first period and the third period are collected in 
one bag sample, representing ``US06 city'' driving, and the second 
period is collected in a second bag sample, representing ``US06 
highway'' driving. If engine stalling should occur during cycle 
operation, follow the provisions of Sec.  86.136-90 (engine starting 
and restarting). For gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite 
samples collected in bags are analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, 
CH4, and NOX. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.110. Parallel bag samples of dilution air are 
analyzed for

[[Page 5479]]

THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For 
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles for which THC is sampled and 
analyzed continuously according to the provisions of Sec.  86.110, the 
analytical system shall be configured to calculate THC for the US06 
City phase and the US06 Highway phase as described in Sec.  86.159-08.
    (b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All official US06 tests shall be 
run on a large single roll electric dynamometer, or an approved 
equivalent dynamometer configuration, that satisfies the requirements 
of Sec.  86.108-00.
    (2) Position (vehicle can be driven) the test vehicle on the 
dynamometer and restrain.
    (3) Required US06 schedule test dynamometer inertia weight class 
selections are determined by the test vehicles test weight basis and 
corresponding equivalent weight as listed in the tabular information of 
Sec.  86.129-94(a) and discussed in Sec.  86.129-00(e) and (f).
    (4) Set the dynamometer test inertia weight and roadload horsepower 
requirements for the test vehicle (see Sec.  86.129-00(e) and (f)). The 
dynamometer's horsepower adjustment settings shall be set to match the 
force imposed during dynamometer operation with actual road load force 
at all speeds.
    (5) The vehicle speed as measured from the dynamometer rolls shall 
be used. A speed vs. time recording, as evidence of dynamometer test 
validity, shall be supplied on request of the Administrator.
    (6) The drive wheel tires may be inflated up to a gauge pressure of 
45 psi (310 kPa), or the manufacturer's recommended pressure if higher 
than 45 psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The drive wheel tire 
pressure shall be reported with the test results.
    (7) The driving distance, as measured by counting the number of 
dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, shall be determined for the 
test.
    (8) Four-wheel drive vehicles will be tested in a two-wheel drive 
mode of operation. Full-time four-wheel drive vehicles will have one 
set of drive wheels temporarily disengaged by the vehicle manufacturer. 
Four-wheel drive vehicles which can be manually shifted to a two-wheel 
mode will be tested in the normal on-highway two-wheel drive mode of 
operation.
    (9) During dynamometer operation, a fixed speed cooling fan with a 
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000 cfm will be positioned so as to 
direct cooling air to the vehicle in an appropriate manner with the 
engine compartment cover open. In the case of vehicles with front 
engine compartments, the fan shall be positioned within 24 inches (61 
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case of vehicles with rear engine 
compartments (or if special designs make the above impractical), the 
cooling fan(s) shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air 
to maintain vehicle cooling. The Administrator may approve modified 
cooling configurations or additional cooling if necessary to 
satisfactorily perform the test. In approving requests for additional 
or modified cooling, the Administrator will consider such items as 
actual road cooling data and whether such additional cooling is needed 
to provide a representative test.
    (c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall be large enough to virtually 
eliminate water condensation in the system.
    (d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be 
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for 
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the 
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system 
adjustment.
    (e) Perform the test bench sampling sequence outlined in Sec.  
86.140-94 prior to or in conjunction with each series of exhaust 
emission measurements.
    (f) Test activities. (1) The US06 consists of a single test which 
is directly preceded by a vehicle preconditioning in accordance with 
Sec.  86.132-00. Following the vehicle preconditioning, the vehicle is 
idled for not less than one minute and not more than two minutes. The 
equivalent dynamometer mileage of the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).
    (2) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
    (i) Immediately after completion of the preconditioning, idle the 
vehicle. The idle period is not to be less than one minute or not 
greater than two minutes.
    (ii) With the sample selector valves in the ``standby'' position, 
connect evacuated sample collection bags to the dilute exhaust and 
dilution air sample collection systems.
    (iii) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps, the 
temperature recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC 
analysis recorder (diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger of the 
constant volume sampler, if used, petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC 
analyzer continuous sample line should be preheated to their respective 
operating temperatures before the test begins.
    (iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set 
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
    (A) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow 
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).
    (B) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of 
diesel-cycle vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031 liters/sec).
    (C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by the venturi design.
    (v) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
    (vi) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample 
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the exhaust sample bag, 
the dilution air sample bag, turn on the petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 
THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder chart, and record 
both gas meter or flow measurement instrument readings, (if 
applicable).
    (vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting the gas flow measuring 
device, but prior to the first acceleration. Begin the first 
acceleration 5 seconds after starting the measuring device.
    (viii) Operate the vehicle according to the US06 driving schedule, 
as described in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part. Manual 
transmission vehicles shall be shifted according to the manufacturer 
recommended shift schedule, subject to review and approval by the 
Administrator. For further guidance on transmissions see Sec.  86.128-
00.
    (ix) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 
128 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 
city'' bags and samples to the ``US06 highway'' bags and samples, 
switch gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel 
hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel 
hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) to ``standby'' mode, and 
start gas flow measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel 
hydrocarbon integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before the acceleration 
which is scheduled to occur at 136 seconds, record the measured roll or 
shaft revolutions.
    (x) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 
493 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 
highway'' bags and samples to the ``US06 city'' bags and samples, 
switch off gas flow measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 2 and mark the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable), and start gas flow 
measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 
integrator No. 1 if applicable). Before the acceleration which is 
scheduled to occur at 501

[[Page 5480]]

seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 2 
gas meter reading or flow measurement instrument. As soon as possible 
transfer the ``US06 highway'' exhaust and dilution air bag samples to 
the analytical system and process the samples according to Sec.  
86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on 
all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample collection 
phase of the test.
    (xi) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last 
deceleration (i.e., engine off at 596 seconds).
    (xii) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously 
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled 
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) and position the 
sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position. Record the measured 
roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow 
measurement instrument.
    (xiii) As soon as possible, transfer the ``US06 city'' exhaust and 
dilution air bag samples to the analytical system and process the 
samples according to Sec.  86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of 
the bag exhaust sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of 
the sample collection phase of the test.
    (xiv) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the 
cooling fan, close the engine compartment cover, disconnect the exhaust 
tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle from 
dynamometer.
    (xv) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
    4. A new Sec.  86.164-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  86.164-08  Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations.

    (a) The provisions of Sec.  86.144-94(b) and (c) are applicable to 
this section except that the NOX humidity correction factor 
of Sec.  86.144-94(c)(7)(iv) must be modified when adjusting SC03 
environmental test cell NOX results to 100 grains of water 
(see paragraph (d) of this section). These provisions provide the 
procedures for calculating mass emission results of each regulated 
exhaust pollutant for the test schedules of FTP, US06, and SC03.
    (b) The provisions of Sec.  86.144-94(a) are applicable to this 
section. These provisions provide the procedures for determining the 
weighted mass emissions for the FTP test schedule (Ywm).
    (c)(1) When the test vehicle is equipped with air conditioning, the 
final reported test results for the SFTP composite 
(NMHC+NOX) and optional composite CO standards shall be 
computed by the following formulas.

(i) YWSFTP=0.35(YFTP) + 
0.37(YSC03)+0.28(YUS06)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a particular 
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP, SC03, 
and US06 schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for each 
of the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NOX, and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm) 
based on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C) YSC03=Calculated mass emissions per mile based on the 
measured driving distance of the SC03 test schedule.
(D) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the 
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 city'' phase (sampled during 
seconds 1-128 and seconds 494-600 of the US06 driving schedule) and the 
``US06 highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 129-493 of the US06 
driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of the US06 
test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX) 
=YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 
section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of 
this section for NOX.

    (2) When the test vehicle is not equipped with air conditioning, 
the relationship of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section is:

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

Where:

(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a particular 
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP and US06 
schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for each of the 
exhaust emissions of NMHC, NOX. and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm) 
based on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the 
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 city'' phase (sampled during 
seconds 1-128 and seconds 494-600 of the US06 driving schedule) and the 
``US06 highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 129-493 of the US06 
driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of the US06 
test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX)= 
YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section for NOX.
    (d) The NOX humidity correction factor for adjusting 
NOX test results to the environmental test cell air 
conditioning ambient condition of 100 grains of water/pound of dry air 
is:

KH (100)=0.8825/[1-0.0047(H-75)]

Where:

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

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

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

Sec.  600.001-08  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year automobiles.
    (b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt 
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the 
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric 
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric 
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel 
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply 
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
    7. A new Sec.  600.002-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.002-08  Definitions.

    3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in 40 CFR Part 
86, with three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start transient 
(``Bag 1''), stabilized (``Bag 2''), and hot-start transient phases 
(``Bag 3'').
    4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with the addition of a sampling 
portion for the hot-start stabilized phase (``Bag 4'').
    5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP 
tests as described in subpart B of this part.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.

[[Page 5481]]

    Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume 
methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
    Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate 
exclusively on alcohol.
    Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel;
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated 
in accordance with Sec.  600.510(g)(1) while operating on alcohol as it 
does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel;
    (3) Which, for model years 1993 through 1995, provides equal or 
superior energy efficiency, as determined in Sec.  600.510(g)(2) while 
operating on a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or diesel fuel 
containing 50 percent gasoline or diesel fuel as it does while 
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
    (4) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds 
the minimum driving range established by the Department of 
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Automobile means:
    (1) Any four-wheel vehicle propelled by a combustion engine using 
onboard fuel, or by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable 
storage batteries or other portable energy storage devices 
(rechargeable using energy from a source off the vehicle such as 
residential electric service);
    (2) Which is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, 
roads, or highways (except any vehicle operated on a rail or rails);
    (3) Which is rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle 
weight, which has a curb weight of not more than 6,000 pounds, and 
which has a basic vehicle frontal area of not more than 45 square feet; 
or
    (4) Is a type of vehicle which the Secretary of Transportation 
determines is substantially used for the same purposes.
    Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design 
as defined in part 86 of this chapter.
    Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as 
computed under Sec.  600.510 for a specific class of automobiles 
produced by a manufacturer that is subject to average fuel economy 
standards.
    Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the 
differential (or equivalent) turns for each turn of the drive wheels.
    Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia 
weight class and transmission class.
    Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style 
that makes up a car line.
    Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine 
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (as distinguished by 
number of carburetor barrels or use of fuel injection), catalyst usage, 
and other engine and emission control system characteristics specified 
by the Administrator. For electric vehicles, basic engine means a 
unique combination of manufacturer and electric traction motor, motor 
controller, battery configuration, electrical charging system, energy 
storage device, and other components as specified by the Administrator.
    Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage, 
capacity (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics 
of the battery used as the tractive energy device.
    Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as 
defined by number of doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan, 
convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of seats (i.e., front, 
second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part 
571. Station wagons and light trucks are identified as car lines.
    Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances, 
unique to a particular design, version of application of a component, 
or component assembly capable of functionally describing its operation 
over its working range.
    Car line means a name denoting a group of vehicles within a make or 
car division which has a degree of commonality in construction (e.g., 
body, chassis). Car line does not consider any level of decor or 
opulence and is not generally distinguished by characteristics as roof 
line, number of doors, seats, or windows, except for station wagons or 
light-duty trucks. Station wagons and light-duty trucks are considered 
to be different car lines than passenger cars.
    Certification vehicle means a vehicle which is selected under Sec.  
86.084-24(b)(1) of this chapter and used to determine compliance under 
Sec.  86.084-30 of this chapter for issuance of an original certificate 
of conformity.
    City fuel economy means the fuel economy determined by operating a 
vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal emission 
test procedure.
    Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions 
of Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 86.
    Combined fuel economy means:
    (1) For the purpose of determining manufacturer's average fuel 
economy under Supart F of this part, the term means fuel economy value 
determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the 
city and highway fuel economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively.
    (2) For the purpose of determining estimated annual fuel costs 
under Sec.  86.600-307(f)) the term means the fuel economy value for a 
vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the city and highway 
fuel economy values, weighted at .43 and .57 respectively.
    (3) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-
based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation procedure 
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.
    Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United 
States, any territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia 
and who is engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to 
the ultimate purchaser.
    Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived 
from the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of 
the equation provided in Sec.  600.115-08 of this part.
    Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive 
axles (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and 
any other feature of the drive system if the Administrator determines 
that such other features may result in a fuel economy difference.
    Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60Hz 
alternating electric current, as commonly available in residential 
electric service in the United States, to a proper form for recharging 
the energy storage device.
    Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which 
provides tractive energy to the wheels of a vehicle.
    Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing 
tractive energy on board a vehicle such as storage batteries or a 
flywheel.
    Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system 
combination (as defined in part 86 of this chapter), of displacement, 
carburetor (or fuel injection) calibration, distributor calibration, 
choke calibration, auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine 
and emission control system components specified by the Administrator. 
For electric vehicles, engine code means a unique combination of 
manufacturer, electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor 
controller, and energy storage device.

[[Page 5482]]

    Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer 
driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical 
procedures described in part 86 for the respective model year, which 
are used to derive city fuel economy data.
    FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in 
Sec.  600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of FTP testing.
    Fuel means:
    (1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered 
automobiles; or
    (2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or
    (3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or
    (4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles.
    Fuel economy means:
    (1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group 
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as computed in Sec.  600.113 
or Sec.  600.207; or
    (2) The equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy for an electrically 
powered automobile as determined by the Secretary of Energy.
    Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of 
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
    Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight 
rating for the individual vehicle.
    Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional 
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is 
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear 
door which encompasses the rear window.
    Highway fuel economy means the fuel economy determined by operating 
a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal 
highway fuel economy test procedure.
    Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the 
dynamometer driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and 
analytical procedures described in subpart B of this part and which are 
used to derive highway fuel economy data.
    HFET-based fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in Sec.  
600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
    Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test 
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle 
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
    Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is 
affixed to new automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part.
    Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile, 
as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This 
term is interchangeable with ``non-passenger automobile''.
    Minivan means an automobile which is designed primarily to carry no 
more than eight passengers having an integral enclosure fully enclosing 
the driver, passenger, and load-carrying compartments, with a total 
interior volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and rear seats readily 
removed or folded to floor level to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine, 
and transmission class.
    Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period (as 
determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of such 
calendar year. If a manufacturer has no annual production period, the 
term ``model year'' means the calendar year.
    Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device 
to convert energy stored in an energy storage device into a form 
suitable to power the traction motor.
    Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to 
operate exclusively on natural gas.
    Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel;
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated 
in Sec.  600.510(g)(1) while operating on natural gas as it does while 
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds 
the minimum driving range established by the Department of 
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Nonpassenger automobile means a light truck.
    Passenger automobile means any automobile which the Secretary of 
Transportation determines is manufactured primarily for use in the 
transportation of no more than 10 individuals.
    Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger 
compartment and an open cargo bed.
    Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of 
vehicle units domestically produced in a particular model year but not 
exported, and for a foreign manufacturer, means the number of vehicle 
units of a particular model imported into the United States.
    Rounded means a number shortened to the specific number of decimal 
places in accordance with the ``Round Off Method'' specified in ASTM E 
29 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    SC03 means the test procedure specified in 40 CFR 86.160-00.
    Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation 
or his authorized representative.
    Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized 
representative.
    Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended 
roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment 
open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily 
removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof 
line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to 
the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats 
readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle 
configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any 
other operational characteristics or parameters which the Administrator 
determines may significantly affect fuel economy within a vehicle 
configuration.
    Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the 
following common features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic, 
or semi-automatic); number of forward gears used in fuel economy 
testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed automatic, two-speed 
semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel 
drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final 
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter 
type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, variable ratio); and 
other transmission characteristics that may be determined to be 
significant by the Administrator.
    Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further 
subdivide within a transmission class if the Administrator determines 
that sufficient fuel economy differences exist. Features such as gear 
ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift 
calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish 
characteristics within a transmission class.
    Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which 
is used in the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on 
its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 
of this chapter.

[[Page 5483]]

    Ultimate consumer means the first person who purchases an 
automobile for purposes other than resale or leases an automobile.
    US06 means the test procedure as described in 40 CFR 86.159-08.
    Van means any light truck having an integral enclosure fully 
enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, and having 
no body sections protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading 
edge of the windshield.
    Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of basic engine, 
engine code, inertia weight class, transmission configuration, and axle 
ratio within a base level.
    Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy means the fuel economy 
calculated according to the procedures in Sec.  600.114-08 of this 
part.
    8. A new Sec.  600.006-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) For certification vehicles with less than 10,000 miles, the 
requirements of this section are considered to have been met except as 
noted in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit the following information for 
each fuel economy data vehicle:
    (i) A description of the vehicle, exhaust emission test results, 
applicable deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust emission levels, and 
test fuel property values as specified in Sec.  600.113-93 except as 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (ii) A statement of the origin of the vehicle including total 
mileage accumulation, and modification (if any) form the vehicle 
configuration in which the mileage was accumulated. (For modifications 
requiring advance approval by the Administrator, the name of the 
Administrator's representative approving the modification and date of 
approval are required.) If the vehicle was previously used for testing 
for compliance with part 86 of this chapter or previously accepted by 
the Administrator as a fuel economy data vehicle in a different 
configuration, the requirements of this paragraph may be satisfied by 
reference to the vehicle number and previous configuration.
    (iii) A statement that the fuel economy data vehicle, with respect 
to which data are submitted:
    (A) Has been tested in accordance with applicable test procedures,
    (B) Is, to the best of the manufacturer's knowledge, representative 
of the vehicle configuration listed, and
    (C) Is in compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards.
    (2) The manufacturer shall retain the following information for 
each fuel economy data vehicle, and make it available to the 
Administrator upon request:
    (i) A description of all maintenance to engine, emission control 
system, or fuel system, or fuel system components performed within 
2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing.
    (ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a description of all 
maintenance to electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, 
or other components performed within 2,000 miles prior to fuel economy 
testing.
    (iii) A copy of calibrations for engine, fuel system, and emission 
control devices, showing the calibration of the actual components on 
the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
    (iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a copy of calibrations for 
the electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, or other 
components on the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
    (v) If calibrations for components specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section were submitted previously as part 
of the description of another vehicle or configuration, the original 
submittal may be referenced.
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data:
    (1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 86 
(other than those chosen in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1829-01(a) or 40 
CFR 86.1845, the FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel 
economy results, as applicable, from all tests on that vehicle, and the 
test results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) For each fuel economy data vehicle, all individual test results 
(excluding results of invalid and zero mile tests) and these test 
results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 86, data from a cold temperature FTP, performed in accordance with 
600.111-08(e), using the fuel specified in 600.107-08(c).
    (d) The manufacturer shall submit an indication of the intended 
purpose of the data (e.g., data required by the general labeling 
program or voluntarily submitted for specific labeling).
    (e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a 
manufacturer may provide fuel economy values derived from an analytical 
expression, e.g., regression analysis. In order for fuel economy values 
derived from analytical methods to be accepted, the expression (form 
and coefficients) must have been approved by the Administrator.
    (f) If, in conducting tests required or authorized by this part, 
the manufacturer utilizes procedures, equipment, or facilities not 
described in the Application for Certification required in 40 CFR 
86.087-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable, the manufacturer shall 
submit to the Administrator a description of such procedures, 
equipment, and facilities.
    (g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel 
economy label calculations in subpart D and average fuel economy 
calculations in subpart F for the classes of automobiles within the 
categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of Sec.  
600.510. The test data shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph 
(g)(3) or (4) as applicable.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data generated by 
vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more than 6,200 
miles by using the following equation:

    FE4,000mi=FE 
T[0.979+5.25x10-6(mi)]-1

Where:

FE4,000mi=Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test 
point rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FET=Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.1 
mpg.
mi=System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to the 
nearest whole mile.
    (4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the 
manufacturer is not required to adjust the data.
    9. A new Sec.  600.007-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.007-08  Vehicle acceptability.

    (a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 86 (other than those chosen per 40 CFR 
86.080-24(c) or 40 CFR 86.1829-01(a) as applicable, are considered to 
have met the requirements of this section.
    (b) Any vehicle not meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section must be judged acceptable by the Administrator under this 
section in order for the test results to be reviewed for use in subpart 
C or F of this part. The Administrator will judge the acceptability of 
a fuel economy data vehicle on the basis of the information supplied by 
the manufacturer under Sec.  600.006(b). The criteria to be met are:
    (1) A fuel economy data vehicle may have accumulated not more than 
10,000 miles. A vehicle will be considered to have met this requirement 
if the engine

[[Page 5484]]

and drivetrain have accumulated 10,000 or fewer miles. The components 
installed for a fuel economy test are not required to be the ones with 
which the mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles, transmission types, and 
tire sizes may be changed. The Administrator will determine if vehicle/
engine component changes are acceptable.
    (2) A vehicle may be tested in different vehicle configurations by 
change of vehicle components, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, or by testing in different inertia weight classes. Also, a 
single vehicle may be tested under different test conditions, i.e., 
test weight and/or road load horsepower, to generate fuel economy data 
representing various situations within a vehicle configuration. For 
purposes of this part, data generated by a single vehicle tested in 
various test conditions will be treated as if the data were generated 
by the testing of multiple vehicles.
    (3) The mileage on a fuel economy data vehicle must be, to the 
extent possible, accumulated according to 40 CFR 86.1831.
    (4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust 
emission standards as certification vehicles of the respective engine-
system combination during the test in which the city fuel economy test 
results are generated. The deterioration factors established for the 
respective engine-system combination per Sec.  86.1841-01 as applicable 
will be used.
    (5) The calibration information submitted under Sec.  600.006(b) 
must be representative of the vehicle configuration for which the fuel 
economy data were submitted.
    (6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy purposes must be 
representative of a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to produce 
under the provisions of a certificate of conformity.
    (7) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4), or (e)(2) (when applicable) only 
the following requirements must be met:
    (i) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509, a highway fuel 
economy value must be generated contemporaneously with the emission 
tests used for purposes of demonstrating compliance with Sec.  85.1509. 
No modifications or adjustments should be made to the vehicles between 
the highway fuel economy, FTP, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP 
tests.
    (ii) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable) with 
over 10,000 miles, the equation in Sec.  600.006-86(g)(1) shall be used 
as though only 10,000 miles had been accumulated.
    (iii) Any required fuel economy testing must take place after any 
safety modifications are completed for each vehicle as required by 
regulations of the Department of Transportation.
    (iv) Every vehicle imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable) shall 
be considered a separate type for the purposes of calculating a fuel 
economy label for a manufacturer's average fuel economy.
    (c) If, based on review of the information submitted under Sec.  
600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data 
vehicle meets the requirements of this section, the fuel economy data 
vehicle will be judged to be acceptable and fuel economy data from that 
fuel economy data vehicle will be reviewed pursuant to Sec.  600.008.
    (d) If, based on the review of the information submitted under 
Sec.  600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data 
vehicle does not meet the requirements of this section, the 
Administrator will reject that fuel economy data vehicle and inform the 
manufacturer of the rejection in writing.
    (e) If, based on a review of the emission data for a fuel economy 
data vehicle, submitted under Sec.  600.006(b), or emission data 
generated by a vehicle tested under Sec.  600.008(e), the Administrator 
finds an indication of non-compliance with section 202 of the Clean Air 
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of the regulation thereunder, he may take 
such investigative actions as are appropriate to determine to what 
extent emission non-compliance actually exists.
    (1) The Administrator may, under the provisions of 40 CFR 86.079-
37(a) or 40 CFR 86.1830-01 as applicable, request the manufacturer to 
submit production vehicles of the configuration(s) specified by the 
Administrator for testing to determine to what extent emission 
noncompliance of a production vehicle configuration or of a group of 
production vehicle configurations may actually exist.
    (2) If the Administrator determines, as a result of his 
investigation, that substantial emission non-compliance is exhibited by 
a production vehicle configuration or group of production vehicle 
configurations, he may proceed with respect to the vehicle 
configuration(s) as provided under section 206(b)(2) or section 
207(c)(1), as applicable of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
    (f) All vehicles used to generate fuel economy data, and for which 
emission standards apply, must be covered by a certificate of 
conformity under part 86 of this chapter before:
    (1) The data may be used in the calculation of any approved general 
or specific label value, or
    (2) The data will be used in any calculations under subpart F, 
except that vehicles imported under Sec. Sec.  85.1509 and 85.1511 need 
not be covered by a certificate of conformity.
    10. A new Sec.  600.008-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) Testing by the Administrator. (1) The Administrator may require 
that any one or more of the test vehicles be submitted to the Agency, 
at such place or places as the Agency may designate, for the purposes 
of conducting fuel economy tests. The Administrator may specify that 
such testing be conducted at the manufacturer's facility, in which case 
instrumentation and equipment specified by the Administrator shall be 
made available by the manufacturer for test operations. The tests to be 
performed may comprise the FTP, highway fuel economy test, US06, SC03, 
or Cold temperature FTP or any combination of those tests. Any testing 
conducted at a manufacturer's facility pursuant to this paragraph shall 
be scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible.
    (2) Retesting and official data determination. For any vehicles 
selected for confirmatory testing under the provisions of paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, the Administrator will follow this procedure:
    (i) The manufacturer's data (or harmonically averaged data if more 
than one test was conducted) will be compared with the results of the 
Administrator's test.
    (ii) If, in the Administrator's judgment, the comparison in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section indicates a disparity in the data, 
the Administrator will repeat the test or tests as applicable.
    (A) The manufacturer's average test results and the results of the 
Administrator's first test will be compared with the results of the 
Administrator's second test as in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (B) If, in the Administrator's judgment, both comparisons in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, indicate a disparity in the 
data, the Administrator will repeat the applicable test or tests until:
    (i) In the Administrator's judgment no disparity in the data is 
indicated by

[[Page 5485]]

comparison of two tests by the Administrator or by comparison of the 
manufacturer's average test results and a test by the Administrator; or
    (ii) Four tests of a single test type are conducted by the 
Administrator in which a disparity in the data is indicated when 
compared as in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity 
indicated by comparison of manufacturer's average test results with a 
test by the Administrator, the test values generated by the 
Administrator will be used to represent the vehicle.
    (iv) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity 
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator, the harmonic 
averages of the fuel economy results from those tests will be used to 
represent the vehicle.
    (v) If the situation in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B)(ii) of this section 
occurs, the Administrator will notify the manufacturer, in writing, 
that the Administrator rejects that fuel economy data vehicle.
    (b) Manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing. (1) If the 
Administrator determines not to conduct a confirmatory test under the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, manufacturers will conduct 
a confirmatory test at their facility after submitting the original 
test data to the Administrator whenever any of the following conditions 
exist:
    (i) The vehicle configuration has previously failed an emission 
standard;
    (ii) The test exhibits high emission levels determined by exceeding 
a percentage of the standards specified by the Administrator for that 
model year;
    (iii) The fuel economy value of the FTP or HFET test is higher than 
expected based on procedures approved by the Administrator;
    (iv) The fuel economy for the FTP or HFET test is close to a Gas 
Guzzler Tax threshold value based on tolerances established by the 
Administrator; or
    (v) The fuel economy value for the FTP or highway is a potential 
fuel economy leader for a class of vehicles based on cut points 
provided by the Administrator.
    (2) If the Administrator selects the vehicle for confirmatory 
testing based on the manufacturer's original test results, the testing 
shall be conducted as ordered by the Administrator. In this case, the 
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing specified under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section would not be required.
    (3) The manufacturer shall conduct a retest of the FTP or highway 
test if the difference between the fuel economy of the confirmatory 
test and the original manufacturer's test equals or exceeds three 
percent (or such lower percentage to be applied consistently to all 
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing as requested by the 
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator).
    (i) The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a retest, accept 
the lower of the original and confirmatory test fuel economy results 
for use in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) The manufacturer shall conduct a second retest of the FTP or 
highway test if the fuel economy difference between the second 
confirmatory test and the original manufacturer test equals or exceeds 
three percent (or such lower percentage as requested by the 
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator) and the fuel economy 
difference between the second confirmatory test and the first 
confirmatory test equals or exceeds three percent (or such lower 
percentage as requested by the manufacturer and approved by the 
Administrator). The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a second 
retest, accept the lowest of the original test, the first confirmatory 
test, and the second confirmatory test fuel economy results for use in 
subpart C or F of this part.
    (4) The Administrator may request the manufacturer to conduct a 
retest of the US06, SC03 or Cold Temperature FTP on the basis of fuel 
economy that is higher than expected as specified in criteria provided 
by the Administrator. Such retests shall not be required before the 
2011 model year.
    (c) Review of fuel economy data. (1) Fuel economy data must be 
judged reasonable and representative by the Administrator in order for 
the test results to be used for the purposes of subpart C or F of this 
part. In making this determination, the Administrator will, when 
possible, compare the results of a test vehicle to those of other 
similar test vehicles.
    (2) If testing was conducted by the Administrator under the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel economy data 
determined by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this section, 
together with all other fuel economy data submitted for that vehicle 
under Sec.  600.006(c) or (e) will be evaluated for reasonableness and 
representativeness per paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the 
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use 
in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may 
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected 
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (3) If confirmatory testing was not conducted by the Administrator 
but confirmatory testing was conducted by the manufacturer under the 
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the fuel economy data 
determined by the Administrator under paragraph (b) of this section, 
will be evaluated for reasonableness and representativeness per 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the 
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use 
in subpart C or F of this part.
    (ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may 
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected 
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (4) If no confirmatory testing was conducted by either the 
Administrator or the manufacturer under the provisions of paragraph (a) 
and (b) of this section, respectively, then the data submitted under 
the provisions of Sec.  600.006(c) or (e) shall be accepted for use in 
subpart C or F of this part.
    (i) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will 
be considered separately.
    (ii) If more than one test was conducted, the harmonic average of 
the test results shall be accepted for use in subpart C or F of this 
part.
    (d) If, based on a review of the fuel economy data generated by 
testing under paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator 
determines that an unacceptable level of correlation exists between 
fuel economy data generated by a manufacturer and fuel economy data 
generated by the Administrator, he/she may reject all fuel economy data 
submitted by the manufacturer until the cause of the discrepancy is 
determined and the validity of the data is established by the 
manufacturer.
    (e)(1) If, based on the results of an inspection conducted under 
Sec.  600.005(b) or any other information, the Administrator has reason 
to believe that the manufacturer has not followed proper testing 
procedures or that the testing equipment is faulty or improperly 
calibrated, or if records do

[[Page 5486]]

not exist that will enable him to make a finding of proper testing, the 
Administrator may notify the manufacturer in writing of his finding and 
require the manufacturer to:
    (i) Submit the test vehicle(s) upon which the data are based or 
additional test vehicle(s) at a place he may designate for the purpose 
of fuel economy testing.
    (ii) Conduct such additional fuel economy testing as may be 
required to demonstrate that prior fuel economy test data are 
reasonable and representative.
    (2) Previous acceptance by the Administrator of any fuel economy 
test data submitted by the manufacturer shall not limit the 
Administrator's right to require additional testing under paragraph 
(h)(1) of this section.
    (3) If, based on tests required under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, the Administrator determines that any fuel economy data 
submitted by the manufacturer and used to calculate the manufacturer's 
fuel economy average was unrepresentative, the Administrator may 
recalculate the manufacturer's fuel economy average based on fuel 
economy data that he/she deems representative.
    (4) A manufacturer may request a hearing as provided in Sec.  
600.009 if the Administrator decides to recalculate the manufacturer's 
average pursuant to determinations made relative to this section.
    11. A new Sec.  600.010-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) For each certification vehicle defined in this part, and for 
each vehicle tested according to the emission test procedures in 40 CFR 
part 86 for addition of a model after certification or approval of a 
running change (40 CFR 86.079-32, 86.079-33 and 86.082-34 or 40 CFR 
86.1842-01 as applicable):
    (1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures.
    (2) The manufacturer shall generate highway fuel economy data by:
    (i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
    (ii) Using an analytical technique, as described in Sec.  
600.006(e).
    (3) The manufacturer shall generate US06 fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternative fueled 
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternative fuel may 
optionally generate this data using the alternative fuel.
    (4) The manufacturer shall generate SC03 fuel economy data by 
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternative fueled 
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternative fuel may 
optionally generate this data using the alternative fuel.
    (5) The manufacturer shall generate Cold temperature FTP fuel 
economy data by testing according to the applicable procedures. 
Alternative fueled vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on 
alternative fuel may optionally generate this data using the 
alternative fuel.
    (6) The data generated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section, shall be submitted to the Administrator in combination with 
other data for the vehicle required to be submitted in part 86.
    (b) For each fuel economy data vehicle:
    (1) The manufacturer shall generate city and FTP fuel economy data 
by:
    (i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
    (ii) Use of an analytical technique as described in Sec.  
600.006(e), in addition to testing (e.g., city fuel economy data by 
testing, highway fuel economy data by analytical technique).
    (2) The data generated shall be submitted to the Administrator 
according to the procedures in Sec.  600.006.
    (c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to 
establish fuel economy label values under Sec.  600.306, the 
manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance with Sec.  
600.008(b) and (f) and meeting the minimum coverage of:
    (i) Data required for emission certification under 40 CFR 86.084-
24, 86.079-32, 86.079-33, and 86.082-34 or 40 CFR 86.1828-01 and 
86.1842-01 as applicable.
    (ii)(A) FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year 
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales 
configuration for each base level, and
    (B) If required under Sec.  600.116-08, US06, SC03 and cold 
temperature FTP data from the highest projected model year sales 
subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales 
configuration for each base level.
    (C) Optionally, the manufacturer may generate US06, SC03 and cold 
temperature FTP fuel economy data for the highest projected model year 
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales 
configuration for each base level.
    (iii) For additional model types established under Sec.  
600.208(a)(2) or 600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and if required 
under Sec.  600.116-08, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data from 
each subconfiguration included within the model type.
    (2) For the purpose of recalculating fuel economy label values as 
required under Sec.  600.314(b), the manufacturer shall submit data 
required under Sec.  600.507.
    (d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel 
economy. For the purpose of calculating the manufacturer's average fuel 
economy under Sec.  600.510, the manufacturer shall submit data 
representing at least 90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model 
year production, by configuration, for each category identified for 
calculation under Sec.  600.510(a).
    12. A new Sec.  600.011-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.011-08  Reference materials.

    (a) Incorporation by reference. The documents in paragraph (b) of 
this section have been incorporated by reference. The incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
inspected at USEPA, OAR, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register /code--

of--federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html.
    (b) The following paragraphs and tables set forth the material that 
has been incorporated by reference in this part.
    (1) ASTM material. The following table sets forth material from the 
American Society for Testing and Materials which has been incorporated 
by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the 
material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part, other 
than Sec.  600.011, in which the matter is referenced. Copies of these 
materials may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

[[Page 5487]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Document number and name             40 CFR part 600 reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM E 29-67 (Reapproved 1973) Standard      600.002-08.
 Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
 Places of Figures Are To Be Considered
 Significant in Specified Limiting Values..
ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) Standard    600.113-08(f)(1)(i),
 Practice for Density, Relative Density       (f)(2)(i)(A),
 (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of        (f)(2)(i)(B), (f)(2)(ii);
 Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum         600.510-08(g)(1)(ii)(B),
 Products by Hydrometer Method.               (g)(2)(ii)(B).
ASTM D 3343-90 Standard Test Method for      600.113-08(f)(1)(ii),
 Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation   (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii).
 Fuels.
ASTM D 3338-92 Standard Test Method for      600.113-08(f)(1)(iii).
 Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of
 Aviation Fuels.
ASTM D 240-92 Standard Test Method for Heat  600.113-08(f)(2)(iii);
 of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels    600.510-93(g)(1)(ii)(A),
 by Bomb Calorimeter.                         (g)(2)(ii)(A).
ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for   600.107-08(b), 600.113-
 Diesel Fuel Oils''.                          08(c)(1).
ASTM D 1945-91 Standard Test Method for      600.113-08(f)(3), (k).
 Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas
 Chromatography.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart B--[Amended]

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

Sec.  600.106-08  Equipment requirements.

    The requirements for test equipment to be used for all fuel economy 
testing are given in Subparts B and C of part 86 of this chapter.
    14. A new Sec.  600.107-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.107-08  Fuel specifications.

    (a) The test fuel specifications for gasoline, diesel, methanol, 
and methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are given in Sec.  86.113 of this 
chapter, except for cold temperature FTP fuel requirements for diesel 
vehicles, which are given in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing must 
comprise a winter-grade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c 
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' and that complies with 
40 CFR part 80. Alternatively, EPA may approve the use of a different 
diesel fuel, provided that the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 
20 percent.
    15. A new Sec.  600.109-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.109-08  EPA driving cycles.

    (a) The FTP driving cycle is prescribed in Sec.  86.115 of this 
chapter.
    (b) The highway fuel economy driving cycle is specified in this 
paragraph.
    (1) The Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is set forth in 
appendix I to this part. The driving schedule is defined by a smooth 
trace drawn through the specified speed versus time relationships.
    (2) The speed tolerance at any given time on the dynamometer 
driving schedule specified in appendix I, or as printed on a driver's 
aid chart approved by the Administrator, when conducted to meet the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of Sec.  600.111 is defined by upper and 
lower limits. The upper limit is 2 mph higher than the highest point on 
trace within 1 second of the given time. The lower limit is 2 mph lower 
than the lowest point on the trace within 1 second of the given time. 
Speed variations greater than the tolerances (such as may occur during 
gear changes) are acceptable provided they occur for less than 2 
seconds on any occasion. Speeds lower than those prescribed are 
acceptable provided the vehicle is operated at maximum available power 
during such occurrences.
    (3) A graphic representation of the range of acceptable speed 
tolerances is found in Sec.  86.115 (c) of this chapter.
    (4) The US06 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of 
this chapter.
    (5) The SC03 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of 
this chapter.
    16. A new Sec.  600.110-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.110-08  Equipment calibration.

    The equipment used for fuel economy testing must be calibrated 
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.116 and 86.216 of this chapter.
    17. A new Sec.  600.111-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.111-08  Test procedures.

    (a) FTP testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the FTP test are those prescribed in Sec. Sec.  86.127 
through 86.138 of this chapter, as applicable, except as provided for 
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (The evaporative loss portion of 
the test procedure may be omitted unless specifically required by the 
Administrator.)
    (b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel 
Economy Dynamometer Procedure (HFET) consists of preconditioning 
highway driving sequence and a measured highway driving sequence.
    (2) The HFET is designated to simulate non-metropolitan driving 
with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph. The 
cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop per mile and consists of warmed-
up vehicle operation on a chassis dynamometer through a specified 
driving cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is 
collected continuously for subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide, carbon dioxide using a constant volume (variable dilution) 
sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is continuously analyzed for 
hydrocarbons using a heated sample line and analyzer. Methanol and 
formaldehyde samples are collected and individually analyzed for 
methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and formaldehyde may 
be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-fueled vehicles 
provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for measuring HC plus 
methanol).
    (3) Except in cases of component malfunction or failure, all 
emission control systems installed on or incorporated in a new motor 
vehicle must be functioning during all procedures in this subpart. The 
Administrator may authorize maintenance to correct component 
malfunction or failure.
    (4) Transmission. The provisions of Sec.  86.128 of this chapter 
apply for vehicle transmission operation during highway fuel economy 
testing under this subpart.
    (5) Road load power and test weight determination. Section 86.129 
of this chapter applies for determination of road load power and test 
weight for highway fuel economy testing. The test weight for the 
testing of a certification vehicle will be that test weight specified 
by the Administrator under the provisions of part 86 of this chapter. 
The test weight for a fuel economy data vehicle will be that test 
weight specified by the Administrator from the test weights covered by 
that vehicle configuration. The Administrator will base his selection 
of a test weight on the relative projected sales volumes of the various 
test weights within the vehicle configuration.

[[Page 5488]]

    (6) Vehicle preconditioning. The HFET is designed to be performed 
immediately following the Federal Emission Test Procedure, Sec. Sec.  
86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter. When conditions allow, the tests 
should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be 
scheduled within three hours of the Federal Emission Test Procedure 
(including one hour hot soak evaporative loss test, if applicable) the 
vehicle should be preconditioned as in paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak 
(68 [deg]F-86 [deg]F) since the completion of the Federal Emission Test 
Procedure, or has experienced periods of storage outdoors, or in 
environments where soak temperature is not controlled to 68 [deg]F-86 
[deg]F, the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a 
dynamometer through one cycle of the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule, Sec.  86.115 of this chapter.
    (ii) In unusual circumstances where additional preconditioning is 
desired by the manufacturer, the provisions of Sec.  86.132(a)(3) of 
this chapter apply.
    (7) Highway fuel economy dynamometer procedure. (1) The dynamometer 
procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule (Sec.  600.109(b)) separated by 15 seconds of idle. The first 
cycle of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to 
precondition the test vehicle and the second is driven for the fuel 
economy measurement.
    (8) The provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of 
Sec.  86.135 Dynamometer procedure of this chapter, apply for highway 
fuel economy testing.
    (9) Only one exhaust sample and one background sample are collected 
and analyzed for hydrocarbons (except diesel hydrocarbons which are 
analyzed continuously), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Methanol 
and formaldehyde samples (exhaust and dilution air) are collected and 
analyzed for methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and 
formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-
fueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for 
measuring HC plus methanol).
    (10) The fuel economy measurement cycle of the test includes two 
seconds of idle indexed at the beginning of the second cycle and two 
seconds of idle indexed at the end of the second cycle.
    (11) Engine starting and restarting. (i) If the engine is not 
running at the initiation of the highway fuel economy test 
(preconditioning cycle), the start-up procedure must be according to 
the manufacturer's recommended procedures.
    (ii) False starts and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must 
be treated as in 40 CFR 86.136(d) and (e). If the vehicle stalls during 
the measurement cycle of the highway fuel economy test, the test is 
voided, corrective action may be taken according to 40 CFR 86.1834-01 
as applicable, and the vehicle may be rescheduled for test. The person 
taking the corrective action shall report the action so that the test 
records for the vehicle contain a record of the action.
    (12) Dynamometer test run. The following steps must be taken for 
each test:
    (i) Place the drive wheels of the vehicle on the dynamometer. The 
vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the 
cooling fan(s) required. Manufacturers may request the use of 
additional cooling fans for additional engine compartment or under-
vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or brake temperatures 
during dynamometer operation.
    (iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the 
measurement highway driving cycle.
    (iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of Sec.  86.137(b)(3) 
through (6) of this chapter apply for highway fuel economy test except 
that only one exhaust sample collection bag and one dilution air sample 
collection bag need be connected to the sample collection systems.
    (v) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified 
in Sec.  600.109(b).
    (vi) When the vehicle reaches zero speed at the end of the 
preconditioning cycle, the driver has 17 seconds to prepare for the 
emission measurement cycle of the test.
    (vii) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving 
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified 
in Sec.  600.109(b) while sampling the exhaust gas.
    (viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first 
acceleration of the fuel economy measurement cycle and must end two 
seconds after the end of the deceleration to zero. At the end of the 
deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be 
recorded.
    (ix) For methanol dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of Sec.  
600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed for each of the required test 
fuels:
    (A) Gasoline or diesel fuel as specified in Sec.  600.107(a) and 
(b); and
    (B) Methanol fuel as specified in Sec.  600.107(c) and (d); and
    (C) [Reserved.]
    (D) In lieu of testing using the mixture containing 50% gasoline or 
diesel and 50% methanol by volume, the manufacturer must provide a 
written statement attesting that the equal or superior energy 
efficiency is attained while using the 50% gasoline or diesel and 50% 
methanol mixture compared to using gasoline.
    (c) US06 testing procedures. The test procedure to be followed for 
conducting the US06 test are prescribed in Sec. Sec.  86.158 through 
86.159 of this chapter, as applicable.
    (d) SC03 testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the SC03 test are prescribed in Sec. Sec.  86.158 and 86.160 
through 164 of this chapter, as applicable.
    (e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. The test procedures to be 
followed for conducting the cold temperature FTP test are prescribed in 
Sec. Sec.  86.227 through 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
    18. A new Sec.  600.112-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.112-08  Exhaust sample analysis.

    The exhaust sample analysis must be performed according to Sec.  
86.140, or Sec.  86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
    19. A new Sec.  600.113-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in 
this paragraph for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with 
gasoline, diesel, methanol or natural gas fuel. The calculations of the 
weighted fuel economy values require input of the weighted grams/mile 
values for total hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon 
dioxide (CO2); and, additionally for methanol-fueled 
automobiles, methanol (CH3 OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO); and 
additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles non-methane hydrocarbons 
(NMHC) and methane (CH4) for the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and 
Cold temperature FTP tests. Additionally, the specific gravity, carbon 
weight fraction and net heating value of the test fuel must be 
determined. The FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel 
economy values shall be calculated as specified in this section. An 
example appears in appendix II to this part.

[[Page 5489]]

    (a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for 
HC, CO and CO2; and, additionally for methanol-fueled 
automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural 
gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH4 as specified in Sec.  
86.144 of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties 
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the FTP 
test. For vehicles with more than one source of propulsion energy, one 
of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with 
special features that the Administrator determines may have a 
reachargeable energy source, whose charge can vary during the test, 
calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient 
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient phase and hot stabilized phase 
of the FTP test.
    (b)(1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test 
for HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable CH3 OH, 
HCHO, NMHC and CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144(b) of this 
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy 
test for HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable CH3 
OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH4 by dividing the mass values obtained 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the actual distance traveled, 
measured in miles, as specified in Sec.  86.135(h) of this chapter.
    (c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy.
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold 
temperature FTP test for HC, CO and CO2; and, additionally 
for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and 
additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH4 
as specified in Sec.  86.244 of this chapter. Measure and record the 
test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the cold 
temperature FTP test in Sec.  40 CFR 86.244. For vehicles with more 
than one source of propulsion energy, one of which is a rechargeable 
energy storage system, or vehicles with special features that the 
Administrator determines may have a reachargeable energy source, whose 
charge can vary during the test, calculate separately the grams/mile 
values for the cold transient phase, stabilized phase, hot transient 
phase and hot stabilized phase of the cold temperature FTP test.
    (3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) Calculate separately the first and second phase grams/mile 
values for the US06 test for HC, CO and CO2; and 
additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH3 OH and 
HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and 
CH4 as specified in 86.144 of this chapter. Measure and 
record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (e) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO 
and CO2; and additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, 
CH3 OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled 
automobiles NMHC and CH4 as specified in 86.144 of this 
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f)(1) Gasoline test fuel properties shall be determined by 
analysis of a fuel sample taken from the fuel supply. A sample shall be 
taken after each addition of fresh fuel to the fuel supply. 
Additionally, the fuel shall be resampled once a month to account for 
any fuel property changes during storage. Less frequent resampling may 
be permitted if EPA concludes, on the basis of manufacturer-supplied 
data, that the properties of test fuel in the manufacturer's storage 
facility will remain stable for a period longer than one month. The 
fuel samples shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel 
properties:
    (i) Specific gravity per ASTM D 1298 (Incorporated by reference as 
specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (ii) Carbon weight fraction per ASTM D 3343 (Incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) per ASTM D 3338 (Incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following 
fuel properties:
    (i) Specific gravity using either:
    (A) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  
600.011-93) for the blend; or
    (B) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  
600.011-93) for the gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol 
fuel component and combining as follows:

SG=SGg x volume fraction gasoline+SGm x volume 
fraction methanol.

    (ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation:

CWF=CWFg x MFg+0.375 x MFm

Where:

CWFg=Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of blend per 
ASTM D 3343 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-
93).

MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(GxSGg)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)

MFm=Mass fraction methanol=(MxSGm)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)
Where:

G=Volume fraction gasoline
M=Volume fraction methanol
SGg=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured by ASTM D 1298 
(Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
SGm=Specific gravity of methanol as measured by ASTM D 1298 
(Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (B) Upon the approval of the Administrator, other procedures to 
measure the carbon weight fraction of the fuel blend may be used if the 
manufacturer can show that the procedures are superior to or equally as 
accurate as those specified in this paragraph (f)(2)(ii).
    (iii) Net heating value (BTU/lb) per ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the 
following fuel properties:
    (i) Fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91, Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography. This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race 
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th 
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    (ii) Specific gravity (based on fuel composition per ASTM D 1945).
    (iii) Carbon weight fraction based on the carbon contained only in 
the HC constituents of the fuel=weight of carbon in HC constituents 
divided by the total weight of fuel.
    (iv) Carbon weight fraction of fuel=total weight of carbon in the 
fuel

[[Page 5490]]

(i.e., includes carbon contained in HC and in CO2 divided by 
total weight of fuel.
    (g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold 
temperature FTP fuel economy from the grams/mile values for total HC, 
CO, CO2 and, where applicable, CH3, OH, HCHO, 
NMHC and CH4 and, the test fuel's specific gravity, carbon 
weight fraction, net heating value, and additionally for natural gas, 
the test fuel's composition. The emission values (obtained per 
paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable) used in each 
calculation of this section shall be rounded in accordance with 40 CFR 
86.084-26(a)(6)(iii) or 40 CFR 86.1837-01 as applicable. The 
CO2 values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used 
in each calculation of this section shall be rounded to the nearest 
gram/mile. The specific gravity and the carbon weight fraction 
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded using 
three places to the right of the decimal point. The net heating value 
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded to the 
nearest whole Btu/lb.
    (h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg=(5174x10\4\xCxCWFxSG) / [((CWFxHC) + (0.429xCO) + 
(0.273xCO2)) x ((0.6xSGxNHV)+5471)]

Where:

HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
CWF=Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
NHV=Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
SG=Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (2) Round the calculated result to the nearest 0.1 miles per 
gallon.
    (i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in 
miles per gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by the sum of three 
terms:
    (i) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/miles as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section);
    (ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section); and
    (iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO2 (in grams/mile as obtained 
in paragraph (g) of this section).
    (2) Round the quotient to the nearest 0.1 mile per gallon.
    (j) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to 
operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg=(CWFxSGx3781.8) / ((CWFexHCxHC) + (0.429xCO) + 
(0.273xCO2) + (0.375xCH3OH) + (0.400xHCHO))

Where:

CWF=Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii) of this section.
SG=Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of 
this section.
CWFexHC=Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons= 
CWFg as determined in (c)(2)(ii) of this section (for 
M100 fuel, CWFexHC=0.866).
HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH3OH=Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained 
in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO=Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.

    (k) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the fuel economy in 
miles per gallon of natural gas is to be calculated using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.044

Where:

mpge=miles per equivalent gallon of natural gas.
CWFHC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on the hydrocarbon 
constituents in the natural gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
DNG=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/ft3 
at 68 [deg]F (20[deg] C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3 kPa)] pressure as 
obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CH4, NMHC, CO, and CO2=weighted mass exhaust 
emissions [grams/mile] for methane, non-methane HC, carbon monoxide, 
and carbon dioxide as calculated in Sec.  600.113.
CWFNMHC=carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC 
constituents in the fuel as determined from the speciated fuel 
composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
CO2NG=grams of carbon dioxide in the natural gas fuel 
consumed per mile of travel.

CO2NG=FCNG DNG WFCO2

where:

FCNG=cubic feet of natural gas fuel consumed per mile
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.045

where:

CWFNG=the carbon weight fraction of the natural gas fuel 
as calculated in paragraph (f) of this section.
WFCO2=weight fraction carbon dioxide of the natural gas 
fuel calculated using the mole fractions and molecular weights of 
the natural gas fuel constituents per ASTM D 1945.

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

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

    This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under 
subpart D of this part.
    (a) For each vehicle tested under sec. 600.010-08(c)(i) and (ii), 
determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy using the following equation:

[[Page 5491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.047

where,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.048

or,

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.049

where

Bag y FEx=the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75[deg] or 20 [deg]F.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.050

where:

US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the ``city'' 
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.

    (b) For each vehicle tested under sec. 600.010-08(a) and 
(c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.054

[[Page 5492]]

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.055

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

    21. A new Sec.  600.115-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.115-08  Calculations for derived 5-cycle fuel economy.

    This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under 
subpart D of this part.
    (a) For each vehicle tested under 600.010 (a) and (b), determine 
the derived 5-cycle city fuel economy using the equation in this 
paragraph (a) and coefficients determined by the Administrator. 
Paragraph (c) of this section provides coefficients applicable to 2008 
model year vehicles. In the case of dual fuel vehicles, determine 
separate fuel economy values for each fuel type. To determine the 
intercept and slope coefficients, the Administrator will compile the 5-
cycle data collected under Sec.  600.010-08(a) for three or more model 
years prior to the model year for which the coefficients are 
applicable. The Administrator will perform a least squares regression 
in which the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel consumption (gallons 
per mile) is the dependent variable and the FTP fuel consumption 
(gallons per mile) is the independent variable. The resulting equation 
will define the slope and intercept coefficients. The Administrator 
will provide the coefficients to manufacturers by guidance letter 
issued no later than January 1 of the calendar year prior to the model 
year to which the coefficients are first applicable.
    The equation is:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.056
    

, where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator
FTP FE = the city fuel economy determined under sec. 600.113-08(a), 
rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (b) For each vehicle tested under Sec.  600.010 (a) and (b), 
determine the derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy using the equation 
in this paragraph (b) and coefficients determined by the Administrator. 
Paragraph (c) of this section provides coefficients applicable to 2008 
model year vehicles. In the case of dual fuel vehicles, determine 
separate fuel economy values for each fuel type. To determine the 
intercept and slope coefficients, the Administrator will compile the 5-
cycle data collected under Sec.  600.010-08(a) for three or more model 
years prior to the model year for which the coefficients are 
applicable. The Administrator will perform a least squares regression 
in which the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel consumption (gallons 
per mile) is the dependent variable and the HFET fuel consumption 
(gallons per mile) is the independent variable. The resulting equation 
will define the slope and intercept coefficients. The Administrator 
will provide the coefficients for a given model year by guidance letter 
issued no later than January 1 of the calendar year prior to the model 
year to which the coefficients are first applicable.
    The equation is:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.057
    

where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic 5-cycle highway fuel economy data
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic 5-cycle highway fuel economy data
HFET FE = the highway fuel economy determined under Sec.  600.113-
08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (c) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, unless superseded by 
written guidance from the Administrator, the following values shall be 
used in the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:

City Intercept = 0.002549
City Slope = 1.2259
Highway Intercept = 0.000308
Highway Slope = 1.4030

    22. A new Sec.  600.116-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.116-08  Criteria for additional US06, SC03 and cold 
temperature FTP testing.

    This section applies to 2011 and later model year vehicles. This 
section defines which 2011 and later model year vehicles must use the 
vehicle-

[[Page 5493]]

specific 5-cycle fuel economy method specified in Sec.  600.114-08.
    (a) City fuel economy testing. (1) For each vehicle tested under 
Sec.  600.010-08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5-cycle city fuel economy for 
that vehicle determined according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-
08(b) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon shall 
be compared to the following value calculated for that vehicle:
    (i) The Derived 5-Cycle City Fuel Economy calculated under Sec.  
600.115-08(a) multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to the nearest one tenth 
of a mile per gallon.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) If the 5-cycle city fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.010-
08(a) is less than the value determined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section, then the manufacturer must conduct additional fuel economy 
testing according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section.
    (3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types that are 
represented by the certification test group of the emission data 
vehicle tested under Sec.  600.010-08(a). For each of these model 
types, the manufacturer shall:
    (i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold temperature FTP tests in addition 
to the FTP and HFET tests;
    (ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy for each model type 
according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08;
    (iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for each model 
type according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08;
    (b) Highway fuel economy testing. (1) For each vehicle tested under 
Sec.  600.010-08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5-cycle highway fuel economy 
for that vehicle determined according to the provisions of Sec.  
600.114-08(c) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon 
shall be compared to the following value calculated for that vehicle:
    (i) The Derived 5-Cycle Highway Fuel Economy calculated under Sec.  
600.115-08(b) multiplied by 0.95 and rounded to the nearest one tenth 
of a mile per gallon.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) If the 5-cycle highway fuel economy determined in Sec.  
600.010-08(a) is less than the value determined in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 
of this section, then the manufacturer must conduct additional fuel 
economy testing according to the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section.
    (3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(b)(2) of this section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types 
that are represented by the certification test group of the emission 
data vehicle tested under Sec.  600.010-08(a). For each of these model 
types, the manufacturer shall:
    (i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold temperature FTP tests in addition 
to the FTP and HFET tests;
    (ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy for each model type 
according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08;
    (iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for each model 
type according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08;
    (4) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, but not meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types that are 
represented by the certification test group of the emission data 
vehicle tested under Sec.  600.010-08(a). For each of these model 
types, the manufacturer shall:
    (i) Perform a US06 test in addition to the FTP and HFET tests;
    (ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy according to the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.060

where,

Bag y FE75 = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature of 75[deg].
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.061

where,

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

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

Sec.  600.201-08  General applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, natural gas-
fueled, alcohol dual fuel, and natural gas dual fuel automobiles.
* * * * *
    24. A new Sec.  600.206-08 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 5494]]

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

    (a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.  
600.113(a) and (b) and as approved in Sec.  600.008-08(c), are used to 
determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined FTP/Highway-
based fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which data 
are available.
    (1) If only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel 
economy values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, 
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city 
and highway fuel economy values for that configuration.
    (2) If more than one FTP-based city or highway fuel economy value 
is accepted for a vehicle configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically 
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in 
order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy 
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was 
tested.
    (iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy values and all HFET-based 
highway fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to 
the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle 
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of 
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded 
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
    (3) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under Sec.  
600.510-93, the combined fuel economy value for a vehicle configuration 
is calculated by harmonically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec.  600.206(a)(1) 
or (2), weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and rounded to the nearest 
0.0001 mile per gallon. A sample of this calculation appears in 
Appendix II to this part.
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of FTP-based city, 
HFET-based highway, and combined fuel economy values for each 
configuration.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will compose the petroleum-based 
fuel economy for that configuration.
    (c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values for that 
vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to the 
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.
    25. A new Sec.  600.207-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle, under 600.114-
08, 600.115-08, or 600.116-08 as applicable, and as approved in Sec.  
600.008-08(c), are used to determine 5-cycle city, highway, and 
combined fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which 
data are available.
    (1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city and highway fuel 
economy values for that configuration.
    (2) If more than one 5-cycle city or highway fuel economy value is 
accepted for a vehicle configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.209(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically 
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in 
order to determine 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values for 
each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was tested.
    (iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section 
are (separately for FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP) 
averaged in proportion to the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 
0.0001) within the vehicle configuration (as provided to the 
Administrator by the manufacturer) of vehicles of each tested 
subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 
mile per gallon, are the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values 
for the vehicle configuration.
    (3) The 5-cycle combined fuel economy value for a vehicle 
configuration is calculated by harmonically averaging the 5-cycle city 
and highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec.  600.207(a)(1) 
or (2), weighted 0.43 and 0.57 respectively, and rounded to the nearest 
0.0001 mile per gallon. An example of this calculation appears in 
Appendix II to this part.
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of 5-cycle city, 
highway, and combined fuel economy values for each configuration.
    (i) Calculate the 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel economy 
values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel 
economy values from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas 
test fuel, if testing was performed; or
    (B) Calculate the derived 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel 
economy according to Sec.  600.115-08, expressed in terms of gasoline 
equivalent.
    (b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value 
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will compose the petroleum-based 5-
cycle fuel economy for that configuration.
    (c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel 
economy value exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values 
for that vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to 
the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.
    26. A new Sec.  600.208-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) Fuel economy values for a base level are calculated from 
vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in Sec.  
600.206-08(a), (b), or (c) as applicable, for low-altitude tests.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for

[[Page 5495]]

each base level for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the 
states.
    (2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs 
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to 
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is 
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base 
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is 
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be 
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new 
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new 
basic engines and base level(s) if:
    (i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another 
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the 
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
    (ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not 
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine 
(i.e., they are not included in the calculation of the original base 
level fuel economy values); and
    (iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are 
represented by test data in accordance with Sec.  600.010-08(c)(1)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by 
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 40 
CFR 86.084-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable.
    (4) Vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08(a), (b) or (c), as applicable, are grouped according 
to base level.
    (i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been 
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration 
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
    (ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has 
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are 
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction 
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the 
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per 
gallon.
    (5) The procedure specified in Sec.  600.208-08(a) will be repeated 
for each base level, thus establishing city, highway, and combined fuel 
economy values for each base level.
    (6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy 
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are 
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude, 
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on 
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel 
economy for the base level.
    (7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a 
city, highway, and combined fuel economy value will be calculated by 
using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base level 
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done 
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08(a), (b) or (c), as applicable.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by 
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by 
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.0001.
    (3) The FTP-based city fuel economy values of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one 
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which 
is a fraction determined by dividing:
    (i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (ii) The FTP-based city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.
    (4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is 
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined 
fuel economy values for the model type.
    (5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each model type.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    27. A new Sec.  600.209-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) 5-cycle fuel economy values for a base level are calculated 
from vehicle configuration 5-cycle fuel economy values as determined in 
Sec.  600.207-08 for low-altitude tests.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs 
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to 
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is 
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base 
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is 
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be 
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new 
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new 
basic engines and base level(s) if:
    (i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another 
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the 
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
    (ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not 
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine 
(i.e., they are not

[[Page 5496]]

included in the calculation of the original base level fuel economy 
values); and
    (iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are 
represented by test data in accordance with Sec.  600.010-08(c)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by 
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 40 
CFR 86.084-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable.
    (4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as 
determined in Sec.  600.207-08 are grouped according to base level.
    (i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been 
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration 
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
    (ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has 
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are 
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction 
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the 
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per 
gallon.
    (5) The procedure specified in Sec.  600.209-08(a) will be repeated 
for each base level, thus establishing city, highway, and combined fuel 
economy values for each base level.
    (6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy 
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are 
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude, 
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on 
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel 
economy for the base level.
    (7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a 
city, highway, and combined fuel economy value will be calculated by 
using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base level 
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done 
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in 
Sec.  600.207-08, as applicable.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant 
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other 
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for 
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
    (2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by 
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by 
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.0001.
    (3) The 5-cycle city fuel economy values of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one 
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which 
is a fraction determined by dividing:
    (i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (ii) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.
    (4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is 
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined 
fuel economy values for the model type.
    (5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway, 
and combined fuel economy values for each model type.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    28. A new Sec.  600.210-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.210-08  Calculation of 5-cycle-based fuel economy values for 
labeling.

    (a) General Labels. The city and highway model type fuel economy 
determined in Sec.  600.209-08 (b), rounded to the nearest mpg, 
comprise the fuel economy values for general fuel economy labels. If 
the manufacturer determines that the resulting label values are not 
representative of the fuel economy for that model type, they may 
voluntarily lower these values.
    (b) Specific Labels. (1) The 5-cycle city model type fuel economy 
value determined in Sec.  600.207-08(a), rounded to the nearest mpg, 
comprises the city fuel economy value for specific fuel economy labels. 
If the manufacturer determines that the resulting city label value is 
not representative of the fuel economy for that specific vehicle, they 
may voluntarily lower this value.
    (2) The 5-cycle highway model type fuel economy value determined in 
Sec.  600.207-08(a) rounded to the nearest mpg, comprises the highway 
fuel economy value for specific fuel economy labels. If the 
manufacturer determines that the resulting highway label value is not 
representative of the fuel economy for that specific vehicle, they may 
voluntarily lower this value.
    (c) If the city value exceeds the highway value for a model type 
under (a) or (b) of this section, the city value will be set equal to 
the highway value. In cases where special vehicle design features may 
result in city values that exceed highway values, the manufacturer may 
request Administrator approval to waive this requirement. Such a 
request must be accompanied by on-road fuel economy data which 
demonstrates that the fuel economy during city-type driving is higher 
than fuel economy during highway-type driving.
    (d) For the purposes of calculating the combined fuel economy for a 
model type, to be used in determining annual fuel costs under Sec.  
600.307-08, the manufacturer shall (except as provided for in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section):
    (1)(i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and 
natural gas-fueled automobiles, harmonically average the unrounded city 
and highway values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), 
or (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of this section weighted 0.43 and 0.57 
respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg. (An example of this 
calculation procedure appears in appendix II of this part); or
    (ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, 
harmonically average the unrounded city and highway values from the 
tests

[[Page 5497]]

performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel as determined in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(A), or (a)(2)(ii)(A) and 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (2) If the resulting city value determined in paragraph (a) of this 
section exceeds the resulting highway value determined in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the combined fuel economy will be set equal to the 
highway value, rounded to the nearest whole mpg, unless as otherwise 
approved by the Administrator under paragraph (c) of this section.

Subpart D--[Amended]

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

Sec.  600.301-08  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later 
model year gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, natural gas-
fueled, alcohol dual fuel, and natural gas dual fuel automobiles.
    (b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt 
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the 
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric 
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric 
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel 
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply 
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
* * * * *
    30. A new Sec.  600.306-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.306-08  Labeling requirements.

    (a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix 
or cause to be affixed and each dealer shall maintain or cause to be 
maintained on each automobile:
    (1) A general fuel economy label (initial, or updated as required 
in Sec.  600.314) as described in Sec.  600.307(c) or:
    (2) A specific label, as described in Sec.  600.307(d), for those 
automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that occurs 15 
days after general labels have been determined by the manufacturer.
    (i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a 
model type (as defined in Sec.  600.002-08, he shall also affix 
specific labels on all automobiles within this model type, except on 
those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that labels 
are required to bear range values as required by paragraph (b) of this 
section, or determined by the Administrator, or as permitted under 
Sec.  600.310-08.
    (ii) If a manufacturer elects to change from general to specific 
labels or vice versa within a model type, the manufacturer shall, 
within five calendar days, initiate or discontinue as applicable, the 
use of specific labels on all vehicles within a model type at all 
facilities where labels are affixed.
    (3) For any vehicle for which a specific label is requested which 
has a combined FTP/HFET-based fuel economy value, as determined in 
Sec.  600.206-08(a)(3), at or below the minimum tax-free value, the 
following statement must appear on the specific label:
    ``[Manufacturer's name] may have to pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on 
this vehicle because of the low fuel economy.'' (4)(i) At the time a 
general fuel economy value is determined for a model type, a 
manufacturer shall, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this 
section, relabel, or cause to be relabeled, vehicles which:
    (A) Have not been delivered to the ultimate purchaser, and
    (B) Have a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value 
(as determined in Sec.  600.208-08(b) of 0.1 mpg or more below the 
lowest fuel economy value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax of $0 is to be 
assessed.
    (ii) The manufacturer has the option of relabeling vehicles during 
the first five working days after the general label value is known.
    (iii) For those vehicle model types which have been issued a 
specific label and are subsequently found to have tax liability, the 
manufacturer is responsible for the tax liability regardless of whether 
the vehicle has been sold or not or whether the vehicle has been 
relabeled or not.
    (b) FE range of comparable vehicles. The manufacturer shall include 
the current range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles (as 
described in Sec. Sec.  600.311 and 600.314) in the label of each 
vehicle manufactured or imported more than 15 calendar days after the 
current range is made available by the Administrator.
    (1) Automobiles manufactured before a date 16 or more calendar days 
after the initial label range is made available under Sec.  600.311-
08(c) may be labeled without a range of fuel economy of comparable 
automobiles. In place of the range of fuel economy of comparable 
automobiles, the label must contain the statement ``Fuel economy for 
comparable vehicles not available at this time. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov 

for comparisons.''
    (2) Automobiles manufactured more than 15 calendar days after the 
initial or updated label range is made available under Sec.  600.311-
08(c) or (d) will be labeled with the current range of fuel economy of 
comparable automobiles as approved for that label.
    (c) The fuel economy label must be readily visible from the 
exterior of the automobile and remain affixed until the time the 
automobile is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
    (1) It is preferable that the fuel economy label information be 
included with the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, provided 
that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label is 
maintained. For this purpose, all fuel economy label information must 
be placed on a separate section in the label and may not be intermixed 
with the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label information, 
except for vehicle descriptions as noted in Sec.  600.307-08(c).
    (2) The fuel economy label must be located on a side window. If the 
window is not large enough to contain both the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label and the fuel economy label, the manufacturer shall 
have the fuel economy label affixed on another window and as close as 
possible to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label.
    (3) The manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed in 
such a manner that appearance and legibility are maintained until after 
the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
    31. A new Sec.  600.307-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.307-08  Fuel economy label format requirements.

    [Note:
    Proposed rule offers 4 label formats. One will be selected based 
on comments received. Precise font sizes and locations are to be 
determined based on the final format chosen].

    (a)(1) Fuel economy labels must be:
    (i) Rectangular in shape with a minimum height of 4.5 inches (114 
mm) and a minimum length of 7.0 inches (178 mm) as depicted in Appendix 
VIII.
    (ii) Printed in a color which contrasts with the paper color.
    (iii) The label shall have a contrasting border. The top border 
shall be at least [TBD] inches wide and the bottom border shall be at 
least [TBD] wide. The side borders shall be no more than [TBD] wide.
    (2) The top [TBD] percent of the fuel economy label area shall 
contain only the following information and in the same format depicted 
in the label format in Appendix VIII:

[[Page 5498]]

    (i) The titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', centered over the 
applicable fuel economy estimates, in bold caps [TBD] points in size,
    (ii)(A) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and 
natural gas-fueled automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy 
estimates calculated in accordance with Sec.  600.209(a) and (b),
    (B) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy estimates for operation 
on gasoline or diesel fuel as calculated in Sec.  600.210-08(a) and 
(b),
    (iii) The fuel pump logo,
    (iv) The following phrase is centered, full justification, 
underneath the fuel pump logo, in bold print: ``Your actual mileage can 
vary significantly according to how you drive and maintain your vehicle 
and other factors.
    (v) The statement: ``Expected range for most drivers:-- to -- 
mpg'', placed underneath both the city and highway estimates, centered 
to the estimate numbers. The range values for this statement are to be 
calculated in accordance with the following:
    (A) The lower range values shall be determined by multiplying the 
city and highway estimates by 0.83, then rounding to the next lower 
integer value.
    (B) The upper range values shall be determined by multiplying the 
city and highway estimates by 1.17 and rounding to the next higher 
integer value.
    (vi) The top border shall contain a ``dropped out'' centered title 
``EPA FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES'' in bold caps [TBD] points in size. At 
the far left of the top border, the official EPA logo shall appear and 
at the far right of the top border, the official DOE logo shall appear. 
The logos shall be [TBD] inches in diameter.
    (vii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled automobiles, the title 
A(insert appropriate fuel (example ``METHANOL ``(M85))'')''. The title 
shall be positioned [TBD] and shall be in upper case in a bold 
condensed type and no smaller than [TBD] points in size.
    (B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the title 
``NATURAL GAS*''. The title shall be positioned [TBD] and shall be in 
uppercase in a bold condensed type and no smaller than [TBD] points in 
size.
    (C) For dedicated alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas 
dual fuel automobiles, the title ``DUAL FUEL*''. The title shall be 
positioned [TBD] and shall be in upper case in a bold condensed type 
and no smaller than [TBD] points in size.
    (viii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled automobiles, the title 
``(insert appropriate fuel (example ``M85''))'' centered above the 
title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps 
[TBD] points in size.
    (B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobile, the title 
AGASOLINE EQUIVALENT'' centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above 
the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps [TBD] points in size.
    (C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the title ``GASOLINE'' centered above the title ``CITY 
MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps [TBD] in size.
    (3) The bottom [TBD] percent of the label shall contain the 
following information: (i) The bottom border shall contain the 
following ``dropped out'' centered text in [TBD] font print: ``For more 
information see the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE available at dealers or on 
line at http://www.fueleconomy.gov''.

    (ii) If the label is separate from the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label, the [vehicle/truck] description, as described in 
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, when applicable.
    (iii)(A) A statement: ``For comparison shopping, the range of fuel 
economy for all [VEHICLE CLASS]s is -- to -- mpg city and-- to --mpg 
highway.'' (The range values are those determined in accordance with 
Sec.  600.311.) Or, when applicable, [Alternative: (A) A graphic 
representation of combined FE range as shown in Appendix IV. Format 
TBD.]
    (B) A statement: ``A range of fuel economy values for other 
[VEHICLE CLASS]s is not available at this time.''
    (iv) The statement: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Cost:'' followed by the 
appropriate value calculated in accordance with paragraph (f) or (g) of 
this section and the statement ``based on ---- miles at [the EPA-
provided cost per gallon of the required fuel for that vehicle.'' The 
estimated annual fuel cost value for alcohol dual fuel automobiles and 
natural gas dual fuel vehicles to appear on the fuel economy label 
shall be that calculated based on operating the vehicle on gasoline or 
diesel fuel as determined in Sec.  600.307(g) and (h) [check cites]. At 
the manufacturer's option, the label may also contain the estimated 
annual fuel cost value based on operating the vehicle on the 
alternative fuel.
    (v)(A) The Gas Guzzler statement, when applicable (see paragraph 
(e) of this section), must be centered on a separate line between the 
bottom border and the Estimated Annual Fuel Cost statements. The words 
``Gas Guzzler'' shall be highlighted.
    (B) The type size shall be at least as large as the largest type 
size in the bottom [TBD] percent of the label.
    (vi)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled, and natural gas-fueled 
automobiles, the statement: ``*This vehicle operates on [insert 
appropriate fuel(s)] only.'' shall appear [TBD]. The phrase shall be in 
lower case in a medium condensed type except for the fuels listed which 
shall be capitalized in a bold condensed type no smaller than [TBD] 
points in size.
    (B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the statements: 
``All fuel economy values on this label pertain to gasoline equivalent 
fuel economy. To convert these values into units of miles per 100 cubic 
feet of natural gas, multiply by 0.823.'' At the manufacturers option, 
the statement ``To convert these values into units of miles per 100 
cubic feet of natural gas, multiply by 0.823.'' may be replaced by the 
statement ``The fuel economy in units of miles per (insert units used 
in retail) is estimated to be (insert city fuel economy value) in the 
city, and (insert highway fuel economy value) on the highway.''
    (C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the statement: ``This vehicle operates on [insert gasoline 
or diesel as appropriate] and [insert other fuel(s) as appropriate].'' 
shall appear above the bottom border. The phrase shall be in lower case 
in a medium condensed type except for the words ``gasoline'' or 
``diesel'' (as appropriate) and the other fuels listed, which shall be 
capitalized in a bold condensed type no smaller than [TBD] points in 
size.
    (vii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles, the statement: ``All fuel economy values on this label 
pertain to [insert gasoline or diesel as appropriate] fuel usage. 
[insert other fuel(s) as appropriate] fuel(s) usage will yield 
different values. See the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE for information on 
[insert other fuel(s)].'' At the manufacturers option, the above 
statements may be replaced by the statement ``The fuel economy while 
using [insert appropriate fuel (example ``M85)] is estimated to be 
[insert city fuel economy value and appropriate units] in the city and 
[insert highway fuel economy value and appropriate units] on the 
highway. See the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE for other information on 
[insert appropriate fuel].''
    (4) The maximum type size for the statements located in the lower 
[TBD] percent of the label shall not exceed [TBD] points in size.

[[Page 5499]]

    (b) The city mpg number shall be displayed on the [TBD] and the 
highway mpg number displayed on the [TBD].
    (1) Except for the digit ``one,'' each mpg digit shall measure at 
least [TBD] inches by [TBD inches ([TBD x TBD] mm) in width and height 
respectively.
    (2) The digit ``one,'' shall measure at least [TBD] mm by [TBD] mm 
width and height respectively.
    (3)(i) MPG digits not printed as a single character shall be made 
of a matrix of smaller characters. This matrix shall be at least four 
characters wide by five characters high (with the exception of three 
characters wide for the numerical character denoting ``one''.)
    (ii) The small characters shall be made of successive overstrikes 
to form a reasonably dark and continuous line that approximates a 
single large character.
    (4)(i) If manufacturer chooses to enlarge the label from that 
depicted in Appendix IV, the logo and the fuel economy label values, 
including the titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', must be 
increased in the same proportion.
    (ii) The area bounded by the bottom of the fuel pump logo to the 
top of the border must continue to represent at least [TBD] percent of 
the available label area.
    (c) Vehicle description information for general and specific 
labels. (1) Where the fuel economy label is physically incorporated 
with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the 
applicable vehicle description, as set forth in this paragraph, does 
not have to be repeated if the information is readily found on this 
label.
    (2) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle 
description on general labels will be as follows:
    (i) Model year;
    (ii) Vehicle car line;
    (iii) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or 
liters whichever is consistent with the customary description of that 
engine;
    (iv) Number of engine cylinders or rotors;
    (v) Additional engine description, if necessary to distinguish 
otherwise identical model types, as approved by the Administrator; and
    (vi) Transmission class.
    (3) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle 
description on specific labels will be as follows:
    (i) The descriptions of paragraph (c) of this section, and
    (ii) Inertia weight class;
    (iii) Axle ratio; and
    (iv) Other engine or vehicle parameters, if approved by the 
Administrator.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e)(1) For fuel economy labels of passenger automobile model types 
requiring a tax statement under Sec.  600.513, the phrase ``* * * Gas 
Guzzler Tax: $---- * * *''.
    (2) The tax value required by this paragraph shall be based on the 
combined fuel economy value for the model type calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  600.208-08 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (f) Estimated annual fuel cost--general labels. The annual fuel 
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a model type 
shall be computed by using values for the fuel cost per gallon of the 
required fuel as specified in the owner's manual and average annual 
mileage, predetermined by the Administrator, and the combined fuel 
economy determined in Sec.  600.210(d).
    (1) The annual fuel cost estimate for a model type is computed by 
multiplying:
    (i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of 
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) 
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
    (ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the 
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
    (iii) The average, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile 
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallons equivalent per mile 
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the combined fuel economy 
value determined in Sec.  600.210(d) for a model type.
    (2) The product computed in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and 
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel 
cost estimate that appears on general labels for the model type.
    (g) Estimated annual fuel cost--specific labels. The annual fuel 
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a vehicle 
configuration will be computed by using the values for the fuel cost 
per volume (gallon for liquid fuels, cubic feet for gaseous fuels) and 
average mileage and the fuel economy determined in paragraph 
(h)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (1) The annual fuel cost estimate for vehicle configuration is 
computed by multiplying:
    (i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of 
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) 
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
    (ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the 
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
    (iii) The inverse, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile 
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile, 
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the fuel economy value 
determined in Sec.  600.207-08(a)(2)(iii) for a vehicle configuration.
    (2) The product computed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and 
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel 
cost estimate that appears on specific labels for that vehicle 
configuration.
* * * * *
    32. A new Sec.  600.311-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) The Administrator will determine the range of city and the 
range of highway fuel economy values for each class of comparable 
automobiles.
    [Alternative proposal for graphic depiction of comparable fuel 
economy] (a) The Administrator will determine the range of combined 
fuel economy values for each class of comparable automobiles. The range 
of combined fuel economy values within a class is the maximum and 
minimum combined fuel economy values for all general labels as 
determined in Sec.  600.210-08(d).
    (b) The range of city fuel economy values within a class is the 
maximum city and the minimum city fuel economy value for all general 
labels as determined in Sec.  600.210-08(a) regardless of manufacturer. 
The range of highway values is determined in the same manner.
    (c) The initial range will be made available on a date specified by 
the Administrator that closely coincides to the date of the general 
model introduction for the industry.
    (d) The ranges of comparable fuel economy values for a class of 
automobiles will be updated periodically and will be derived from the 
latest available label values reported to the Administrator for that 
class of automobiles.
    (e) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in California are likely to exhibit significant differences in 
fuel economy from those intended for sale in other states, he/she will 
compute separate ranges of fuel economy values for each class of 
automobiles for California and for the other states.

[[Page 5500]]

    (f) For high altitude vehicles determined under Sec.  600.310, both 
general and specific labels will contain the range of comparable fuel 
economy computed in this section.
    (g) The manufacturer shall include the appropriate range of fuel 
economy determined by the Administrator in paragraph (c) or (d) of this 
section, on each label affixed to an automobile within the class, 
except as provided in Sec.  600.306(b)(1).
    33. A new Sec.  600.314-08 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) The label values established in Sec.  600.312 shall remain in 
effect for the model year unless updated in accordance with paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b)(1) The manufacturer shall recalculate the model type fuel 
economy values for any model type containing base levels affected by 
running changes specified in Sec.  600.507(a).
    (2) For separate model types created in Sec.  600.209-08(a)(2), the 
manufacturer shall recalculate the model type values for any additions 
or deletions of subconfigurations to the model type. Minimum data 
requirements specified in Sec.  600.010(c) shall be met prior to 
recalculation.
    (3) Label value recalculations shall be performed to read as 
follows:
    (i) The manufacturer shall use updated total model year projected 
sales for label value recalculations.
    (ii) All model year data approved by the Administrator at the time 
of the recalculation for that model type shall be included in the 
recalculation.
    (iii) Using the additional data under paragraph (b) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new 5-cycle model type city 
and highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec.  600.209-08 and 
600.210-08 except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 
mpg.
    (iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  600.209-08 and 600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 
0.1 mpg.
    (4)(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city 
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 mpg or 
more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated 5-cycle 
model type values (rounded to whole mpg'') to all new vehicles of that 
model type beginning on the day of implementation of the running 
change.
    (ii) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is higher than the respective 
city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 
mpg or more, then the manufacturer has the option to use the 
recalculated values for labeling the entire model type beginning on the 
day of implementation of the running change.
    (c) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy 
values determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information 
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the 
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax as needed).
    (d) The Administrator shall periodically update the range of fuel 
economies of comparable automobiles based upon all label data supplied 
to the Administrator.
    (e) The manufacturer may request permission from the Administrator 
to calculate and use label values based on test data from vehicles 
which have not completed the Administrator ordered confirmatory testing 
required under the provisions of Sec.  600.008-08(c). If the 
Administrator approves such a calculation the following procedures 
shall be used to determine if relabeling is required after the 
confirmatory testing is completed.
    (1) The Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing shall be 
completed as quickly as possible.
    (2) Using the additional data under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and 
highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec.  600.207-08 and 600.210-08 
except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  600.209-08 and 600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 
0.1 mpg.
    (4) Relabeling. (i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel 
economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the 
respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this 
section by 0.5 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with 
the recalculated 5-cycle model type values (rounded to whole mpg) to 
all new vehicles of that model type beginning 15 days after the 
completion of the confirmatory test.
    (ii) If both the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city 
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 0.1 mpg or 
more and the recalculated gas guzzler tax rate determined under the 
provisions of Sec.  600.513-91 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix 
labels with the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg) 
and gas guzzler tax statement and rates to all new vehicles of that 
model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory 
test.
    (5) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy 
values determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section, 
the manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information 
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the 
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax if required by Department of 
Treasury regulations).
    34. A new Sec.  600.315-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.315-08  Classes of comparable automobiles.

    (a) The Secretary will classify automobiles as passenger 
automobiles or light trucks (nonpassenger automobiles) in accordance 
with 49 CFR part 523.
    (1) The Administrator will classify passenger automobiles by car 
line into one of the following classes based on interior volume index 
or seating capacity except for those passenger automobiles which the 
Administrator determines are most appropriately placed in a different 
classification or classed as special purpose vehicles as provided in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (i) Two seaters. A car line shall be classed as ``Two Seater'' if 
the majority of the vehicles in that car line have no more than two 
designated seating positions as such term is defined in the regulations 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 571.3.
    (ii) Minicompact cars. Interior volume index less than 85 cubic 
feet.
    (iii) Subcompact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal 
to 85 cubic feet but less than 100 cubic feet.
    (iv) Compact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 
100 cubic feet but less than 110 cubic feet.
    (v) Midsize cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 
110 cubic feet but less than 120 cubic feet.
    (vi) Large cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 120 
cubic feet.
    (vii) Small station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index less than 130 cubic feet.
    (viii) Midsize station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index greater than or equal to 130 cubic feet but less than 160 cubic 
feet.

[[Page 5501]]

    (ix) Large station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume 
index greater than or equal to 160 cubic feet.
    (2) The Administrator will classify nonpassenger automobiles into 
the following categories: Small pickup trucks, standard pickup trucks, 
vans, minivans, SUVS and special purpose vehicles. Pickup trucks will 
be separated by car line on the basis of gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR). For pickup truck car lines with more than one GVWR, the GVWR of 
the pickup truck car line is the arithmetic average of all distinct 
GVWR's less than or equal to 8,500 pounds available for that car line.
    (i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR less than 6000 
pounds.
    (ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR of 6000 
pounds up to and including 8,500 pounds.
    (iii) Vans.
    (iv) Minivans.
    (v) Sport utility vehicles.
    (3)(i) Special purpose vehicles. All automobiles with GVWR less 
than or equal to 8,500 pounds which possess special features and which 
the Administrator determines are more appropriately classified 
separately from typical automobiles or which do not meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section will be 
classified as special purpose vehicles.
    (ii) All automobiles with GVWR less than or equal to 8,500 pounds 
which possess features that could apply to two classes will be 
classified by the Administrator based on the Administrator's judgment 
on which class of vehicles consumers are more likely to make 
comparisons.
    (4) Once a certain car line is classified by the Administrator, the 
classification will remain in effect for the model year.
    (b) Interior volume index-passenger automobiles. (1) The interior 
volume index shall be calculated for each car line which is not a ``two 
seater'' car line, in cubic feet rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic foot. 
For car lines with more than one body style, the interior volume index 
for the car line is the arithmetic average of the interior volume 
indexes of each body style in the car line.
    (2) For all body styles except station wagons, minivans and 
hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) 
equipped with seatbelts as required by DOT safety regulations, interior 
volume index is the sum, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the 
front seat volume, the rear seat volume, if applicable, and the luggage 
capacity.
    (3) For all station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks with more than 
one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) equipped with seatbelts as 
required by DOT safety regulations, interior volume index is the sum, 
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the front seat volume, the 
rear seat volume, and the cargo volume index.
    (c) All interior and cargo dimensions are measured in inches to the 
nearest 0.1 inch. All dimensions and volumes shall be determined from 
the base vehicles of each body style in each car line, and do not 
include optional equipment. The dimensions H61, W3, W5, L34, H63, W4, 
W6, L51, H201, L205, L210, L211, H198, and volume V1 are to be 
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle 
Dimensions SAE J1100a (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, 
Society of Automotive Engineers, approved September 1973 and last 
revised September 1975) except as noted herein:
    (1) SAE J1100a(2.3).--Cargo dimensions. All dimensions measured 
with the front seat positioned the same as for the interior dimensions 
and the second seat, for the station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks, 
in the upright position. All head restraints shall be in the stowed 
position and considered part of the seat.
    (2) SAE J1100a(8)--Luggage capacity. Total of columns of individual 
pieces of standard luggage set plus H boxes stowed in the luggage 
compartment in accordance with the procedure described in 8.2. For 
passenger automobiles with no rear seat or with two rear seats with no 
rear seatbelts, the luggage compartment shall include the area to the 
rear of the front seat, with the rear seat (if applicable) folded, to 
the height of a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the front 
seatback.
    (3) SAE J1100a(7)--Cargo dimensions. (i) L210--Cargo length at 
second seatback height-hatchback. The minimum horizontal dimension from 
the ``X'' plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the second seatback 
to the inside limiting interference of the hatchback door on the zero 
``Y'' plane.
    (ii) L211--Cargo length at floor--second-hatchback. The minimum 
horizontal dimensions at floor level from the rear of the second 
seatback to the normal limiting interference of the hatchback door on 
the vehicle zero ``Y'' plane.
    (iii) H198--Second seatback to load floor height. The dimension 
measured vertically from the horizontal tangent to the top of the 
second seatback to the undepressed floor covering.
    (d) The front seat volume is calculated in cubic feet by dividing 
1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and rounding the 
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (1) H61--Effective head room--front. (In inches, obtained according 
to paragraph (c) of this section),
    (2)(i) (W3+W5+5)/2--Average of shoulder and hip room--front, if hip 
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 and 
W5 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
    (ii) W3--Shoulder room--front, if hip room is not more than 5 
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section), and
    (3) L34--Maximum effective leg room--accelerator. (In inches, 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the 
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
    (e) The rear seat volume is calculated in cubic feet, for vehicles 
within a rear seat equipped with rear seat belts (as required by DOT), 
by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and 
rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (1) H63--Effective head room--second. (Inches obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section),
    (2)(i) (W4+W6+5)/2--Average of shoulder and hip room--second, if 
hip room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W4 
and W6 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
    (ii) W4--Shoulder room--second, if hip room is not more than 5 
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section), and
    (3) L51--Minimum effective leg room--second. (In inches obtained 
according to paragraph (c) of this section.)
    (f) The luggage capacity is V1, the usable luggage capacity 
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section. For passenger 
automobiles with no rear seat or with a rear seat but no rear seat 
belts, the area to the rear of the front seat shall be included in the 
determination of V1, usable luggage capacity, as outlined in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (g) Cargo volume index. (1) For station wagons and minivans the 
cargo volume index V2 is calculated, in cubic feet, by dividing 1,728 
into the product of three terms and rounding the quotient to the 
nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
    (i) W4--Shoulder room--second. (In inches obtained according to 
paragraph (c) of this section.)
    (ii) H201--Cargo height. (In inches obtained according to paragraph 
(c) of this section.)

[[Page 5502]]

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

Subpart E--[Amended]

* * * * *
    35. A new Sec.  600.405-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.405-08  Dealer requirements.

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

    (c) The dealer shall display the booklet applicable to each model 
year automobile offered for sale at the location.
* * * * *
    36. A new Sec.  600.407-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.407-08  Booklets displayed by dealers.

    (a) Booklets displayed by dealers in order to fulfill the 
obligations of Sec.  600.405 may be either
    (1) The printed copy of the annual Fuel Economy Guide published by 
the Department of Energy, or;
    (2) Optionally, dealers may display the Fuel Economy Guide on a 
computer that is linked to the electronic version of the Fuel Economy 
Guide (available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov.), or;

    (3) A booklet approved by the Administrator of EPA containing the 
same information, format, and order as the Fuel Economy Guide published 
by the Department of Energy. Such a booklet may highlight the dealer's 
product line by contrasting color of ink or boldface type and may 
include other supplemental information regarding the dealer's product 
line subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (b) A manufacturer's name and logo or a dealer's name and address 
or both may appear on the back cover of the hard copies of the Fuel 
Economy Guide.

Subpart F--[Amended]

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

Sec.  600.507-08  Running change data requirements.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall submit additional running change fuel economy data 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section for any running change 
approved or implemented under 40 CFR 86.079-32, 86.079-33, or 86.082-34 
or 40 CFR 86.1842-01 as applicable, which:
    (1) Creates a new base level or,
    (2) Affects an existing base level by:
    (i) Adding an axle ratio which is at least 10 percent larger (or, 
optionally, 10 percent smaller) than the largest axle ratio tested.
    (ii) Increasing (or, optionally, decreasing) the road-load 
horsepower for a subconfiguration by 10 percent or more for the 
individual running change or, when considered cumulatively, since 
original certification (for each cumulative 10 percent increase using 
the originally certified road-load horsepower as a base).
    (iii) Adding a new subconfiguration by increasing (or, optionally, 
decreasing) the equivalent test weight

[[Page 5503]]

for any previously tested subconfiguration in the base level.
    (b)(1) The additional running change fuel economy data requirement 
in paragraph (a) of this section will be determined based on the sales 
of the vehicle configurations in the created or affected base level(s) 
as updated at the time of running change approval.
    (2) Within each newly created base level as specified in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, the manufacturer shall submit data from the 
highest projected total model year sales subconfiguration within the 
highest projected total model year sales configuration in the base 
level.
    (3) Within each base level affected by a running change as 
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, fuel economy data shall 
be submitted for the vehicle configuration created or affected by the 
running change which has the highest total model year sales. The test 
vehicle shall be of the subconfiguration created by the running change 
which has the highest projected total model year sales within the 
applicable vehicle configuration.
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by 
this section to the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.314(b).
    (d) For those model types created under Sec.  600.208-08(a)(2), the 
manufacturer shall submit data for each subconfiguration added by a 
running change.
* * * * *
    38. A new Sec.  600.510-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.510-08  Calculation of average fuel economy.

    (a) Average fuel economy will be calculated to the nearest 0.1 mpg 
for the classes of automobiles identified in this section, and the 
results of such calculations will be reported to the Secretary of 
Transportation for use in determining compliance with the applicable 
fuel economy standards.
    (1) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of passenger automobiles that is domestically manufactured as 
defined in Sec.  600.511(d)(1).
    (2) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of passenger automobiles that is not domestically manufactured 
as defined in Sec.  600.511(d)(2).
    (3) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of light trucks that is domestically manufactured as defined 
in Sec.  600.511(e)(1).
    (4) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the 
category of light trucks that is not domestically manufactured as 
defined in Sec.  600.511(e)(2).
    (b) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy under 
paragraph (c), of this section:
    (1) All fuel economy data submitted in accordance with Sec.  
600.006(e) or Sec.  600.512(c) shall be used.
    (2) The combined city/highway fuel economy will be calculated for 
each model type in accordance with Sec.  600.208-08 of this section 
except that:
    (i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for model types 
and base levels associated with car lines that are:
    (A) Domestically produced; and
    (B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
    (ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart, 
will be used instead of sales projections;
    (iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be 
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to correct gallons of diesel fuel to 
equivalent gallons of gasoline;
    (iv) The fuel economy value will be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; 
and
    (v) At the manufacturer's option, those vehicle configurations that 
are self-compensating to altitude changes may be separated by sales 
into high-altitude sales categories and low-altitude sales categories. 
These separate sales categories may then be treated (only for the 
purpose of this section) as separate configurations in accordance with 
the procedure of Sec.  600.208-08(a)(4)(ii).
    (3) The fuel economy value for each vehicle configuration is the 
combined fuel economy calculated according to Sec.  600.206-08(a)(3) 
except that:
    (i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for vehicle 
configurations associated with car lines that are:
    (A) Domestically produced; and
    (B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
    (ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart 
will be used instead of sales projections; and
    (iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be 
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to convert gallons of diesel fuel to 
equivalent gallons of gasoline.
    (c) Except as permitted in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
average fuel economy will be calculated individually for each category 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
    (1) Divide the total production volume of that category of 
automobiles; by
    (2) A sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a model type 
within that category of automobiles and is a fraction determined by 
dividing:
    (i) The number of automobiles of that model type produced by the 
manufacturer in the model year; by
    (ii) For gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled model types, the fuel 
economy calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section; or
    (iii) For alcohol-fueled model types, the fuel economy value 
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
    (iv) For natural gas-fueled model types, the fuel economy value 
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
    (v) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 through 
2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the result 
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
    (A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15 
provided the requirements of Sec.  600.510 (g) are met; or
    (vi) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 
through 2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the 
result rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
    (A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
gasoline or diesel as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
natural gas as determined in Sec.  600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15 
provided the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are met.
    (d) The Administrator may approve alternative calculation methods 
if they are part of an approved credit plan under the provisions of 15 
U.S.C. 2003.
    (e) For passenger categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section, the average fuel economy calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section shall be adjusted using the 
following equation:

AFEadj=AFE[((0.55 x a x c) + (0.45 x c) + (0.5556 x a) + 
0.4487) / ((0.55 x a) + 0.45)] + IW

Where:

AFEadj=Adjusted average combined fuel economy, rounded to 
the nearest 0.1 mpg.
AFE=Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph (c) of 
this

[[Page 5504]]

section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a=Sales-weight average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all model 
type highway fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg) 
divided by the sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 
mpg) of all model type city fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 
0.1 mpg). The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. These 
average fuel economies shall be determined using the methodology of 
paragraph (c) of this section.
c=0.0022 for the 1986 model year.
c=A constant value, fixed by model year. For 1987, the Administrator 
will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory humidity and 
test fuel data become available. For 1988 and later model years, the 
Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory 
humidity and test fuel data become available.

IW=(9.2917 x 10-3 x SF3IWC x FE3IWC) -
(3.5123 x 10-3 x H SF4ETW x FE4IWC)

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

SF3IWC=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales divided by 
total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF4ETW=The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight category sales 
divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal 
places.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of 
all 3000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance 
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of 
all 4000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance 
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

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

Ealt/Epet> or = 1

Where:

Ealt=[FEalt/(NHValt x Dalt)] x 
106=energy efficiency while operating on alternative fuel 
rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Epet=[FEpet/(NHVpet x 
Dpet)] x 106 = energy efficiency while operating 
on gasoline or diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 
miles/million BTU.
FEalt is the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels or 
miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] while operated on the 
alternative fuel as determined in Sec.  600.113-08(a) and (b);
FEpet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on 
petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined in Sec.  600.113(a) 
and (b);
NHValt is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 
alternative fuel;
NHVpet is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 
petroleum fuel;
Dalt is the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels or lb/100 
standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] of the alternative fuel;
Dpet is the density [lb/gallon] of the petroleum fuel.

    (i) The equation must hold true for both the FTP city and HFET 
highway fuel economy values for each test of each test vehicle.
    (ii)(A) The net heating value for alcohol fuels shall be determined 
per ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  
600.011-93).
    (B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be determined per ASTM D 
1298 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  600.011-93).
    (iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be 
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec.  600.113(f).
    (2) For model years 1993 through 1995, alcohol dual fuel 
automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of alcohol and gasoline 
must, in addition to paragraph (g)(1) of this section, to obtain the 
CAFE credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this 
section, provide equal or superior energy efficiency while operating on 
a mixture of 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline by volume, as while operating on 
gasoline fuel. The following equation must hold true:

E50/Eg> or = 1

Where:

E50=[FE50/(NHV50 x D50)] x 
106 = energy efficiency while operating on 50% alcohol, 50% 
gasoline rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Eg=[FEg/(NHVg x Dg)] x 
106 = energy efficiency while operating on gasoline fuel 
rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
FE50 is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on 
50% alcohol, 50% gasoline as determined in Sec.  600.113(a) and (b);
FEg is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on 
gasoline as determined in Sec.  600.113(a) and (b);
NHV5. is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 50/50 blend;
NHVg is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of gasoline;
D50 is the density [lb/gallon] of the 50/50 blend;
Dg is the density [lb/gallon] of the gasoline.

    (i) To demonstrate that the equation holds true for each engine 
family, the manufacturer will:
    (A) Test one test vehicle in each engine family on both the FTP 
city and HFET highway cycles; or
    (B) In lieu of testing, provide a written statement attesting that 
equal or superior energy efficiency is attained while using a 50% 
alcohol, 50% gasoline mixture compared to using 100% gasoline.
    (ii)(A) The net heating value for the 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline 
mixture shall be determined by ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference as 
specified in Sec.  600.011-93).

[[Page 5505]]

    (B) The density for the 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline mixture shall be 
determined per ASTM D 1298 (Incorporated by reference as specified in 
Sec.  600.011-93).
    (iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be 
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec.  600.113(f).
    (3) Alcohol dual fuel passenger automobiles and natural gas dual 
fuel passenger automobiles manufactured during model years 1993 through 
2004 must meet the minimum driving range requirements established by 
the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR part 538) to obtain the CAFE 
credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section.
    (h) For each of the model years 1993 through 2004, and for each 
category of automobile identified in paragraph (a) of this section, the 
maximum increase in average fuel economy determined in paragraph (c) of 
this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural 
gas dual fuel automobiles shall be 1.2 miles per gallon or as provided 
for in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (1) The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel 
economy to determine if the maximum increase provided in paragraph (h) 
of this section has been reached. The Administrator shall calculate the 
average fuel economy for each category of automobiles specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section by subtracting the average fuel economy 
values calculated in accordance with this section by assuming all 
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated 
exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) fuel from the average fuel economy 
values determined in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and (c) of 
this section. The difference is limited to the maximum increase 
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (i) In the event that the Secretary of Transportation lowers the 
corporate average fuel economy standard applicable to passenger 
automobiles below 27.5 miles per gallon for any model year during 1993 
through 2004, the maximum increase of 1.2 mpg per year specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section shall be reduced by the amount the 
standard was lowered, but not reduced below 0.7 mpg per year.
    39. A new Sec.  600.510-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.510-08  Model year report.

    (a) For each model year, the manufacturer shall submit to the 
Administrator a report, known as the model year report, containing all 
information necessary for the calculation of the manufacturer's average 
fuel economy. The results of the manufacturer calculations and summary 
information of model type fuel economy values which are contained in 
the average calculation shall be submitted to the Secretary of the 
Department of Transportation, National Highway and Traffic Safety 
Administration. (b)(1) The model year report shall be in writing, 
signed by the authorized representative of the manufacturer and shall 
be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the model year.
    (2) The Administrator may waive the requirement that the model year 
report be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the model 
year. Based upon a request by the manufacturer, if the Administrator 
determines that 90 days is insufficient time for the manufacturer to 
provide all additional data required as determined in Sec.  600.507, 
the Administrator shall establish a date by which the model year report 
must be submitted.
    (3) Separate reports shall be submitted for passenger automobiles 
and light trucks (as identified in Sec.  600.510).
    (c) The model year report must include the following information:
    (1) All fuel economy data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type 
calculations under Sec.  600.208-08, and subsequently required by the 
Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.507;
    (2) All fuel economy data for certification vehicles and for 
vehicles tested for running changes approved under 40 CFR 86.1842-01;
    (3) Any additional fuel economy data submitted by the manufacturer 
under Sec.  600.509;
    (4) A fuel economy value for each model type of the manufacturer's 
product line calculated according to Sec.  600.510(b)(2);
    (5) The manufacturer's average fuel economy value calculated 
according to Sec.  600.510(c);
    (6) A listing of both domestically and nondomestically produced car 
lines as determined in Sec.  600.511 and the cost information upon 
which the determination was made; and
    (7) The authenticity and accuracy of production data must be 
attested to by the corporation, and shall bear the signature of an 
officer (a corporate executive of at least the rank of vice-president) 
designated by the corporation. Such attestation shall constitute a 
representation by the manufacturer that the manufacturer has 
established reasonable, prudent procedures to ascertain and provide 
production data that are accurate and authentic in all material 
respects and that these procedures have been followed by employees of 
the manufacturer involved in the reporting process. The signature of 
the designated officer shall constitute a representation by the 
required attestation.
    40. A new Sec.  600.513-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.513-08  Gas Guzzler Tax.

    (a) This section applies only to passenger automobiles sold after 
December 27, 1991, regardless of the model year of those vehicles. For 
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the fuel 
economy while such automobiles are operated on gasoline will be used 
for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments.
    (1) The provisions of this section do not apply to passenger 
automobiles exempted for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments by applicable 
federal law and regulations. However, the manufacturer of an exempted 
passenger automobile may, in its discretion, label such vehicles in 
accordance with the provisions of this section.
    (2) For 1991 and later model year passenger automobiles, the 
combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value determined in 
Sec.  600.208-08 used for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments shall be 
calculated in accordance with the following equation, rounded to the 
nearest 0.1 mpg:
FEadj=FE[((0.55 x ag x c) + (0.45 x c) + (0.5556 
x ag) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 x ag) + 0.45)] + 
IWg

Where:

FEadj=Fuel economy value to be used for determination of gas 
guzzler tax assessment rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE=Combined model type fuel economy calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
ag=Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg divided by the 
model type city fuel economy calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. The quotient shall be 
rounded to 4 decimal places.
c=gas guzzler adjustment factor=1.300 x 10-3 for the 1986 
and later model years.

IWg=(9.2917 x 10-3 x SF3IWCG x 
FE3IWCG) - (3.5123 x 10-3 x SF4ETWG x 
FE4IWCG)

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

SF3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales in the model 
type

[[Page 5506]]

divided by the total model type sales; the quotient shall be rounded to 
4 decimal places.
SF4ETWG=The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight sales in the 
model type divided by the total model type sales, the quotient shall be 
rounded to 4 decimal places.
FE3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertial weight class base level 
combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel economy 
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWCG=The 4000 lb. inertial weight class base level 
combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel economy f/
rounded to the nearest 0.001 mpg.

    (b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold after December 31, 1990, with 
a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value of less than 
22.5 mpg (as determined in sec. 600.208-08), calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and rounded to the nearest 0.1 
mpg, each vehicle fuel economy label shall include a Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax amount stated 
shall be as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) For passenger automobiles with a combined general label model 
type fuel economy value of:
    (i) At least 22.5 mpg, no Gas Guzzler Tax statement is required.
    (ii) At least 21.5 mpg, but less than 22.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $1,000.
    (iii) At least 20.5 mpg, but less than 21.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $1,300.
    (iv) At least 19.5 mpg, but less than 20.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $1,700.
    (v) At least 18.5 mpg; but less than 19.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $2,100.
    (vi) At least 17.5 mpg, but less than 18.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $2,600.
    (vii) At least 16.5 mpg, but less than 17.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,000.
    (viii) At least 15.5 mpg, but less than 16.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler 
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,700.
    (ix) At least 14.5 mpg, but less than 15.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $4,500.
    (x) At least 13.5 mpg, but less than 14.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $5,400.
    (xi) At least 12.5 mpg, but less than 13.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax 
statement shall show a tax of $6,400.
    (xii) Less than 12.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax statement shall show 
a tax of $7,700.
    41. Appendix II to Part 600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 
and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Appendix II to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Calculations

* * * * *
    (b) This sample fuel economy calculation is applicable to 1988 
and later model year automobiles.
    (1) Assume that a gasoline-fueled vehicle was tested by the 
Federal Emission Test Procedure and the following results were 
calculated:
    HC = .139 grams/mile
    CO = 1.59 grams/mile
    CO2 = 317 grams/mile
    (2) Assume that the test fuel used for this test had the 
following properties:
    SG=0.745
    CWF=0.868
    NHV=18,478 Btu/lb.
    (3) According to the procedure in Sec.  600.113-88, the city 
fuel economy or MPGc, for the vehicle may be calculated 
by substituting the HC, CO, and CO2 gram/mile values and 
the SG, CWF, and NHV values into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.064

    (4) Assume that the same vehicle was tested by the Federal 
Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure and a calculation similar to 
that shown in (b)(3) resulted in a highway fuel economy of 
MPGh of 36.9. According to the procedure in Sec.  
600.113, the combined fuel economy (called MPGc/h) for 
the vehicle may be calculated by substituting the city and highway 
fuel economy values into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.067

    (c) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, the combined fuel 
economy for the purpose of determining annual fuel costs under Sec.  
600.307-08(g) is determined by substituting the city and highway 
fuel economy into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.070

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

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

    Suppose that a manufacturer called Mizer Motors has a product 
line composed of eight car lines. Of these eight, four are available 
with the 3 liter, 6 cylinder and 3-way catalyst engine. These four 
car lines are:
    Ajax
    Boredom III
    Dodo
    Castor (Station Wagon)
    A car line is defined in subpart A as a group of vehicles within 
a make or division which has a degree of commonality in 
construction. Car line does not consider any level of decor or 
opulence and is not generally distinguished by such characteristics 
as roofline, number of doors, seats, or windows. Station wagons and 
light duty trucks are, however, identified separately from the 
remainder of each car line. In other words, a Castor station wagon 
would be considered a different car line than the normal Castor car 
line made up of sedans, coupes, etc.
    The engine considered here is defined as a basic engine in 
subpart A of this part. A basic engine is a unique combination of 
fuel

[[Page 5507]]

system, number of cylinders, catalyst usage and engine displacement. 
A model type is a unique combination of car line, basic engine, and 
transmission class. Thus Ajax is a car line but Ajax 3 liter, 6 
cylinder manual transmission is a model type whereas Ajax 3 liter, 6 
cylinder automatic transmission is a different model type.
    The following calculations provide an example of the procedures 
described in subpart C of this part for the calculation of vehicle 
configuration and model type fuel economy values. In order to 
simplify the presentation, only city fuel economy values are 
included. The procedure is identical for highway and combined fuel 
economy values.
    Step I. Input data as supplied by the manufacturer or as 
determined from testing conducted by the Administrator.

Manufacturer--Mizer Motors.

    Basic Engine: (3 liter, 6 cylinder, 3-way catalyst).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.071

[[Page 5508]]

Base level: Manual transmission, 4000 pounds:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.072

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

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

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

    Step V. Determine fuel economy for each model type (that is, car 
line/basic engine/transmission class combination).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.073

Similarly,
Ajax 3 liter, 6 cylinder, manual MPG = 16.16 MPG \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 5-cycle model type fuel economy values, rounded to the 
nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values as used on 
general labels for that model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.074
    

[[Page 5509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.075

Boredom III 6 liter 6 cylinder manual MPG=14.6840=15 mi./gal.7 \1\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.077

    Note that even though no Dodo was actually tested, this approach 
permits its fuel economy figure to be estimated, based on the inertia 
weight distribution of projected Dodo sales within a specific engine 
and transmission grouping.
    43. A new Appendix IV is added to read as follows:

Appendix IV to Part 600--Fuel Economy Label Formats for 2008 and Later 
Model Year Vehicles

    Gasoline-fueled vehicle label
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 5510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.078

[[Page 5511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.079

[[Page 5512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.080

[[Page 5513]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.081

[FR Doc. 06-451 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C