Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label
Posted Date: 2010-09-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 58077-58202]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23se10-19]                         
 

[[Page 58077]]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 85, 86 and 600

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 575

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label; Proposed 
Rule

[[Page 58078]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86 and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865; FR-9197-3; NHTSA-2010-0087]
RIN 2060-AQ09; RIN 2127-AK73

 
Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are conducting a joint 
rulemaking to redesign and add information to the current fuel economy 
label that is posted on the window sticker of all new cars and light-
duty trucks sold in the U.S. The redesigned label will provide new 
information to American consumers about the fuel economy and 
consumption, fuel costs, and environmental impacts associated with 
purchasing new vehicles beginning with model year 2012 cars and trucks. 
This action will also develop new labels for certain advanced 
technology vehicles, which are poised to enter the U.S. market, in 
particular plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles.
    NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy 
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 imposes several new 
labeling requirements, because the agencies believe that the current 
labels can be improved to help consumers make more informed vehicle 
purchase decisions, and because the time is right to develop new labels 
for advanced technology vehicles that are being commercialized. This 
proposal is also consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and 
NHTSA that established harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new 
cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model 
years 2012-2016.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 
2010. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on or before October 25, 2010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation'' for more information 
about written comments.
    Hearings: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings; one 
in Chicago on October 14, 2010, and one in Los Angeles on October 21, 
2010, with both daytime and evening sessions at each location. EPA and 
NHTSA will announce the specific hearing locations and times of day in 
a separate Federal Register announcement. See the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation'' for more information 
about the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0865 and/or NHTSA-2010-0087, by one of the following methods:
 http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions 
for submitting comments.
 E-mail: newlabels@epa.gov.
 Fax: EPA: (202) 566-1741; NHTSA: (202) 493-2251.
 Mail:
    [cir] EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0865.
    [cir] NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    [cir] 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:
    [cir] EPA: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0865. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    [cir] NHTSA: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0865 and/or NHTSA-2010-0087. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section on ``Public Participation'' for more information about 
submitting written comments.
    Public Hearing: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public 
hearings; one in Chicago on October 14, 2010, and one in Los Angeles on 
October 21, 2010, with both daytime and evening sessions at each 
location. EPA and NHTSA will announce the specific hearing locations 
and times of day in a separate Federal Register announcement. See the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation'' for more 
information about the public hearings.
    Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available in hard copy in EPA's docket, and electronically 
in NHTSA's online docket. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the following locations: EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-
30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 
Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Lucie Audette, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 
48105; telephone number: 734-214-4850; fax number: 734-214-4816; e-mail 
address: audette.lucie@epa.gov, or Assessment and Standards Division 
Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; e-mail address 
asdinfo@epa.gov. NHTSA: Gregory Powell, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Telephone: (202) 366-5206; Fax: (202) 493-2990; e-mail address: 
gregory.powell@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 58079]]

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action affects companies that manufacture or sell new light-
duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, 
as defined under EPA's CAA regulations,\1 2\ and passenger automobiles 
(passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) as 
defined under NHTSA's CAFE regulations.\3\ Regulated categories and 
entities include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Light-duty vehicle,'' ``light-duty truck,'' and ``medium-
duty passenger vehicle'' are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
    \2\ Generally, the term ``light-duty vehicle'' means a passenger 
car, the term ``light-duty truck'' means a pick-up truck, sport-
utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight 
rating, and ``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' means a sport-utility 
vehicle or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle 
weight rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up 
trucks.
    \3\ ``Passenger car'' and ``light truck'' are defined in 49 CFR 
part 523.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category              NAICS Codes\A\    potentially regulated
                                                         entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................            336111  Motor vehicle
                                                   manufacturers.
                                          336112
Industry......................            811112  Commercial Importers
                                                   of Vehicles and
                                                   Vehicle Components.
                                          811198
                                          423110
Industry......................            336211  Stretch limousine
                                                   manufacturers and
                                                   hearse manufacturers.
Industry......................            441110  Automobile dealers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To 
determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person 
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. Public Participation

    NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this joint proposed 
rule. This section describes how you can participate in this process.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    In this joint proposal, there are many issues common to both EPA's 
and NHTSA's proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments 
submitted to the EPA docket (whether hard copy or electronic) will be 
considered comments submitted to both EPA and the NHTSA docket, and 
vice versa. Therefore, the public only needs to submit one set of 
comments to either one of the two agency dockets that will be reviewed 
by both agencies. Comments that are submitted for consideration by only 
one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are 
submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as 
such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best 
judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal.
    Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or 
NHTSA docket are described below.
    EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at 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.
    NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that 
your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the 
Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0087 in your comments. Your comments must not 
be more than 15 pages long.\4\ NHTSA established this limit to 
encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. 
However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your 
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. If you 
are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask 
that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character 
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy 
certain portions of your submissions.\5\ Please note that pursuant to 
the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied 
upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality 
standards set forth in the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) 
Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult 
the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be 
accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible (last 
accessed June 2, 2010), and DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://
regs.dot.gov (last accessed June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 CFR 553.21.
    \5\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, please remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket numbers and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agencies may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal

[[Page 58080]]

Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified in the DATES section above.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the 
agencies will also be available to the other agency.\6\ However, as 
with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be 
submitted to either one of the agencies' dockets, and it will be 
available to the other. Following are specific instructions for 
submitting CBI to either agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 
40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential information 
received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to 
submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or 
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to 
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.
    NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing confidential business information, you should include a 
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our 
confidential business information regulation.\7\ In addition, you 
should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed 
confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods 
set forth above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 49 CFR part 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the agencies consider late comments?

    NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close 
of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To 
the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after 
that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the 
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit 
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 
consider that information for the final rule. However, the agencies' 
ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be 
limited due to the time frame for issuing a final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider it 
in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an 
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also 
read the materials at the EPA Docket Center or NHTSA Docket Management 
Facility by going to the street addresses given above under ADDRESSES.
How do I participate in the public hearings?
    NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings; one in Chicago 
on October 14, 2010, and one in Los Angeles on October 21, 2010, with 
both daytime and evening sessions at each location. EPA and NHTSA will 
announce the specific hearing locations and times of day in a separate 
Federal Register announcement.
    If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we 
ask that you notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Once 
EPA and NHTSA learn how many people have registered to speak at the 
public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each 
participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout 
the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking 
for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time 
for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring 
copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels 
and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of 
your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as 
many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use 
technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, 
if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make 
arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA 
and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. In 
addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the 
audience who wants to give testimony.
    The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign 
language interpreters should contact the persons listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than ten days before 
the date of the hearing.
    NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical 
rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written 
transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing 
open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You 
may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the 
court reporter.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels
    A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes
    B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of 
Proposed Labels
    C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect?
    D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed 
Label Changes?
    E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State 
Programs
    F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

[[Page 58081]]

    G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
    1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
    2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics 
and Rating Systems)
    A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles
    1. Fuel Economy Performance
    2. Fuel Consumption
    3. Greenhouse Gas Performance
    4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems
    5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System
    6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating
    7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles
    8. SmartWay Logo
    9. Annual Fuel Cost
    10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost
    11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
    12. Other Label Text
    13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information
    B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels
    1. Introduction
    2. EPA Statutory Requirements
    3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Labels
    4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues
    C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies
    1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles
    2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
    3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles
    4. Diesel Fueled Vehicles
III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance
    A. Proposed Label Designs
    1. Label 1
    2. Label 2
    B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3)
IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling
    A. Methods of Research
    1. Literature Review
    2. Focus Groups
    3. Internet Survey
    4. Expert Panel
    B. Key Research Questions and Findings
    1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New 
Label Information
    2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology 
Vehicles
    3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison
    4. Effective Whole Label Designs
    5. Tools beyond the Label
V. Implementation of the New Label
    A. Timing
    B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles
    C. Implementation of Label Content
VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals
    A. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures
    1. Electric Vehicles
    2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
    B. Utility Factors
    1. Utility Factor Background
    2. General Application of Utility Factors
    3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility 
Factors
    4. Low Powered Vehicles.
    C. Comparable Class Categories
    D. Using Smartphone QR Codes[supreg] to Link to Fuel Economy 
Information
    E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the ``Monroney'' 
Sticker
    F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections
VII. Projected Impacts Of The Proposed Requirements
    A. Costs Associated with this Rule
    1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours
    2. Facility Costs
    3. Startup Costs
    4. Cost Summary
    B. Impact of Proposing One Label to Meet EPCA/EISA
    C. Benefits of Label Changes
    D. Summary
VIII. Agencies' Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Relationship of EPA's Proposed Requirements With Other 
Statutes and Regulations
    1. Automobile Disclosure Act
    2. Internal Revenue Code
    3. Clean Air Act
    4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy 
Advertising for New Vehicles
    5. California Environmental Performance Label
    B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

A/C Air Conditioning
AC Alternating Current
AIDA Automobile Information Disclosure Act
BTU British Thermal Units
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CD Charge Depleting
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CREE Carbon-related Exhaust Emissions
CS Charge Sustaining
DOE Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
E85 A mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EREV Extended Range Electric Vehicle
EV Electric Vehicle
FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle
FE Fuel Economy
FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicle
FTC Federal Trade Commission
FTP Federal Test Procedure
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HCHO Formaldehyde
HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
HFET Highway Fuel Economy Test
ICI Independent Commercial Importer
IT Information Technology
ICR Information Collection Request
LEV II Low Emitting Vehicle II
LEV II opt 1 Low Emitting Vehicle II, option 1
MDPV Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle
MPG Miles per Gallon
MPGe Miles per Gallon equivalent
MY Model Year
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEC Net Energy Change
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMOG Non-methane Organic Gases
NOX Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OCR Optical Character Recognition
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PEF Petroleum Equivalency Factor
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PM Particulate Matter
PZEV Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicle
RCDA Actual Charge Depleting Range
RESS Rechargeable Energy Storage System
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users
SBA Small Business Administration

[[Page 58082]]

SFTP Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
SOC State-of-Charge
SULEV II Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
UF Utility Factor
ULEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

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

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes

    This joint action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes 
what will likely be the most significant overhaul of the federal 
government's fuel economy label or ``sticker'' since its inception over 
30 years ago.
    The current fuel economy label required on all new passenger cars, 
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles contains the 
following core information, as required by statute:
     City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon.
     Comparison of the vehicle's combined city/highway fuel 
economy to a range of comparable vehicles.
     Estimated fuel cost to operate the vehicle for one year.
    This joint proposal is designed to update the current label in 
order to increase the usefulness of the label in helping consumers 
choose more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles that would 
also meet new requirements added by Congress. This proposal also 
includes new label designs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), two advanced vehicle technologies 
that are beginning to enter the market.
    EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs for public comment 
without a single primary proposal, although the final rule will adopt 
only one label design. Both label designs meet statutory requirements 
and rely on the same underlying data; they differ in how the data is 
used and presented on the label. One is a more traditional label design 
that retains the current label's focus on fuel economy values and 
annual fuel cost projections, with a general label layout more similar 
to the current label. The second label design contains all appropriate 
information but prominently features a letter grade to communicate the 
overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions--along with projected 
5-year fuel cost or savings associated with a particular vehicle when 
compared to an average vehicle. The agencies are also seeking comment 
on an alternative third label design that follows a more traditional 
format but presents some information differently. All labels expand 
upon the content found on the current label and include the following 
information for conventional vehicles (advanced technology vehicle 
labels contain additional information tailored to the individual 
technology):
     City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon.
     Combined city/highway fuel consumption in gallons per 100 
miles.
     Tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 
grams per mile.
     Annual fuel cost in dollars per year.
     A slider bar comparing the combined fuel economy to all 
other vehicles.
     A slider bar comparing the CO2 emissions to all 
other vehicles.
     A slider bar comparing non-CO2 (``other'' or 
``smog-related'') emissions to all other vehicles.
     A symbol that can be read by a `Smartphone' for additional 
consumer information (also known as a QR Code[reg]).
     A reference to a Federal government Web site for 
additional information.

Despite the fact that the co-proposed labels are based on the same 
underlying data, they are significantly different in terms of 
presentation and prominence. The agencies encourage public feedback on 
the central question of which label design would be more useful and 
help consumers select more energy efficient and environmentally 
friendly vehicles that meet their needs, or whether the agencies should 
consider alternative designs.
    NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy 
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates several new 
labeling requirements intended to help consumers make more informed 
vehicle purchase decisions, and because this is an appropriate time to 
develop new labels for advanced technology vehicles (Battery Electric 
or EVs and Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles or PHEVs) that are being 
commercialized. The agencies believe that a joint label meeting our 
separate statutory requirements and our shared consumer information 
objectives makes far more sense for both consumers and manufacturers 
than separate labels. As a joint rulemaking, this proposal is also 
consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that 
established harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport 
utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012-
2016.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies believe these new labeling requirements for 
automobiles are important in light of a growing national interest in 
both fuel economy and climate change. Historically, consumers have 
generally paid the most attention to fuel economy when fuel prices 
increase sharply over a short period of time, such as in 2008, but the 
agencies believe that this phenomenon has changed and consumers will 
continue in the future to pay more attention to fuel economy. Based on 
projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that future 
gasoline prices will increase over coming decades due to global 
economic growth and oil demand, we believe that it is likely that 
consumer interest in and use of the fuel economy label will grow over 
time.\9\ In addition, given the increased awareness of consumers 
regarding climate change and air pollution, more comprehensive 
information on the emissions performance of vehicles, as required by 
EISA, could help consumers make more informed decisions on how a 
vehicle they buy may impact the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Department of Energy, Energy 
Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0383 (2010), May 11, 2010, 
available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also important for the agencies to define labeling 
requirements for advanced vehicle technologies that are nearing 
commercialization. The existing label has long provided city and 
highway fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon (MPG) values, which 
the agencies believe are well recognized and understood by consumers, 
and which are widely used as metrics for comparing the efficiency of 
one vehicle to another. Since the late 1970s when the fuel economy 
label was first established by EPA as required under the Energy Policy 
Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, over 99 percent of the automobiles 
sold have been conventional, internal-combustion engine vehicles that 
run on petroleum-based fuels (or a liquid fuel blend dominated by 
petroleum). When manufacturers produced different advanced technology 
vehicles, such as compressed natural gas vehicles, EPA has generally 
addressed the need for labels on a case-by-case basis.

[[Page 58083]]

    Over the next several model years, however, the agencies expect to 
see increasing numbers of EVs and PHEVs entering the marketplace. This 
proposal includes changes to the label to address some of the specific 
issues raised by the use of grid electricity as a fuel for EVs and 
PHEVs. These vehicles will be required to display labels containing the 
same kind of information as conventional vehicles, but some of that 
information may be better conveyed in different ways, and consumers may 
be interested in different information for these vehicles. For example, 
evaluating the performance of a vehicle that uses grid electricity as 
some or all of its fuel, or the cost of operating such a vehicle, 
presents unique challenges for making an informed comparison between 
different EVs and PHEVs, and between advanced technology vehicles and 
their conventional vehicle counterparts including gasoline and diesel 
fueled vehicles and hybrid gasoline electric vehicles (HEVs).
    The co-proposed label designs present two approaches for addressing 
the complex challenges associated with labels for these advanced 
technology vehicles, and the agencies encourage the public to comment 
on a wide range of possible solutions. The agencies recognize that this 
is only the first generation of EV and PHEV labels, and we expect to 
refine them over time as we have done with conventional vehicle labels. 
Additionally, the agencies recognize that other advanced technology 
vehicles, such as fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), may enter the marketplace 
in the near future as well, but for purposes of this first effort we 
have chosen to focus on EVs and PHEVs. Specific label requirements for 
other advanced technology vehicles will be developed at a later time as 
those vehicles enter the market.
    This joint proposal is designed to satisfy each agency's statutory 
responsibilities in a manner that maximizes usefulness for the 
consumer, while avoiding unnecessary burden on the manufacturers who 
prepare the vehicle labels. Since 1977, EPA has required auto 
manufacturers to label all new automobiles,\10\ pursuant to EPCA.\11\ 
As amended, EPCA requires that labels shall contain the following 
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An ``automobile'' is defined for these purposes as a ``4-
wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, 
manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and 
highways'' and ``rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle 
weight.'' See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) and 32908(a)(1).
    \11\ Public Law 94-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The fuel economy of the automobile;
    (2) The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile;
    (3) The range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles of all 
manufacturers;
    (4) A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to 
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles 
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year;
    (5) The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax (``gas guzzler 
tax'') imposed on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064); and
    (6) Other information required or authorized by the EPA 
Administrator that is related to the information required by (1) 
through (4) above.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),\13\ 
Congress required that NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and the 
Department of Energy (DOE), establish regulations to implement several 
new labeling requirements for new automobiles.\14\ NHTSA must develop a 
program that requires manufacturers to label new automobiles with 
information reflecting an automobile's performance with respect to fuel 
economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the useful life of 
the automobile based on criteria provided by EPA.\15\ NHTSA must also 
develop a rating system that makes it easy for consumers to compare the 
fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at 
the point of purchase, including designations of automobiles with the 
lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the 
highest fuel economy.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 110-140.
    \14\ EISA Sec. 108, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32908(g).
    \15\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(i).
    \16\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, either the basic label for automobiles needs to be expanded 
to include additional information on performance in terms of fuel 
economy, greenhouse gas and other emissions, or a new label needs to be 
required. NHTSA and EPA believe that a joint rulemaking to combine all 
of these elements into a single revised fuel economy label is the most 
appropriate way to meet the goals described above, rather than placing 
the information in two separate labels with duplicative and overlapping 
information, which could cause consumer confusion and impose 
unnecessary burden on the manufacturers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agencies also raised the issue of the upcoming labeling 
requirements in the recent joint rulemaking for MYs 2012-2016 CAFE 
and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, given the goals described above and the need to provide 
additional information on the label, the agencies believe that the 
overall vehicle label design format and content should be reevaluated 
and could be improved. Simply including the additional information 
required under EISA for both conventional and advanced technology 
vehicles necessitates a review of the overall label design.
    As described above, the agencies view the purpose of the label as 
providing information that will be most useful for consumers in making 
informed decisions regarding the energy efficiency and emissions 
impacts of the vehicles they purchase. Providing information on energy, 
environmental performance, and cost can educate consumers in various 
ways. These metrics have the potential to help people who value this 
kind of information to make a more informed choice among different 
vehicles. It also has the potential to inform people who currently 
place less or even no value on this kind of information, but who may 
decide it is more important to them at some point in the future. NHTSA 
and EPA are mindful that this is a complicated issue and that there is 
no readily ascertainable metric to determine whether we have achieved 
this somewhat subjective and qualitative purpose. Therefore, EPA and 
NHTSA are co-proposing two options, and also taking comment on another 
alternative, that highlight a number of relevant issues on which we 
seek public comment. The agencies will consider all public comments and 
publish a final rule in the near future.

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

    Since today's proposal includes adding important new elements to 
the existing label as well as creating new labels for advanced 
technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a comprehensive and 
innovative research program beginning in the fall of 2009. The research 
helped inform the development of the new labels being proposed and 
included three phases of consumer focus groups, a review of available 
literature, and a day-long consultation with an expert panel of 
individuals who have introduced new products or have spearheaded 
national educational campaigns.
    For the focus groups, the agencies decided to use a three-phase 
approach

[[Page 58084]]

in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information intended to be 
covered in the groups, as well as to use each phase to inform the next 
phase to help evolve the overall label design in regard to both content 
and appearance. Focus groups were held beginning in late February 
through May 2010 in four cities: Charlotte, Houston, Chicago, and 
Seattle. Overall, 32 focus groups were convened with a total of 256 
participants. We asked the focus groups about the following issues:
     How they use the current fuel economy label,
     What feedback they could give us on potential new 
information and metrics for the label for conventional and advanced 
technology vehicles (EVs and PHEVs), and
     What feedback they could give us, after reviewing draft 
labels, on designs and the level of information that makes sense, as 
well as overall preference for displaying information.
    The insights received from the focus groups were key for the 
agencies with regard to individual metrics that consumers wanted to see 
on labels and also with regard to effective label designs. Overall, 
focus groups indicated \18\ that redesigned labels must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010; Environmental Protection 
Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, 
August 2010 ; and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy 
Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Create an immediate first impression for consumers.
     Be easy to read and understand quickly.
     Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, 
PHEV).
     Utilize color.
     Chunk information to allow people to deal with ``more 
information.''
     Be consistent in content and design across technologies.
     Allow for comparison across technologies.
     Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and 
environmentally friendly vehicles.
    Following the focus group research, we assembled an expert panel 
for a one day consultation and asked them to give us feedback on the 
draft label designs the focus groups had helped create and to also 
assist us in identifying opportunities and strategies to provide more 
and better information to consumers so that they can more easily assess 
the costs, emissions, and energy efficiency of different vehicles. The 
experts came from a variety of fields in advertising and product 
development, and were chosen because they have led successful national 
efforts to introduce new products or have spearheaded national 
educational campaigns. After viewing the draft labels, the expert panel 
offered the agencies the following insights and guidance \19\ that were 
key in developing one of the co-proposed label designs, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Keep it simple; we yearn for simplicity (fewer, bigger, 
better).
     Consumers don't act on details.
     Remember the reality of very short label viewing time--
roll ratings and metrics up into a single score.
     Use cost savings information- a very strong consumer 
motivator.
     Develop a Web site that would be launched in conjunction 
with the new label. This consumer-focused, user friendly Web site would 
provide more specific information on the label including additional 
information on the letter grade, along with access to the tools, 
applications, and social media.
    Beyond these two core research elements, the agencies also 
undertook a comprehensive literature review \20\ and drafted and had 
peer reviewed an internet survey. The agencies intend to administer the 
survey concurrently with the release of this proposal, and the results 
will be made publicly available in the dockets for this proposal prior 
to issuing a final rule with the new label requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The agencies also met with a number of stakeholders, including 
environmental organizations, auto manufacturers, and dealers, to gather 
their input on what the label should and should not contain, as well as 
to ascertain particular concerns.\21\ Comments received on labeling 
issues in the context of the joint rulemaking on fuel economy and GHG 
standards,\22\ as well as for the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule,\23\ 
have also been considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum 
recording those meetings it attended, and attach documents submitted 
by stakeholders, as appropriate, when the information received 
formed a basis for this proposal, and the information can be made 
public, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \22\ Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0472.
    \23\ Available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. When would the proposed label changes take effect?

    The agencies propose that the final label changes will take effect 
for model year (MY) 2012 vehicles, consistent with the recent joint 
rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized federal GHG 
emissions and CAFE standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, 
minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.\24\ For 
those advanced technology vehicles that will be introduced to the 
market prior to MY2012, EPA will work with individual manufacturers on 
a case-by-case basis to develop interim labels under EPA's current 
regulations that can be used prior to MY2012 and that are consistent 
with the proposed labels for advanced technology vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed label 
changes?

    The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from 
revisions to the fuel economy label and new testing requirements. As 
discussed in Section VII of this preamble, we estimate that the costs 
of this rule are likely to be in the range of $649,000--$2.8 million 
per year. This rule is not economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866 or any DOT or EPA policies and procedures because it does 
not exceed $100 million or meet other related standards.
    The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule come from 
any improvements in consumer decision-making that may lead to reduced 
vehicle and fuel costs for them. There may be additional effects on 
criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. At this time, EPA and 
NHTSA do not believe it is feasible to fully develop a complete 
benefits analysis of the potential benefits.
    EPA and NHTSA request comment on the assessment of the benefits and 
costs presented in Section VII below.

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

    This proposal involves the addition of new information and design 
changes to conventional vehicle labels and the creation of specific 
labels for certain advanced vehicle technologies, but will not impact 
other important elements of the Federal government's fuel economy and 
GHG emissions regulatory programs. For example, this proposal will not 
affect the fuel economy compliance values used in NHTSA's CAFE program, 
or the GHG emissions compliance values used in EPA's GHG emissions 
control program. Nor will this proposal affect the methodology by which 
EPA generates the consumer fuel economy values used on the vehicle 
labels and provided at http://

[[Page 58085]]

www.fueleconomy.gov. The result of the additional information, 
including environmental information, appearing on the label will 
necessitate that additional information also be displayed on this Web 
site in the future. Finally, this proposal does not affect the test 
procedures that are used by EPA and manufacturers to generate the 
Federal government's vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions database.
    This proposal also does not affect the vehicle labels required by 
the California Air Resources Board which indicate relative ratings for 
``Smog'' and ``Global Warming,'' in fulfillment of that state's 
statutory requirements. The agencies are aware that the California 
labels provide information that is effectively duplicative with some of 
the information on the labels that will result from this rulemaking 
effort, although using different underlying rating methodologies and 
presentational approaches. It is the hope of both NHTSA and EPA that 
the Federal label can meet the CARB requirements and, thus, preclude 
the need for a separate set of labels. However, it is ultimately up to 
California to determine how to implement its statute and, thus, beyond 
the purview of this rulemaking to make any such determination.

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

    The fuel economy label has evolved several times since it was first 
required by Congress in the 1970s, both in response to new statutory 
requirements and to changing policy objectives. There have been 
important changes in the past to make the label more technically 
accurate and understandable to consumers. The changes being proposed 
are consistent with past efforts by EPA to make the fuel economy label 
more consumer friendly and effective over time. This section provides a 
brief historical summary of the development of the fuel economy label.
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established 
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information, 
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on 
all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an annual booklet of 
fuel economy information to be made available free to the public by car 
dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's average fuel economy 
and compliance with a standard (later, this compliance program became 
known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program). The 
responsibilities for these requirements were split between EPA, the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) \25\ and the Department of Energy 
(DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods and 
procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates that are 
displayed on the labels and in the annual booklet, and for the 
calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT, 
and by delegation, NHTSA, is responsible for administering the CAFE 
compliance program, which includes establishing standards, determining 
compliance, and assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible 
for publishing and distributing the annual fuel economy information 
booklet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The CAFE-related responsibilities of the Secretary of 
Transportation are delegated to the NHTSA Administrator at 49 CFR 
1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute 
in 1976.\26\ The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 
model year, established the first fuel economy label along with the 
procedures to calculate fuel economy values for labeling and CAFE 
purposes that used the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or ``city'' test) 
and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway'' test) data as 
the basis for the calculations. At that time, the fundamental process 
for determining fuel economy was the same for labeling as for CAFE, 
except that the CAFE calculations combined the city and highway fuel 
economy values into a single number for manufacturers' compliance 
purposes.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 41 FR 38685, promulgated at 40 CFR part 600.
    \27\ EPCA requires that manufacturers simply comply with 
passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, it does not require 
separate city and highway standards for each type of automobile. 
Thus, EPA calculates the average fuel economy for a manufacturer by 
weighting and combining the results of each automobile on the 
separate city and highway cycles. See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates 
on the labels of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that drivers 
were disappointed by not often achieving these estimates on the road 
and expected them to be as accurate as possible. In 1978, Congress 
recognized the concern about differences between EPA-estimated fuel 
economy values and actual consumer experience and mandated a study 
under section 404 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 
1978.\28\ In February 1980, a set of hearings were conducted by the 
U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and 
National Resources. One of the recommendations in the subsequent report 
by the Subcommittee was that ``EPA devise a new MPG system for labeling 
new cars and for the Gas Mileage Guide that provides fuel economy 
values, or a range of values, that most drivers can reasonably expect 
to experience.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 404, November 9, 1978.
    \29\ House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile Fuel 
Economy: EPA's Performance,'' Report 96-948, May 13, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel 
economy labeling procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel 
economy data as part of that rulemaking.\30\ In 1984, EPA published new 
fuel economy labeling procedures that were applicable to 1985 and later 
model year vehicles.\31\ The decision was made to retain the FTP and 
highway test procedures, primarily because those procedures were also 
used for other purposes, including emissions certification and CAFE 
determination. Based on the in-use fuel economy data, however, it was 
evident that the final fuel economy values put on the labels needed to 
be adjusted downward in order to reflect more accurately consumers' 
average fuel economy experience. The final rule, therefore, included 
downward adjustment factors for both the city and highway label fuel 
economy estimates. The city values (based on the raw FTP test data) 
were adjusted downward by 10 percent and the highway values (likewise 
based on the raw highway test data) were adjusted downward by 22 
percent.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ``Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,'' U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 460/3-80-010, 
September 1980, and ``Technical Support Report for Rulemaking 
Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling,'' U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE-81-6, 
October 1980.
    \31\ 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December 10, 
1984.
    \32\ 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the early 2000s, EPA again began investigating the accuracy of 
the fuel economy label estimates, and concluded that driving behavior 
(e.g., higher average speed and acceleration) and other factors (such 
as the use of ethanol as a gasoline blending agent) had changed 
significantly since the correction factors were implemented in 1985, 
leading again to a widening gap between real-world fuel economy and the 
label estimates that consumers saw when shopping for new vehicles. 
During the development of vehicle emissions regulations in the late 
1990s, EPA had already conclusively found that the city and highway 
tests did not adequately represent real-world driving, and in December 
of 2006 EPA finalized new

[[Page 58086]]

test methods for calculating the fuel economy label values.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2006 final rule made three important changes. First, EPA's new 
methods brought the miles per gallon estimates closer to consumers' 
actual fuel economy by including factors such as high speeds, quicker 
accelerations, air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures. 
These revised fuel economy estimates also reflect other conditions that 
influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and 
the effects of different fuel properties. The new estimates took effect 
with model year 2008 vehicles. Second, EPA now requires fuel economy 
labels on certain heavier vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 
weight, such as larger SUVs and vans. Manufacturers will be required to 
post fuel economy labels on these vehicles beginning with the 2011 
model year. Third, to convey fuel economy information to the public 
more effectively, EPA updated the design and content of the label. The 
rule required that new labels be placed on vehicles manufactured after 
September 1, 2007. The fuel economy for each vehicle model continues to 
be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG 
estimates.

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
    Under EPCA, EPA is responsible for developing the fuel economy 
labels that are posted on all new light duty cars and trucks sold in 
the U.S. and beginning in MY 2011 all new medium duty trucks as well. 
Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a subset of vehicles between 8,500 
and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight that includes large sport 
utility vehicles and vans, but not pickup trucks. EPCA requires the 
manufacturers of automobiles to attach the fuel economy label in a 
prominent place on each automobile manufactured in a model year and 
also requires auto dealerships to maintain the label on the 
automobile.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA specifies the information that is minimally required on every 
fuel economy label.\35\ As stated above, labels must include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The fuel economy of the automobile,
     The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the 
automobile.
     The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all 
manufacturers,
     A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to 
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles 
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year,
     The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed 
on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986; \36\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 26 U.S.C. 4064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Other information required or authorized by the 
Administrator that is related to the information required [within the 
first four items].
    Under the provision for ``other information'' EPA has previously 
required the statements ``your actual mileage will vary depending on 
how you drive and maintain your vehicle,'' and cost estimates ``based 
on 15,000 miles at $2.80 per gallon'' be placed on vehicle labels.
    There are additional labeling requirements found in EPCA for 
``dedicated'' automobiles and ``dual fueled'' automobiles. A dedicated 
automobile is an automobile that operates only on an alternative 
fuel.\37\ Dedicated automobile labels must also display the information 
noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) defines ``alternative fuel'' as 
including--(A) methanol; (B) denatured ethanol; (C) other alcohols; 
(D) except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a mixture 
containing at least 85 percent of methanol, denatured ethanol, and 
other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels; (E) natural 
gas; (F) liquefied petroleum gas; (G) hydrogen; (H) coal derived 
liquid fuels; (I) fuels (except alcohol) derived from biological 
materials; (J) electricity (including electricity from solar 
energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation 
prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and 
that would yield substantial energy security and environmental 
benefits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A dual fueled vehicle is a vehicle which is ``capable of operating 
on alternative fuel or a mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel, and on 
gasoline or diesel fuel'' for the minimum driving range (defined by the 
DOT).\38\ Dual fueled vehicle labels must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated 
on gasoline or diesel fuel.
     Clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled 
automobile.
     Clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be 
operated; and
     Contain a statement informing the consumer that the 
additional information required by subsection (c)(2) [the information 
booklet] is published and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA defines ``fuel economy'' for purposes of these vehicles as 
``the average number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon 
of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used, as determined by 
the Administrator [of the EPA] under section 32904(c) [of this 
title].'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA is required under EPCA to prepare a fuel economy 
booklet containing information that is ``simple and readily 
understandable.'' \41\ The booklet is commonly known as the annual 
``Fuel Economy Guide.'' EPCA further instructs DOE to publish and 
distribute the booklet. EPA is required to ``prescribe regulations 
requiring dealers to make the booklet available to prospective 
buyers.'' \42\ While the booklet continues to be available in paper 
form, in 2006, EPA finalized regulations allowing manufacturers and 
dealers to make the Fuel Economy Guide available electronically to 
customers as an option.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ 71 FR 77915, Dec. 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
    The 2007 passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) 
amended EPCA by introducing additional new vehicle labeling 
requirements, to be implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA).\44\ While EPA retained responsibility for 
establishing test methods and calculation procedures for determining 
the fuel economy estimates of automobiles for the purpose of posting 
fuel economy information on labels and in an annual Fuel Economy Guide, 
NHTSA gained responsibility for requiring automobiles to be labeled 
with additional performance metrics and rating systems to help 
consumers compare vehicles to one another more easily at the point of 
purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Public Law 110-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, and for purposes of this rulemaking, subsection ``(g) 
Consumer Information'' was added to 49 U.S.C. 32908. Subsection (g), in 
relevant part, directed the Secretary of Transportation (by delegation, 
the NHTSA Administrator) to ``develop and implement by rule a program 
to require manufacturers--to label new automobiles sold in the United 
States with information reflecting an automobile's performance on the 
basis of criteria that the [EPA] Administrator shall develop, not later 
than 18 months after the date of the of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy 
Act, to reflect fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions 
over the useful life of the

[[Page 58087]]

automobile: a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to 
compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of 
automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of 
automobiles-- with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful 
life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy * * *''
    Thus, both EPA and NHTSA have authority over labeling requirements 
related to fuel economy and environmental information under EPCA and 
EISA, respectively. In order to implement that authority in the most 
coordinated and efficient way, the agencies are jointly proposing the 
revised labels presented below. NHTSA notes that its proposed 
regulatory text changes to 49 CFR Chapter V to implement the EISA 
requirements (and to make other proposed changes) are currently 
designated as ``reserved.'' This is not to suggest that these sections 
will remain ``reserved'' (i.e., blank) for the final rule. NHTSA will 
add regulatory text to implement the EISA requirements in these 
sections for the final rule consistent with the agencies' final 
decisions on label formats and based on review and consideration of all 
public comments.

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

    This section discusses the elements that the agencies are proposing 
for the fuel economy label. Section A discusses the range of options 
considered and proposed for ``conventional'' petroleum-fueled vehicles 
(i.e., those powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel). Current hybrid 
vehicles, which are fundamentally gasoline-fueled vehicles,\45\ will 
continue to use the same label as other gasoline vehicles, just as they 
do today. Many of the approaches discussed in Section A, such as the 
rating systems, will apply across all vehicles, including advanced 
technology vehicles. Section B specifically discusses the special cases 
of advanced technology vehicles. These vehicles--such as electric 
vehicles (EVs) and plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) 
\46\--are one of the key reasons we are proposing new regulations. The 
agencies are concerned that current label requirements do not 
adequately address these vehicles, and we are seeking to develop labels 
that are useful and understandable to consumers, as well as equitable 
across the range of different vehicles and technological approaches. 
Section C addresses some of the less common fuels and fuel combinations 
for which label templates must ultimately be developed, such as 
compressed natural gas and methanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Current hybrid vehicles obtain their electric power from 
their onboard conventional gasoline engine and energy captured 
through regenerative braking. Thus, the vehicle's energy source is 
still gasoline.
    \46\ Definitions for hybrid electric vehicles, electric 
vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 
can be found in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles

    The complete effect of this proposal would be a single new label, 
which replaces the existing fuel economy label and which contains more 
information than is currently displayed, even in the case of 
conventional petroleum-fueled vehicles. An example of the current label 
is shown here to provide a basis for comparison with the proposed 
labels.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.002

    The new single label is the result of EPA and NHTSA's decision that 
it is good public policy to consolidate label requirements called for 
by EPCA and EISA. This label would contain information not only on a 
new vehicle's fuel economy, annual fuel cost, and range of fuel economy 
within class, but also, for the first time, information on a new 
vehicle's fuel consumption, emissions, and comparative rating 
information, as required by statute. This expansion of the role of the 
label beyond fuel economy information reflects the new EISA 
requirements, which are premised on the concept that greenhouse gas and 
other environmental information is also in the public interest.
    In developing this proposal, the agencies came up with two distinct 
approaches for conveying information on the label. While both 
approaches rely on the same underlying data and both meet EPCA and EISA 
requirements, they differ in how they present and emphasize the 
information. One approach is more traditional, focusing primarily on 
MPG values and secondarily on annual fuel cost, but adding new 
elements, such as environmental information. A label using this 
approach would look familiar to the public, with a style similar to the

[[Page 58088]]

existing label. Requiring a label based on the traditional approach 
assumes that potential vehicle purchasers will use the information that 
is most meaningful to them, whether that is MPG, fuel cost, or other 
values. For example, participants in the focus groups leading up to 
this proposal indicated that, when considering the current fuel economy 
label, nearly all used the city and highway MPG values almost 
exclusively, despite the presence of other data elements on the label; 
some also used annual fuel cost and within-class comparison 
information.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other approach uses the same data, but shifts the emphasis to a 
single, more prominent value that reflects fuel consumption and its 
counterpart, greenhouse gas emissions, using a format the consumers 
will easily recognize--a letter grade. The associated numerical values 
and other required elements would remain on the label, but with much 
less prominence. This approach makes it simpler for the consumer to 
identify those vehicles that use less oil and have a lesser 
environmental impact and more clearly expands the role of the label 
beyond fuel economy information. Many of the focus group participants 
indicated that they trusted the EPA to determine which of these factors 
were important, and the agencies believe that consumers might be more 
likely to consider a vehicle with higher fuel economy and lesser 
environmental impact if they were provided with a simpler label.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies believe each approach has merit and that the public 
will be well-served by having both be fully considered; therefore, EPA 
and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs based on these two 
approaches, without either being the primary proposal. NHTSA and EPA 
expect that comments will provide valuable insight on these two 
proposed label designs, and seek comment on the merits and drawbacks of 
each, recognizing that the label design ultimately finalized may draw 
on elements from all the labels presented in this proposal. The labels 
are presented in Section III. Label designs 1 and 2 are co-proposed, 
with Label 1 being the letter grade approach and Label 2 being the more 
traditional approach. Label 3, on which comment is also sought, is an 
alternative version of the traditional approach.
    The subsections that follow describe each of the data elements 
presented on the labels, how the agencies considered them, and how we 
are proposing that they be displayed on each of the co-proposed labels.
1. Fuel Economy Performance
    Since 1977, the EPA fuel economy label has represented the fuel 
economy performance of a vehicle with estimates of city and highway 
miles per gallon (MPG). With more than 30 years of consumers seeing 
these estimates as the most prominent values displayed on the fuel 
economy labels, it is not surprising that the consumer research 
conducted as part of this rulemaking has revealed a strong attachment 
to city and highway MPG values. A combined city and highway MPG value 
was first placed on the label starting with model year 2008--as part of 
the graphic showing the combined MPG value of the vehicle compared with 
other vehicles in the same class \49\ but, even prior to this, the 
combined MPG value has always been a key input to estimating the annual 
fuel cost value required on the label.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The vehicle classes are defined in EPA regulations at 40 
CFR 600.315-08 and provide a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel 
economy to that of other vehicles in its class as required by 
statute. See the discussion in section VI.C for a detailed 
discussion of the vehicle class structure.
    \50\ Combined fuel economy is a harmonic average of the City and 
Highway MPG values, with the City value weighted 55% and the Highway 
value weighted 45%. See 71 FR 77904, December 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representing the vehicle's fuel economy performance on the label 
with an estimate of miles per gallon is a core element of the fuel 
economy information requirements of EPCA, which specifically states 
that the label must display ``the fuel economy of the automobile'' and 
defines ``fuel economy'' as ``the average number of miles travelled * * 
* for each gallon of gasoline.'' \51\ In addition, EPA and NHTSA have 
determined that continuing to display the fuel economy values on the 
label would also meet the new requirements put in place by EISA that 
call for a label ``reflecting an automobile's performance [based on 
criteria determined by EPA] to reflect fuel economy * * * over the 
useful life of the vehicle.'' \52\ Because vehicle fuel economy depends 
primarily on fundamental vehicle design characteristics that do not 
change over time, the agencies believe that fuel economy remains 
essentially stable throughout the life of properly-maintained vehicles. 
Thus the agencies believe that the current test methods that determine 
label values for new vehicles will meet the EISA requirements by 
providing reasonable estimates of fuel economy performance for the full 
useful life of a vehicle. Finally, consumers have shown a strong 
familiarity with and preference for MPG values, and have consistently 
indicated that these values are used as part of the vehicle purchase 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(A).
    \52\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the agencies are proposing to continue to 
provide mile per gallon estimates to consumers, but with some changes 
relative to the current label, and with markedly different approaches 
on the two co-proposed labels.
    The agencies recognize that the focus group research suggested that 
consumers have a strong familiarity with and preference for the city 
and highway fuel economy values \53\ (although this preference was much 
stronger for conventional vehicles than for advanced technology 
vehicles; in those cases perhaps the complexity of the labels 
encouraged them to part with some of the numbers on the label). Focus 
group participants who argued strongly for separate city and highway 
MPG values on the label often stated, for example, that most of their 
driving is either city or highway, and that a combined city-highway MPG 
value might make it harder for them to determine what MPG they should 
reasonably expect for that vehicle.\54\ The agencies believe that this 
apparent preference was formed in large part because of EPA's decision 
to present these as the dominant figures on the label for decades, not 
because consumers demanded these metrics 33 years ago. Had EPA been 
presenting the combined number as the dominant figure on the label 
since 1977, we might expect to see a great deal of familiarity with and 
understanding of that particular value today. However, the distinction 
between city and highway driving does not address the key variables 
that could impact energy consumption for alternative technologies, such 
as ambient temperature. Thus, the agencies believe that, for labeling 
purposes, the city/highway distinction may be a less relevant metric 
than in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 10.
    \54\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus with Label 1, NHTSA and EPA propose that the MPG values be 
significantly reduced in prominence (i.e., smaller font and ``below the 
fold'' location on the label), with the letter grade rating assuming 
the predominant role. Given space constraints and the

[[Page 58089]]

amount of information that is required to be provided on the label, 
continuing to display MPG estimates with the same or similar prominence 
would be likely unnecessary and possibly untenable. The city and 
highway MPG values would be available for those who wish to use them, 
but the rating assumes the key role of informing the public about the 
relative energy use and carbon emissions of a vehicle. The agencies 
believe that this de-emphasis on MPG values would have two primary 
benefits: First, the rating's predominance should encourage consumers 
to use it rather than the specific MPG values to compare across vehicle 
technology types (particularly as MPG values become less meaningful for 
vehicles that do not run, or only partially run, on fuels dispensed by 
the gallon); and second, to address the non-linearity of MPG with 
respect to energy use, emissions, and cost, discussed further in 
Section II.A.2, which becomes more important as significantly higher 
mileage vehicles are poised to enter the marketplace.
    The agencies are proposing a different approach for Label 2, in 
which the combined MPG value is displayed prominently, with separate 
city and highway values continuing to be shown on the label, but as 
subordinate values. This approach focuses attention on MPG since it is 
the metric that consumers are the most familiar with and have come to 
utilize on the label. However, it downplays the separate city and 
highway value in favor of a single, combined MPG, because the agencies 
believe that continuing to highlight multiple pieces of fuel economy 
information with the same level of prominence could make it more 
difficult for consumers to compare vehicles, particularly across 
technology types, where MPG becomes a less meaningful metric. A similar 
approach is taken on Label 3.
    The agencies seek comment generally on these two approaches to 
displaying fuel economy performance information on the labels. 
Specifically, comment is sought on whether or not the labels that 
emphasize combined city/highway MPG values over separate city and 
highway MPG values are helpful to consumers, and why or why not. If 
combined MPG is preferred, comment is sought on whether or not city and 
highway values should continue to be displayed, and why or why not.
2. Fuel Consumption
    While miles per gallon is statutorily mandated for fuel economy 
labels and has appeared on the label for several decades, the agencies 
have some concern that it can be a potentially misleading comparative 
tool for consumers, particularly when it is used as a proxy for fuel 
costs. The problem can be easily illustrated by the following figure, 
which shows the non-linear relationship between gallons used over a 
given distance and miles per gallon. It can be seen that the difference 
in gallons it takes to go 1,000 miles between 10 and 15 MPG (about 33 
gallons) is substantially greater than the difference in gallons it 
takes to go the same distance between 30 and 35 MPG (about 5 gallons). 
In other words, even if consumers clearly understand that higher MPG is 
better, those comparing vehicles with relatively low MPG values may not 
know that MPG differences that appear to be small, even one or two MPG, 
may actually have very different fuel consumption values, and that 
selecting the slightly higher MPG vehicle could actually result in 
significantly less fuel used, thus saving a considerable amount of 
money. Fuel consumption numbers, unlike MPG, relate directly to the 
amount of fuel used. Mathematically, they represent gallon per mile, 
instead of miles per gallon. Not coincidentally, they also relate 
directly to the amount of CO2 emitted, because the grams of 
CO2 produced are directly proportional to gallons of fuel 
combusted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.003

[[Page 58090]]

    This so-called ``MPG illusion,'' which has been widely written 
about by a number of economists to illustrate why MPG is a flawed 
measure of how a vehicle's efficiency relates to fuel costs,\55\ was 
raised as an issue during the development of the 2006 fuel economy 
labeling rule. Some vehicle manufacturers suggested at the time that it 
may be more meaningful to express fuel efficiency in terms of 
consumption (e.g., gallons per mile or per 100 miles) rather than in 
terms of economy (miles per gallon).\56\ Fuel consumption is the 
primary metric used in Europe, and the Canadian fuel economy labels 
report both MPG and a consumption metric (liters per 100 kilometers). 
Because a few stakeholders expressed an interest in a fuel consumption 
metric at the time, EPA requested comments on a gallons-per-mile metric 
and how it could be best used and presented publicly, such as whether 
it should be included in the Fuel Economy Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., ``Energy: Behavior and 
Energy Policy,'' Science, March 5, 2010, available at: http://
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5970/1204; Larrick, R.L., 
Soll, J.B., ``The MPG Illusion,'' Science, June 20, 2008, available 
at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5883/1593; 
McArdle, M., ``Department of Mathematical Illusion,'' The Atlantic, 
December 24, 2007, available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/
business/archive/2007/12/department-of-mathematical-illusion/2425/.
    \56\ US EPA Response to Comments: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor 
Vehicles, EPA-420-R-06-016, Dec 2006, pp. 60-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments received in response to this request were mixed. 
Public Citizen, on the one hand, responded that, while there may be 
some merit to including a fuel consumption metric, consumers are 
comfortable with MPG. Any change, they argued, should be carefully 
deliberated and involve a massive public outreach campaign to educate 
consumers.\57\ They also suggested that the estimated annual fuel cost 
provides information derived from consumption values and is thus a 
suitable proxy for consumption. Toyota, in contrast, commented that 
fuel consumption is a more meaningful measure than MPG for expressing 
fuel efficiency, while acknowledging EPA's statutory limitations. They 
noted--as have many others--that the MPG metric is fundamentally 
nonlinear in relation to issues of consumer interest, such as cost of 
fuel or gallons used, and noted that anecdotal evidence shows that the 
nonlinear aspects of MPG can lead to consumer confusion. Toyota 
concluded that ``* * * this is a matter on which the EPA is obligated 
to educate the public as fuel consumption, not fuel economy, is a 
direct reflection of the environmental impact of vehicles in use.'' 
\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling 
Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-0123.1, Apr 3, 2006, p. 4.
    \58\ Toyota Motor Corporation Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy 
Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-0118.1, Mar 31, 
2006, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA responded to these comments in the 2006 final rule by 
concluding that switching to a consumption metric without a long-term 
consumer education program would cause confusion and that, absent 
Congressional action, the fuel economy labels would still have to 
continue to report MPG. EPA also agreed with commenters that the 
estimated annual fuel cost was a consumption-based metric which conveys 
essentially the same information (although the estimated annual fuel 
cost on the label is not without its own limitations, as described 
below).
    To allow further consideration of this issue, the consumer focus 
groups conducted for this rulemaking were asked to specifically explore 
the MPG illusion. Most participants were unconvinced that consumption 
should be included on the label with primary prominence and, although 
many were unopposed to having it as additional information, it was 
unclear whether it would add value from their perspective.\59\ This was 
the case regardless of the consumption metric tested, ranging from 
gallons per 100 miles to annual gallons consumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, there is general interest from a number of parties in the 
inclusion of a fuel consumption metric on the label. The agencies, as 
well, believe that it is important to introduce the concept of 
consumption to enable consumers to more accurately consider fuel use 
and costs during the vehicle purchase process. Thus, the agencies 
propose to introduce such a metric along with the MPG values, expecting 
that, over time, and with some education, consumers will begin to 
understand energy consumption and the direct connection it has with the 
fuel costs and environmental impacts of the vehicle. EPA is therefore 
proposing to include an estimate of gallons per 100 miles on the label 
under its 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F) authority to require other 
information related to fuel economy on the label, and requests comment 
on doing so, as well as on alternative options for reflecting fuel 
consumption, such as annual gallons consumed.\60\ For consumers to use 
a consumption number, however, EPA and NHTSA believe that a 
comprehensive education campaign would have to accompany the roll-out 
of new labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ This proposal is being made under EPA's authority to 
require other information related to fuel economy on the label, as 
described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies also seek comment on the specifics of displaying a 
consumption metric on the two labels being co-proposed. Although the 
label may provide city and highway MPG values as well as a combined 
city/highway MPG, we are proposing to require only the combined city/
highway consumption value on the label. The agencies are concerned that 
requiring a consumption value corresponding to every MPG value would 
lead to an undesirable proliferation of numbers on the label.
3. Greenhouse Gas Performance
    In addition to the fuel economy performance information that has 
been provided on the labels since 1977, Congress directed NHTSA, 
through EISA, to require new vehicles to also be labeled with 
information reflecting their greenhouse gas performance, which would be 
determined on the basis of criteria provided by EPA to NHTSA. As with 
fuel economy, the GHG performance information would be per vehicle 
model type. EPA hereby proposes the criteria for determining greenhouse 
gas performance, addressing the greenhouse gases to be incorporated, 
the emissions sources to include, the underlying test procedures, and 
the specific metric to be used. The agencies seek comment on whether 
these criteria, as described below, are reasonable and appropriate for 
determining the greenhouse gas performance of new vehicles. For 
purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA is proposing that the greenhouse gas 
performance element of the label be based on these criteria. These same 
greenhouse gas performance values would also be used as the basis for 
the proposed greenhouse gas rating systems.
    With regard to the greenhouse gases to be covered, the agencies 
propose that the label include greenhouse gas performance information 
solely on the basis of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which 
typically constitute approximately 95% of the tailpipe emissions of 
greenhouse gases. Including emission levels of the greenhouse gases 
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) along with 
CO2 would not provide additional differentiation between 
vehicles. This is because, for purposes of compliance with EPA's GHG 
standards beginning in model year 2012, CH4 and 
N2O values would be based on emission factors-that is, set 
values applied to each vehicle,

[[Page 58091]]

rather than direct measurements. Because these values would be set at 
the same level for all vehicles, the agencies do not believe that 
including them would provide consumers with additional useful 
information.
    Similarly, the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information 
be based on CO2 emissions for the vehicle model type, rather 
than the carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) methodology used to 
determine fuel consumption for CAFE programs and compliance with the 
light duty greenhouse gas requirements. The use of CREE adds a level of 
complexity that, while useful for compliance purposes, may not be 
beneficial to public understanding of the relative differences in GHG 
emissions between vehicles because the levels of other carbon-related 
emissions are low relative to CO2 emissions. Although the 
agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information on the label be 
based only on CO2, we also seek comment on whether and, if 
so, how, the other greenhouse gases and carbon-related emissions should 
be included.
    Regarding the underlying test procedures to be used to determine 
the vehicle-specific GHG performance information for the labels, the 
agencies propose that the CO2 values presented on the label 
be based on the five-cycle test procedures that are currently utilized 
for fuel economy labeling purposes.\61\ These test procedures measure 
rates of tailpipe CO2 and other emissions, which form the 
basis of the fuel economy values currently used for vehicle labeling. 
The five-cycle test procedures have been used for labeling since model 
year 2008, and have significantly improved the correlation between 
label values for MPG and those seen in actual use. Manufacturers could 
thus calculate CO2 emission rates using the same approach 
that they use for label fuel economy values, which the agencies know to 
be well-correlated with actual performance in use. More specifically, 
if a manufacturer uses the ``derived five cycle'' method for 
determining MPG for fuel economy labeling, they would use the same 
method for determining CO2 for labeling purposes. The city 
and highway CO2 emissions test results would then be used in 
the derived five-cycle equations, which the EPA has converted from a 
MPG basis to a CO2 basis for this purpose. Similarly, 
vehicle model types that are using the ``full five cycle'' method for 
fuel economy labeling would use the CO2 results from those 
tests for purposes of fuel economy labeling. The agencies are therefore 
proposing that manufacturers use the same five-methodology currently 
utilized for fuel economy labeling purposes for determining GHG values 
for purposes of the new label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 40 CFR part 600.210-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As far as emission sources to include, NHTSA and EPA propose that 
the greenhouse gas emissions represented on the label include only 
vehicle tailpipe emissions,\62\ and do not account for any GHG 
emissions generated upstream of the vehicle. This approach is also 
consistent with the vehicle GHG emissions compliance levels recently 
adopted by EPA, which treat GHG emissions for electric operation as 
zero up to a cumulative production cap per manufacturer.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The agencies seek comment on the potential inclusion of GHG 
emissions reflecting from A/C leakage credits, as described later in 
this section.
    \63\ EPA placed a cumulative production cap on the total 
production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs for which an individual 
manufacturer can claim the zero grams/mile compliance value during 
model years 2012-2016. The cumulative production cap will be 200,000 
vehicles, except that those manufacturers that sell at least 25,000 
EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in MY 2012 will have a cap of 300,000 vehicles 
for MY 2012-2016. See 75 FR 25436 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exploring this issue with focus groups, the agencies found 
that most participants did not consider the issue of upstream emissions 
either way. A few raised it when they noted that an electric vehicle 
indicated zero emissions, and suggested that these vehicles did cause 
some emissions at the power plant, which should be represented on the 
label.\64\ On further discussion, they generally determined that it 
would be challenging for the label to meaningfully represent the range 
of emissions from power plants operated on different fuels, and 
suggested that this information was obtainable from other sources.\65\ 
Given space constraints and the difficulty of explaining the potential 
range of upstream emissions due to different fuel sources, participants 
tended to agree that this issue could be adequately addressed by a 
statement on the label indicating that the CO2 values on the 
label represented vehicle tailpipe emissions only. The label designs 
presented in this NPRM include the words ``Tailpipe Only'' next to the 
CO2 value presented; the agencies seek comment on whether 
this wording will be readily and uniformly understood to mean that 
upstream GHG emissions are not being reflected on the label, or whether 
other, more direct wording might be clearer and more helpful to 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 42.
    \65\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from tailpipe CO2, the agencies are not proposing, 
but seek comment on the inclusion of an additional factor in the GHG 
performance used for labeling: air conditioning (A/C) credits generated 
by a manufacturer under the light duty vehicle GHG requirements. Air 
conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. 
Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHGs, can leak 
from the A/C system (direct A/C emissions). Operation of the A/C system 
also places an additional load on the engine, which results in 
additional CO2 tailpipe emissions (indirect A/C related 
emissions). The efficiency-related A/C impacts are accounted for in the 
five-cycle tests utilized for fuel economy labeling and proposed as the 
basis for GHG labeling purposes. However, EPA and NHTSA are considering 
whether allowing manufacturers that generate credits towards their GHG 
compliance obligation by reducing A/C leakage-related GHGs should be 
allowed to factor these credits into the CO2 value displayed 
on the label and used as the basis for the GHG rating. Allowing 
manufacturers to factor A/C credits into the GHG performance metric on 
the label would reward them for making A/C leakage improvements, but it 
would also cause the GHG performance value and the fuel economy 
performance value to diverge, and would impact the methodology for any 
rating system that combines GHGs and fuel economy. Because A/C-related 
reductions are not ``tailpipe,'' including leakage improvements in the 
tailpipe emissions could be misleading and inaccurate. If the final 
label includes other non-tailpipe emissions, the agencies may consider 
incorporating A/C leakage improvements. EPA and NHTSA seek comment on a 
number of issues: whether including A/C leakage adjustments would lead 
to widening the gap between what is on the label and what consumers get 
in the real world; whether and, if so, how, to allow the use of A/C 
credits for the purposes of labeling, with specific focus on the 
methodology and how the labels might display the inclusion of A/C 
leakage credits if the agencies decided to allow their use.
    EPA and NHTSA are proposing to use grams per mile as the metric to 
display greenhouse gas performance information on the label, which 
would be consistent with the metric used for GHG emission standards and 
compliance for light duty vehicles. The agencies believe that this 
metric is also consistent with requirements in 49

[[Page 58092]]

U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A) that performance reflect emissions ``over the 
useful life of the automobile.'' As with fuel economy, the agencies do 
not at this time expect notable deterioration of greenhouse gas 
emissions levels over a vehicle's useful life. However, the agencies 
seek comment on alternative approaches to convey GHG performance 
information, such as tons per year, using an approach parallel to that 
discussed in section II for annual cost information.
4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems
    EISA requires that the label include a ``rating system that would 
make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse 
gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, 
including a designation of the automobiles with the lowest greenhouse 
gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest 
fuel economy. * * *'' \66\ The two co-proposed label designs present 
two variations on ratings systems for fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
emissions, based on two interpretations of the statutory language. 
These two approaches--separate absolute ratings for fuel economy and 
greenhouse gases, and a relative rating that combines the two factors--
are not mutually exclusive, and a label could contain one or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing rating systems, the agencies are cognizant of the 
focus group testing conducted for this proposal, in which it appeared 
that many participants did not rely on any rating system. Perhaps due 
to their familiarity with the prominently displayed MPG numbers, many 
participants relied initially and sometimes exclusively on MPG or MPGe 
label values to compare vehicles to one another.\67\ Given this result, 
the agencies are proposing two different approaches to the ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first approach is displayed at the bottom of Label 1 and Label 
2: Separate ratings scales for fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
emissions, bounded by specific values for the ``best'' and the 
``worst'' vehicles, and with specific fuel economy and GHG emissions 
values for the vehicle model type in question identified in the 
appropriate location on the scale. The scales on Label 2 are 
essentially larger versions of those on Label 1, with the addition of a 
within-class indicator on the fuel economy scale to meet the EPCA \68\ 
requirement for comparison across comparable vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This variation--absolute rating scales--directly utilizes the 
actual fuel economy and CO2 performance values per vehicle 
model type to define the rating, which the agencies believe has both 
potential benefits and drawbacks. The agencies believe that, by rating 
vehicles on an absolute scale, this approach clearly meets the text of 
the EISA requirement for providing fuel economy and GHG performance 
information and indicating highest fuel economy and lowest GHG 
vehicles. The rating system allows the consumer looking at the label on 
the dealer's lot to identify precisely the highest and lowest fuel 
economy values available, the lowest and highest GHG emissions values 
available, and where the vehicle bearing the label falls in relation to 
these extremes. When this variation was presented in focus groups, some 
participants liked the level of detail provided by absolute rating 
scales and found it helpful in understanding how a vehicle compared to 
the ``best'' and ``worst'' vehicles available, although others found it 
to be more detail than they wanted or did not pay attention to this 
information on the label.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, even for those consumers who appreciate this level of 
detail in comparing vehicles by fuel economy and GHG emissions, there 
is the possibility that the ``best'' will change over the course of the 
model year and that the MPG or gram/mile value at the end of the scale 
may no longer be accurate. Highest and lowest values to be used on the 
scale would be provided to manufacturers by EPA prior to the start of 
the model year via annual guidance. Because these values will be based 
on the previous model year plus any additional information regarding 
the upcoming new sales fleet available to the EPA, they are expected to 
be relatively accurate. However, because they are projected values, the 
introduction during the model year of any new and unexpected vehicles 
not previously identified to EPA could potentially cause inaccuracy in 
the end points of the rating scales. In general, because of the 
expected introduction of electric vehicles, which have no tailpipe 
CO2 emissions and thus anchor one end of the scale at zero, 
and because of the expectation that, for the foreseeable future, one or 
more vehicles will anchor the opposite end at a relatively constant 
level, the agencies believe that the end points will likely remain 
relatively constant, but they may not remain exactly constant. The 
agencies therefore seek comment on how significant this potential for 
inaccuracy could be on consumers' ability to use the absolute rating 
scales to compare fuel economy and GHG emissions across vehicles, and 
on whether commenters believe the labels would have to be revised in 
order to meet the statutory requirement every time a new ``best'' 
vehicle was introduced if they were not accommodated by the end points.
    The second approach to a rating system is also displayed on Label 
1: A combined rating scale for fuel economy and GHG emissions, shown in 
the form of a letter grade. Because vehicles that are low in 
CO2 emissions have inherently good fuel economy (and vice 
versa), and because CO2 emissions are the primary 
determinant of fuel economy using EPA test procedures, vehicles would 
generally tend to have the same ``score'' for fuel economy as for GHG 
emissions. Thus, if the ratings are equivalent, as a practical matter, 
it would be consistent with the statutory requirement to provide a 
single, combined rating system.
    The proposed letter grade scale would range from A+ to D, including 
plus and minus designations to provide more opportunities for 
improvement. All vehicles would receive a ``passing'' grade--that is, 
the ratings would not include an ``E'' or ``F'' grade--because all 
vehicles must meet CAA requirements in order to be sold, and the 
agencies do not wish to convey otherwise. Additionally, the ``A+'' 
vehicles--with associated text stating the range of letter grades--will 
indicate which vehicles are the ``best,'' thus, meeting the requirement 
that the label designate highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas 
vehicles.
    This variation of a fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system 
was suggested by the expert panel and was not presented in focus 
groups, but many focus group participants favored the simplification of 
information presented when possible, and the agencies believe that such 
a well-known rating approach will be immediately recognizable by the 
majority of consumers. The agencies are also hopeful that a rating 
system as simple as a letter grade may encourage consumers to rely more 
on the rating system itself in making purchasing decisions, rather than 
on, for example, MPG numbers, which are subject to the ``MPG illusion'' 
issue discussed above.
    A letter grade allows vehicles purchasers to make a comparative 
assessment among vehicles with different grades, consolidating 
information so that consumers might

[[Page 58093]]

more easily assess the GHG emissions and fuel economy of different 
vehicles and make fully informed decisions. The agencies also request 
comment on whether any vehicle should receive a grade of A+ or whether 
this might lead to mistaken consumer conclusion that the vehicle has no 
energy or environmental impacts.
    As noted above, CO2 emissions are directly measured by 
EPA and form the basis for calculating the fuel efficiency of the 
vehicle; using CO2 as the basis for the rating is the most 
direct methodological approach and will avoid any rounding 
discrepancies that could occur from converting to MPG and then to fuel 
consumption. It also avoids the need to adjust the MPG thresholds by 
fuel type to account for differences in the energy content of fuel. 
Utilizing CO2 as the controlling factor in the rating 
thresholds is a practical consideration and is not meant to imply that 
GHG emissions are more important than energy use; both are relevant 
considerations and are viewed by the agencies as equally important 
under the rating system.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The direct relationship between CO2 and fuel 
consumption breaks down to some extent for vehicles with electric 
operation. For these vehicles, tailpipe CO2 emissions are 
zero; however, energy is consumed by the vehicle and an energy 
efficiency value other than infinity can be assigned. Nevertheless, 
given that electric drive trains are currently much more efficient 
than those for conventional vehicles, the relationship between those 
vehicles emitting zero CO2 and having the highest energy 
efficiency holds true at the present time. This approach may need to 
reassessed in the future if efficiencies of electric drive and 
conventional vehicles begin to approach each other, or if it is 
desired to differentiate between the efficiencies of electric-
powered vehicles, but should not be a necessary consideration in the 
foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies propose to base this rating system approach on the 
range of CO2 emissions for the projected fleet, placing the 
middle of the rating scale at the combined 5-cycle CO2 
emissions rate for the median vehicle,\71\ with equal-sized increments 
of CO2 assigned to each grade or rating.\72\ The higher-GHG 
end of the scale would therefore be twice the CO2 emissions 
rate of the median value, although, effectively, any vehicle higher 
than this level would also receive the lowest rating. Under such an 
approach, the median value would become more stringent over time as a 
result of GHG emissions requirements and, thus, the entire scale would 
shift toward lower GHG levels. Unless a vehicle model reduced its rate 
of CO2 emissions across the model years, its ratings would 
gradually drop over time. This approach would be consistent with both 
the evolution of fuel economy and emission requirements, and the public 
expectation that products evolve over time. The CO2 
thresholds associated with each rating would be determined on an annual 
basis and provided through guidance in advance of the model year. EPA 
would require that manufacturers use the ratings from the prior year if 
they are in a position to need to label a vehicle before the annual 
guidance has been issued. The agencies recognize that revising the 
median baseline vehicle each year may lead to some consumer confusion, 
but this dilemma is no different than what consumers currently 
encounter when they view identical vehicles from different model years 
and their associated annual fuel cost or the comparative fuel economy 
slider bar for each vehicle displayed on today's label. The agencies 
continue to believe that the underlying assumptions need to be up-to-
date to be most useful to consumers. Nevertheless, the agencies request 
comment on what the agencies might do to avoid potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Median vehicle is determined by vehicle model type, with 
model type as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-08.
    \72\ The agencies evaluated several potential methodologies for 
creating this rating system besides equal increments of 
CO2. We rejected an approach that would create the rating 
system based on establishing equal size categories for the ratings 
using miles per gallon--that is, taking the range of MPG of the 
vehicle fleet and dividing that range into ten equal segments. Given 
that the fleet will soon see vehicles that achieve MPG-equivalent 
values of 75 to 100, the agencies were concerned that this 
methodology would create a situation where a vehicle such as the 
2010 Toyota Prius (which gets a combined MPG of 50 MPG) would 
receive only an average rating. Using this method would result in 
the vast majority of vehicles receiving a rating well below the 
middle rating, which would not seem to be an appropriate result of a 
rating system. However, the agencies seek comment on whether a 
combined rating system based on MPG instead of on CO2 
might be developed in a way that avoided these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example is based on model year 2010 data and assumes 
that one or more vehicles that emit zero CO2 tailpipe 
emissions (i.e., electric or fuel cell vehicles) have entered the 
market. Gasoline-equivalent MPG values are provided in the table for 
clarity. However, the agencies propose that the CO2 values 
be controlling for purposes of assigning the rating.

  Table II.A.4-1--Example Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Combined gasoline MPG or
  CO2 range  (grams per mile)       Rating               MPGe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-76...........................  A+           117 and higher.
77-152.........................  A            59-116.
153-229........................  A-           40-58.
230-305........................  B+           30-39
306-382........................  B            24-29.
383-458........................  B-           20-23.
459-535........................  C+           18-19.
536-611........................  C            16-17.
612-688........................  C-           14-15.
689-764........................  D+           13.
765-842 and higher.............  D            12 and lower.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This example would result in the following distributions of ratings, 
based on 2010 vehicle model types, plus several additional vehicles 
indicated as ``Electric Vehicle'' and ``Plug-in Hybrid Electric 
Vehicle.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The additional vehicles are examples of types expected to 
enter the commercial market. The CO2 and MPGe values 
shown are examples only and are not based on any formal testing or 
certification data.

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

[[Page 58094]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.004

                                                                    Ratings by Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          A+       A        A-       B+       B        B-       C+       C        C-       D+       D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small car............................................        1        2        8       71      215      306       79       57       30        2  .......
Midsize car..........................................  .......  .......        6        5       79       92       43        6        8  .......        2
Large car............................................  .......  .......  .......  .......       11       31       41       10       13        6  .......
Minivan..............................................  .......  .......  .......  .......        2        9       18  .......        2  .......  .......
Pickup...............................................  .......  .......  .......  .......        2       30       56       52        9  .......  .......
Station wagon........................................  .......  .......  .......       12       75       65       12  .......  .......  .......  .......
SUV..................................................  .......  .......  .......        8       68      167      166       68       45        4  .......
Van..................................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......        4        2       10  .......  .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applying this rating system to model year 2010 data would assign the 
ratings as follows for the sample vehicles listed. Of course, future 
model year vehicles could receive different ratings from those shown in 
this example.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CO2 g/mi                      MPGe                   Sample vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A+.........................  0-76.......................  117 and up................  Electric Vehicle.
A..........................  77-152.....................  59-116....................  Plug-In Hybrid Electric
                                                                                       Vehicle.
A-.........................  153-229....................  40-58.....................  Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda
                                                                                       Civic Hybrid, Toyota
                                                                                       Prius.
B+.........................  230-305....................  30-39.....................  Chevrolet Cobalt (Manual),
                                                                                       Ford Escape Hybrid (2WD),
                                                                                       Honda Fit, Nissan Altima
                                                                                       Hybrid, Toyota Camry
                                                                                       Hybrid, Toyota Corolla
                                                                                       (1.8L Manual), Toyota
                                                                                       Yaris, Volkswagen Golf.
B..........................  306-382....................  24-29.....................  Chevrolet Cobalt
                                                                                       (Automatic), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Malibu (2.4L), Ford
                                                                                       Escape (2.5L Manual),
                                                                                       Ford Escape Hybrid (4WD),
                                                                                       Ford Focus, Ford Fusion
                                                                                       (2.5L), Ford Ranger (2.3L
                                                                                       Manual), Honda Accord
                                                                                       (2.4L), Honda Civic,
                                                                                       Honda CR-V (2WD), Hyundai
                                                                                       Elantra, Hyundai Sonata
                                                                                       (2.4L), Jeep Patriot
                                                                                       (2.0L, 2.4L Manual),
                                                                                       Mazda 3, Nissan Altima
                                                                                       (2.5L), Nissan Sentra,
                                                                                       Porsche Boxster
                                                                                       (Automatic), Toyota Camry
                                                                                       (2.5L), Toyota Corolla
                                                                                       (1.8L Automatic, 2.4L),
                                                                                       Toyota Highlander Hybrid,
                                                                                       Toyota Matrix, Toyota
                                                                                       RAV4 (2.5L).
B-.........................  383-458....................  20-23.....................  Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L,
                                                                                       Automatic), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Impala, Chevrolet Malibu
                                                                                       (3.5L and 3.6L),
                                                                                       Chevrolet Silverado 15
                                                                                       Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe
                                                                                       1500 Hybrid, Dodge
                                                                                       Charger (2.7/3.5L with 4-
                                                                                       speed Automatic), Dodge
                                                                                       Grand Caravan (4.0L),
                                                                                       Ford Escape (2.5L
                                                                                       Automatic), Ford Fusion
                                                                                       (3.5L), Ford Mustang
                                                                                       (4.0L Manual), Ford
                                                                                       Ranger (2.3L Automatic),
                                                                                       GMC Canyon (2.9L), GMC
                                                                                       Sierra 15 Hybrid, Honda
                                                                                       Accord (3.5L), Honda CR-V
                                                                                       (4WD), Hyundai Sonata
                                                                                       (3.3L), Hyundai Santa Fe,
                                                                                       Jeep Patriot (2.4L CVT),
                                                                                       Nissan Altima (3.5L),
                                                                                       Porsche Boxster (Manual),
                                                                                       Subaru Forester, Toyota
                                                                                       4Runner (2.7L), Toyota
                                                                                       Camry (3.5L), Toyota
                                                                                       Highlander (2WD), Toyota
                                                                                       RAV4 (3.5L), Toyota
                                                                                       Tacoma (2.7L 2WD).
C+.........................  459-535....................  18-19.....................  BMW 750Li (4.4L 2WD),
                                                                                       Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L,
                                                                                       Manual), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Corvette (6.2L Automatic,
                                                                                       7.0L), Chevrolet Express
                                                                                       1500 (4.3L), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Silverado 15 (4.3L 2WD,
                                                                                       5.3L), Chevrolet Tahoe
                                                                                       1500, Dodge Charger (3.5/
                                                                                       5.7L with 5-speed
                                                                                       Automatic), Dodge Grand
                                                                                       Caravan (3.3L, 3.8L),
                                                                                       Ford Explorer (4.6L 2WD),
                                                                                       Ford F150 (2WD 6-speed
                                                                                       Automatic), Ford Mustang
                                                                                       (4.0L Automatic, 4.6L,
                                                                                       5.4L), Ford Ranger (4.0L
                                                                                       Automatic), GMC Canyon
                                                                                       (3.7L, 5.3L 2WD), GMC
                                                                                       Sierra 15 (4.3L 2WD,
                                                                                       5.3L), Honda Pilot,
                                                                                       Jaguar XJ, Jeep Grand
                                                                                       Cherokee (3.7L), Kia
                                                                                       Sedona, Toyota 4Runner
                                                                                       (4.0L), Toyota Highlander
                                                                                       (4WD), Toyota Sienna,
                                                                                       Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 4WD,
                                                                                       4.0L Automatic), Toyota
                                                                                       Tundra (4.6L 2WD).

[[Page 58095]]

C..........................  536-611....................  16-17.....................  BMW 750Li (4.4L 4WD, 6.0L
                                                                                       2WD), Cadillac CTS (6.2L,
                                                                                       Manual), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Corvette (6.2L Manual),
                                                                                       Chevrolet Express 1500
                                                                                       (5.3L), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Silverado 15 (4.3L 4WD,
                                                                                       4.8L, 6.3L 2WD), Dodge
                                                                                       Charger (6.1L), Ford
                                                                                       Explorer (4.0L and 4.6L
                                                                                       4WD), Ford F150 (4-speed
                                                                                       Automatic, 4WD 6-speed
                                                                                       automatic), GMC Canyon
                                                                                       (5.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15
                                                                                       (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 6.2L),
                                                                                       Jeep Grand Cherokee
                                                                                       (5.7L), Nissan Titan
                                                                                       (2WD), Toyota Tacoma
                                                                                       (4.0L Manual), Toyota
                                                                                       Tundra (4.0L, 4.6L 4WD,
                                                                                       5.7L 2WD).
C-.........................  612-688....................  14-15.....................  Aston Martin DBS, BMW M5,
                                                                                       Cadillac CTS (6.2L,
                                                                                       Automatic), Chevrolet
                                                                                       Silverado 15 (6.3L 4WD),
                                                                                       GMC Sierra 15 (6.2L 4WD),
                                                                                       Land Rover Range Rover,
                                                                                       Lexus LX 570, Maserati
                                                                                       Quattroporte, Nissan
                                                                                       Titan (4WD), Toyota
                                                                                       Tundra (5.7L 4WD).
D+.........................  689-764....................  13........................  Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano,
                                                                                       Mercedes-Benz Maybach 57.
D..........................  765 and up.................  12 and down...............  Ferrari 612 Scaglietti.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One potential issue with this approach is that a rating system 
based on CO2 emissions may not be an adequate proxy for a 
fuel economy rating system if the agencies decide in the final rule to 
allow manufacturers to use A/C credits in determining their 
CO2 emissions values. Since fuel economy by definition does 
not account for HFC leakage, a CO2 rating boosted by A/C 
leakage credits would not accurately represent the vehicle's fuel 
economy rating. EISA requires that labels include a rating system that 
allows consumers to compare fuel economy across vehicles, so a fuel 
economy rating system that includes HFC leakage arguably would not meet 
these requirements. The proposed Label 1 would address this issue, 
whether A/C were included in the letter-grade rating or not, by virtue 
of also having the absolute rating scale for fuel economy at the bottom 
of the label. Still, the agencies seek comment on whether a rating 
system that combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions could 
accurately describe both if A/C credits were permitted to be included 
in the rating system for CO2.
    Another issue with using a CO2-based method is the fact 
that some diesel vehicles would see their rating reduced by \1/2\ 
letter grade--i.e., diesel vehicles would appear ``worse'' to the 
consumer in the rating system--relative to an approach that relied on 
MPG or fuel consumption, given the higher carbon content of a gallon of 
diesel fuel compared to a gallon of gasoline. This could potentially 
discourage some sales of diesel vehicles if consumers are influenced by 
the rating system, which the agencies may not necessarily want to 
accomplish. However, because a consistent basis is needed across all 
fuels, MPGe would need to be used rather than MPG: This would provide 
equivalency on an energy basis rather than a volume basis, and would 
allow the use of an MPG-type metric across fuels that are not dispensed 
by the gallon, such as CNG and electricity. Since gasoline, diesel, 
biodiesel, and ethanol have nearly equivalent ratios of energy to 
carbon, the choice of MPGe versus CO2/mile has minimal 
impact on the rating system results, particularly for liquid fuels. The 
agencies nevertheless seek comment on how significantly a 
CO2-based rating system might impact diesel sales, and 
whether an MPGe-based rating system might ameliorate any such impact, 
and if so, how that rating system would need to be structured for 
technology neutrality.
    In practical terms, this means that the rating system would include 
all vehicles for which fuel economy information and labeling is 
required, which currently includes all passenger automobiles and light 
trucks as defined by NHTSA at 49 CFR part 523. More specifically, the 
rating system would span all automobiles up to 8,500 pounds gross 
vehicle weight, plus some vehicles (large SUVs and some passenger vans) 
between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We believe that 
this is consistent with the intent of Congress, based on the text of 
EISA which refers clearly to labels for ``automobiles'' rather than 
``passenger'' or ``non-passenger automobiles,'' and which states that 
the rating system must include a designation of the vehicle with the 
highest fuel economy and lowest GHG emissions.\74\ The approach of 
including all vehicles in a single rating system is supported by the 
market research and literature reviews done for this proposal, which 
show that, while prospective vehicle purchasers narrow their choices by 
vehicle type early in the buying decision, they do not focus narrowly 
on a single class, at least as defined by EPA. Focus group participants 
indicated that they shopped, on average, across two to three vehicle 
classes.\75\ For these consumers, a single rating system will enable 
them to make accurate vehicle comparisons across whichever vehicles 
they choose to shop. Market research also indicates that consumers have 
varying definitions of what constitutes a specific vehicle class, thus 
making it challenging to categorize vehicles in a way that is useful 
for all consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii).
    \75\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-
Focus Groups Online Survey Report, EPA420-R-10-907, August 2010, p. 
18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, EPA is seeking comment on rating passenger cars 
separately from light duty trucks under its authority to require other 
information related to fuel economy as authorized by the Administrator 
at 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).\76\ In this case, EPA would propose to use 
the same definitions for cars and trucks used for light-duty fuel 
economy and GHG standards, which are NHTSA's definitions provided in 49 
CFR part 523. Doing so would be consistent with automaker obligations 
under those requirements, in which cars and trucks have separate sets 
of standards. Additionally, market research shows that, while many 
people shop across several narrowly-defined classes, about two-thirds 
shop exclusively among either trucks or cars. These consumers might 
find it useful to compare among only those vehicles of interest. If a 
commenter believes that separate rating systems for cars and trucks 
would be preferable, EPA especially seeks comment on whether those 
consumers that shop among both cars and trucks could adequately compare 
across their vehicles of interest if ratings systems were separated, 
and whether or not the emerging ``crossover'' market will make this 
``car/truck'' distinction increasingly less relevant and potentially 
confusing to the public.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ NHTSA does not interpret 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) as 
permitting rating systems based on less than the entire fleet, so a 
rating system for fuel economy and/or GHG emissions based on only 
the car or truck fleet would not be sufficient to satisfy EISA's 
requirement, although EPA could require such a rating system under 
its authority.
    \77\ For example, under NHTSA's and EPA's definitions, the same 
version of a crossover could potentially be a ``car'' if it were two 
wheel drive and a ``truck'' if it were four wheel drive. A consumer 
looking at the labels of these two vehicles side by side might find 
it challenging to understand why their ratings were different.

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

[[Page 58096]]

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System
    In addition to fuel economy and greenhouse gas information and 
ratings, EISA requires new vehicles to also be labeled with information 
reflecting a vehicle's performance in terms of ``other emissions,'' and 
a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the 
other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase.\78\ Unlike 
fuel economy and GHG emissions, EISA does not expressly require the 
designation of the ``best'' vehicle in terms of other emissions. This 
section lays out the criteria that EPA proposes NHTSA use to form the 
basis for other emissions performance and ratings. Concurrently, NHTSA 
proposes that these criteria be used as the foundation for information 
that is provided on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress did not precisely define in EISA which of the pollutants 
in the universe of possible candidates for ``other emissions'' should 
be included for labeling purposes. The agencies assume that Congress 
did not intend to create any new substantive requirements as part of 
this labeling provision for pollutants that are not currently regulated 
and, thus, propose that ``other emissions'' include those tailpipe 
emissions, other than CO2, for which vehicles are required 
to meet current emission standards. These air pollutants comprise both 
criteria emissions regulated under EPA's National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards and air toxics, and include:
     NMOG--non-methane organic gases;
     NOX--oxides of nitrogen;
     PM--particulate matter;
     CO--carbon monoxide; and
     HCHO--formaldehyde.
    Auto manufacturers must provide the agency with emission rates of 
these pollutants for all new light duty vehicles each model year under 
EPA's Tier 2 light duty vehicle emissions standards requirements,\79\ 
or the parallel requirements for those vehicles certified instead to 
the California emissions standards.\80\ Emission standards for these 
pollutants are aggregated into bins; each bin contains emissions limits 
on a gram per mile basis for each of the aforementioned pollutants for 
the useful life of the vehicle, as shown in Table II.A.5-1. To be 
eligible for sale in the United States, each vehicle model and 
configuration must be certified to a specific bin, meaning that the 
automaker is confirming that the vehicle is designed not to exceed the 
specified emission rates for any of the pollutants over the useful life 
of the vehicles. Automakers must submit data to EPA that demonstrates 
compliance with these levels, with a requirement that their fleet 
achieve a sales-weighted NOX average equivalent to the Bin 5 
standard or cleaner annually. California and states that have adopted 
California emissions standards in lieu of the federal standards have 
similar sets of emissions standards, known as the Low Emitting Vehicle 
II (LEV II) standards.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
    \80\ 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), Clean Air Act Section 209, gives 
California special authority to enact stricter air pollution 
standards for motor vehicles than the federal government's, as long 
as under certain requirements are met. 42 U.S.C. 7507, Clean Air Act 
Section 177, allows states, under certain conditions, to adopt 
California's vehicle emission standards. See 40 CFR 86.1844-01.
    \81\ The California Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for 
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles, Title 
13, California Code of Regulations (last amended March 29, 2010).

                          Table II.A.5-1--U.S. EPA Light Duty Tier 2 Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Emission limits at full useful life (120,000 miles) for model year 2004 and
                                     later light duty vehicles, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger
                                                                     vehicles
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   NOX  (g/mi)    NMOG  (g/mi)      CO  (g/mi)      PM  (g/mi)     HCHO  (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 1..........................            0              0                  0              0              0
Bin 2..........................            0.02           0.01               2.1            0.01           0.004
Bin 3..........................            0.03           0.055              2.1            0.01           0.011
Bin 4..........................            0.04           0.07               2.1            0.01           0.011
Bin 5..........................            0.07           0.09               4.2            0.01           0.018
Bin 6..........................            0.1            0.09               4.2            0.01           0.018
Bin 7..........................            0.15           0.09               4.2            0.02           0.018
Bin 8..........................            0.2            0.125              4.2            0.02           0.018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies considered whether to provide specific information and 
ratings for each of these individual pollutants listed above. EPA Tier 
2 emission regulations do require manufacturers to submit specific 
information regarding the performance of each vehicle for each of these 
pollutants, but the agencies believe that attempting to require all of 
it to be represented on the fuel economy label, along with rating 
systems for each, would be unduly burdensome and not reasonable given 
space constraints and the need to present all the other information 
required by EPCA and EISA.
    In addition, in the focus groups conducted for this proposal, 
consumers' interest in actual emissions levels across multiple 
pollutants was minimal, and this level of detail is likely to be well 
beyond that which most members of the public would seek or find 
useful.\82\ Repeatedly, focus group participants reflected that it was 
the job of the government to determine the relative importance of the 
pollutants, and that the label should not leave this determination up 
to the individual. Given that EISA did not specify exactly which 
pollutants would make up ``other emissions'' and given focus group 
feedback that differentiation between other emissions did not add value 
for many participants, the agencies are not proposing to provide 
pollutant-specific information on the label for ``other emissions.'' 
Nevertheless, the agencies seek comment on whether pollutant-specific 
information and ratings might have value to consumers beyond what the 
agencies have seen in their focus group research, and if so, how the 
agencies might design a label to require pollutant-specific information 
and ratings that would make it easy for consumers to compare other 
pollutant emissions across vehicles at the point of purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead, the agencies believe that a rating based on the groups of 
emissions standards--either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the 
California LEV II system, as appropriate--can and should be used

[[Page 58097]]

to meet this requirement. This approach mirrors the current Air 
Pollution Score on EPA's Green Vehicle Guide (http://www.epa.gov/
greenvehicle). Vehicle certification under either the Federal Tier 2 
bin system or the California LEV II system allows auto manufacturers to 
certify that their vehicles will fall into an emissions range across 
each of the regulated pollutants. In effect, the Federal and California 
systems rate vehicles according to their air pollution emissions by 
compiling the requirements across multiple pollutants into one category 
(a Tier 2 bin or a LEV II standard). Though these systems are useful 
for regulatory compliance, they have limited recognition among 
consumers. However, relative rating systems are well-recognized by the 
public, and the Federal emissions bins and California standards 
categories are well-suited to conversion to a relative rating system 
that would be readily understandable.
    EPA and NHTSA therefore propose to establish a rating system for 
``other emissions'' in which each rating is associated with a bin from 
the Federal Tier 2 emissions standards (or comparable California 
emissions standard). Table II.A.5-2 provides an example of how such a 
system would work for a ten-point rating scale.\83\ Various graphical 
representations of this rating are being contemplated, as discussed in 
Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Under EPA regulations, Independent Commercial Importers 
(ICIs) are allowed to import a limited number of older vehicles that 
can be certified to the emission standards which were in effect at 
the time the vehicle was produced. In some cases, these standards 
may be pre-Tier 2 standards. Because the rating system being 
proposed for other pollutants on the FE label is based on the Tier 2 
bin structure, we are proposing that vehicles imported by ICIs that 
are not subject to the Tier 2 standards will automatically be rated 
as a ``1'' (i.e., the rating assigned to vehicles with the worst 
emissions under the Tier 2 bin structure).

                           Table II.A.5-2--Proposed Rating System for Other Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         EPA Tier 2 emissions    California Air Resources Board LEV II emissions
                Rating                         standard                             standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10...................................  Bin 1..................  ZEV.
9....................................  N/A....................  PZEV.
8....................................  Bin 2..................  SULEV II.
7....................................  Bin 3..................  N/A.
6....................................  Bin 4..................  ULEV II.
5....................................  Bin 5..................  LEV II.
4....................................  Bin 6..................  LEV II opt 1.
3....................................  Bin 7..................  N/A.
2....................................  Bin 8..................  SULEV II large trucks.
1....................................  N/A....................  ULEV & LEV II large trucks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because such a rating would be directly reflective of the emissions 
standards requirements for air pollutants to which the vehicle is 
certified, the agencies believe that it could serve the dual purposes 
of performance information and ratings for ``other emissions'' as 
required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i) and (A)(ii). Such an approach 
would have the advantage of avoiding requiring detailed information on 
the label that would detract from the key elements and could be of 
minimal use to the majority of the public. NHTSA and EPA seek comment 
on whether also utilizing the rating system to meet the requirement for 
performance information on other emissions would be permissible under 
EISA.
6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating
    One of the issues that came up frequently in the focus groups 
conducted for this proposal was how to design a label that balanced the 
competing interests of completeness and simplicity. It became clear 
that different consumers wanted different amounts of information and 
levels of detail about fuel economy, GHG emissions, and other 
emissions, and how vehicles compare to one another. Many focus group 
participants expressed an interest in most or all of the information 
that might be offered, until they saw that the label they had 
``designed'' would be cluttered and difficult to read; at this point, 
many culled their desired information down to a few key elements. Other 
participants simply were not interested in much detail. Yet other 
participants insisted that they wanted more detail anyway and would not 
find labels with more information distracting or confusing.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One approach that emerged to condense the level of detail was to 
combine rating systems: For example, a rating system that combined fuel 
economy and CO2 emissions, or that combined CO2 
and other pollutant emissions, or that combined all three. Because they 
have different sets of units and different scales, rating systems that 
combine different data elements must employ relative or unit-free 
scales, such as the letter grade system, rather than absolute 
approaches like the separate rating scales discussed above. Using the 
bar as an example, if CO2 and other pollutants were combined 
into a single bar, a vehicle that falls at one point between the 
absolute end points for CO2 emissions may not fall at the 
same point between the (different) end points for other emissions, 
which would make combining the ratings challenging at best, and 
unhelpful at worst. Similarly, while a vehicle may fall at roughly the 
same point between ``best'' and ``worst'' absolute values for both fuel 
economy and CO2 emissions, differences in scale make 
presenting that visually difficult and possibly factually incorrect.
    Thus, if the agencies wanted to try to combine rating systems for 
visual simplicity and to appeal to consumers who want labels with less 
information, a relative scale--1 to 10, 1 to 5, A+ to D-is needed. The 
agencies tested combined relative scales for GHG and other pollutant 
emissions fairly extensively in the focus groups, with mixed results. 
When environmental ratings were shown in the context of the label, the 
preference was for a consolidated environmental rating, with 
participants expressing minimal interest in having separate information 
on greenhouse gases and other air pollutant emissions; these 
participants often stated that the EPA was in a better position to 
assess the relative concerns regarding the various environmental 
factors than were the participants

[[Page 58098]]

themselves.\85\ In contrast, however, when the environmental rating 
approaches were shown in isolation, apart from the context of the 
entire label, many participants indicated a preference for two separate 
ratings, arguing that more complete information holds more value.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 25.
    \86\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress required in EISA that each new vehicle must be labeled 
with a ``rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare 
the fuel economy and greenhouse gases and other emissions of 
automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of 
automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the 
vehicles; and the highest fuel economy* * *'' Thus, for purposes of 
meeting the statute, the question is whether a rating that combined two 
or all three elements could accurately reflect which vehicle achieves 
the lowest GHG and the highest fuel economy. For purposes of meeting 
consumers' needs in a label, the question is how to design a label that 
is helpful both to the people who want more information and detail and 
to the people who want less information and detail. Given the EPCA 
requirements for fuel economy and annual cost information, and the EISA 
requirements for performance information on fuel economy, greenhouse 
gases, and other emissions, the agencies believe that the needs for 
more detail-oriented consumers will likely be adequately met.
    In the previous section we discussed an approach to combining fuel 
economy and CO2 into one overall rating; in this section the 
agencies discuss the additional option of also combining ``other 
emissions'' with either CO2 or with a combined fuel economy/
CO2 rating. EPA and NHTSA recognize that there is not a 
strong correlation between CO2 and other emissions, due to 
sophisticated emission control systems, such as catalytic converters 
and exhaust gas recirculation, which target reductions of specific 
pollutants but do not also reduce CO2 emissions. In 
addition, the agencies are cognizant of the very real challenges 
automakers must overcome to achieve the required emissions levels and 
do not wish to deprive them of public recognition of advancements in 
reducing air pollutants that could come with a separate rating system 
for pollutants. Moreover, a separate rating would provide information 
for purchasers who value low emission levels and an opportunity to 
raise awareness among other consumers of which vehicles produce lower 
emissions. And finally, as discussed above, the agencies have 
determined that a rating for ``other emissions'' also meets the EISA 
requirement of providing vehicle performance information for those 
emissions. Combining this rating for ``other emissions'' with ratings 
for fuel economy and greenhouse gases would potentially be at odds with 
this requirement. For these reasons, the agencies propose that the 
rating for ``other emissions'' be separate from the rating(s) for fuel 
economy and greenhouse gases.
    Nevertheless, while some focus group participants wanted more 
information, most clearly wanted less and suggested that they would 
glean little additional value from a label with separate ratings. The 
agencies seek comment on whether it would be more useful to provide a 
single rating that captures all three elements: fuel economy, 
greenhouse gases, and other emissions. As a matter of technical 
appropriateness, although there is not a strong correlation between 
emissions of CO2 and emission of other pollutants, there is 
some correlation. The vehicles with the lowest fuel economy levels and 
highest CO2 emissions do not typically meet the cleaner 
emission bins; conversely, those with high fuel economy and low 
CO2 emissions are rarely, if ever, certified to the higher 
emission bins.
    Including other emissions in the rating system to form one rating 
would simplify for the consumer the overall energy and environmental 
impact of using the vehicle, thus reducing their need to weigh the 
relative importance of the various elements. It also allows the label 
to be less cluttered and more streamlined.
    Therefore, it is possible and perhaps reasonable to combine ``other 
emissions'' with the fuel economy/CO2 letter grade approach. 
Under this approach, the rating for fuel economy and greenhouse gases 
applicable to a vehicle would be adjusted upward or downward, based on 
the Federal emissions bin (or California standard) to which the vehicle 
is certified. That is, vehicles that are certified to the cleanest bins 
would have their rating increased--for example, under a letter grade 
system, a Bin 2 vehicle otherwise eligible for a B+ would have their 
rating increased to an A-. Table II.A.6-1 illustrates how such a system 
could work.

             Table II.A.6-1--Potential Comprehensive Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Overall energy and environment rating
   Fuel economy/greenhouse gas   ---------------------------------------
             rating                                           Bin  6, 7,
                                  Bin  1, 2, 3   Bin  4, 5        8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A+..............................  A+            A+           A
A...............................  A+            A            A-
A-..............................  A             A-           B+
B+..............................  A-            B+           B
B...............................  B+            B            B-
B-..............................  B             B-           C+
C+..............................  B-            C+           C
C...............................  C+            C            C-
C-..............................  C             C-           D+
D+..............................  C-            D+           D
D...............................  D+            D            D-
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles
    In addition to ratings indicating relative emissions performance, 
EISA also requires the rating system to include ``a designation of 
automobiles with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful 
life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy.''
    Depending on the rating system(s) selected, differing approaches 
may be needed to achieve this requirement. For example, if the fuel 
economy and greenhouse gas ratings are provided separately, such as 
with the absolute bars shown on labels 1 and 2, consumers would be able 
to easily identify the highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas 
emitting vehicles by looking for those that have the highest absolute 
values. If fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined into one 
rating, such as with the letter grade system, but are provided 
separately from other emissions, again consumers should be able to 
easily identify the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG vehicles by looking 
for those that achieve the best rating category. However, this will 
likely encompass more models than would be designated ``best'' under an 
absolute rating system, which may or may not have been the intent of 
EISA. In that instance, the rating system itself meets the requirement 
for designation of lowest GHG automobiles, defined in that case as the 
group of vehicles that achieve the best rating category.
    If, on the other hand, fuel economy and greenhouse gases are 
combined with other emissions into a comprehensive rating, and no other 
information on the label indicates the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG 
vehicles, then the rating system would need to be adjusted in order to 
ensure that EISA requirements were met. The agencies seek comment on 
whether

[[Page 58099]]

separate ratings should be provided for other emissions or whether a 
single combined rating for fuel economy, GHG and other emissions should 
be provided.
8. SmartWay Logo
    EPA and NHTSA additionally seek comment on utilizing the SmartWay 
logo as an indicator of a high level of overall environmental 
performance. The SmartWay logo appears as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.005

    The SmartWay logo could be added to the label as a way of 
highlighting the top environmental performers each model year. This 
approach is contemplated for labels 2 and 3.
    The trademarked SmartWay designation was launched in 2005 on the 
EPA's Green Vehicle Guide Web site (http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle) to 
provide consumers with a quick and easy way to determine which vehicles 
were the cleanest and most fuel efficient for each model year. It has 
been awarded to those vehicle models that achieve certain thresholds on 
the Greenhouse Gas score (which is tied to the vehicle's fuel economy 
and fuel type) and the Air Pollution score (which is tied to the Tier 2 
bins or California standards, as applicable). Historically, the 
SmartWay thresholds determined by EPA have been targeted to 
approximately the top 20% of vehicle models each model year, and have 
been tightened over time as the fleet has become cleaner and more fuel 
efficient.
    The SmartWay logo for light duty vehicles is currently being used 
on a voluntary basis by auto manufacturers, vehicle-search web sites, 
rental car companies, banks/credits unions (green vehicle loan 
programs), and private companies (light duty commercial fleets and 
employee incentive programs). The SmartWay logo was included on labels 
shown to focus group participants for this rulemaking. Although 
participants did not recognize the logo, most readily understood that 
they could use it when shopping for vehicles to quickly identify those 
that were environmentally friendly, without having to review the rest 
of the environmental information on the label.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because focus groups have indicated that some consumers prefer more 
detailed information while others prefer a simpler presentation, the 
agencies are seeking comment on whether to require or optionally allow 
the SmartWay logo on the label for applicable vehicles. This logo would 
indicate in a binary fashion, similar to other eco-labels, whether \ a 
vehicle meets certain environmental and energy use thresholds. 
Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether including the 
SmartWay logo would be helpful to consumers on a label that already 
addresses fuel economy, GHGs, and other emissions in other formats.
9. Annual Fuel Cost
    EPCA requires the estimated annual fuel cost be displayed on the 
fuel economy label.\88\ Prior to 2008, the label simply displayed the 
estimated annual cost with no explanatory information. EPA's consumer 
research in 2006 found that consumers paid little attention to this 
metric, and the reason most frequently stated was that the assumptions 
behind the estimate (annual miles and fuel price) were unknown to 
them.\89\ As a result, the 2008 label modifications included a 
requirement that these assumptions be placed on the label.\90\ EPA 
publishes annual guidance directing manufacturers what fuel price to 
use for determining annual cost--based on projections made by the 
Department of Energy \91\--so that all vehicles in a given model year 
use the same assumptions. The estimated annual fuel cost can therefore 
be used to compare across vehicles of the same model year. As an 
example, the estimated annual fuel cost to be used for labels on model 
year 2008 gasoline-fueled vehicles is $2.80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(B).
    \89\ PRR, Inc., EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups: Report of 
Findings, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 
2005.
    \90\ 40 CFR 600.307-08.
    \91\ The Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration publishes gasoline and diesel fuel price forecasts at 
least annually in its Annual Energy Outlook, available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the addition to the label of the assumptions behind the 
annual fuel cost starting in 2008, the early focus groups conducted in 
2010 showed that many participants still did not pay much attention to 
the estimated annual fuel cost metric. Participants often stated that 
this was because fuel prices fluctuate and, therefore, they did not 
think that the fuel price assumption stated on the label reflected what 
they were actually paying. Less frequently, participants additionally 
said that the fact that they did not drive 15,000 miles a year made the 
estimated annual cost not meaningful to them. Participants remained 
skeptical of the use of estimated annual fuel cost even when asked to 
consider whether it could be a useful comparative metric across other 
vehicles of the same model year. In retrospect, it is possible that 
providing this information on the label about the assumptions behind 
the annual fuel cost number resolved one issue and caused others, in 
that now there are two more numbers for the consumer to process and 
question. There is also the possibility that consumers are not aware 
that the two assumptions are used universally across all vehicles, 
which would call into question the usefulness of the metric as a 
comparative tool at the point of purchase (for example, if they believe 
that the manufacturers individually determine the inputs to the 
estimated annual fuel cost). However, participants in the Phase 3 focus 
groups leading up to this NPRM consistently employed the annual fuel 
cost information (along with MPG) when asked to compare the fuel 
efficiency of advanced technology vehicles like PHEVs and EVs with 
conventional vehicles, with their more complicated set of energy 
metrics.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the EPCA statutory requirement to continue to display 
the estimated annual fuel cost, EPA requests comment on how to improve 
consumers' understanding of the estimated annual fuel cost, whether it 
is a useful comparative tool across technologies, and if so, how to 
best communicate on the label that it is a valid comparative tool. EPA 
also requests comment on whether there might be an additional way to 
display fuel cost information--or a better way of displaying the 
required information--that might be more useful or might have a greater 
impact on consumers. In the 2010 focus groups, some groups were 
presented with a number of different ways of displaying fuel costs on 
the label, ranging in magnitude from dollars per mile to dollars per 
five years.\93\ A fairly clear preference emerged for dollars per year, 
with dollars per month a frequent second choice.\94\ EPA is thus 
proposing labels that continue to prominently display the estimated 
annual fuel cost and the associated assumptions. EPA is requesting 
comment on whether the label should include the estimated monthly fuel 
cost, or other alternative cost information. Commenters should bear in 
mind the statutory requirement that estimated annual fuel cost be on 
the label; thus

[[Page 58100]]

any other cost would have to be an additional piece of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 19.
    \94\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost
    The expert panel recommended another approach to presenting fuel 
cost information--to focus on the savings attainable by purchasing a 
more fuel efficient vehicle. These panelists felt strongly that savings 
is a much more powerful message than cost, which tends to be 
discounted, as just discussed. Although savings calculations would 
necessarily also rely on assumptions, they suggested that the value of 
savings to the consumer is significant enough to overcome these 
drawbacks, at least for a substantial portion of the population. NHTSA 
and EPA therefore propose including a five-year savings value on Label 
1. No such value is proposed for Labels 2 or 3, although the agencies 
could also require savings information on these labels, if one of them 
were finalized.
    The agencies explored a number of methods for calculating savings. 
The most promising approach seems to be savings compared to the 
projected median vehicle for that model year, and the agencies propose 
this method. Thus, some vehicles would show a savings, while others 
would show consumers paying more for fuel over five years compared to a 
reference vehicle; these values would increase in magnitude the further 
the vehicle is in terms of fuel consumption from the reference value. 
This approach appropriately reflects that fuel cost savings become 
larger the more a vehicle improves their fuel economy, and conversely 
that vehicles cost more to fuel when fuel efficiency is decreased when 
compared to the reference, median, vehicle.
    As with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system and 
comparable class information, the EPA would provide annual guidance 
indicating the value to be used as the reference against which the fuel 
cost savings would be measured. The reference five-year fuel cost would 
be calculated by applying the gasoline fuel price to the average miles 
driven over the first five years of the reference vehicle's life, 
assuming a particular fuel economy for the reference vehicle; these 
values would be provided in the annual guidance. We propose that the 
fuel economy value for the reference vehicle be based on the projected 
fuel economy value of the median vehicle model type for sale the 
previous model year, not sales-weighted, and adjusted based on 
projections regarding the upcoming model year. This value is expected 
to change slightly from one year to the next as the fleet becomes more 
fuel efficient in response to regulations and market forces. The 
guidance would also include the fuel prices to be used to calculate 
fuel cost savings for the particular vehicle, based on its applicable 
fuel type. Finally, we propose to round the fuel cost savings values 
used on the label to the nearest one hundred dollars to avoid implying 
more precision than is warranted, as well as for ease of recall.
    As previously stated, vehicles with a higher fuel economy than the 
median vehicle would be designated as saving the consumer a certain 
number of dollars over a five year period. For those vehicles with fuel 
economy lower than the median vehicle, the label would state that the 
consumer would spend a certain number of dollars more over a five year 
period. Vehicles that are within fifty dollars of the reference vehicle 
fuel cost could be designated as saving zero dollars. Alternatively, 
text could indicate that this vehicle is comparable to the average 
vehicle. Although the agencies recognize that ``median'' is a more 
accurate term than ``average,'' we propose the use of the term 
`average'' as being more readily understandable.
    Other methods considered include savings compared to the average 
vehicle one grade lower, and fuel cost savings compared to vehicles 10 
MPG lower. These approaches had certain positive aspects, particularly 
in that they demonstrated the value of incremental improvements in 
vehicle choice. In the main, however, they provided values that seemed 
to be difficult to interpret and could perhaps cause perverse effects. 
For example, a vehicle at the high end of their grade or rating would 
have a higher savings value than a vehicle at the low end of their 
grade or rating. This might be valuable for those who are considering 
vehicles within the same grade. However, for those shoppers who glanced 
at the number quickly, they might erroneously conclude that, for 
instance, a vehicle at the low end of the B- grade would save less on 
fuel costs than a vehicle at the high end of the D+ grade. The agencies 
seek comment on this and alternative approaches, as opposed to the 
proposed approach of displaying a vehicle's fuel cost savings relative 
to the median vehicle in the fleet. The agencies are also seeking 
comment on whether there is a potential for consumer confusion caused 
by two different cost values displayed on Label 1 with regard to the 
estimated annual fuel cost of operating the vehicle and the 5 year fuel 
cost savings number compared to the average vehicle. We are interested 
in receiving comments on how consumers may perceive these values as 
interacting with each other and we intend to explore this issue further 
prior to finalizing this proposal, including exploring research 
conducted in executive branch agencies.
11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
    EPCA requires that the label contain ``the range of fuel economy of 
comparable automobiles of all manufacturers,'' a requirement that the 
label addressed somewhat awkwardly for many years.\95\ As a result of 
EPA's 2006 labeling rule, the labels now use a graphical element to 
show the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to the best and 
worst within that vehicle class.\96\ In the 2010 focus groups, it 
became clear that this information, though more prominently displayed 
on today's fuel economy label than in previous iterations of the label, 
continued to be under-utilized by consumers as a tool to assist them in 
making vehicle purchase decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
    \96\ 40 CFR 600.307-08. A discussion of the comparable class 
categories and a proposed change to those categories can be found in 
section VI.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is now proposing two possible ways of meeting this statutory 
requirement. Given the likelihood of more information on the label, a 
graphic as used on the current label that repeats the combined fuel 
economy number may overly complicate the new label. Thus one option 
being proposed is simply a text statement that would read ``Combined 
fuel economy for [insert vehicle class] ranges from XX to XX.'' This 
approach is used on Labels 1 and 3. The other option EPA is proposing 
is essentially an updated version of the current graphical 
representation, which combines the fuel economy rating across all 
vehicles with the within-class information into one graphical element, 
as shown in Section III as part of Label 2.
    The agencies believe that one of these approaches could be used to 
satisfy the statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C) (``the 
range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles''). As an alternative, 
EPA seeks comment on whether the requirement to indicate fuel economy 
of comparable vehicles is met by the overall fuel economy rating 
required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) (``a rating system that would 
make it easy to compare the fuel economy * * * of automobiles''), given 
that consumers tend to consider vehicles from several classes during 
their purchase process.
12. Other Label Text
    EPA is proposing some minor changes and an addition to the text on 
the label

[[Page 58101]]

not previously discussed, and seeks comment on each of these text 
changes.
    First, each of the proposed labels has information that indicates 
the fuel on which the vehicle operates. The agencies believe it will 
become increasingly important, as different technologies emerge, to 
display clearly the kind of vehicle a consumer is viewing. For dual 
fuel vehicles (e.g., current gasoline/ethanol vehicles), EPA is 
required by statute to identify the vehicle as a dual fuel vehicle and 
to identify the fuels that the vehicle operates on.\97\ In the case of 
current flexible-fuel vehicles, for example, this text would read 
``Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Ethanol (E85),'' and for plug-in hybrid vehicles 
arriving soon on the market this text would read ``Dual Fuel: Gasoline-
Electricity.'' In addition, we are proposing the use of various icons 
on the label to distinguish between different technologies and between 
different operating modes. These icons include stylized electric plugs, 
fuel pumps, and fuel dispensing nozzles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, because of the expanded information on the label and DOT 
requirements under EISA, EPA is proposing to change the label heading 
from the current text (``EPA Fuel Economy Estimates'') to ``EPA/DOT 
Fuel Economy & Environmental Comparisons.'' We also propose adding the 
DOT logo to the label, to provide appropriate recognition of DOT's role 
mandated by EISA.
    Third, EPA is proposing to change the Fuel Economy Guide statement 
found on the label to reflect the expanding features that comprise 
http://www.fueleconomy.gov, with the hope that this Web site will 
become the first Internet stop for a vehicle's fuel economy and 
environmental information. The proposed text would read: ``Visit http:/
/www.fueleconomy.gov to calculate estimates personalized for your 
driving, and to download the Fuel economy Guide (also available at 
dealers).''
    EPCA requires EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare and 
distribute to dealers a fuel economy booklet, commonly known as the 
annual ``Fuel Economy Guide,'' containing information that is ``simple 
and readily understandable.'' \98\ EPCA requires that the guide include 
fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of operating automobiles 
manufactured in each model year, as well as some additional information 
for dual fueled automobiles (such as the fuel economy and driving range 
on both fuels). Further, EPCA requires that a statement appear on the 
fuel economy label that this booklet is available from dealers.\99\ 
Starting in the 2008 model year, the statement on the label was 
broadened to include a reference to http://www.fueleconomy.gov as 
another source for the Fuel Economy Guide; this Web site is based on 
the EPA fuel economy information and jointly run by EPA and DOE. Thus 
the current text now reads: ``See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at 
dealers or http://www.fueleconomy.gov.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(1)(A).
    \99\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy and the EPA currently maintain http://
www.fueleconomy.gov. The site helps fulfill DOE and EPA's 
responsibility under EPCA of 1992 to provide accurate MPG information 
to consumers. The site provides fuel economy estimates, energy and 
environmental impact ratings, fuel-saving tips, as well as a 
downloadable version of the fuel economy guide and other useful 
information. Since its inception in 1999 this Web site has been used by 
millions of consumers, and the latest data from 2008 indicates that 
more that 30 million user sessions occurred in that year.
    Because of the extensive amount of information and user features 
available on the Web site beyond simply providing electronic access to 
the Fuel Economy Guide, the agencies wish to direct consumers to this 
Web site when they are researching their vehicle purchases. For 
example, the Web site allows a user to personalize their fuel economy 
information by inputting their specific driving habits and fuel prices. 
This ability will be even more important for understanding the impacts 
of driving distance and battery charging habits on the fuel consumption 
of vehicles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and EPA expects to 
work with DOE to develop a Web-based system to allow users to customize 
the fuel economy estimates for these advanced technology vehicles. 
Further, information that some consumers may want but that is not 
available on the label is likely to be available on the Web site. For 
example, in the 2010 focus groups some participants expressed an 
interest in knowing the cost to fill the tank, or the volume of the 
fuel tank, or how many miles could be driven on a tank. The Web site 
provides all this information, and information such as the miles per 
tank can be personalized to reflect a person's relative amount of city 
and highway driving. Finally, the Web site also has developed a version 
tailored to mobile devices.
    During the expert panel, EPA provided the panelists with a copy of 
the current Fuel Economy Guide. The panelists all expressed concerns 
that the public probably didn't know it was available, didn't access it 
at the dealer showrooms if they did know it was available, and would 
not respond well to it in its current format. They recommended a simple 
one-sheet ``guide'' that dealers would distribute in the form of a 
checklist, that would allow EPA to deliver the top ten points on fuel 
economy that could not (and should not) be included on the label. It 
also would ensure that even if individuals did not utilize the Web 
site, they would receive this information. It was also suggested that 
if possible, distribution of this document be mandatory.
    EPA requests comments on the usefulness of the Fuel Economy Guide 
in its current form and also requests comments on whether EPA and DOE 
should develop a different approach in the future to the Fuel Economy 
Guide--including the idea of transforming the guide into a consumer 
friendly ``checklist'' guide. While EPA recognizes that it does not 
have the authority to mandate distribution of this guide by dealers we 
also request comments on how we could better encourage and work with 
dealers to more prominently display and distribute the fuel economy 
guide in the future.
    The expert panel also strongly recommended that the new fuel 
economy label prominently display an easy to remember URL. Panelists 
suggested that not only should such a URL be easy to remember, it 
should also provide a consistent platform for educational messages that 
would be highly visible for consumers and serve as a portal for web 
users to engage each other on fuel economy issues, including exchanging 
helpful tips and tools. Panelists indicated that this type of URL and 
message platform is of critical importance in today's marketplace and 
that EPA should make better use of the label to engage the public in 
this manner. Finally, the panelists recommended this new URL not be a 
`.gov' Web site, which they suggested is generally perceived as static 
and uninviting by consumers that are increasingly reliant on highly 
interactive social media networks and tools. Label 1 series found in 
Section III currently displays how this URL concept might be 
incorporated in Label 1. We note that President Obama has an initiative 
on transparency and open

[[Page 58102]]

government,\100\ and as part of this initiative, the Executive Branch 
has already made some significant improvements to its Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open 
Government, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_
office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/ (last accessed July 20, 
2010); see also Open Government Directive from OMB, available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf 
(last accessed July 20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies request comment on the new URL concept displayed on 
Label 1, along with the underlying approach recommended by the expert 
panel: That the agencies create and display a prominent URL on the 
label that will provide both a visible consumer message and an easy to 
remember web portal or gateway to a more interactive consumer Web site. 
As envisioned, this Web site would introduce the new label approach, 
laying out what is new and unique to this label. It would explain what 
the agencies are trying to accomplish with the new design, and detail 
the concept of the grading system and underlying scoring method. It 
would include applications that consumers can use to personalize their 
vehicle buying decisions, based on their own driving habits and needs. 
It would also provide information that is not available on the label, 
such as the upstream emissions associated with each vehicle choice. It 
would also link to the detailed vehicle information and consumer 
discussion pages on fueleconomy.gov, capitalizing on the existing 
government Web site and further maximizing its consumer friendliness 
and usability.
    Finally, for conventional vehicles, EPA is not proposing any 
changes to the statement that currently reads ``Your actual mileage 
will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.'' 
However, because some advanced technology vehicles are especially 
susceptible to certain conditions, such as cold weather, EPA is 
considering the addition of some specific qualifications to this 
statement for some vehicle technologies, and seeks comment on what 
qualifications might be most helpful.
13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information
    EPCA requires that ``Gas Guzzler'' tax information be included on 
the fuel economy label.\101\ These taxes are required under the 
Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). This part of the Internal 
Revenue Code contains the provisions governing the administration of 
the Gas Guzzler Tax, and specifically contains the table of applicable 
taxes and defines which vehicles are subject to the taxes. The IRS code 
specifies that the fuel economy to be used to assess the amount of tax 
will be the combined city and highway fuel economy as determined by 
using the procedures in place in 1975, or procedures that give 
comparable results (similar to EPCA's requirements for determining CAFE 
for passenger automobiles). These provisions have been codified in 40 
CFR 600.513-08. This proposed rule would not impact these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current labeling requirements for the Gas Guzzler Tax require 
that an affected vehicle have the following statement on the label (the 
regulations provide different ways of displaying this depending on the 
label; for example, an alternative fuel vehicle label has some 
additional information that limits space, thus the template for 
labeling such a vehicle accounts for this). In the limited situations 
in which this labeling requirement applies, EPA expects to provide 
label templates including this information that are consistent with the 
label design that is ultimately selected. For example, for Label 1 
presented in Section III, one potential option is to place the gas 
guzzler information in the position for fuel cost savings. EPA seeks 
comment on this approach.

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

1. Introduction
    In the past, EPA has not devoted much effort to fuel economy label 
issues for advanced technology vehicles. There is a simple reason for 
this--if EPA defines a conventional vehicle to be that which derives 
all of its propulsive energy from a petroleum fuel (or a liquid fuel 
blend dominated by petroleum) stored on-board the vehicle, then 
conventional vehicles have represented well over 99% of all vehicles 
sold since the advent of fuel economy labels in the 1970s. EPA made the 
judgment that the very small number of consumers who might have 
considered the purchase of an electric or natural gas or other type of 
advanced technology vehicle over the last 35 years did not justify a 
major investment of government resources to address the more complex 
issues associated with advanced technology labels. Rather, EPA 
addressed the occasional need for an advanced technology vehicle label 
on a case-by-case basis.
    But, this situation is changing and as the market evolves, this 
approach is no longer sufficient. For the first time since labels have 
been in use (in fact for the first time since the early days of the 
automotive industry), it appears increasingly likely that the future 
automotive marketplace will offer a much more diverse set of 
technological choices to consumers. EPA and NHTSA believe that now is 
the time to begin to design labels that are more appropriate for 
advanced technology vehicles that we expect to be commercialized in the 
next few years. For purposes of this rulemaking, the agencies intend to 
focus on two advanced technologies:
     Electric vehicles (EVs) are vehicles that are powered 
exclusively by batteries (charged with electricity from the grid) and 
electric motors, and which do not have a conventional internal 
combustion engine or any other powertrain. Several automakers sold EVs 
in the early and mid-1990s,\102\ but the only EV on the U.S. market 
today is the luxury Tesla Roadster with annual sales of a few hundred 
vehicles. The first more mainstream-priced EV offered for sale in the 
U.S. is the Nissan Leaf, for which orders are now being taken and first 
deliveries are projected for late this year in selected markets.\103\ 
In addition, Ford has announced plans for a model year 2012 Ford Focus 
EV.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Ehsani,M., Gao,Y., and Einadi, A. (2010). Modern Electric, 
Hybrid Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles: F Fundamentals, Theory, and 
Design. Second Edition. Pp 12-14.
    \103\ ``Nissan's Electric Leaf Set for Production,'' Detroit 
News. May 26, 2010, http://detnews.com/article/20100526/AUTO01/
5260357, (last accessed May 26, 2010).
    \104\ Abuelsamid, Sam, ``Detroit 2010: 2012 Focus Electric could 
be both sedan and hatch'', green.autoblog.com, Jan. 11, 2010, 
available at: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/11/detroit-2010-
2012-ford-focus-electric-could-be-both-sedan-and-h. (last accessed 
July 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can be powered in 
as many as three different ways: (1) Like an EV, exclusively by 
batteries and electric motors, (2) like a conventional hybrid vehicle, 
when the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy from a conventional 
internal combustion engine/transmission (usually fueled with gasoline), 
though the battery still assists with regenerative braking and engine 
buffering, and (3) a combination of both conventional hybrid and 
electric operation. PHEVs entail a family of different engineering 
approaches, and will continue to evolve as the technology matures. One 
distinct type of PHEV is called an extended range electric vehicle 
(EREV). An EREV PHEV has a very distinct operational profile: As long 
as the battery is above its minimal charge level, the vehicle is 
operated exclusively on the electric powertrain, and then when the 
battery is at its minimal charge, it operates like a conventional 
hybrid getting all of its power from gasoline or other liquid fuel. In 
a way, an EREV PHEV can be

[[Page 58103]]

considered to be a combination of an EV and a conventional hybrid, with 
an emphasis on operating like an EV as much as possible. There have 
been no commercial EREV PHEVs sold in the U.S. to date but the first 
commercial offering is likely to be the Chevrolet Volt, which is 
scheduled to be introduced in late 2010.\105\ A second type of PHEV is 
called a ``blended'' PHEV. As long as the battery is charged, it will 
operate on a combination of grid electricity and gasoline (while a 
blended PHEV might not have any ``guaranteed'' all-electric range, it 
is possible that some blended PHEV designs may have some all-electric 
range under certain driving conditions), then when the battery is at 
its minimal charge, the vehicle gets all of its propulsive energy from 
the gasoline fuel and engine (though the battery still assists with 
regenerative braking and engine buffering, as with a conventional 
hybrid). In this respect, a blended PHEV can be viewed as a combination 
of a ``grid-enhanced'' hybrid and a conventional hybrid, but without 
the emphasis on using only electricity for shorter trips as with the 
EREV PHEV. To the degree that a blended PHEV does have some practical 
all-electric range, the boundary between a blended PHEV and an EREV 
PHEV begins to blur. There have been no original equipment blended PHEV 
offerings in the U.S. to date, but many automakers are developing 
prototypes and some aftermarket conversions are available. The first 
commercial U.S. blended PHEV may be a Toyota Prius, likely offered as a 
2012 model.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ ``Chevy Volt's Rollout to Include New York City,''New York 
Times, July 1, 2010, http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/
chevy-volts-initial-rollout-to-include-new-york-city/. (last 
accessed July 12, 2010).
    \106\ ``Detroit 2010: Toyota's 2011 plug-in Prius release date 
is ``aggressive'' target,'' Green Autoblog, January 14, 2010, http:/
/green.autoblog.com/2010/01/14/detroit-2010-toyotas-2011-plug-in-
prius-release-date-is-aggre. (last accessed July 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other advanced technology vehicles will also likely be on the 
market in the near future--for example, Honda continues to sell a 
dedicated compressed natural gas Civic in selected states and several 
manufacturers plan to sell fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) in the 
future.\107\ In any case, the issues associated with and the decisions 
that we make about labels for EVs and PHEVs will go a long way toward 
preparing us to address labels from other advanced technologies in the 
future. EPA and NHTSA seek comments on whether there are other advanced 
technologies that have the potential to achieve mainstream interest in 
the near future and for which the agencies should develop labels in a 
future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ ``GM Plans Fuel-Cell Vehicle Pilot Program in Hawaii,'' 
Environmental Leader, Energy & Environmental News for Business, May 
12, 2010, http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/05/12/gm-plans-
fuel-cell-vehicle-pilot-program-in-hawaii/. (last accessed July 12, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHEVs and EVs represent a fundamental departure from the powertrain 
and fueling infrastructure that has exclusively dominated the U.S. 
market for the last century--a single powertrain (an internal 
combustion engine with a mechanical transmission) and a single fuel 
(gasoline) available at public service stations. While PHEVs retain 
this option, they also offer the consumer the option to charge the on-
board battery from the electric grid at home and to propel the vehicle 
exclusively or partially by the battery and electric motor. An EV must 
be operated this way. These fundamentally different powertrains and 
refueling approaches raise many challenging issues from a consumer 
information standpoint that may affect how the agencies decide to 
require these vehicles to be labeled.
     These technologies are still evolving. EPA has been able 
to test only a small number of these advanced technology vehicles, and 
it is unclear whether the vehicles that we have tested are a good 
reflection of the technologies that will ultimately be offered in the 
market.
     Gasoline and electricity are very different automotive 
fuels. Gasoline is a liquid fuel with a high energy density that is 
stored on-board the vehicle in a relatively simple and lightweight tank 
that can be filled in a few minutes, while electricity is generated by 
chemical reactions inside a much lower energy density (and therefore 
heavier) battery pack and which can take many hours to recharge. 
Gasoline is produced very efficiently from crude oil, but is a less 
efficient vehicle fuel, while electricity is less efficient to produce 
from a wide variety of resources (such as coal, nuclear, natural gas, 
hydropower, and wind), but is a more efficient vehicle fuel. 
Approximately 80% of the ``life-cycle'' greenhouse gas emissions from a 
gasoline vehicle are emitted directly from the vehicle tailpipe, while 
all of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with an 
electric vehicle are ``upstream'' of the vehicle. As just one simple 
example, miles per gallon, the core metric that has been used on 
gasoline labels for the last 35 years, is a much more complicated 
metric for a fuel like electricity which is not measured in gallons.
     Some advanced technologies can operate on more than one 
fuel, either simultaneously (e.g., the use of gasoline and electricity 
in the charge depleting mode of a blended PHEV) or at different times 
(e.g., an EREV PHEV uses electricity in charge depleting mode, then 
gasoline in hybrid mode). By itself, this suggests that a consumer 
label for a vehicle that operates on two fuels might have to have 
approximately twice as much information as a label for a vehicle that 
operates on a single fuel.
     Consumer behavior can have a much larger impact on the 
operation of an advanced technology vehicle, relative to that of a 
conventional vehicle. Whether the owner of a PHEV charges the battery 
every night and how many miles per day they drive--neither of which 
affects average energy consumption for a conventional vehicle--can have 
a dramatic impact on energy and environmental performance. Again using 
the standard miles per gallon of gasoline metric as an example, one 
EREV PHEV design may vary from 35 or 40 MPG on the low end (when the 
battery is empty and the vehicle is in hybrid mode) to essentially 
``infinite'' MPG-gasoline if the vehicle is operated only off the 
battery pack. This fuel economy variability is much greater than with 
conventional vehicles, where MPG values for most individual vehicles 
are typically within 15-20% of the average value.
     Consumers have no practical experience with these new 
technologies, or in some cases might not even understand the basics of 
how the technologies work. While EPA has sponsored focus groups to 
gauge what consumers want on advanced technology labels, there can be 
little question that consumers are in a stronger position to provide 
meaningful input on conventional labels, with which they have decades 
of experience, than on advanced technology labels, where they may not 
now know what they will want and need to know in the future to make 
informed purchase decisions.
    All of these factors suggest that there is the likelihood of 
significant consumer confusion when multiple advanced technology 
vehicles begin to compete in the marketplace. We have no illusions that 
our advanced technology labels will completely resolve this consumer 
confusion, but we do hope they will help to reduce the confusion. We 
are certain that advanced technology labels will be more complicated 
than conventional vehicle labels. Just as EPA has repeatedly refined 
the much simpler conventional vehicle labels over time, the agencies 
expect to do so with

[[Page 58104]]

advanced technology vehicle labels as well. Accordingly, while EPA and 
NHTSA are co-proposing two specific labels for EVs and PHEVs, the 
agencies also seek public comment on as many of the key issues as 
possible.
    While this section will discuss EVs and EREV PHEVs as well, in many 
cases blended PHEVs will be the illustrative technology because they 
often raise the most challenging issues due to the fact that two 
different fuels can be used simultaneously.
2. EPA Statutory Requirements
a. Electric Vehicles (EVs)
    Electricity is an alternative fuel under the statute and vehicles 
fueled only by alternative fuel are ``dedicated automobiles.'' \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) and (a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
    Some PHEVs are dual fueled automobiles under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9). 
They are capable of operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline, 
provide superior energy efficiency when operating on electricity 
compared to operating on gasoline, and provide superior efficiency when 
operating on a mixture of electricity and gasoline as when operating on 
gasoline.\109\ These vehicles also meet the requirement that a dual 
fueled automobile must meet the minimum driving range under 49 U.S.C. 
32901(c).\110\ DOT has set the minimum driving range for electric 
vehicles at 7.5 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity 
when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles on its nominal 
storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA highway test 
cycle.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(A), (B), (C). EPA is extending the 
application of the subclause (C).
    \110\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9)(D).
    \111\ 49 CFR 538.5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute contains particular requirements for dual fueled 
automobile labels. Section 32908(b)(3) requires that each label (A) 
indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline 
or diesel fuel, (B) clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled 
automobile, (C) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may 
be operated; and (D) contain a statement that additional information 
required by the statute is in the fuel economy booklet. The additional 
information required in the booklet for dual fuel automobiles is 
described in 32908(c)(2) and states that the label will include the 
energy efficiency and cost operation of the automobile when operated on 
gasoline as compared to when operated on alternative fuel and the 
driving range when operated on gasoline as compared to when operated on 
alternative fuel. It should also include information on the miles per 
gallon achieved when operated on alternative fuel and a statement 
explaining how these estimates may change when the automobile is 
operated on mixtures of alternative fuel and gasoline.
    For simplicity and consistency, the agencies plan for all PHEV fuel 
economy labels to contain the information required for dual fueled 
vehicles under the statute, even though only some PHEVs are dual fuel 
automobiles. We seek comment on this approach.
    The fuel economy required on the label means the average number of 
miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or 
equivalent amount of other fuel) used.\112\ Therefore, in order to meet 
the statutory requirement that fuel economy be displayed on the label, 
the electricity use for EVs and PHEVs on the fuel economy label is 
converted to gallons of gasoline equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that the statutory requirements in the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act of 1975 were adopted long before advanced 
technologies like EREV PHEVs and blended PHEVs were even conceived. 
While EPA must meet the statutory requirements, the agencies are 
concerned that requiring electricity to be conveyed in MPG equivalent 
values might actually make an advanced technology vehicle label less 
useful to consumers. The agencies seek public comment on this question 
as explained in more detail below.
3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Labels
    The agencies have found it helpful to identify a few basic 
principles to guide our thinking about and development of advanced 
technology vehicle labels.
     The advanced technology vehicle labels should provide 
objective information that helps consumers make good decisions for both 
themselves and the environment. The market research undertaken for this 
rulemaking found that the current fuel economy label is a trusted 
source of information regarding the fuel economy of today's 
conventional gasoline vehicles and the agencies seek to build on this 
foundation by ensuring that consumers receive objective, useful and 
essential information that helps inform their advanced technology 
vehicle purchasing decisions.\113\ The agencies recognize that many of 
the most important drivers for the public and private interest in 
advanced vehicle technologies are in fact related to energy and 
environmental considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-
Focus Groups Online Survey Report, EPA420-R-10-907, August 2010, p. 
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The advanced technology vehicle labels should aim for the 
simplest way to provide fairly complex information. As discussed above 
in the introduction to this section and with specific examples later in 
this section, the agencies are aware that advanced technology vehicle 
labels will inherently be more complex than conventional vehicle 
labels. We strive to strike a balance between providing sufficient 
information to be helpful and credible (too simple runs the risk of 
misinformation with such complex technologies), without trying to ``do 
everything'' on the label (which could be a source of confusion for 
many consumers). We believe that automakers and respected third-party 
organizations (and possibly the federal government via fueleconomy.gov 
or other Web sites) will develop sophisticated on-line (and possibly 
on-vehicle) calculators that will allow consumers to customize energy, 
environmental, and cost information for their unique driving and 
battery re-charging habits. We believe that labels should be aimed at 
the consumer who wants a quick overview of energy, environmental, and 
cost performance, and that those consumers who want detailed, 
customized information will look to other sources.
     The advanced technology vehicle labels must be as 
equitable as possible across different technologies, both advanced and 
conventional. For example, the agencies want to avoid picking a label 
design or label metric that inherently favors a certain advanced 
technology beyond the energy and environmental merits of the individual 
vehicles. There could be considerable consumer confusion when multiple 
advanced technology vehicles reach the market, each with their own 
marketing strategy, and labels are one way to minimize consumer 
confusion. We specifically solicit comments from automakers on whether 
we have achieved this goal of equity with our proposed label designs.
     Finally, while labels should provide one or more metrics 
to compare across vehicle technologies, both advanced and conventional, 
the advanced technology vehicle labels do not have to have the same 
precise design as conventional vehicle labels. Given that many of the

[[Page 58105]]

label content issues associated with advanced vehicle technologies are 
much more complex than for conventional vehicles, it would probably be 
impossible for the labels to look the same. On the other hand, we do 
want the ``look and feel'' of the advanced technology and conventional 
vehicle labels to be as consistent as possible.
    EPA and NHTSA seek public comment on the appropriateness of each of 
these principles, and whether there are additional principles that we 
should consider.
4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues
    Most of the content on advanced technology vehicle labels will be 
similar to that on conventional vehicle labels. This section addresses 
those issues that are unique to advanced technology vehicle labels.
a. Upstream Emissions
    This section discusses how the agencies plan to address the issue 
of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of motor vehicles, 
in the context of a program specifically designed to provide consumers 
with information that will be useful when purchasing a vehicle. The 
agencies' approach takes into account (1) the statutory language, (2) 
the fact that the law requires a great deal of information to be 
presented on the label, (3) the limited amount of information that can 
be provided on a label, (4) the importance of simplicity, clarity, 
accuracy, and intelligibility on the label, and (5) the ability to 
provide the public with additional and comprehensive information in a 
consumer-friendly format on a Web site.\114\ This discussion focuses 
on, but is not limited to, the advanced technology vehicles that use 
electricity from the grid to power vehicles, such as the electric 
vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are expected to enter the market in 
larger numbers in the coming years; the discussion also refers to the 
use of renewable fuels in gasoline-powered vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ On the relationship between summary disclosure, as on the 
label, and full disclosure, as on the Web site, see http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/
disclosure_principles.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For reasons outlined below, our proposed approach would limit the 
label to tailpipe-only emissions while providing much fuller 
information on a Web site. But we also identify, and seek comments on, 
alternative approaches, designed to accommodate the relevant variables.
    The agencies believe that the proposed approach follows from a 
reasonable interpretation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) 
of 2007. The statute states that NHTSA must require vehicles to be 
labeled with information ``reflecting an automobile's performance * * * 
[with respect to] greenhouse gas * * * emissions * * * of the 
automobile.'' \115\ This information is to be based on criteria 
developed by EPA. NHTSA believes that a reasonable interpretation of 
this provision is that only GHG emissions directly from the vehicle 
itself are required for the label. On that interpretation, the 
information on performance and the rating of the vehicles would both be 
based on the emissions of the vehicle itself. This interpretation is 
also consistent with the history of the EPA labeling program and its 
focus on the vehicle itself. NHTSA believes that it would also be 
reasonable to interpret the statutory language such that the required 
label information on GHG emissions would include additional information 
on the upstream GHG emissions associated with electricity or other 
fuels used by the vehicle. This additional information could provide a 
broader context for reflecting the automobile's performance with 
respect to GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) 
also refers to GHG ``emissions of automobiles,'' and further 
requires a designation of automobiles ``with the lowest greenhouse 
gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies recognize that ``lifecycle'' GHG emissions are 
associated with the production and distribution of all automotive fuels 
used by motor vehicles. Lifecycle GHG emissions are associated with 
gasoline, diesel, and other fuels such as natural gas, electricity, and 
renewable biofuels. The agencies also recognize that while tailpipe-
only emissions provide important information, a significant number of 
consumers may want, or benefit from, access to information on the total 
upstream GHG emissions associated with the operation of their vehicles. 
For example, electric vehicles do not have any tailpipe emissions since 
their motors do not burn fuel, but producing the electricity used to 
power such vehicles most likely emits greenhouse gases. Consumers might 
seek, or benefit from, a label that allows for simple and accurate 
comparisons across vehicles on the total upstream GHG emissions, in 
addition to tailpipe emissions. However, the agencies emphasize that 
developing the relevant information, and providing it to consumers in a 
manner that is accurate and meaningful, raises a number of challenging 
issues, particularly in the context of the label.
    A full lifecycle evaluation would include an evaluation of a 
comprehensive set of GHG and energy impacts associated with both the 
vehicle (extraction and processing of materials, energy used in 
assembly, distribution, use, and disposal, etc.), and the fuel 
(feedstock extraction, feedstock transport, fuel processing, fuel 
transport, etc.). In practice, however, offering even the more limited 
accounting for GHG emissions from production and distribution of the 
fuel, including electricity, presents complex challenges. EPA currently 
does not measure fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions 
in its vehicle testing. The agencies recognize that modeling can be 
performed to assist in estimating these emissions. But in developing 
upstream GHG emissions values, modeling would need to be done carefully 
to avoid inaccuracy and consumer confusion, especially in light of 
variations across time and across regions. For example, GHG emissions 
from electricity generation will vary significantly in the future, 
based on the different fuels used at generating stations--perhaps by as 
much as an order of magnitude between coal and non-fossil feedstocks.
    It is true that the EPA has undertaken extensive lifecycle modeling 
of biofuels for the Renewable Fuel Standard rulemaking in response to 
the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act. But that 
assessment was done in the context of the particular mix of biofuels 
required nationally in 2022 by the Act, with a series of assumptions 
and estimates that may not be accurate today.
    One overriding issue is whether the agencies could reasonably 
provide a single, national value for GHG emissions from electricity 
generation or could provide instead different values customized for 
various regions of the country.\116\ There are data sources upon which 
a single national number could be derived. For individual owners, 
however, a single national value would generally not be accurate, and 
the individual would need access to additional information, such as 
regional values, to evaluate the impact of a specific vehicle.\117\ In 
addition, the

[[Page 58106]]

agencies would have to decide (1) whether to use average or marginal 
(i.e., reflecting the fact that increased vehicle demand might change 
the overall mix of electricity sources) GHG emissions factors, and (2) 
if the marginal approach is used, whether to assume all nighttime 
charging or a mix of daytime and nighttime charging. Another major 
consideration is whether to base electricity generation GHG emissions 
values on today's electricity markets or on projected changes in 
electricity markets that might occur by 2020 or some other year (note 
that vehicles produced in the next few years will remain in the fleet 
for 15 or 20 years or more).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/
index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states for an overview 
of the national U.S. electric power industry net generation by fuel 
type.
    \117\ Regional values could be provided on a Web site. EPA has a 
Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-
clean.html) on which consumers can enter their zip code and find out 
what fuel mix is used to produce the electricity they use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some states have already passed legislation that could require 
major changes in how electricity is produced in those states in the 
future, and Congress has considered landmark legislation as well. It is 
clear that the question of how electricity will be produced in the 
future is very fluid. As a result of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act biofuel mandates, for example, the agencies expect the 
amount of biofuel in the transportation fuel market to increase 
significantly over time, and the contribution of feedstocks to change 
over that time as well. Information that addresses lifecycle emissions 
of biofuels would need to take these considerations into account.
    The agencies believe that all of these complex factors can be best 
addressed by providing a great deal of relevant information on a Web 
site, which can go into considerable detail and be changed and updated 
as appropriate. We currently do not have a full lifecycle analysis from 
which to draw for labeling purposes across the full range of vehicles 
and fuels. The information reported to EPA on emissions from fuel 
production varies across fuel types and is much more detailed for 
gasoline production. At the present time, it would be difficult to 
represent emissions from energy generation on a national label in a way 
that is both useful and accurate for consumers, given regional 
variations, how generation within regions is dispatched, and access to 
green power purchases.
    Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the label should limit 
itself to tailpipe only emissions (clearly identified as such) and 
include a more complete discussion on energy generation and lifecycle 
analysis on the webpage. We believe that this approach will prove 
sufficiently informative to consumers. It also allows us the 
opportunity to provide a fuller discussion of GHG emissions associated 
with energy generation for alternative vehicles, as well as emissions 
from fuel production (gasoline and biofuels). For example, a Web site 
could provide calculator tools that could reflect regional variations 
in the GHG emissions associated with electricity generation as well as 
use national averages. A Web site could also provide information on the 
projected fuel lifecycle impacts associated with biofuels. The Web site 
could be updated over time as the mix of electricity fuel sources and 
biofuels changes. This approach could help the consumer understand over 
the lifetime of their vehicles how their electricity generation 
emissions impacts might be changing.
    At this point in time, any effort to provide complete lifecycle 
information for fuels on the label could well produce undue confusion. 
A label that clearly presents tailpipe emissions appears to be the best 
available way to combine accuracy and disclosure, so long as fuller 
information is available on the Web site. The agencies believe that 
even though many consumers will not visit the Web site, it will be used 
by many groups and organizations, and as a result, the information that 
it provides will be made available and used in the marketplace. We seek 
comment on our current view that the web is the better place, compared 
to the label, to address the complex issues associated with emissions 
associated with electricity generation and lifecycle emissions more 
generally.
    We invite both general and particular comments on the proposed 
approach. For example, we encourage commenters to be as specific as 
possible with any recommendations on how to address fuel combustion/
electricity generation GHG emissions on the Web site. If information on 
these emissions is to be provided on a Web site, exactly what 
information? The agencies specifically invite comment on how to address 
fuel combustion emissions associated with the electricity used to power 
the advanced technology vehicles starting to enter commerce, such as 
electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). The 
agencies also invite comment on how to address full GHG emissions from 
biofuels on a Web site. Should emissions be identified specifically for 
the emissions associated with the combustion of fuel to produce 
electricity? Should such emissions be determined on a regional or a 
national basis? Should these emissions be provided as a relative 
comparison to a gasoline or diesel fuel, the current predominant fuels?
    For the convenience of commenters, we have prepared the table below 
as an illustrative example of one simplified way that some lifecycle 
emissions information related to electricity production could be 
accounted for on a Web site, based on certain assumptions.\118\ It is 
important to note that for comparison purposes, the agencies would need 
to develop methodologies to compare upstream emissions impacts from all 
other fuels as well, including diesel, renewable fuels, and natural 
gas. Consistent with the discussion above, it is important to emphasize 
that the tailpipe + lifecycle values in the table below are based on 
2005 national average electricity GHG emissions, and could be very 
different for certain regions of the country today and for the nation 
in the future if there are major changes in the mix of methods used to 
generate electricity or in the GHG emissions associated with its 
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ The key assumptions underlying the illustrative numbers in 
the right-hand column are that: EV and PHEVs all assumed to use 200 
Watt-hours per mile when operating on electricity over the EPA test 
and assuming a 30% range (43% electricity consumption) shortfall 
from test to road.
    PHEV 1 assumed to operate on electricity 50% of the time.
    PHEV 2 assumed to operate on electricity 25% of the time.
    Uses 2005 nationwide average value of 0.642 grams of GHG per 
Watt-hour at powerplant (adjusted to include GHG emissions from 
feedstock extraction, transportation, and processing as well) from 
MY2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG final rule (75 Federal Register 
25437).
    Assumes typical 7% electricity grid transmission losses.
    Uses 2250 grams GHG per gallon of gasoline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Proposal--      Tailpipe +
                 Vehicle                   tailpipe-only   upstream CO2/
                                             CO2/mile          mile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example EV..............................               0             197
Example PHEV 1..........................              89             210

[[Page 58107]]

Example PHEV2...........................             133             217
Toyota Prius HEV........................             178             224
Honda Civic HEV.........................             212             266
Honda Insight HEV.......................             217             273
Ford Fusion HEV.........................             228             287
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, for purposes of providing information on the web, the 
agencies invite comment on the appropriate metrics to use and the 
specific suggestions for content and format, if appropriate. The 
agencies also request comment on which web resources it should 
prioritize for development that would provide the most useful 
information to consumers.
    The agencies acknowledge that more consumers will look at the label 
than at the Web site, and that a ``0'' figure for GHG emissions might 
prove confusing to some consumers. While accurate and more complete 
information will be provided on the Web site, putting 0 grams CO2/mile 
on the label may lead some consumers to perceive that driving their EV 
does not contribute to GHG emissions. With respect to the label itself, 
the agencies are also requesting comment on alternative options for the 
label that, in addition to presenting tailpipe emissions, refer to or 
identify in some manner the emissions associated with the lifecycle of 
the fuel. Under one version of this alternative that is under serious 
consideration, similar to a co-proposal, the EV label would continue to 
reflect the ``0'' CO2g/mile number currently displayed on the co-
proposed labels (Figures III-2, III-10), but the label would be 
modified by adding either a symbol or an asterisk and explanatory text 
which states, ``The only C02 emissions are from electricity 
generation.'' Likewise, the agencies would modify the co-proposed PHEV 
labels (Figures III-3, III-6, III-1, III-12) inserting either a symbol 
or asterisk next to the current CO2g/mile number displayed with the 
following explanatory text, ``Does not include CO2 from electricity 
generation.''
    This alternative approach might provide more accuracy and clarity 
for purchasers by more explicitly indicating that the CO2 emissions 
from generation of electricity are not reflected in the CO2 numbers on 
the label. Under this alternative, FFV labels (for FFV vehicles only) 
would continue to reflect the gasoline only CO2g/mile number currently 
displayed on the co-proposed labels (Figures III-8 and III-14), but the 
label (for FFVs only) would be modified by adding either a symbol or an 
asterisk and explanatory text that might state, ``The CO2 emissions 
listed here are from gasoline combustion only. They do not reflect the 
use of renewable biofuels.'' The agencies request comment on this 
alternative option.
    The agencies are also giving consideration to an approach that in 
addition to the tailpipe emissions, includes information on upstream 
emissions on the label for the various fuels. For electric vehicles, 
for example, GHG emissions are (on an average basis) a function of KwH 
per mile, and thus could in principle be calculated, and if a full or 
nearly full accounting could be provided in a clear and intelligible 
form, there would be advantages to providing it on the label to 
consumers, in addition to the tailpipe emissions data. Therefore, the 
agencies invite comment on the feasibility and usefulness of an 
alternative approach that in addition to identifying tailpipe 
emissions, would include a separate value for upstream emissions on the 
label as well as on the Web site.
    In particular, the agencies invite comment on what type of 
information should be considered as ``upstream,'' and whether a label 
including the upstream emissions could be based on national averages. 
The agencies might consider making assumptions to develop national 
averages.
    Note, however, that agencies would need to make a substantial 
number of assumptions to develop such averages. These include 
assumptions about the overall impact on electric car recharging on the 
grid mix, which would include making assumptions about (1) the time-of-
day distribution of recharging and (2) the subsequent impacts on the 
base and peak load electricity generation as well as (3) the nature of 
regional variability and (4) potential changes in the electricity 
generation fleet. A relevant source for this type of information may be 
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which provides estimates 
of the future electricity generation mix, so there may be some basis 
for estimating future GHG emissions based on current state and federal 
policies; but these estimates will also rest on some uncertain 
assumptions. The same type of analysis (national averages for 
feedstocks and fuel production) would need to be developed and 
equivalent assumptions made related to upstream emissions from gasoline 
and diesel production as well as renewable fuels, natural gas, and 
hydrogen.
    The agencies invite comments on whether and how the possible 
inclusion of upstream emissions information on the label might affect 
other elements of the label such as design, format, presentation of the 
various ratings and other information as well as the ranking of 
vehicles on the label.
    The agencies also recognize that notwithstanding the many 
challenges, a potential advantage of including upstream emissions on 
the label is that consumers may be able to compare different EVs with 
respect to their upstream emissions, as some will require more energy 
per mile which would likely result in different upstream emissions 
impacts. Consumers may be able to make similar comparisons among EVs, 
PHEVs, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles as well as other fueled 
vehicles on the basis of upstream emissions. Regardless of what would 
be presented on the label, the agencies will continue to provide 
detailed information about the lifecycle GHG impacts of different 
vehicles on the Web site in a way that may provide a better way for 
individuals to take their region, driving habits, and other specific 
factors into account in their purchase decisions.
    In view of the many assumptions the agencies would need to make to 
include upstream emissions on the label, we emphasize that this 
alternative would have to overcome several serious challenges. We ask 
for comment on whether and how each of those challenges, outlined 
above, could be addressed.
b. Energy Consumption Metrics
    Energy consumption metrics are another issue which becomes more 
complicated with advanced technology vehicles. For conventional 
gasoline vehicles, the MPG metric has been the foundation of the 
consumer label for 35 years. It is not a perfect metric, and some have 
expressed concerns about its

[[Page 58108]]

``non-linearity,'' e.g., the absolute fuel consumption savings 
associated with improving one mile per gallon from 10-11 MPG is over 
ten times greater than the fuel consumption savings associated with 
improving from 35-36 MPG as discussed above. But, in some respects, MPG 
has been a good metric for a consumer information program: Lay people 
had used the MPG metric prior to its use on the label, the concept was 
simple and understood by almost all consumers, the practical range of 
10-50 MPG was accessible to lay people and facilitated simple 
calculations that most consumers could perform, etc. The results from 
recent EPA focus groups conducted by the agencies were unequivocal--the 
MPG values were, by far, the most trusted and useful values on the 
label.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately, while the miles per gallon metric has been very 
useful when 99+% of all vehicles operated on petroleum fuels, its 
usefulness as a metric is less clear for a future vehicle fuel such as 
electricity, which is not measured in gallons, but rather in kilowatt-
hours. Therefore, for an electric vehicle, or for an EREV PHEV when 
operated exclusively on grid electricity, there are three broad choices 
for a consumption metric, independent of statutory considerations, to 
characterize the amount of electricity and all have advantages and 
disadvantages:
     Kilowatt-hours. The rationale for kilowatt-hours is that 
this is the metric by which electricity is ``counted'' and sold. In 
their monthly utility bills, consumers are charged a certain rate (or 
price) per kilowatt-hour, and this rate is multiplied by the number of 
kilowatt-hours that the consumer uses, to generate the overall monthly 
electricity bill. This is analogous to what happens at a gasoline 
service station, where a consumer pays a certain rate (or price) per 
gallon of gasoline, and this rate is multiplied by the number of 
gallons of gasoline that the consumer buys, to generate the overall 
gasoline bill. The primary argument against using kilowatt-hours is 
that the focus groups conducted by the agencies clearly indicates that 
few consumers understand what a kilowatt-hour is, and most of the 
consumers who do not know what a kilowatt-hour is say that they do not 
want to learn.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010 and Environmental 
Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-
R-10-905, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Gallons of gasoline-equivalent. From an engineering 
perspective, energy can be measured, and different forms of energy can 
be compared through the use of energy unit conversion factors. For 
example, a gallon of gasoline has the energy equivalent of 33.7 
kilowatt-hours, and any value for kilowatt-hours can be converted to an 
energy-equivalent value of gallons of gasoline.\121\ For example, a 
vehicle that used 33.7 kilowatt-hours would have used an amount of 
energy equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline, while a vehicle that used 
twice as much electricity would have used an amount of energy 
equivalent to 2 gallons of gasoline. The rationale for using gallons of 
gasoline-equivalent is that consumers understand the concept of 
``gallons'' much more than they understand any other energy metric. In 
the focus groups conducted for this rulemaking, the agencies found that 
participants believed they understood the equivalency approach and felt 
comfortable with this metric since it closely aligns with the miles per 
gallon metric that they have always relied upon.\122\ The primary 
argument against using gallons of gasoline-equivalent is that the 
concept requires the conversion of one form of energy to another, and 
while this reflects a technical measurement of energy equivalency, it 
may or may not be useful to the consumer. For example, gasoline and 
electricity are very different fuels in many ways: How they are 
produced, how consumers buy them and refuel, whether consumer fuel 
expenditures stay in the local or regional economy or are exported, 
etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 65 FR 36990.
    \122\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010, p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A generic energy unit not directly connected to either 
gasoline or electricity, such as British Thermal Units (BTUs) or 
joules. The argument here would be to pick an energy metric that is 
``fuel neutral.'' The primary arguments against this are both that few 
consumers understand such a metric, and that no motor fuels are counted 
or sold in such units. While the agencies recognize this as another 
conceptual alternative, we have rejected this approach.
    As discussed previously, EPCA requires that electricity use for EVs 
and PHEVs on the fuel economy label is converted to gallons of 
gasoline-equivalent. But the statute also provides discretion to EPA on 
the relative prominence of a gallons of gasoline-equivalent metric and 
a kilowatt-hours metric.
    For EV labels, the agencies propose to show electricity consumption 
in both metrics: As miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe) and 
as kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. The agencies recognize that higher 
MPGe values are better, while lower kw-hr/100 miles values are better. 
The agencies seek comment on whether this is helpful or confusing to 
consumers.
    The most complicated advanced technology vehicle in this regard is 
a blended PHEV that is operating simultaneously on gasoline and grid 
electricity. There are two options for energy metrics for blended 
PHEVs, which are based on the general concepts introduced above.
     Retain separate energy metrics for gasoline and 
electricity. The gasoline metric would continue to be miles per gallon 
of gasoline (supplemented by a gallons/100 miles consumption value as 
well), while the electricity metric would be kilowatt-hours of 
electricity (either miles per kilowatt-hour or kilowatt-hours per 100 
miles). The advantages of this approach are (1) it includes the values 
that EPA measures, (2) the metrics reflect how these forms of energy 
are counted and how consumers pay for them, (3) the separate values do 
not require judgments about whether consumers ``value'' gasoline and 
electricity equally or not, and (4) it would avoid possible confusion 
over what a combined miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent value 
means (i.e., some, maybe many, consumers would probably assume that a 
miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent value was equal to a miles per 
gallon of gasoline value, which would be inaccurate). The disadvantages 
of such an approach are (1) few consumers understand the metric of 
kilowatt-hours, (2) dual energy metrics make it extremely difficult to 
compare energy efficiency across vehicles, and (3) those consumers who 
focus only on miles per gallon of gasoline and ignore kilowatt-hours of 
electricity, will believe that a blended PHEV is more energy efficient 
than it actually is.
     Combine to a single energy metric of miles per gallon of 
gasoline-equivalent. This would require the use of the conversion 
factor of 33.7 kilowatt-hours per gallon of gasoline-equivalent value 
cited above. The advantages of this approach are (1) it yields a single 
value that simplifies the label and facilitates vehicle comparisons, 
(2) it avoids the kilowatt-hour metric that consumers do not like or 
understand, and (3) some consumers (though not all) said they liked the 
concept of miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. The disadvantages 
of such an approach are

[[Page 58109]]

(1) it requires the simplifying assumption that all forms of energy (in 
this case, gasoline and electricity) are equally valued, (2) it does 
not allow the consumer to see the individual energy consumption values 
for gasoline and electricity, and (3) it will yield labels with both 
miles per gallon of gasoline and miles per gallon of gasoline-
equivalent, which could be confusing to some consumers.
    The agencies are proposing to use the miles per gallon of gasoline-
equivalent metric only for PHEVs, but seek public comment on the 
relative merits of doing so versus using the separate energy metrics. 
The agencies believe that both approaches have advantages and 
disadvantages. In formulating comments on this topic, commenters could 
also consider three additional questions. One, do consumers care 
equally about gasoline and electricity, i.e., are they just two 
different ways of fueling their vehicles, with a Btu of gasoline 
equivalent to a Btu of electricity, or do some or most consumers care 
more about one or the other form of energy? Two, how should the 
agencies interpret the focus group input in which most participants 
indicated that they did not understand kilowatt-hours on their electric 
bills and did not want to have this metric included on advanced vehicle 
labels? Three, should we view this as an opportunity to educate 
consumers about the importance of kilowatt-hours as a fundamental 
measurement of electricity consumption?
c. Driving Range Information (Including 5-Cycle Adjustment)
    EPA does not include range information on conventional fuel economy 
labels. Petroleum fuels have high energy densities and are stored on-
board the vehicle in relatively cheap and lightweight fuel tanks. The 
combination of high driving range values (gasoline vehicles typically 
have ranges of 300-500 miles) and the fact that range can be increased 
by simply increasing the size of the fuel tank, means that range for 
petroleum-fueled vehicles has not been a top consumer priority. In 
recognition of the fact that non-petroleum fuels generally have lower 
energy densities resulting in reduced driving ranges than petroleum 
fuels, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires a label that lists 
the ``manufacturer's estimated cruising range'' for alternative-fueled 
vehicles.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 16 CFR part 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary issue addressed in this section is whether range should 
be included on advanced technology vehicle labels. For an EV, the 
primary range parameter of interest would be the miles that can be 
traveled between battery charges. For an EREV PHEV, the most important 
range parameter would be the miles that can be traveled in all-electric 
mode. For a blended PHEV, the primary range parameter would be the 
number of miles over which the battery is providing assistance in the 
form of grid electricity, but it is also possible that there could be 
some guaranteed or likely all-electric range as well.
    The primary arguments for including range include (1) focus groups 
strongly supported including the range for EVs and PHEVs,\124\ (2) 
range is a critical factor for what the consumer gets for his or her 
investment in a more expensive EV or PHEV, and is obviously a core 
utility attribute for an EV and a primary determinant of the overall 
environmental and energy performance of a PHEV, and (3) EPA can easily 
measure range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010, pp. 17, 28, and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The arguments against including range include (1) it is not a 
direct measurement of energy or environmental performance (in fact, for 
an EV, other things being equal, a higher range means a larger battery 
pack, a heavier vehicle, and therefore higher energy consumption, 
relative to the same vehicle with a lower range and smaller battery 
pack), (2) there will likely be much greater variability in EV range 
than we have faced with gasoline fuel economy in the past, so there are 
greater challenges involved in defining a specific range estimate, and 
(3) adding range would add to an already busy label.
    The agencies are proposing to include range information on 
alternative technology vehicle labels and seek public comment on this 
issue.
    A related issue is how EPA will determine the appropriate 
adjustment factor to use in converting 2-cycle test values for range to 
5-cycle test values for vehicle labels. Under current EPA regulations 
established by the 2006 fuel economy label rulemaking, automakers would 
have two choices: (1) Submitting 5-cycle test data, and (2) using the 
MPG-based (derived 5-cycle) equations.\125\ Using the MPG-based 
equations for EVs would yield an approximate 40 percent downward 
adjustment for EV range.\126\ EPA notes that there were no EV or PHEV 
data in the database used to generate the MPG-based equations, and that 
the downward adjustment appropriate for EVs (which have low direct 
vehicle energy consumption levels) is the result of extrapolating the 
results of the conventional vehicle data that was used to generate the 
equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 71 FR77887-77888, Dec 27, 2006.
    \126\ See 40 CFR 600.210-08. Using the equations in these 
regulations to adjust 2-cycle test values for extremely high MPG 
vehicles (or MPGe for EVs) will result in adjustments approaching 40 
percent. Because the data used to determine these equations did not 
include any such vehicles, EPA is uncertain as to the applicability 
of the formulae to EVs and other extremely high MPG vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes a new set of options for automakers to choose for 
purposes of identifying the appropriate 5-cycle range adjustment for 
EVs and the electric portion of PHEV operation. One, automakers could 
provide full 5-cycle test data, which is one option under current EPA 
regulations. Two, automakers could provide vehicle-specific real world 
range data collected from in-use vehicles. Three, automakers could use 
the MPG-based equations discussed above, but with the downward 
adjustment capped at the percent reduction represented by the worst-
case gasoline vehicle in the EPA database. The worst-case gasoline 
vehicle is the highest-MPG gasoline vehicle, which is currently the 
Toyota Prius. Based on the application of the MPG-based equations to 
the Prius' MPG values, the Prius would get about a 30% downward 
adjustment from its 2-cycle data to its derived 5-cycle value, and this 
would therefore be the level that automakers could use for EVs and the 
electric operation of PHEVs.
    EPA seeks comment on this proposal for the downward 5-cycle 
adjustment for EVs and PHEVs.
d. Battery Charging Time Information
    EPA does not include information on the mechanisms for or time 
associated with refueling vehicles on conventional vehicle fuel economy 
labels. Refueling with petroleum fuels is a fairly quick and ubiquitous 
process, and has not been a topic of consumer concern. Refueling, or 
charging, a battery pack will be different in many ways. While gasoline 
vehicle refueling typically takes 5-10 minutes, charging a battery pack 
can take up to 12 hours or more, depending on the charging hardware. 
EPA focus group participants expressed strong interest in including 
some type of information on charging time on labels for EVs and 
PHEVs.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010, pp. 16, 26, and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The arguments for including battery charging time information on EV 
and PHEV labels include (1) focus groups supported doing so, (2) it is 
a core consumer utility parameter (i.e., if the charging time is so 
long as to be

[[Page 58110]]

onerous, consumers will recharge less frequently and this will have an 
effect on the vehicle's energy and environmental performance), and (3) 
EPA could develop a test procedure for generating standardized 
information.
    An example of a simple approach for measuring EV recharge time 
would be to use the method for recharging the battery recommended by 
the manufacturer and available to the consumer. Full battery recharge 
time could be defined as the time required to charge the vehicle 
battery to full capacity from the end of the electric vehicle range 
test or ``empty.'' A fully charged battery would be defined as the same 
battery state of charge used to determine electric vehicle range. EPA 
is also seeking comment on partial recharge time. Partial recharge time 
could be measured and expressed as the time of recharge required to 
travel a given distance.
    Arguments for excluding battery charging time on EV and PHEV labels 
include (1) there is only an indirect relationship between charging 
time and energy and environmental performance, (2) EPA does not now 
have a test procedure for generating standardized data, (3) it will be 
fairly easy for consumers and third parties to verify automaker claims 
on this basic question, and (4) adding battery charging time will make 
the advanced technology vehicle labels more cluttered.
    The agencies seek comments on whether we should include battery 
charging time information on labels for EVs and PHEVs.
e. Merged Vehicle Operating Mode Information for PHEVs
    Conventional vehicles have a single ``operating mode,'' i.e., all 
the powertrain components contribute to propel the vehicle at all 
times. Some advanced technology vehicles have more than one operating 
mode. For example, a blended PHEV could have up to three operating 
modes: An all-electric mode where the vehicle is propelled exclusively 
by grid electricity via the battery and electric motor, a second mode 
where the vehicle is propelled by a combination of both grid 
electricity and an internal combustion engine, and a third mode that 
uses only the internal combustion engine. For such vehicles, the 
agencies propose to provide consumers with basic performance 
information about each of the PHEV's individual operating modes. One 
advantage of this approach is that it will allow consumers to tailor 
the information from the individual operating modes to their own 
driving habits, and therefore develop ``customized'' information 
relevant to their own situations. One issue is whether the vehicle 
label should also provide information that combines the various 
operating modes into a single ``merged'' value reflecting an ``average 
driver.'' One group that is developing guidance for how individual 
operating mode data could be combined for an ``average driver'' is the 
Society of Automotive Engineers Hybrid Technical Standards 
Committee,\128\ and the agencies will continue to monitor the work of 
this and other relevant committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ SAE J2841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rationale for including a merged value is that (1) some 
consumers may find information on the individual operating modes to be 
``too much'' and may be more likely to pay attention to a single set of 
performance information, (2) few, if any, consumers will exclusively 
drive in a single operating mode, so some kind of combined information 
could be helpful, (3) a single, merged value can facilitate comparisons 
across different vehicle technologies and models and (4) customers of 
this new technology will not know how much they will operate the 
vehicle in each mode, so an average provides more complete information 
to them.
    The arguments against including merged values are (1) the 
variability between the performance values for different operating 
modes can be very large, and so any assumptions about an ``average 
driver'' will be accurate for some consumers, but very inaccurate for 
many other consumers, and (2) including merged values, in addition to 
individual operating mode values, will add to an already busy label.
    The agencies seek public comment on the question of whether labels 
for advanced technology vehicles with multiple operating modes should 
also include merged values that combine the various vehicle operating 
modes, and if so, on the best methodology for doing so.
f. City/Highway Versus Combined Values
    EPA's conventional vehicle labels have long reported fuel economy 
values for both city and highway driving. For most conventional 
vehicles, highway fuel economy values are typically 40-50% higher than 
city fuel economy values. The agencies believe that this is another 
issue that is worth reexamining with respect to advanced technology 
vehicle labels.
    Arguments for including separate city and highway information on 
advanced technology vehicle labels include (1) focus group feedback and 
other research has consistently shown that consumers find it useful to 
have separate fuel economy values for both city and highway driving for 
conventional vehicles,\129\ and (2) since driving habits can vary 
widely, separate city and highway performance information can be 
helpful to those consumers who want to ``customize'' label information 
to their own driving habits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010 and Environmental 
Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-
R-10-905, August 2010, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments for not including separate city and highway information 
on advanced technology vehicle labels include (1) some advanced 
technologies, for example EVs, show less of a change in energy 
consumption values between city and highway driving than do 
conventional vehicles which was one of the primary reasons why EPA 
originally displayed separate city and highway MPG values on 
conventional fuel economy labels, and (2) not reporting separate city 
and highway values can reduce some information by either a factor of 
two (if a combined value is shown instead of separate city and highway 
values) or three (if city, highway, and combined values were all 
shown), thus reducing the ``number of numbers'' on the label and 
possibly making the labels more readable and accessible for consumers. 
Focus group participants, when viewing whole labels for both 
conventional and advanced technology vehicles, did not express a 
preference for displaying city/highway numbers for advanced technology 
vehicles, although they did express a clear preference for city/highway 
values for conventional vehicles.
    The agencies seek public comment on the following questions related 
to separate city and highway information for advanced technology 
vehicle labels. One, should EPA never report separate city and highway 
values, always report separate city and highway values, or retain 
discretion for doing so only when it is appropriate (i.e., when the 
differences between city and highway are significant enough to be 
meaningful)? Two, would it be acceptable for EPA to require the use of 
separate city and highway fuel economy values for conventional 
vehicles, but to not do so, in some or all cases, for advanced 
technology vehicles?
g. Methodology for Merged Values for PHEVs
    One specific issue for PHEVs is the methodology for determining a 
single merged value that combines the various

[[Page 58111]]

operating modes into a single overall value, given that PHEVs use both 
gasoline and grid electricity. The agencies expect that consumers who 
purchase a PHEV will do so with the intention of utilizing the 
capability of both fuels (e.g., it seems reasonable to assume that most 
consumers who purchase a more expensive PHEV would then charge the PHEV 
as frequently as possible in order to achieve fuel savings by 
maximizing their use of electricity and minimizing their use of 
gasoline). It thus seems appropriate to include the operation on both 
fuels in any merged values, using a weighted average of the appropriate 
metric for each of the modes of operation. The agencies propose and 
seek comment on using a methodology developed by SAE and DOE based on 
utility factors (UFs)--which predict the fractions of total distance 
driven in each mode of operation (electricity and gas)--to assign 
weighting factors for gasoline and electricity use for PHEVs for the 
purposes of determining merged values for fuel economy and/or 
greenhouse gas ratings and for any other metrics for which a single, 
merged value is appropriate. The proposed UF methodology is described 
in detail in Section VI.B.
h. Advertising Restrictions
    The Federal lead on guidelines for the use of vehicle label 
information in automaker marketing campaigns rests with the Federal 
Trade Commission (FTC). The agencies believe that the unique issues, as 
well as in the likely increased complexity and ``number of numbers,'' 
associated with advanced technology vehicle labels, warrant additional 
consideration of whether there needs to be new guidelines for the use 
of label information in private marketing campaigns. The agencies 
intend to raise this issue with the FTC, and seek comments from the 
public that could help inform our input to the FTC.

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies

    Labels for conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles and for 
certain advanced technology vehicles are the primary focus of this 
proposed rule. Conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles are expected 
to make up a majority of the fleet well into the future, and improving 
on the communication of conventional vehicle fuel economy and related 
information is a continued priority of EPA and NHTSA. Electric vehicles 
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are entering the fleet in the near 
term, and there is the potential for a rapidly increasing market 
penetration of these vehicles in the future, yet labeling these 
vehicles in an understandable and equitable way presents significant 
challenges. However, there are several other specific vehicle 
technologies for which EPA currently has labels, and EPA is also 
proposing new label templates for those as well.
1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles
    Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) (also called flex-fuel, dual-fueled 
or bi-fueled vehicles) are vehicles that can operate either on gasoline 
or diesel fuel, on an alternative fuel such as ethanol or methanol, or 
on a mixture of conventional and alternative fuels. Produced since the 
1980s, flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are the most numerous of the 
currently available alternative fuel vehicles, with dozens of 2010 car 
and truck models available from General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Mazda, 
Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. Essentially all FFVs today are E85 
vehicles, which can run on a mixture of up to 85 percent ethanol and 
gasoline. These vehicles are considered ``dual fueled vehicles'' under 
EPCA, which states that the label for dual fuel vehicles must 
``indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline 
or diesel fuel; clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled 
automobile; clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be 
operated; and contain a statement informing the consumer that the 
additional information required by subsection (c)(2) of this section is 
published and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.'' \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current labeling requirements for dual-fueled vehicles are 
consistent with these requirements. While not required, manufacturers 
may voluntarily include the fuel economy estimates (and estimated 
annual fuel costs) for the alternative fuel on the label, in addition 
to the gasoline information.\131\ Consumers can view the gasoline and 
E85 fuel economy estimates of all FFVs in the Fuel Economy Guide and at 
http://www.fueleconomy.gov. In fact, EPCA requires that the Fuel 
Economy Guide contain information such as: (1) The fuel economy when 
operating on the alternative fuel, (2) the driving range when operating 
on the alternative fuel, and (3) information about how the performance 
might change when operating on mixtures of the two fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 40 CFR 600.307-08(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not propose changes to these requirements in the 2006 
labeling rule and did not seek comment on the topic. However, EPA 
received late public comments from several environmental and consumer 
groups urging EPA to require additional information on the use of E85 
on FFV labels. Since EPA did not propose and request comments on this 
topic in the 2006 rulemaking, the agency did not finalize any such 
requirements.
    EPA and NHTSA request public comment on three options for FFV 
labels.
    One option is to make no changes to the current requirements for 
FFV labels and continue to use fueleconomy.gov and the Fuel Economy 
Guide to provide information on E85 use to consumers.\132\ Consistent 
with the current requirements, EPA and NHTSA would finalize regulations 
that would allow manufacturers to display the E85 fuel economy values 
on the label on a voluntary basis.\133\ The final regulations would 
include a template for such a label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Consumers do get some information regarding E85 efficiency 
on a label required by the FTC. Currently the FTC label for FFVs 
displays the driving range on both fuels and some additional 
information regarding the use of alternative fuels. See 16 CFR part 
309.
    \133\ Label examples for FFVs are shown in Section III, but 
these reflect only a transition of the currently used label content 
(some of which is required by statute) to the proposed label 
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second option is to require the addition of E85 fuel economy 
values to FFV labels using the units of miles per gallon. Since E85 has 
a lower energy density (i.e., about 25% less energy per gallon) than 
gasoline, this means that, other things being equal, an FFV will have a 
lower fuel economy on E85 than it will on gasoline. EPA recognizes that 
this does not mean that ethanol is a ``less efficient'' fuel than 
gasoline; in fact, FFVs are typically slightly more efficient on E85 
than on gasoline in terms of miles per unit of energy. Accordingly, one 
approach under this option would be to add text such as the following 
wording on the label that conveys this message: ``While the E85 MPG 
values are lower than the gasoline MPG values, the use of E85 is 
typically slightly more energy efficient than the use of gasoline.'' 
Under this option, it would also be possible to add E85 values for 
CO2 emissions (an FFV typically emits slightly less 
CO2 per mile on E85 than on gasoline) and fuel costs (an FFV 
typically costs somewhat more to operate on E85 than gasoline, though 
this can vary by region). If CO2 values are not shown, it 
would also be possible to include a statement such as ``Using E85 uses 
less oil and typically produces less CO2 emissions than 
gasoline.''
    A third option is to utilize the concept of miles per gallon of 
gasoline-

[[Page 58112]]

equivalent (MPGe), which is a way to quantitatively account for the 
slightly higher miles per unit of energy that an FFV achieves on E85 
relative to gasoline. Because a gallon of gasoline has about 33 percent 
more energy than a gallon of E85, this means that an E85 MPG is 
multiplied by about 1.33 to convert it to a MPGe value. For most 
current FFVs, an E85 MPGe value will be slightly higher than the 
gasoline MPG value. The E85 MPGe value could be in place of, or in 
addition to, an E85 MPG value. As with the second option above, 
CO2 and fuel costs values for E85 could also be included.
    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires the use of a 
label that displays the cruising range of FFVs and other alternative 
fuel vehicles. If the agencies finalize one of the options to include 
E85 information, and the FTC determines that that information is 
duplicative with its own information, it opens up the possibility that 
the FTC might review its requirement.
    One remaining issue with FFVs is the methodology for assigning an 
overall combined value for greenhouse gas or fuel economy-based ratings 
or for any other metrics for which a single ``merged'' value is shown, 
given that two different fuels can be used. There is empirical evidence 
that approximately 99% of all FFV owners currently use gasoline rather 
than E85 fuel. Given this, the agencies propose, as a default, to base 
any merged values for FFVs on the assumption that the vehicle is 
operated on gasoline 100% of the time. However, if a manufacturer can 
demonstrate that some of its FFVs are in fact using E85 fuel in use, 
then the merged values can be based in part on E85 performance, 
prorated based on the percentage of the fleet using E85 use in the 
field. This approach is consistent with that used for vehicle GHG 
emissions compliance under the joint EPA/DOT standards for 2016 and 
later model year vehicles.\134\ The agencies seek comment on applying 
the same approach here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 75 FR 25433, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
    EPA regulations currently provide a label template for vehicles 
operating on compressed natural gas (CNG), and there is one major 
manufacturer currently selling a natural gas vehicle in selected 
markets. Given that a CNG vehicle is a single-fuel vehicle, EPA 
believes that the label designs developed for conventional or other 
alternative fuel vehicles can be easily adapted to gaseous-fueled 
vehicles, as has been done in the past. In fact, EPCA provided specific 
instructions regarding how to determine the fuel economy for dedicated 
alternative fuel vehicles such as gaseous-fueled vehicles. The statute 
states that for dedicated automobiles the fuel economy ``is the fuel 
economy for those automobiles when operated on alternative fuel, 
measured under section 32905(a) or (c) of this title, multiplied by 
0.15.'' \135\ Section 32905(c) applies to gaseous-fueled vehicles, and 
it requires the following: ``For any model of gaseous fuel dedicated 
automobile manufactured by a manufacturer after model year 1992, the 
Administrator shall measure the fuel economy for that model based on 
the fuel content of the gaseous fuel used to operate the automobile. 
One hundred cubic feet of natural gas is deemed to contain .823 gallon 
equivalent of natural gas. The Secretary of Transportation shall 
determine the appropriate gallon equivalent of other gaseous fuels. A 
gallon equivalent of gaseous fuel is deemed to have a fuel content of 
.15 gallon of fuel.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).
    \136\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This methodology is currently specified in EPA regulations. Note 
that 32905(c) applies a factor of 0.15, which is essentially a 
``credit'' that increases the fuel economy of gaseous-fueled vehicles 
by a factor of about 6.7 for the purpose of CAFE calculations. But the 
statute recognizes that incorporation of this credit factor in the 
label values is not appropriate, hence the provision in 32908(b)(3) to 
multiply the 32905(c) result by 0.15, thus removing the credit value 
and resulting in an appropriate real-world label value.
    The current EPA regulations interpret the statute as requiring that 
the label for CNG vehicles display a gasoline-equivalent value, and a 
label template for CNG is provided in the current regulations.\137\ As 
can be seen, the current label for CNG vehicles is fundamentally the 
same as for gasoline vehicles, except that the fuel economy values are 
described as ``gasoline equivalent'' values, and the estimated annual 
fuel cost is based on a combined city/highway gasoline equivalent value 
and the price per gallon equivalent of CNG. The current label also 
contains text that reads ``This vehicle operates on natural gas fuel 
only. Fuel economy is expressed in gasoline equivalent values.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Appendix IV to 40 CFR Part 600, Sample Fuel Economy Labels 
for 2008 and Later Model Year Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are therefore proposing that labels for CNG vehicles be 
essentially the same in terms of content and appearance as those 
proposed for conventional vehicles, with only a few exceptions. First, 
where the proposed labels indicate the fuel type, labels for CNG 
vehicles would state ``Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle.'' Second, the 
fuel economy value(s) would be stated as gasoline-equivalent values. As 
is the case for the proposed labels for electric vehicles, the CNG 
labels would indicate the conversion factor that is used to determine 
the gasoline equivalent values (0.823 gallons-equivalent per 100 cubic 
feet of CNG, as required by statute).\138\ Third, the estimated annual 
fuel cost would be calculated using the combined city/highway gasoline 
equivalent value and the cost per gallon equivalent of CNG. The use of 
gasoline-equivalent gallons is appropriate because this is how CNG is 
dispensed, priced, and sold at current CNG fueling stations. Finally, 
because the cruising range of CNG vehicles is typically limited 
relative to conventional vehicles, we are proposing the addition of 
cruising range to the CNG vehicle label (in this way the label would 
mimic the electric vehicle label). As is the case with electric 
vehicles, we believe that range is a key piece of information for the 
consumer who is considering a CNG vehicle. Other information on the 
label, such as the greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions and 
ratings, would be determined from emission and fuel economy test 
results and the proposed calculation methodologies as is the case for 
all vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III presents the proposed and alternative label designs, 
including a proposed design for CNG vehicles. We request comment on the 
proposed approach for CNG vehicles, and whether there is additional 
information specific to CNG or alternative fuels that should be on the 
label.
3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles
    Although there is currently a template for dual fuel CNG/gasoline 
vehicles in the existing regulations, there are no manufacturers that 
are currently manufacturing new vehicles that run on CNG and on 
gasoline.\139\ Thus we request comment on whether there is a need to 
develop a template for these vehicles based on the new labels. The 
agencies envision that such a label would be based largely on the 
proposed approach for dual fuel gasoline/ethanol vehicles discussed 
above, in that the fuel economy and related information

[[Page 58113]]

for both fuels would be displayed on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Some aftermarket fuel conversion companies offer such 
vehicles, but EPA regulations do not currently require fuel economy 
labels for aftermarket fuel conversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this proposal addresses most current technologies, it does 
not need to address every possible fuel and technology combination 
either in existence or that may emerge in the future. EPA has the 
authority to prescribe test procedures and label content for vehicles 
that are not specifically addressed by the regulations, and expects to 
do so on an as-needed basis to address new technologies and fuels.\140\ 
In fact, EPA expects to exercise this authority with respect to labels 
for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that arrive 
on the market before the 2012 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 40 CFR 600.111-08(f) (test procedures) and 40 CFR 600.307-
08(k) (label format requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Diesel Fueled Vehicles
    EPA proposes to continue to calculate the fuel economy of diesel 
vehicles in miles traveled on a gallon of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has 
a long history of being sold on a volumetric basis, and the energy 
content difference between a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of diesel 
fuel is relatively small.

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance

    This section presents and requests comment on three label designs. 
The agencies are co-proposing Label 1 and Label 2 design options, 
meaning that the agencies currently expect to finalize one of the two 
options. A third label design is being presented as an alternative on 
which the agencies are requesting comment. All of these designs take 
into account and meet the variety of statutory requirements in EPCA and 
EISA as discussed in Section I. It is important to note that although 
all of the label designs shown in this section make use of color to 
varying degrees, this Federal Register notice is capable of only 
displaying gray-scale versions. Full color versions can be viewed and/
or downloaded from the docket (search for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0865\141\ or docket number NHTSA-2010-0087 at http://
www.regulations.gov) or from the agencies' Web sites where all 
information related to this action will be posted (http://www.epa.gov/
fueleconomy/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). To 
the extent possible this section will describe the use of color on the 
labels, but interested parties should view the color versions to 
understand the full effect of the label designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Memorandum from Roberts W. French, Jr. to EPA Docket 
 EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865, ``Color versions of labels proposed 
by EPA and DOT in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ``Revisions and 
Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,'' August 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each design family consists of a set of labels applicable to an 
array of vehicle technology/fuel types. Specifically, we show label 
examples that apply to conventional vehicles (that is, vehicles 
operating on a single fuel with internal combustion engines or hybrid 
electric drive), flexible-fuel vehicles (for example gasoline-ethanol), 
compressed natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles. Each label family could be readily adapted to 
accommodate additional vehicle technologies or fuels, such as vehicles 
powered by fuel cells or other upcoming technologies. The agencies 
intend to finalize a label family with a consistent look and feel 
across vehicle types, in the belief that such consistency will most 
effectively allow for recognition of the label as well as comprehension 
of its content.
    The agencies found through the focus groups and expert panel that 
many consumers will view the fuel economy label quickly, some using it 
to confirm the vehicle information they have previously researched on a 
manufacturers' website or a third party website such as Consumer 
Reports or Edmunds.com. Other consumers, in contrast, will view the 
fuel economy information for the first time when they visit a dealer 
lot or showroom. While a new vehicle purchase represents a significant 
financial outlay, the agencies learned through their research that 
consumers like it simple, and do not necessarily act on details. 
Therefore, while the agencies want and need to add certain pieces of 
information to meet statutory requirements and to help consumers make 
informed decisions about the fuel consumption and environmental impacts 
of their vehicle choices we must balance these objectives with the need 
to keep the new labels consumer friendly. To accomplish this, the 
agencies were guided by a set of core principles in designing these 
labels. The labels should:
    [dec221] Create an immediate first impression for consumers.
    [dec221] Be easy to read and understand quickly.
    [dec221] Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, 
EREV, PHEV).
    [dec221] Utilize color.
    [dec221] Chunk information to allow people to deal with ``more 
information.''
    [dec221] Be consistent in content and design across technologies.
    [dec221] Allow for comparison across technologies.
    [dec221] Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and 
environmentally friendly vehicles.
    The agencies are requesting comment on both the design and content 
of each label. Design issues are self-evident on the labels as 
presented, and we seek comment on the design aspects of each label 
family, including format, color, font, and graphical elements. Content 
issues have been extensively discussed throughout the preamble; for 
illustrative purposes, presentation of content varies somewhat from one 
label family to another and we seek comment on the various approaches. 
Specifically, we seek comment on the layout, prominence, and grouping 
of label elements in terms of clarity, apparent relative importance, 
responsiveness to consumer information needs, and effectiveness at 
meeting public policy goals. These sample labels do not present every 
possible configuration of each label; for example, gas guzzler 
information is not depicted, as it is utilized on only a small subset 
of labels. The final rule will provide specific templates for these 
unique cases. Detailed specifications for presenting all required label 
information will be included in the regulations.
    Although we will finalize labels with a uniform look and feel, 
commenters should not view the content of the labels below as being 
necessarily tied to one label design. For example, just because Labels 
1 and 3 for PHEV are the only labels that display the all-electric 
range for a PHEV does not mean that the information could not be 
incorporated into Label 2 or into other label designs. We are 
interested in comments that relate both to content that should be on 
the label, how it should be communicated, and what overall label 
presentation is most effective and consumer friendly.
    Finally, please note that although the agencies have made every 
effort to make these labels as realistic as possible and to ensure that 
the values on each label are internally consistent, the labels 
presented here should be considered examples that are not intended to 
represent real automobiles.

A. Proposed Label Designs

    The agencies are proposing two label designs, presenting both 
designs as equal ``co-proposals'' but expecting to finalize only one 
design based on public comments and other information gathered after 
the proposal. Although the two designs shown below have fundamentally 
different visual appearances and will no doubt elicit very different 
reactions from some viewers, they essentially present exactly

[[Page 58114]]

the same basic information. For conventional vehicles, for example, 
each design displays the following:
     City MPG.
     Highway MPG.
     Combined gallons/100 miles.
     CO2 grams per mile (combined city/highway).
     Estimated annual fuel cost.
     Range of fuel economy within the class.
     The fuel the vehicle uses.
     Three ``slider bars'' showing the performance of the 
labeled vehicle relative to other vehicles for MPG, CO2, and 
other air pollutants.
     Annual fuel cost assumptions.
     A symbol that can be read by a ```Smartphone''' for 
additional consumer interactions (i.e., a ``QR'' Code).
     A Fuel Economy Guide statement.
     EPA, DOE, and DOT logos.
1. Label 1
    Label 1 is fundamentally different from Label 2 and 3 designs 
presented in this section in three different ways:
     First, the orientation is a portrait orientation, rather 
than the landscape style of the current label.
     Second, a rating reflecting the energy efficiency and 
environmental impacts of the vehicle is given overall prominence. 
Instead of providing a series of numbers on the label with varying or 
equal prominence, which may make it difficult for consumers to evaluate 
at a glance, this label presents the energy and environment rating as a 
letter grade (a system familiar to all consumers) with major prominence 
at the top of the label. The letter grade is simply another familiar 
scale on which to present a linear rating, comparable to the star 
system or a 1-10 rating. This grade would be based on CO2 
emissions and fuel economy consumption as described in Section II. To 
further help consumers identify the grade of a vehicle on the dealer 
sales lot, the agencies are proposing that different colors be used to 
differentiate between grade ``families.'' In other words, the dominant 
color on all the ``A'' grade labels would be one color, the ``B'' grade 
labels would use a different color, and so on. For example, the circle 
which surrounds the letter grade would be a different color depending 
on the grade. The color versions of the labels demonstrate this, using 
green for A grades, yellow for B grades, orange for C grades, and a 
dark orange for D grades.
     Third, this label provides new fuel cost savings 
information not seen on any other label designs. Secondary only in 
prominence to the letter grade, and immediately below the letter grade, 
Label 1 would display the 5-year fuel cost of the vehicle in comparison 
to the average vehicle. For vehicles with fuel economy ratings above 
the median vehicle, the label would display how much the consumer would 
save, and for vehicles with ratings below average the label would 
display how much more the consumer would be spending.
    All the remaining information is displayed in the bottom portion of 
the label and would be available to consumers who want to know the more 
detailed information or who take a more analytical approach to 
evaluating the vehicle. The agencies believe that this approach uses a 
rating system that is easily understood by consumers and that would 
dramatically simplify the process of evaluating the overall energy 
efficiency and environmental impacts of the vehicles they are 
considering. The de-emphasis of MPG on this label--indeed, one purpose 
of directing consumers to the overall rating--is intended to enable 
consumers to make the best fuel consumption and environmental choices, 
choices made easier by the addition of the comparative cost 
information. Additionally, a consumer that uses the letter grade and 
cost information on this label may be able to avoid the effect of the 
``MPG illusion'' described in Section II.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 58115]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.006

[[Page 58116]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.007

[[Page 58117]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.008

[[Page 58118]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.009

[[Page 58119]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.010

[[Page 58120]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.011

[[Page 58121]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.012

[[Page 58122]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.013

    Option 2 for the PHEV version is offered as an alternative 
representation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. This option was 
developed to be consistent with other dual-fuel vehicle labeling 
approaches. It also provides an example of how more information about 
the different modes of operation for PHEVs could be displayed on Label 
1. The agencies seek comment on whether this alternate approach to PHEV 
labeling for Label 1 provides better information for consumers or 
whether the first option is more useful.
2. Label 2
    Label 2, shown below takes a more traditional approach, similar to 
the

[[Page 58123]]

current fuel economy label and highlights the key metrics of MPG and 
annual fuel cost. The agencies are seeking comment about whether, if 
this label were finalized, the prominence of gallons per hundred miles 
should be gradually increased on the label through one or more 
rulemakings to facilitate consumer familiarity with and usage of a 
consumption metric. As explained in Section II, these labels show the 
combined city/highway MPG with the highest prominence. The additional 
ratings are essentially identical to those of Label 1, except with the 
additional space for the MPG rating ``slider bar.'' Because of this 
extra space for the slider bars, Label 2 can also display the range of 
fuel economy of the applicable vehicle class (Label 1 provides this 
information in text form) in the context of the range of fuel economy 
for the whole fleet. Label 2 uses the slider bar approach like Label 1 
for all of the specific ratings, and, like Label 1, has separate 
ratings for MPG, greenhouse gases, and other air pollutants. The 
electric vehicle label in this series does have an additional piece of 
information relative to Label 1--the battery charging time. And unlike 
Label 1 and Label 3, the PHEV label in this series provides separate 
annual cost estimates for both the electric and gas modes of operation, 
which may be more useful to consumers who want to understand the costs 
specifically associated with operating the vehicle solely on mode 
either when operating on electricity or in gas-only operating mode.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.014

[[Page 58124]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.015

[[Page 58125]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.016

[[Page 58126]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.017

[[Page 58127]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.018

[[Page 58128]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.019

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3)

    The agencies also seek comment on a third label design that 
includes the same information as the other labels, but displays 
alternative ways of communicating the information. For example, this 
label (Label 3) combines the greenhouse gas and fuel economy ratings 
into one slider bar using a 1-10 rating scale (rather than the absolute 
values used in the other label designs), and instead of a relative 
``slider bar'' scale for the other air pollutant rating, Label 3 uses a 
star rating system. Other than the difference in the rating systems, 
the Label 3 electric vehicle label provides essentially the same 
information as Label 2. For PHEVs, Label 3 provides only one annual 
fuel cost number (like Label 1) that merges the electric and gasoline 
modes. This label also displays for PHEVs an all-electric range, if the 
vehicle is capable of such operation.

[[Page 58129]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.021

[[Page 58130]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.023

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 58131]]

IV. Agency Research on Fuel Economy Labeling

    As discussed above, the fuel economy label must contain certain 
pieces of information by statute, and may additionally contain other 
pieces of information considered helpful to consumers. Given that all 
of the label information must be presented so as to maximize usefulness 
and minimize confusion for the consumer, EPA and NHTSA embarked upon a 
comprehensive research program beginning in the fall of 2009. 
Developing an effective label--one that conveys the required and 
desired information to consumers so that they can understand and use it 
to make decisions--involves some inherent subjectivity, since what is 
understandable and useful for one consumer may be confusing or 
unhelpful to another. To better ground our proposed label designs in 
actual human responses, the agencies set out to better understand the 
following general issues: whether, how, and to what extent consumers 
use the current fuel economy label in the vehicle purchase process; the 
barriers to consumer understanding of the fuel efficiency of vehicles 
relative to one another (including both conventional vehicles and 
advanced technology vehicles); and how a newly redesigned label could 
most effectively convey information to consumers on fuel economy, fuel 
consumption, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions.
    When EPA last redesigned the fuel economy label in 2006, consumer 
research was valuable in helping to inform the development of that 
label.\142\ Since today's proposal includes adding important new 
elements to the existing label as well as creating new labels for 
advanced technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a more 
comprehensive consumer research program than that undertaken in 2006 
and have used this research to help develop the labels proposed in this 
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The current label was redesigned and implemented for model 
year (MY) 2008 vehicles. See 71 FR 77871-77969 (December 27 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Methods of Research

    To gather information about the topics described below, the 
agencies designed a research plan including a review of literature on 
the vehicle buying process, three sets of focus groups in four 
different cities, a day-long facilitated consultation with experts in 
the field of shifting consumer behavior, and an internet survey of 
responses to proposed label designs (which will occur during the 
comment period following this NPRM). A more thorough discussion of each 
research method is provided below.
1. Literature Review
    EPA and NHTSA conducted a review of the existing literature to 
understand the vehicle buying process. Specifically, the literature 
review addressed the sources of information that consumers use to 
research vehicles, their decision-making process, and the factors that 
influence which vehicles consumers choose to buy. These include 
vehicle-specific factors such as price, fuel economy, and safety, as 
well as the role that demographics and psychographics play in 
purchasing decisions. Literature examining consumer attitudes toward 
buying more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly (i.e., 
``green'') vehicles was also reviewed. Understanding when and how 
consumers consider fuel economy and the environmental impact in their 
vehicle purchase decisions helped the agencies determine the most 
effective ways to provide useful information to consumers on the 
vehicle label.
    Additionally, the literature review report included an overview of 
existing educational campaigns aimed at helping consumers use 
information on the fuel efficiency and the environmental effects of 
their transportation choices. Review of these campaigns may help inform 
the agencies' development of educational tools and messages beyond the 
label to provide consumers with useful information on fuel efficient 
and environmentally friendly vehicles.
    A broad range of sources were reviewed for this report, including 
journals in marketing, economics, and transportation research; business 
magazines; government documents; conference proceedings; and a variety 
of websites. Some of the key findings from the literature review are 
described in Section IV.B. A more detailed report is available in the 
docket.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Focus Groups
    The agencies felt it was critical to consider understandability and 
consumer reaction to a variety of label concepts given that the purpose 
of the fuel economy label is to inform consumers of the vehicle's fuel 
economy and, with the amendments enacted by EISA, greenhouse gases and 
other emissions. EPA and NHTSA additionally saw a need to conduct 
research beyond that of the previous rulemaking due to the advancements 
in vehicle technology underway, the increased market share of vehicles 
that use fuels other than gasoline, and the introduction of 
environmental information to the label. The agencies determined that 
they would gather in-depth, qualitative feedback about fuel economy 
labeling, potential new label information, and ways of displaying the 
information through focus groups. The focus group format allowed for 
in-depth probing around a variety of topics, including comprehension of 
potential elements on the fuel economy label and how consumers may use 
that information in making purchase decisions. The focus groups were 
not intended to provide quantitative results, but were instead designed 
to help EPA and NHTSA discern the subtleties of the large number of 
decisions that are necessary when creating a label that should convey 
numerous and sometimes complicated information.
    The focus group process included a recruitment screener, on-line 
pre-focus group survey, and at least two gender-differentiated focus 
groups in four different cities for each of the three separate phases. 
The focus group methodology and results, including the recruitment 
screener and pre-focus group on-line surveys, are discussed in greater 
detail in the focus group Technical Memoranda available in the public 
docket for this rulemaking.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies concluded that conducting three phases of focus 
groups, each with a different concentration, was necessary to gather 
adequate information to explore the complex and numerous issues raised 
by this rulemaking. Phase 1 gathered qualitative information on 
consumer understanding and use of the current fuel economy label, 
consumer reaction to potential new information and metrics on the label 
for conventional vehicles, and also initial identification of effective 
displays for this information. Phase 2 asked consumers to identify what 
information they were interested in seeing on the label for advanced 
technology vehicles and explored the understandability and sufficiency 
of various information and metrics for PHEVs and EVs. Phase 3 explored 
the understandability and usefulness of new information integrated into 
whole label designs for both conventional and advanced technology 
vehicles. Thus, overall, focus groups were used to obtain a qualitative 
understanding of consumers' comprehension and reactions to fuel economy 
label information.

[[Page 58132]]

    The agencies assumed that individuals who had recently purchased 
vehicles would have the best insight into how the current fuel economy 
label is used and would therefore also be best suited to provide input 
about any changes that might be made to the label. To that end, 
participants were selected based on having purchased a vehicle within 
the past year, but not during the ``cash for clunkers'' purchase 
window.\145\ A ``participant screener'' was used to ensure a reasonable 
cross-section of purchasers was represented in each group. Some of the 
demographic variations purposefully considered included the type of new 
vehicle purchased, price range of the new vehicle, average daily 
driving distance, and whether the individual had seriously considered 
or actually purchased an advanced technology vehicle such as a gasoline 
hybrid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ ``Cash for Clunkers'' (Consumer Assistance to Recycle and 
Save Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-32) was a NHTSA program that provided 
a tax incentive to trade-in low fuel efficient vehicles for new, 
higher fuel efficient vehicles. The purchase period in which this 
program operated was excluded to avoid any bias of participants, 
since the program was explicitly focused on fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each focus group participant was also asked to complete a short on-
line survey before attending the session. This survey served three 
purposes: (1) To collect demographic data about the participants and 
information about their specific vehicle purchase process; (2) to 
provide participants with some background information about advanced 
technology vehicles so that the participants would have some exposure 
to new technologies prior to the focus group meeting; and (3) to gather 
information about how the participants had used the current fuel 
economy label in their purchase decisions, if at all. This survey data 
was not intended to be examined as a nationally representative sample 
and was only used as supplementary information when describing the 
focus group results.
    The agencies anticipate that there will be additional focus groups 
prior to rule finalization in each of the four cities where focus 
groups were held pre-proposal. These focus groups will examine revised 
labels based on feedback the agencies receive during the comment period 
and will provide additional input on whole label designs. The agencies 
will place information obtained from these focus groups in the docket 
as it becomes available and encourages all interested parties to check 
the docket for updated information.
3. Internet Survey
    While the focus groups were used to develop new label designs, the 
internet survey is meant to examine how understandable the new label 
designs are, and whether the proposed new label and alternative labels 
will improve consumers' knowledge about more efficient vehicles. The 
planned survey is scheduled to begin concurrent with the signing of 
this proposal and will test these questions for both conventional and 
advanced technology vehicles. A notice of the survey, published in the 
Federal Register on May 12, 2010, requested comment on the survey 
methodology.\146\ No substantive comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ U.S. EPA, ``Agency Information Collection Activities; 
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Internet Survey Research for 
Improving Fuel Economy Label Design and Content; EPA ICR No. 
2390.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW,'' 75 FR 26751 (May 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This survey will use two samples: Self-selected U.S. new vehicle 
purchasers and people who expressed an intention to purchase a new 
vehicle by requesting a price quote from a dealer.\147\ Each of these 
samples is divided into three separate groups. One version of the 
survey was developed for each group, identical in every way except that 
each of the groups will see only one of the label designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Sources of respondents were databases owned by Autobytel, 
http://www.autobytel.com (for those intending to buy new vehicles), 
and Focus USA (for those who purchased a vehicle in the last year), 
http://www.focus-usa-1.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The survey tests respondents' understanding of the labels by 
showing each respondent a series of label pairs. In each pair, all 
vehicle characteristics are held constant except the information on the 
vehicle label. For instance, the fuel economy of the vehicles may 
differ, or one may have a conventional vehicle and one an electric 
vehicle. Respondents are then asked to identify which vehicle is better 
to use for trips of specified distances.\148\ The key metric of 
interest is whether the label designs produce statistically 
significantly different results. If one label produces more correct 
responses than other labels, then it can be considered more 
understandable; if the labels do not produce statistically different 
results, then the labels can be considered equivalently understandable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Respondents were asked which was better, rather than which 
was more fuel-efficient or less costly, so as to leave the 
respondents with the choice of what information on the label to use 
for the comparison. A later question asked which information they 
used in their response. While this somewhat ambiguous approach may 
reduce the absolute number of correct answers to the questions, the 
goal is testing the relative effects of the labels, not the absolute 
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To test the potential influence of the labels on vehicle purchases, 
respondents see pairs of labels for vehicles with all vehicle 
attributes constant except those varied on the label, such as the 
technologies of the vehicles, their efficiencies, and their energy 
costs. Instead of using the label to identify the better vehicle for a 
scenario, the respondents are asked which of these vehicles they would 
prefer to buy, based on their individual driving patterns. Comparisons 
involve both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. Because the 
survey asks respondents about their typical daily driving distances, it 
is possible to see whether respondents chose the vehicle better suited 
for their habits. The key variable is whether the responses differ for 
different label designs.
    The Internet survey data collection is planned to occur in early to 
mid-August 2010. The results of the survey will be made public as soon 
as they are available. The results will be made available in the public 
docket for this rulemaking at regulations.gov. If the results are not 
placed in the docket 30 days before the end of the comment period, the 
agencies will accept comments on these results up to 30 days from when 
they were placed in the docket.
4. Expert Panel
    In order to gather additional feedback on the label designs 
developed from the focus groups and to identify opportunities and 
strategies to provide more and better information to consumers so that 
they can more easily assess the costs, emissions, and energy efficiency 
of different vehicles, EPA and NHTSA convened an expert panel. 
``Experts'' were selected based on their past experience in changing 
social norms either by successfully launching new products or leading 
national education campaigns that have had a broad and significant 
impact. The method for selecting the panel began by first generating a 
list of products and social changes that met the criteria of impacting 
a significant percentage of the population quickly, while also 
demonstrating staying power. Individuals who had roles critical to the 
success of these efforts were then identified and recruited. Nine 
``experts'' participated on the panel, with experiences that included 
launching very successful public health campaigns, Internet sites, new 
technologies, and cable networks. The

[[Page 58133]]

meeting was held from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in Washington, DC on June 9, 
2010.
    The topics covered include: Background information, review and 
feedback on the EPA/NHTSA research process, messaging techniques, 
outreach strategies, and feedback on possible label designs. The Expert 
Panel is discussed in greater detail in the Expert Panel Report in the 
public docket for this rulemaking.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Key Research Questions and Findings

    The agencies identified the following key research questions, given 
the overarching issues provided above:
     How should labels portray information about fuel 
consumption and fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other 
emissions for consumers in a way that is most understandable and useful 
to them?
     How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray 
information about fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other 
emissions for consumers in a way that is most understandable and useful 
to them?
     How should the new labels be designed to meet the 
statutory requirements while best raising consumers' understanding of 
fuel efficiency, fuel cost and environmental impact?
     How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping?
     What purchase process do consumers currently use to make 
new vehicle purchasing decisions? Given this process, when are the most 
effective opportunities to communicate fuel economy and environmental 
information?
1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label 
Information
    How should labels portray information about fuel consumption and 
fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other emissions for 
consumers in a way that is most understandable and useful to them?
    As described in Section I, EPCA and EISA require the fuel economy 
label to provide fuel economy, cost, and environmental information, as 
well as provide a means to compare vehicles based on fuel economy, 
greenhouse gases, and other emissions. The agency's research program 
explored how this information might be displayed on the label in a 
useful and accessible format for consumers.
a. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy
    EPCA requires the label to display the ``fuel economy of the 
automobile.'' However, fuel economy, commonly thought of as ``MPG'' 
(the number of miles that can be traveled consuming one gallon of fuel) 
is often misunderstood by consumers. As discussed more extensively in 
Section II, because MPG is not linear, when people compare vehicles 
with different MPG values they are apt to incorrectly estimate the fuel 
savings of one vehicle over another. For example, switching from a 15 
MPG vehicle to a 20 MPG vehicle will save more fuel than switching from 
a 30 MPG vehicle to a 35 MPG vehicle. Thus, comparing vehicles based on 
MPG is not as helpful to consumers in making quick and accurate 
comparisons as consumers may believe it to be. Fuel consumption (the 
number of gallons of fuel consumed to travel a given distance), on the 
other hand, does yield the type of linear comparison that consumers 
should find useful. Therefore, the agencies explored ways to convey 
fuel consumption on the label.
    Focus groups were instrumental in helping the agencies learn about 
communicating fuel consumption. Specifically, Phase 1 focus groups set 
out to gauge how receptive consumers were to a fuel consumption value 
and whether there were particular presentations of that value which 
were more understandable. To do this the `Fuel Economy (MPG) Illusion' 
was introduced in the pre-focus group on-line survey, followed by 
specific probing in each group around what ``fuel consumption'' means. 
Phase 1 focus groups generally responded that it was the distance one 
can travel on a gallon of gas (which is fuel economy, rather than fuel 
consumption). Following this discussion the participants were presented 
with four different designs, each conveying fuel consumption and fuel 
economy information. The prominent value displayed within each design 
was fuel consumption, given in gallons per 100 miles while the less 
prominent value was fuel economy, given in miles per gallon. Even when 
participants demonstrated that they properly understood fuel 
consumption, most still indicated that they preferred miles per gallon 
over gallons per 100 miles. Participants indicated this to be the case 
even after the moderator explained the `MPG Illusion.' A few 
participants did indicate that viewing gallons per 100 miles, instead 
of miles per gallon, might get them to switch to more efficient vehicle 
types. Some participants also said that they believed they would use 
the gallons per 100 mile fuel consumption information on the label to 
learn about the vehicle's city and highway gas consumption and to 
compare between different vehicles in making their purchase decision. 
However, most participants were not enthusiastic about using the fuel 
consumption information.
    Almost all focus group participants showed a strong attachment to 
MPG. They like and use the city and highway MPG and are not familiar 
with gallons per 100 miles. If a new fuel consumption metric, such as 
gallons per 100 miles, were added to the label participants would still 
want the familiar MPG metric to be prominent on the label. Recognizing 
that consumers believe they derive significant value from MPG, but that 
consumption information may be more accurate and ultimately valuable to 
consumers, another approach to displaying fuel consumption was also 
devised and presented to focus groups: An ``annual gallons used'' 
value. The basis for deriving this new metric was that (1) it makes the 
magnitude of comparing vehicles based on consumption more apparent, and 
(2) it provides a clear link between the annual cost value and fuel 
consumption value. An annual gallons metric was also found to be one of 
the more effective ways to demonstrate the fuel economy illusion. While 
the agencies considered displaying the annual gallons of fuel 
information on the label we ultimately determined that the gallons per 
100 mile metric should be introduced on the label as the new 
consumption metric, and that the introduction of the five year cost or 
savings information would also help consumers in overcoming the effects 
of the MPG illusion while also providing important additional 
information.
    Phase 1 focus group participants also evaluated four different 
graphical display options for fuel consumption and were asked which was 
the most understandable design. Participants responded by identifying 
the design they felt was simple, informative and in a familiar format. 
However, participants did not agree on which design accomplished this.
    The agencies further explored fuel economy and fuel consumption 
designs in Phase 3 where focus group participants were asked to 
evaluate whole label designs encompassing both fuel economy and fuel 
consumption values. In each of the three labels presented, the MPG 
value was a

[[Page 58134]]

dominant metric.\150\ For each design participants were asked to 
determine between two labels, which represented the more fuel efficient 
vehicle. Participants were also asked to identify what piece of 
information on the label they used to make this determination. Fuel 
consumption was rarely identified as being used by participants. 
Instead, participants used MPG and cost values most often.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010. (Contains visual 
depictions of each of the Phase III label series.)
    \151\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 3, the agencies explored simplification of the labels by 
displaying on two of the three label designs only the combined (55% 
city and 45% highway) fuel economy value in lieu of listing the city 
and highway values separately. (See Section IV.B.4 for a discussion of 
whole label designs and why simplification is perceived as an 
overarching goal.) When participants were probed about why they did or 
did not like certain label designs, the presence of city and highway 
values was often cited as a positive for a label design, and the 
absence of the city and highway values was cited as a negative for a 
label design. In addition, when asked how to improve the label designs, 
several focus group participants asked for the city and highway values 
to be added to the label designs that did not include them.
    The agencies gathered additional input on the most effective 
approaches for portraying fuel economy and fuel consumption information 
during the expert panel meeting. After viewing three label designs, 
expert panel participants provided comments on how the label could be 
made more understandable and useful for consumers. The expert panel 
emphasized that in order to be effective, the fuel economy label should 
be simple and able to be understood by consumers within a short amount 
of viewing time. To implement this goal, the expert panel suggested 
that the agencies develop a single, overall metric for vehicles that is 
easy for consumers to understand, such as a letter grade (A , B , etc.).\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, p. 15-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expert panel also suggested that the agencies consider 
redesigning the label such that the single metric is prominently 
featured on the top half, and any additional vehicle information and 
more specific metrics be included on the label in smaller font and in a 
less prominent location. The expert panel stated that this approach 
would provide interested consumers with more detailed information 
without distracting from the simpler, overall metric that all consumers 
could easily understand. The rationale for this label design is that it 
can provide useful comparative information to the consumer who may only 
glance at it, while also providing the necessary details to those who 
want more in-depth information. Additionally, the expert panel 
suggested prominently featuring a website URL and a QR Code[reg] for 
smartphones to provide consumers with access to more detailed vehicle 
information elsewhere.\153\ For example, the website and smartphone 
application might contain tools for consumers to calculate the fuel 
economy they can expect based on their own driving habits or allow 
consumers to quickly compare fuel economy and consumption for different 
vehicle models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Fuel Cost
    EPCA requires the fuel economy label display the ``annual fuel cost 
of operating the automobile.'' Recognizing that some consumers have 
previously appeared to distrust or dismiss annual costs as not 
representative of their own experience, EPA and NHTSA explored whether 
there were other cost units (such as cost per month, per mile, per 
week, etc.) that could be additionally provided that would be more 
meaningful to consumers.
    Throughout the focus groups in Phase 1 and 2, participants 
indicated that they tended to dismiss the annual cost information on 
the current label because gas prices fluctuate and vary with location, 
and they do not drive 15,000 miles per year.\154\ Nevertheless, Phase 1 
focus group participants identified the estimated annual fuel cost as 
the second most used piece of information on the label. In addition, in 
Phase 2 focus groups, where participants were asked to create labels 
from scratch, most groups placed a cost value on the label. When cost 
values are used, focus group members indicated they used it as a 
comparative tool to evaluate the fuel efficiency of different vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ 15,000 miles per year is the current annual mileage 
assumption used on all fuel economy labels to estimate the annual 
fuel cost of operating a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When asked what they thought about cost, focus group participants 
indicated they thought about the cost to fill a gas tank, the fuel cost 
over a period of time (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.), and the 
fuel cost over a given distance (cost per mile, 100 miles, 1000 miles, 
etc.). When Phase 1 focus group participants were presented with a 
variety of cost units, the two most popular choices among cost units 
were annual cost and cost per month. However, in Phase 3, when 
presented with labels that displayed both a monthly cost and an annual 
cost, participants suggested that the monthly cost value could be 
dropped.
    Participants in the expert panel meeting suggested that the 
agencies provide information on the savings consumers could achieve by 
purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle. One expert panel participant 
noted that the current label designs demonstrate costs, but that it 
would be better to demonstrate savings, which tends to be a very strong 
motivator.\155\ One approach to communicating this information on the 
label would be to display the savings a consumer might expect over five 
years by purchasing and driving a vehicle with a higher overall letter 
grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Environmental Metrics
    Environmental information on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other 
emissions has not been previously displayed on the fuel economy label, 
so the agencies were interested in learning how a label might best 
convey to consumers information about the emissions impact of a new 
vehicle. The available literature on the impact of ``eco-labeling'' 
vehicles is mixed.\156\ Some of the research indicates that consumers 
may welcome an eco-label on their vehicle, although they say that it is 
unlikely to impact their purchase decision. Through its consumer 
research, the agencies investigated what combination of metrics and 
ratings might be displayed on the fuel economy label to provide this 
information in an effective and consumer-friendly way, including a 
stand-alone CO2 performance metric, relative versus absolute 
rating systems, a comparison system, and an environmental certification 
mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the most part, Phase 1 focus group participants indicated that 
they did not research environmental information (beyond fuel economy) 
as part of the vehicle purchase process. While some participants 
indicated that they would use environmental information to compare 
different vehicles if it was placed on the fuel economy label the 
majority of focus group participants were indifferent to the inclusion 
of

[[Page 58135]]

environmental impact information on the label and indicated they were 
not likely to visit a website for environmental information. However, 
when presented with whole label designs in Phase 3 many respondents 
indicated that the environmental metric should be on the label, so that 
it is available for those who were interested.
    In Phase 1, participants were presented with four different 
environmental metric options and approaches to displaying environmental 
information, and were asked to rate the most understandable and least 
understandable. Participants stated that they understood the 
environmental information in general, but did not understand what 
``grams of CO2'' meant. The display featuring a rating for 
other emissions in stars and grams of CO2 numerically was 
most frequently chosen by Phase 1 participants to be the most 
understandable. Participants generally favored presentations that 
showed information in a simple format, though there was no consensus on 
which format achieved this. In general Phase 1 and 2 focus group 
findings indicate that we must keep environmental information simple if 
we want consumers to pay any attention to this information on a label. 
An overall environmental rating was most favorably received with the 
general reaction being that EPA was trusted to decide how to combine 
environmental impacts into a single rating.
    Phase 1 focus groups were also asked if they recognized and knew 
what the ``SmartWay'' logo meant. None of the participants recognized 
the logo. However, when probed, most ascertained that it was an EPA 
designation of some sort. While some participants indicated the logo 
may confer credibility to an environmentally friendly vehicle, none 
indicated they would be less likely to purchase a vehicle without the 
logo.
    In Phase 3 focus groups the agencies sought to examine further how 
environmental information might be displayed most effectively. Several 
permutations of graphical rating systems were shown to participants. 
These included designs in which ``greenhouse gases'' and ``other air 
pollutants'' were displayed as one combined environmental rating or 
separately. Rating scales were examined that were based on relative 
values, such as a ``5 leaf'' rating system as well as a linear scale 
that had the vehicle's absolute CO2 value identified on a 
scale that had end-points identifying the approximate highest and 
lowest emitting vehicles available.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 39-40 for a 
detailed description of the metrics examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expert panel, when shown the labels designed by the agencies 
based on focus group input, stated that they neither understood the 
environmental information presented nor found it compelling. As 
described in Section IV.B.4, the expert panel recommended developing an 
overall rating for vehicles, which could combine fuel economy and 
environmental impacts. The expert panel noted that additional metrics 
(e.g., CO2 performance) could be included in a less 
prominent position on the label for consumers interested in more 
detailed environmental information. Expert panel participants also 
suggested that environmental performance information could be made 
available on a website and accessed through the smartphone interactive 
(QR Code[supreg]) featured on the label.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, p. 15-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology 
Vehicles
    How should labels for advanced technology vehicles portray 
information about fuel economy, fuel cost, greenhouse gas, and other 
emissions for consumers in a way that is most understandable and useful 
to them?
    In addition to the issues discussed above for conveying information 
generally on labels, advanced technology vehicles that operate on fuels 
which differ from conventional gasoline and diesel fuel require new 
strategies to communicate and display fuel economy information 
effectively.\159\ Through the research program, we explored potential 
approaches to communicating useful fuel economy, cost, and 
environmental information about electric vehicles and several 
variations of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. As discussed further 
below, the research probed consumers to identify what specific 
information they would need if they were to seriously consider 
purchasing an advanced technology vehicle and what information would be 
most helpful on an advanced technology fuel economy label.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See Section III.B. and III.C. for a discussion of the 
challenges that advanced technology and other non-traditional 
vehicles present for consumers when making vehicle purchase 
decisions.
    \160\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phase 2 focus groups were devoted to exploring what label 
information consumers believed was most important to display for 
advanced technology vehicles given the limited space provided on the 
fuel economy label. The focus group discussions were broken into 
segments based on three different vehicle technologies: EVs, extended 
range PHEVS, and blended PHEVs. Focus group discussions thus separated 
the different technologies in order to ascertain more accurately what 
information would be most useful to consumers to understand these new 
technologies. Phase 2 focus groups were tasked with ``building'' three 
different labels, each for different advanced technology vehicles and 
were given a large number of metrics from which to choose the building 
blocks. Almost all of the labels built by each focus group included the 
following elements: (1) The range that the vehicle could travel while 
depleting a full battery, the charge depleting operation; (2) the 
length of time it takes to charge the battery; (3) the cost of charging 
the battery, and if operating in two separate fuel modes, the cost 
associated with each mode of operation; and (4) an environmental 
metric.\161\ When asked to identify the two most important pieces of 
information on the label, participants said, regardless of the city, 
gender, or technology discussed, that information on the range an 
advanced technology vehicle can travel on a fully charged battery and 
the length of time is takes to charge the battery were the most 
important information they needed to have in order to seriously 
consider purchasing these type of vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 
2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010. Appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expert panel's label recommendations did not differentiate 
between conventional and advanced technology vehicles. The 
recommendations they made for the conventional vehicle label would 
apply to the advanced technology vehicle label as well.
a. Range
    Focus group participants stated that for any vehicle that operates, 
even just part of the time, on electricity, it is important for them to 
know the distance the vehicle can travel on a fully charged battery. 
Participants saw this as vital to their understanding of the vehicle's 
fuel economy. While Phase 2 focus groups expressed interest in seeing 
the range displayed for both city and highway values, when Phase 3 
participants were presented with full labels, no one asked

[[Page 58136]]

for the range to be broken down by city and highway values.
b. Fuel Cost
    Across all advanced technologies, participants were interested in 
battery charging costs. There was a fairly even split between cost per 
mile, annual cost and monthly cost values, regardless of technology. 
For any vehicle with a gasoline-only mode of operation, participants 
expressed a desire to see the cost expressed annually. The groups also 
indicated that labels for any vehicle that operated in a combined gas 
and electric mode should provide cost information on an annual basis. 
In Phase 3, when presented with annual fuel cost and monthly fuel cost 
options, many participants used the annual fuel cost when comparing 
across advanced technology vehicles. Some indicated that the monthly 
cost was useful for these advanced technology vehicles. In particular, 
people equated the electricity consumption to their monthly home 
electricity statements.
c. Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy
    For any advanced technology vehicle that operates in a gas-only 
mode, the Phase 2 focus groups indicated a strong desire to see fuel 
consumption expressed in miles per gallon. In any vehicle that had an 
electric-only mode of operation, the focus groups favored seeing the 
electric consumption information expressed in an MPG equivalent of 
``MPGs''. (See Section II.B for a detailed discussion of MPGe). The 
second most understandable metric of electric-only operation was 
kilowatt-hour per 100 miles, but many participants felt strongly that 
kilowatt hours are very unfamiliar and should not be chosen as a 
metric. For the PHEVs with a blended mode (gas and electric), focus 
groups were interested in seeing an MPGe that combined the MPGe of 
electric operation and the MPG of gas operation. In any vehicle that 
could operate in more than one mode of operation, such as an EREV or 
PHEV, participants were interested in seeing fuel consumption values 
for each mode of operation, although some were interested in seeing a 
consumption value for the two modes expressed in MPGe \162\ in addition 
to displaying the separate consumption information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Participants were given this option using existing utility 
factor data as the method for combing the two modes of operation. 
See Section VI.B for a discussion about utility factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Environmental Information
    Focus group participants did not independently identify the need to 
have environmental information on the label. However, in Phase 2, with 
the exception of one group, when given the option, all the groups 
elected to include environmental information on the label. Of the 
designs provided many participants selected a horizontal slider scale 
that ranked the vehicle's impact as the most understandable conveyance 
of environmental information.
    Other displays of environmental metrics were examined in Phase 3. 
These displays included sliding scales segmented with relative rating 
systems as well as those with absolute values. Relative ratings such as 
stars or leaves were also shown. Participants commented that they 
wanted something that was quick and easy to read. Most focus group 
participants preferred something that was quick with little detail 
while some wanted more detailed information to help inform their 
decisions. Based on this finding, the agencies incorporated this 
approach into the co-proposed label designs in attempt to find the 
right balance of simple and detail information presentation. See 
section IV.B.1 for more comprehensive discussion of the environmental 
information focus group findings.
3. Effective Metrics To Enable Vehicle Comparison
    How can consumers compare vehicles when they are shopping?
    Beyond the statutory requirement to develop rating systems for fuel 
economy, GHGs, and other emissions, with designations of the ``best'' 
vehicles in terms of fuel economy and GHG emissions, the agencies 
recognize that the labels need to be consumer-friendly in terms of 
facilitating cross-vehicle and cross-technology comparisons. If 
consumers first encounter advanced technology vehicles on the dealer's 
lot, and are not predisposed to buy one, a label that effectively 
conveys the benefits of purchasing such a vehicle through a clear and 
understandable rating system will be helpful in informing consumers and 
potentially educating consumers about the benefits of these vehicles. 
Through the research program, the agencies also investigated how the 
fuel economy labels might be designed so that consumers could easily 
compare the fuel economy, costs, and environmental impacts across a 
range of vehicle technologies--from conventional gasoline and diesel 
vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
    Focus groups also provided feedback about various metrics which 
were intended to help a consumer compare a vehicle to other vehicles, 
as required by statute. In Phases 1 and 3, participants were shown not 
only rating scales such as a numerical or five stars system, but also a 
slider scale similar to the bar that exists on the current fuel economy 
label for within-class comparisons, both of which the agencies believed 
would meet the statutory requirement to provide a rating system. The 
participants seem to be split into two camps: Those that prefer the 
analytical detail of the value scale, and those that prefer the 
simplicity of a star-type rating scale.
    For fuel economy and fuel consumption, Phase 1 participants were 
shown two kinds of examples: One that compared vehicles only within 
their current fuel economy class, and one that showed both a within-
class comparison and a comparison among all vehicles. These comparisons 
were shown using gallons per hundred mile values and miles per gallon 
values. The majority of participants preferred the metric that showed 
the subject vehicle as it compared to all vehicles and as it compared 
to its fuel economy class in units of miles per gallon.
    In Phase 2 most focus group participants said that they would like 
an effective way to compare among disparate vehicle technologies. Many 
settled on miles per gallon equivalent as a comparative metric, but 
most did not know what the equivalency was based upon. In Phase 3, when 
comparing advanced technology vehicles, most participants either used 
the MPGe value or the annual cost value to compare across vehicles. 
Some used the fuel economy rating systems that were provided. In 
general, the findings from the focus groups established no clear 
preference or approach for how to effectively communicate comparative 
vehicle information that would be useful to most consumers.
    The expert panel disagreed that the focus group generated labels 
could be used effectively to compare across vehicle technologies-- 
especially to the level of information found on the advanced technology 
labels, which they described as ``scary'' and ``unfriendly.'' They were 
clear to point out, however, that their issues were with the label 
design, and that they were not rejecting the information contained on 
the label. The expert panel stated that there are inherent differences 
in reviewing labels in a focus group compared to on a dealership lot, 
where you have, on average, very short viewing time. The expert panel 
suggested that processing this amount of information quickly would be 
challenging, which could lead many consumers to tune out the label 
completely. As mentioned above, the panel recommended that the agencies 
roll up fuel economy, environmental

[[Page 58137]]

impacts and cost information into a single easily understood letter/
grade approach that will be intuitive for most consumers. The grade 
could be used across all technologies providing consumers easy 
comparative information. The expert panel allowed that the more 
complicated information could be made available in the bottom half of 
the label but argued that it would be crucial to retain a simple 
compelling comparison in the top portion of the label. The panel also 
suggested including a comparative metric that shows the potential 
savings from buying a more fuel efficient vehicle, as saving money 
historically has been a very strong motivator for consumers.
4. Effective Whole Label Designs
    How should the new labels be designed to meet the statutory 
requirements while best raising consumers' understanding of fuel 
efficiency, fuel cost and environmental impact?
    In addition to the examination of individual label elements 
described above, consumer research designed by EPA and NHTSA 
investigated the effects of various whole label designs on consumer 
comprehension and utilization, in order to test whether the labels 
would still be useful when all of the elements were put together. This 
inquiry is important because there is only so much space that 
information can occupy both on the label and in the consumer's mind 
when standing on the dealer's lot and confronted with so much other 
information. In order to provide sufficient information while ensuring 
that it remains understandable for the greatest number of consumers, a 
balancing act is inevitable. The consumer research attempted to assess 
how best the balance could be struck, as discussed further below in 
Section III.
    The expert panel offered very strong opinions on what, given their 
experience, would make a label effective in engaging the public. They 
strongly recommended that the top portion of the label contain only one 
element--a ``grade'' that would combine as many of our required metrics 
as possible. This information should be big, bold, and easy to process 
while walking around a dealership. The label space under the grade 
would be reserved for the specific information required in the statute 
or deemed important in focus groups and other market research. When the 
panel was presented with label designs that had multiple metrics, 
explanatory text, and graphical icons, with no one element standing 
out, they felt that the labels were confusing and intimidating. The 
expert panel's consensus view, after viewing the draft labels developed 
through the focus groups, was that these labels would be daunting for 
most consumers to process, making them inclined to ``tune out'' even 
the most basic information. Their strongest recommendation: Keep it 
simple.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert 
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010, p. 15-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Tools Beyond the Label
    What purchase process do consumers currently use to make new 
vehicle purchasing decisions? Given this process, when are the most 
effective opportunities to communicate fuel economy and environmental 
information?
a. Vehicle Purchase Process
    The vehicle purchase process is complex and iterative. There may be 
many opportunities to inform consumers about the fuel economy and 
environmental impact of the vehicles they are considering. Although 
much of this proposal focuses on the actual fuel economy label, the 
agencies recognize that consumers seek out fuel economy and 
environmental information at other times in the purchase process beyond 
simply viewing the fuel economy label on vehicles during visits to 
dealerships. In order to determine the most effective means to provide 
fuel economy and environmental information to consumers, the agencies 
sought to better understand when and how consumers encounter or search 
for this type of information in their vehicle purchase decision-making 
process.
    Information on this vehicle buying process was obtained in an on-
line survey of focus group participants prior to the actual focus 
groups. In addition, at the start of each session, participants were 
asked to discuss their purchase process so we could better understand 
the nuances associated with the responses we had received through the 
on-line survey. The pre-group online survey indicated that a majority 
of respondents already had a vehicle type in mind when they began the 
process. Consumers appear to narrow the spectrum from all available 
vehicles to the vehicle type or types they will research depending on 
their specific needs and interests. In general, the focus groups used 
broad categories to describe vehicle groupings, such as SUVs, minivans, 
sport cars, trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars.\164\ For example, 
some focus group respondents said they narrowed their search based on 
vehicle cargo space, for others it was sedans, and for others it was 
SUVs and minivans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ These categories are not necessarily related to the 
current 14 EPA-designated classes of vehicles. Vehicle classes are 
described in 40 CFR 600.315-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the pre-focus group online survey and the focus groups 
themselves, a majority of the participants indicated that price/
affordability was one of the top five factors that influenced their 
vehicle choice. Other key factors that influenced participants' vehicle 
choice included gas mileage/fuel economy, safety, reliability, size, 
interior and exterior appearance, comfort, brand name and performance. 
The agencies also reviewed existing literature on the factors that 
influence vehicle choice. For example, a 2009 survey of people between 
the ages of 18 and 30 (``Generation Y'') found gas mileage to be the 
top factor indicated by participants as critical to vehicle purchasing 
decisions, followed by affordability/price.\165\ Both demographic and 
psychographic factors (e.g., `what a vehicle says about me') also play 
a role in the vehicle purchase process.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Deloitte. ``Connecting with Gen Y: Making the short 
list,'' 2010, p.2. Available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-
UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_automotive_
Deloitte%20Automotive%20Gen%20Y%20Executive%20Summary_0107.pdf 
(last accessed August 13, 2010).
    \166\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010, p. 30-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present however, environmental impacts are not top purchasing 
considerations for most consumers. Focus group participants indicated 
that environmental impacts were not a consideration in the type of the 
vehicle they purchase. Only a small fraction of the participants in the 
pre-group online survey considered ``low emissions'' to be key factor 
when making a vehicle purchase decision. This finding is also supported 
by the literature review. Consumer research indicates that although 
consumers have a growing interest in purchasing ``greener'' vehicles, 
environmental impact is not sufficient by itself for most consumers to 
be willing to pay a premium.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Ibid., p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another important aspect of the vehicle purchase process is how 
consumers research vehicles. Two-thirds of the respondents to the pre-
focus group online survey reported they had researched fuel economy 
prior to buying their vehicle. Based on the available choices in the 
pre-focus group survey, respondents reported gathering fuel economy 
information from manufacturer Web sites, Consumer Reports, auto 
dealers, vehicle search websites, automobile magazines, others

[[Page 58138]]

with similar vehicles, government websites, television advertisements, 
and the Fuel Economy label itself. The literature review found that 
consumers increasingly research fuel economy information online. For 
example, traffic on the DOE and EPA Web site http://www.fueleconomy.gov 
increased from 400,000 user sessions in 1999 to more than 30 million in 
2008.\168\ Other Internet sources used to research vehicles during the 
purchase process include consumer-to-consumer tools such as blogs and 
Web forums.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Greene, D.L., Gibson, R., and Hopson, J., ``Reducing Oil 
Use and CO2 Emissions by Informing Consumers' Fuel 
Economy Decisions: The Role for Clean Cities,'' prepared by Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, August 2009, p. 1. 
Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/pdfs/fuel_
economy_strat_paper.pdf (last accessed August 13, 2010).
    \169\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another finding from the literature review is that consumers are 
likely to be closer to purchasing a vehicle by the time they visit the 
dealership than they were in the past.\170\ This highlights the value 
of educational tools beyond the label to provide consumers with 
information on a vehicle's fuel economy and environmental impact. 
Online tools may be particularly important. In addition to the Internet 
being a source of information for consumers, online sales of cars have 
been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years (although they 
still represent a small percentage of total car sales).\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Ibid., p.18-19.
    \171\ Deloitte. ``A new era: Accelerating toward 2020--An 
automotive industry transformed,'' 2009, p. 12. Available at http://
www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-India/Local%20Assets/Documents/
A%20New%20Era%20-%20Auto%20Transformation%20Report_Online.pdf (last 
accessed August 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consumer Education
    As described above, the vehicle purchase decision is not based 
entirely on the fuel economy label information, but is complex and 
iterative, and messages presented in contexts beyond the label may be 
even more helpful in getting consumers the information they need about 
fuel economy, fuel cost, GHGs, and other emissions. Several resources 
maintained by EPA and DOE are already available to help consumers 
obtain information about comparative vehicle fuel economy and 
environmental information, including http://www.fueleconomy.gov,\172\ 
the Fuel Economy Guide,\173\ and the Green Vehicle Guide.\174\ In 
addition to the information sources and tools already available, under 
EISA, Congress requires NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and DOE, to 
develop a consumer education program to improve consumer understanding 
of automobile performance with regard to fuel economy, greenhouse gas 
and other emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ http://www.fueleconomy.gov/.
    \173\ http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm.
    \174\ http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this campaign is still in its very early stages and is not 
the subject of this rulemaking, it will be investigating modifications 
to existing tools, new collaborations for information dissemination 
and, potentially, new forms of media utilization in communicating the 
relationship of automobile performance to fuel economy and emissions. 
Particularly given the changes to the label that we anticipate will 
result from this rulemaking, introducing consumers to the new 
information available to them and how it can be used as they consider 
their next vehicle purchase will be very important.
    Since the vehicle purchase process is multifaceted, EPA and NHTSA 
would like to better understand how various information tools beyond 
the label can provide critical fuel economy information to consumers. 
EPA and NHTSA especially seek to understand what additional types of 
consumer information and tools are most important and what level of 
individualized information is needed by consumers in the future.
    There are a variety of existing education campaigns and resources 
to help enable consumers to make more fuel efficient and 
environmentally friendly transportation choices. These include the 
Federal Highway Administration's initiative ``It All Adds Up to Cleaner 
Air,'' \175\ the ``Cleaner Cars for Maine'' \176\ program, and the 
``Drive Smarter Challenge'' campaign.\177\ Brief descriptions of these 
and other education campaigns are available in the literature review 
report.\178\ Such campaigns may inform the agencies' development of 
educational tools to help consumers make more informed vehicle 
purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See http://www.italladdsup.gov (last accessed August 13, 
2010).
    \176\ See http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/lev4me/index.html (last 
accessed August 13, 2010).
    \177\ See http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/ (last accessed 
August 13, 2010).
    \178\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: 
Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies request comment on ideas for the most effective means 
to educate consumers about the new elements and metrics being proposed 
on the label. In addition, EPA and NHTSA request specific comment on 
what additional tools we could provide to increase consumer 
comprehension about complex advanced technology vehicles and automobile 
performance related to fuel economy and emissions. We are proposing 
that this campaign potentially include both traditional marketing 
mechanisms, such as brochures, public service advertisements, media 
placements, and dealership-distributed checklists, along with more 
innovative approaches, which may include crowdsourcing with social 
media, interactive web site displays at dealerships that would allow 
consumers to ``personalize'' their fuel economy label, smartphone 
applications. In addition, per the recommendation of the expert panel, 
we are proposing to develop a Web site that would be launched in 
conjunction with the new label. This consumer-focused, user friendly 
Web site would provide more specific information on the label, along 
with access to the tools, applications, social media, and materials 
mentioned above.
    All messages and materials will be tailored according to the method 
of communication and the target audience. EPA is requesting comment on 
effective messaging, materials, and methods of communication.

V. Implementation of the New Label

A. Timing

    As previously noted, the agencies are proposing that the new label 
requirements initially take effect with the 2012 model year. This 
regulatory action is scheduled to be finalized in late December of 2010 
or January of 2011 with a final rule effective 30 days after 
publication. This timing is similar to what was provided in the 2006 
label rule.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See 40 CFR 600.301-08 and 71 FR 77879 (December 27, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model year 2012 vehicles can be introduced as early as January 
2011, and in fact EPA has already heard from at least one manufacturer 
that plans such an early introduction, Given that this regulatory 
action is not scheduled to be finalized until December of 2010 or 
January of 2011 and that it is possible, based on when the final rule 
is published in the Federal Register for the effective date of the new 
regulations to be a date in March of 2011 it is clear that not all 2012 
model year vehicles can be captured by the proposed regulations. There 
may also be cases where a manufacturer prints label ``blanks'' early in 
the model year, even if they plan to introduce vehicles in the more 
typical time frame of late summer and early fall. Although the proposed

[[Page 58139]]

regulations do not presume anything regarding the date of finalization 
of the new label and only specify applicability to the 2012 model year, 
we expect that the final rule will have to take these issues into 
account.
    The final rule will likely specify a date of applicability of the 
new regulations that is some date certain after publication of the 
final rule that would allow manufacturers adequate time to plan for and 
implement the new designs. We believe that a date on the order of 30 
days after publication would be appropriate, where vehicles produced 
after that date would have to use the new label format. We would of 
course encourage the voluntary use of the new label to the greatest 
extent possible from the date of signature to the specified effective 
date. The agencies request comments on the appropriate timeframe for 
implementing these new label requirements.
    The agencies recognize that some of the potential changes in label 
design, including color graphics that would be printed at production 
run-time and differing footprints that necessitate redesign of the 
overall Monroney label may impact the amount of lead time required by 
manufacturers. While we believe that it is extremely important for the 
final label changes to take effect as soon as possible, we seek comment 
on these specific potential lead time issues.
    To introduce the new label and ensure that the public understands 
the new information and format, the agencies plan to conduct extensive 
public outreach concurrent with the implementation of a final rule. We 
will provide information about the new label and how to use it via web-
based information, fact sheets, and other communication methods. This 
information will be designed to explain all aspects of the new label.

B. Labels for 2011 Model Year Advanced Technology Vehicles

    The new fuel economy label will address advanced technology 
vehicles, such as EVs and PHEVs, which some manufacturers are planning 
to introduce into the U.S. market prior to the 2012 model year. EPA 
issued regulations in 2009 that provided EPA discretion to authorize 
appropriate changes to the current fuel economy label with individual 
manufacturers, specifically with respect to advanced technology.\180\ 
These regulations are applicable until this rule is finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ 74 FR 61537, Nov 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address labels for advanced technology vehicles introduced 
before this rule is finalized; EPA may allow any manufacturer of such 
vehicles that will be introduced prior to the 2012 model year to use 
one of the co-proposed labels, or an alternative label that meets EPA's 
approval. For example, EPA could evaluate whether a manufacturer could 
use a table that compares various metrics (e.g., fuel economy (mpg), 
electricity consumed (kWh), miles per gallon equivalent (mpg-e), and 
total energy cost) for different mileages the vehicle is driven between 
a full charge of the battery. This approach would provide the most 
complete amount of information for the vehicle's performance as a 
function of distance travelled. The broad range of metrics could also 
make it easier for the consumer to understand the energy consumption of 
the vehicle. The down side to including a table is that it provides a 
lot of information and could be potentially confusing for some 
consumers.
    Manufacturers intending to introduce an advanced technology vehicle 
as a 2011 model year vehicle should meet with EPA to discuss the 
details of actual implementation. For example, EPA would discuss with 
the manufacturer the fact that the label format and information may 
only be used for the 2011 model year and may change for 2012 depending 
on the outcome of the final label regulations. EPA would also discuss 
in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) what aspects of 
the label information could be advertised and would also discuss with 
the manufacturer the details of specific test values used, such as mile 
per gallon equivalent, kW-hr per 100 miles, blended mode operation for 
a PHEV, etc.

C. Implementation of Label Content

    Although much of the information presented on the label is 
determined from test data specific to the labeled vehicle or can be 
codified in the regulations, there are elements that will require 
annual (or in some cases, possibly less frequent) information provided 
by EPA. This is no different from today's label and the annual guidance 
letter published by EPA that includes the fuel economy ranges for each 
class of automobile, the fuel price information to be used to calculate 
costs, and other relevant information. This information will have to 
continue to be provided by EPA on an annual basis, but the new ratings 
proposed for the new labels will also require that EPA provide annually 
the range of fuel economy of all vehicles as well as the range of 
CO2 emissions of all vehicles.

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals

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

1. Electric Vehicles
    There currently is no federal test procedure for measuring fuel 
economy for electric vehicles. EPA has periodically performed fuel 
economy testing for electric vehicles utilizing test procedures and 
protocols developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 
specifically J1634. Manufacturers may continue to use SAEJ1634 test 
protocols, as cancelled in October 2002 until EPA can comment on a 
reissued SAE1634 that is in draft, with the exception of not using the 
C coefficient adjustment in paragraph 4.4.2. The C coefficient 
adjustment was intended to reflect air conditioning loads. Air 
conditioning usage is not considered in CAF[Eacute] testing and is 
accounted for via the 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle equations for 
labeling. Until recently, there have been very few electric vehicles 
sold in the U.S. market. The few exceptions, such as the EV1 from 
General Motors (GM), were only made available to a select few customers 
for a limited time. As such, there was not a pressing need for an 
electric vehicle test procedure. However, with the imminent release of 
several new battery electric vehicles from manufacturers such as Ford 
and Nissan, the need for a Federal test procedure for measuring fuel 
economy or fuel consumption for electric vehicles is apparent.
    Fuel economy estimates are measured for ``city'' and ``highway'' 
operation. Prior to the 2008 model year, all vehicles were fuel economy 
tested over just two test cycles: The Federal Test Procedure (FTP or 
``city'' test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway'' 
test). In December, 2006, EPA published revisions to improve the 
calculation of fuel economy estimates to better reflect real world fuel 
economy performance.\181\ These revisions included three additional 
chassis dynamometer test cycles to the current FTP and HFET for fuel 
economy testing purposes. The three additional cycles were the US06, 
SC03, and the Cold Temperature FTP. Prior to the 2008 model year, all 
three test cycles were used for emissions purposes for either the 
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) emissions standards (US06 
and SC03) or the cold temperature (20 [deg]F) emission standards. 
Beginning in the 2008 model year, all vehicles tested for fuel economy 
labeling purposes had to use the new ``5-

[[Page 58140]]

cycle'' fuel economy methodology which either required testing all 
vehicles over the five test cycles discussed above or apply an 
equivalent 5-cycle correction referred to as the derived MPG- based 
approach. For alternative fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles, 
manufacturers have the option for fuel economy testing to test their 
vehicle over all five test cycles or use a derived MPG-based approach
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ 71 FR 77931, Dec. 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. FTP or ``City'' Test
    The procedure for testing and measuring fuel economy and vehicle 
driving range for electric vehicles is similar to the process used by 
the average consumer to calculate the fuel economy of their personal 
vehicle. The distance the vehicle can operate until the battery is 
discharged to the point where it can no longer provide sufficient 
propulsive energy to maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 
CFR 86.115-78 is measured and divided by the total amount of electrical 
energy necessary to fully recharge the battery, similar to refueling 
the gas tank of a gasoline powered vehicle.
    The first step of the procedure is to determine the distance the 
vehicle operates before the battery becomes discharged to the point 
where the vehicle can no longer provide sufficient propulsive energy to 
maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78. This 
begins with the preconditioning of the vehicle. The electric vehicle is 
preconditioned per 40 CFR part 86, section 132. Following 
preconditioning, the Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) will be 
brought to full charge. The RESS will remain plugged into the 
electrical source for a minimum of 12 hours. For the FTP or city test 
cycles, the chassis dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant 
to 40 CFR 86.135 with the exception that the vehicle will run 
consecutive test cycles until the vehicle is unable to maintain the FTP 
speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78. To clarify, an FTP 
historically consisted of two Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules. The 
FTP was later shortened to one full UDDS and only the first bag or 
phase of the second UDDS. The second phase of the second UDDS was 
considered just a repeat of the second phase of the first UDDS. In the 
context of electric vehicles, an FTP is two full consecutive UDDS's. 
The second UDDS of any FTP cycle will be started 10 minutes after the 
cold start as per Sec.  86.135. Subsequent FTP cycles may require up to 
30 minutes between starts due to test facility limitations. Between 
starts, the RESS is not to be charged. During the 10 minute or other 
longer soaks, the vehicle should have the hood closed and the cooling 
fans shut off.
    If an electric vehicle cannot reach the FTP top speed, then the 
test will terminate once the vehicle speeds cannot be maintained within 
2 mph as described in 40 CFR 86.115-78 up to the maximum speed. For low 
powered electric vehicles that cannot reach the FTP top speed, the 
vehicle top speed is the maximum speed the vehicle reached during the 
first FTP. The Administrator may approve alternate end of test 
criteria. For low powered electric vehicles that by design cannot 
maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78, low 
powered vehicles, the vehicle will continue testing if the vehicle is 
operated at maximum power. This provision is intended to apply 
uniformly throughout all the consecutive FTP cycles. A vehicle that can 
maintain trace speed on the first FTP cannot then be declared a low 
powered vehicle for subsequent FTP cycles. Upon reaching the end of 
test criteria, the distance driven shall be recorded and the vehicle 
decelerated to a stop. The end of test criteria is when the vehicle can 
no longer maintain the drive cycle per 40 CFR 86.115-78 or, for a low 
powered EV, can no longer maintain the speed tolerances per 40 CFR 
86.115-78 up to the vehicle maximum speed as defined above. Similarly, 
low powered vehicles that cannot maintain the drive cycle due to 
insufficient acceleration will use the trace driven on first UDDS as 
the tolerance for end of test.
    The final stage of the electric vehicle test procedure is the 
measurement of the electrical energy used to operate the vehicle. The 
end of test recharging procedure is intended to return the RESS to the 
full charge equivalent of the pre test conditions. The recharging 
procedure must start within three hours after completing the EV 
testing. The vehicle will remain on charge for a minimum of 12 hours to 
a maximum of 36 hours. After reaching full charge and the minimum soak 
time of 12 hours has been reached, the manufacturer may physically 
disconnect the RESS from the grid. The alternating current (AC) watt-
hours must be recorded throughout the charge time. It is important that 
the vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The measured AC watt-
hours must include the efficiency of the charger system. The measured 
AC watt hours are intended to reflect all applicable electricity 
consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle conditioning 
during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption during 
the drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity consumption is 
calculated by dividing the recharge AC watt-hours by the distance 
traveled before the end of the test criteria is reached.
b. HFET or ``Highway'' Test
    Similar to the FTP test procedure, the first step of the procedure 
is to determine the distance the vehicle operates before the battery 
becomes fully discharged. This begins with the preconditioning of the 
vehicle. Vehicle preconditioning is to be conducted as per 40 CFR part 
86, section 132. Following preconditioning, the RESS will be brought to 
full charge. The RESS will remain plugged into the electrical source 
for a minimum of 12 hours. The vehicle may remain plugged into the 
electrical source up to 36 hours.
    Dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 600.111 
with the exceptions that electric vehicles will run consecutive cycles 
of the HFET until the end of test criteria is reached. Subsequent HFET 
cycle pairs may require up to 30 minutes of soak time between HFET 
cycle pairs due to facility limitations. Between cycle pairs, the 
vehicle hood is to be closed and the cooling fans shut off. Between 
starts, the RESS is not to be charged.
    If an electric vehicle cannot reach the HFET top speed, then the 
test will terminate once the vehicle speeds cannot be maintained, up to 
the maximum speed. For low powered electric vehicles that cannot reach 
the HFET top speed, the vehicle top speed is the maximum speed the 
vehicle reached during the first HFET. The Administrator may approve 
alternate end of test criteria. For low powered electric vehicles that 
by design cannot maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 
86.115-78, the vehicle will continue testing if the vehicle is operated 
at maximum power. This provision is intended to apply uniformly 
throughout all the consecutive HFET cycles. Similarly, low powered 
vehicles that cannot maintain the drive cycle due to insufficient 
acceleration will use the trace driven on first UDDS as the tolerance 
for end of test. A vehicle that can maintain trace speed on the first 
HFET cannot then be declared a low powered vehicle for proceeding HFET 
cycles.
    Similar to the FTP test procedure, the final stage of the HFET test 
procedure is the measurement of the electrical energy used to operate 
the vehicle. The end of test recharging procedure is intended to return 
the RESS to the full charge equivalent of the pre test conditions. The 
recharging procedure must start within three hours after completing the

[[Page 58141]]

EV testing. The vehicle will remain on charge for a minimum of 12 hours 
to a maximum of 36 hours. After reaching full charge and the minimum 
soak time of 12 hours has been reached, the manufacturer may physically 
disconnect the RESS from the grid. The alternating current (AC) watt-
hours must be recorded throughout the charge time. It is important that 
the vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The measured AC watt-
hours must include the efficiency of the charger system. The measured 
AC watt hours are intended to reflect all applicable electricity 
consumption including charger losses, battery and vehicle conditioning 
during the recharge and soak, and the electricity consumption during 
the drive cycles. Finally, the raw electricity consumption is 
calculated by dividing the recharge AC watt-hours by the distance 
traveled before the end of the test criteria is reached.
c. Other EV Test Procedures
    The Administrator may approve or require equivalent or additional 
EV test procedures including incorporating via reference SAEJ1634 
published after this notice.
2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
a. PHEV Test Procedure Rationale
    Test procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) are 
required to quantify some operation unique to plug-in hybrids. The 
intent in developing new PHEV test procedures is to use existing test 
cycles and test procedures where applicable. PHEV operation can be 
generally classified into two modes of operation, charge depleting and 
charge sustaining operation. Charge depleting operation can be 
described as vehicle operation where the rechargeable energy storage 
system (RESS), commonly batteries, is being depleted of its ``wall'' 
charge. Charge sustaining operation can best be described as 
conventional hybrid operation.
    New procedures for charge depleting operation would consist of 
existing test cycles repeated until the PHEV RESS is depleted to charge 
sustaining operation. Whereas in the past a conventional vehicle would 
be expected to consume fuel and emit emissions over repetitive 
identical test cycles consistently, the same cannot be said of PHEVs. 
PHEV fuel consumption, fuel mix, and emissions may change as the RESS 
is depleted. In order to accurately assess the emissions and fuel 
efficiency of a PHEV, the PHEV requires testing over the entire charge 
depleting range. Testing over the entire charge depleting range 
requires new test provisions to address vehicle setup and prep, 
measuring and charging the RESS, operation over repetitive test cycles, 
and calculating any new values that are now measured over repetitive 
test cycle.
    As described above, charge sustaining operation can best be 
described as conventional hybrid operation. EPA would continue to use 
existing hybrid electric vehicle test procedures. The primary 
differences between HEV and other conventional vehicle testing are the 
need to monitor RESS state of charge and the extra drive time required 
to insure vehicle warm operation during the Federal Test Procedure. The 
RESS is measured and subject to the state of charge tolerances, below, 
to insure all energy is accurately accounted. The fully warm operation 
is satisfied by running a full 4 phase Ftp instead of the abbreviated 3 
phase Ftp as traditionally used for conventional vehicle testing.
    For the purposes of fuel economy label testing, PHEVs would be 
subject to the same test cycles as other light duty vehicles with a few 
exceptions. While operating in charge depleting mode, a PHEV is using 
electricity originally from an off board source. This is to say that a 
PHEV is operating at least partially on an alternative fuel while 
operating in charge depleting mode. For the purposes of fuel economy, 
PHEVs could continue to use the derived 5-cycle adjustment while in 
charge depleting mode. The derived 5-cycle adjustment would be applied 
to the total city and total highway fuel economies separately. For the 
purposes of applying the 5-cycle correction, the total fuel economies 
in charge depleting mode include both of the fuels consumed, typically 
gas and electricity, as expressed in a miles per gallon of gasoline 
equivalent unit. The 5-cycle correction is to be applied to the 
combined energy of each mode of operation even if the energy 
consumption is ultimately fuel specific. Applying a correction to the 
gasoline and electricity consumption separately could lead to a smaller 
adjustment than other vehicles since the 5-cycle correction is not 
linear. While in charge sustain mode, PHEVs would be subject to the 
same test procedures as conventional hybrid electric vehicles.
    PHEVs must meet all applicable emissions standards regardless of 
RESS state of charge. EPA will consider a RESS as an adjustable 
parameter for the sake of emissions testing. It is the manufacturer's 
responsibility to insure vehicles are emissions compliant. EPA 
typically allows good engineering judgment in applying worse case 
emission testing criteria. For the purposes of certification 
compliance, EPA will consider charge sustain operation as worse case. 
EPA may confirmatory test or request the manufacturer to provide test 
data for any test cycle at any state of charge. Evaluation of fuel 
economy testing emissions may be used to change worse case emissions 
assumptions.
b. PHEV Test Procedure and Calculations
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711, in part, for 
PHEV test procedures.
Charge Depleting Operation--FTP or ``City'' Test and HFET or 
``Highway'' Test
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 
and 4 for definitions and test procedures, respectively, where 
appropriate, with the following exceptions and clarifications. UF 
weighting is not intended for use with criteria pollutants.
    Test cycles will continue until the end of the phase in which 
charge sustain operation is confirmed. Charge sustain operation is 
confirmed when one or more phases or cycles satisfy the Net Energy 
Change requirements below. EPA seeks comment on manufacturers 
optionally terminating charge deplete testing before charge sustain 
operation is confirmed with state of charge provided that the RESS has 
a higher SOC at charge deplete testing termination than in charge 
sustain operation. In the case of Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicles with 
an all electric range, engine start time will be recorded but the test 
does not necessarily terminate with engine start. PHEVs with all 
electric operation follow the same test termination criteria as blended 
mode PHEVs. Testing can only be terminated at the end of a test cycle. 
The Administrator may approve alternate end of test criteria.
    For the purposes of charge depleting CO2 and fuel 
economy testing, manufacturers may elect to report one measurement per 
phase (one bag per UDDS). Exhaust emissions need not be reported or 
measured in phases the engine does not operate.
    End of test recharging procedure is intended to return the RESS to 
a full charge equivalent to pre test conditions. The recharge AC watt 
hours must be recorded throughout the charge time. Vehicle soak 
conditions must not be violated. The AC watt hours must include the 
charger efficiency. The measured AC watt hours are intended to reflect 
all applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, 
battery and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the

[[Page 58142]]

electricity consumption during the drive cycles.
    Net Energy Change Tolerance, NEC, is to be applied to the RESS to 
confirm charge sustaining operation. The EPA is proposing to adopt the 
1% of fuel energy NEC state of charge criteria as expressed in 
SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve alternate NEC tolerances and 
state of charge correction factors if the 1% criteria is insufficient 
or inappropriate.
    Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional 
``warm'' test cycles that are now required to test starting at full 
RESS charge due to charge depleting range testing. If the vehicle is 
equipped with a charge sustain switch, the preconditioning cycle may be 
conducted per 600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust 
emissions are not taken in preconditioning drives. Alternate vehicle 
warm up strategies may be approved by the Administrator. This will 
allow a method for starting ``warm'' test cycles with a fully charged 
battery.
Hybrid Charge Sustaining Operation--FTP or ``City'' Test and HFET or 
``Highway'' Test
    The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference SAEJ1711 chapters 3 
and 4 for definitions and test procedures. The EPA proposes to adopt 
the 1% of fuel energy NEC state of charge criteria as expressed in 
SAEJ1711. The Administrator may approve alternate NEC tolerances and 
state of charge correction factors if the 1% criteria is insufficient 
or inappropriate.
    Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional 
``warm'' test cycles that are now required to test starting at full 
RESS charge due to charge depleting range testing. If the vehicle is 
equipped with a charge sustain switch, the preconditioning cycle may be 
conducted per 600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust 
emissions are not taken in preconditioning drives. Alternate vehicle 
warm up strategies may be approved by the Administrator.
Charge Depleting Range Determination
    Actual Charge Depleting Range (RCDA) will be a 
calculated value that uses the charge sustaining state of charge of the 
RESS to define the RCDA endpoint. Due to the nature of 
PHEVs, RCDA will require calculation and is not necessarily 
when the engine first starts. Defining RCDA using only 
engine on could leave PHEVs with three modes of operation. These three 
modes would be charge depletion, charge regeneration, and charge 
sustaining. If the regeneration of the RESS from the engine is not 
accounted for in the charge depleting mode, the RESS could be deep 
cycled beyond the CS SOC to gain range while the increase in 
CO2 emissions due to the RESS regeneration would not be 
captured in the charge sustaining testing.
    Calculation of RCDA will require monitoring the RESS SOC 
throughout charge depleting testing. The RCDA for each cycle 
would be the driven cycle distance from start of CD testing until the 
charge sustaining SOC is ``crossed''. The EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the SAEJ1711 calculation for Actual Charge 
Depleting Range.
c. Other Test Cycles
    PHEV and Electric vehicle testing over the SC03, US06, or Cold CO 
test cycles would follow the same general procedure as the FTP and 
HFED. EPA would consider the use of alternate or equivalent PHEV test 
procedures and may incorporate by reference SAEJ1711.
d. Test Tolerances
    State of Charge tolerance correction factors may be approved by the 
Administrator. RESS state of charge tolerances beyond the 1% of fuel 
energy may be approved by the Administrator.
e. Mileage and Service Accumulation
    The EPA is seeking comment on modifying the minimum and maximum 
allowable test vehicle accumulated mileage for both EVs and PHEVs. Due 
to the nature of PHEV and EV operation, testing may require many more 
vehicle miles than conventional vehicles. Furthermore, EVs and PHEVs 
either do not have engines or may use the engine for only a fraction of 
the miles driven.
f. Test Fuels
    Electric Vehicles and PHEVs are to be recharged using the supplied 
manufacturer method provided that the methods are available to 
consumers. This method could include the electricity service 
requirements such as service amperage, voltage, and phase. 
Manufacturers may employ the use of voltage regulators in order to 
reduce test to test variability with prior Administrator approval.

B. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background
    Utility Factors are a method of combining CO2 emissions, 
fuel consumption, or other metrics from multiple modes of operation 
into one value. The extent to which utility factors are used on a fuel 
economy label is completely dependent upon label format. That is to 
say, some PHEV label formats may not require utility factors at all or 
possibly only for CO2. This discussion on utility factor is 
required to understand the different PHEV label formats within this 
proposal.
    As discussed previously, PHEVs can use two types of energy sources: 
(1) An onboard battery charged by plugging the vehicle into the 
electrical grid possibly via a conventional wall outlet to power an 
electric motor, as well as (2) a gas or diesel-powered engine to propel 
the vehicle or power a generator used to provide electricity to the 
electric motor. Depending on how these vehicles are operated, they can 
use electricity exclusively, never use electricity and operate like a 
conventional hybrid, or operate in some combination of these two modes. 
This can make it difficult to estimate fuel economy, fuel consumption, 
annual cost, or CO2 emissions from these vehicles.
    The EPA has worked closely with stakeholders including vehicle 
manufacturers, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the State of 
California, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others to develop an 
approach for estimating fuel economy, fuel consumption, cost, 
CO2 emission, or any other metric for vehicles that can 
operate using more than one energy source. EPA believes the appropriate 
method for combining the operation of vehicles that can operate with 
more than one fuel would be a weighted average of the appropriate 
metric for the two modes of operation. A methodology developed by SAE 
and DOE to predict the fractions of total distance driven in each mode 
of operation (electricity and gas) uses a term known as a utility 
factor (UF). UF's were developed using data from the 2001 Department of 
Transportation ``National Household Travel Survey''. A detailed method 
of UF development can be found in the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE) J2841 ``Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid Electric 
Vehicles Using Travel Survey Data''. At the time of this proposal, 
SAEJ2841 was in the process of balloting prior to publishing. SAE 
reference documents can be obtained at http://www.SAE.org. By using a 
utility factor, it is possible to determine a weighted average of the 
electric and gasoline modes. For example, a UF of 0.8 would indicate 
that an all-electric capable PHEV operates in an all electric mode 80% 
of the time and uses the engine the other 20% of the time. In this 
example, the weighted average fuel economy value would be influenced 
more by the electrical operation than the engine operation.
    For the purposes of PHEVs, UF development makes several 
assumptions. Assumptions include: the

[[Page 58143]]

first mode of operation is always electric assist or all electric 
drive, vehicles will be charged once per day, and that future PHEV 
drivers will follow drive patterns exhibited by the drivers in the 
surveys used in SAEJ2841. EPA acknowledges that current understanding 
of the above assumptions and that the data upon which utility factors 
were developed may change. Therefore, EPA may change the calculation of 
future utility factors in light of new data in a future rulemaking.
2. General Application of Utility Factors
    While acknowledging the assumptions above, a UF could be assigned 
to each successive test or phase of testing until the battery charge 
was depleted to the point where the PHEV sole source of power was from 
the gasoline or diesel engine. One minus the sum of all the utility 
factors would then represent the fraction of driving performed in this 
``gasoline or diesel mode.'' Carbon dioxide emissions could then be 
expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.024

Where:

Ym is the Utility Factor averaged mass of carbon dioxide 
for a specific drive cycle.
Yi are the CO2 mass emissions or 
CO2 equivalent mass emissions for each phase or test 
cycle. For electricity, a carbon dioxide equivalent may be used as 
determined by the Administrator.
Ycs is the charge sustain carbon dioxide mass emissions 
and for hybrids in the case of the FTP can be expressed as 
Ycs= 0.43* Yc + 0.57* YH., where 
Yc is the charge sustain cold start test and 
YH is the charge sustain hot start mass emissions of 
carbon dioxide.
UFi is the driving cycle and sequentially specific 
utility factor.

    Likewise, the electrical consumption would be expressed by adding 
the electricity consumption from each mode. Since there is no 
electrical consumption in hybrid mode, or charge sustain mode, the 
equation for electricity consumption would be as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.025

    Where Em is the utility factor averaged electricity 
consumption, Ei is the electricity consumption 
proportioned to each successive drive cycle, and UFi is 
the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility factor.
3. Calculating Combined Values Using Cycle Specific Utility Factors
    Utility factors could be cycle specific not only due to different 
battery ranges on different test cycles but also due to the fact that 
``highway'' type driving may imply longer trips than urban driving. 
This would lead to different utility factors for urban and highway 
driving. The following section explains the EPA proposal of assigning a 
utility factor to each successive phase or test cycle performed in 
charge depleting or ``PHEV'' mode.
    Utility factors can be assigned to each mode of operation according 
to the distance driven in each mode for a given powertrain combination. 
Rather than calculating a unique UF for each cycle based on measured 
distance driven, UF's will be assigned to each successive phase of 
consecutive Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules, and each successive 
Highway Fuel Economy Driving schedule of consecutive HFEDs. Composite 
city and composite highway CO2 emissions will first be 
calculated using test results and UFs from the respective cycles. Final 
combined values will then be an averaged 55% city and 45% highway 
value. The proposed cycle specific utility factors for UDDS or ``city'' 
driving are provided in Table VI.B.2-1 and the proposed cycle specific 
utility factors for HFEDS or ``highway'' driving are provided in Table 
VI.B.2-2. The method used to develop cycle specific utility factors can 
be found in SAEJ2841. EPA seeks comment on using utility factors other 
than the fleet 55/45 city/highway specific utility factors for labeling 
and compliance. Finally, example CO2 calculations are 
provided below.

           Table VI.B.2-1--FTP Phase Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Urban driving, ``city''
                                 ---------------------------
              Phase                 Distance,    Cumulative    Seq. UF
                                       mi            UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1..............................          3.59        0.125        0.125
 2..............................          7.45        0.243        0.118
 3..............................         11.04        0.340        0.096
 4..............................         14.9         0.431        0.091
 5..............................         18.49        0.505        0.074
 6..............................         22.35        0.575        0.070
 7..............................         25.94        0.632        0.057
 8..............................         29.8         0.685        0.054
 9..............................         33.39        0.729        0.044
 10.............................         37.25        0.770        0.041
 11.............................         40.84        0.803        0.033
 12.............................         44.7         0.834        0.031
 13.............................         48.29        0.859        0.025
 14.............................         52.15        0.882        0.023
 15.............................         55.74        0.900        0.018
 16.............................         59.6         0.917        0.017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Table VI.B.2-2--HFED Cycle Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Highway driving
                                  --------------------------------------
              HFEDS                 Distance,    Cumulative
                                        mi           UF        Seq. UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................         10.3        0.125        0.125
2................................         20.6        0.252        0.127

[[Page 58144]]

3................................         30.9        0.378        0.126
4................................         41.2        0.500        0.121
5................................         51.5        0.610        0.111
6................................         61.8        0.707        0.097
7................................         72.1        0.787        0.080
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example CO2 Calculations
    A PHEV was tested with the following results. The example PHEV 
operated over four consecutive UDDS to quantify charge depleting or 
``PHEV'' mode and ran the required bag hybrid UDDS test to represent 
charge sustaining or ``hybrid'' mode.

                                                 Table VI.B.2-3--Charge Depleting Example CO2 Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cycle                           Dc integrated  Proportioned W     Measured
                 UDDS                      Bag       miles     CO2 g/mi    CO2 g        amp hrs           hrs        distance, mi       UF       Whr/mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................          1       3.59       50.0      180.5               4          705.88            3.61      0.125      195.5
1.....................................          2       7.45       35.0      134.8             3.8          670.59            3.85      0.118      174.2
2.....................................          3      11.04       30.0      107.4             3.7          652.94            3.58      0.096      182.4
2.....................................          4       14.9       37.0      143.2             3.5          617.65            3.87      0.091      159.6
3.....................................          5      18.49       55.7      198.3               2          352.94            3.56      0.074       99.1
3.....................................          6      22.35      232.5      902.2               0            0               3.88       0.07        0.0
4.....................................          7      25.94      249.2      877.3               0            0               3.52      0.057        0.0
4.....................................          8       29.8      230.0      897.0               0            0               3.90      0.054        0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table VI.B.2-4--Charge Sustaining Example CO2 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Measured
              UDDS                      Bag         Cycle miles      CO2 g/mi          CO2 g       distance, mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................               1            3.59           251.4             910            3.62
1...............................               2            7.45           233.8             900            3.85
2...............................               3           11.04           251.4             890            3.54
2...............................               4           14.9            228.1             885            3.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the above data for the example PHEV to the General UF 
formula in Equation VI.B.2-1 using Table VI.B.2-1 will yield the City 
CO2 value. Ym=50 CO2 g/mi x 0.125 + 35 
CO2 g/mi x 0.118 + 30g CO2 g/mi + 0.096 + 37g 
CO2 g/mi x 0.091 + 55.7 CO2 g/mi x 0.074 + 232.5 
CO2 g/mi + 0.070 + 249.2 CO2 g/mi x 0.057 + 230 
CO2 g/mi x 0.054 + (1-(0.125 + 0.118 + 0.096 + 0.091 + 0.074 
+ 0.070 + 0.057 + 0.054) x (Ycs). Where Ycs = 0.43 x (910 + 900)/(3.62 
+ 3.85) + 0.57 x (890 + 885)/(3.54 + 3.88) = 241g CO2 g/mi. 
The total CO2 g/mi, Ym, excluding any electricity 
CO2 equivalence would then be 139 g/mi.
    To determine electricity consumption one would apply utility 
factors in a similar fashion using equation VI.B.2-2 and Table VI.B.2-
1. Em= 195.5 W hr/mi x 0.125 + 174.2 W hr/mi x 0.118 + 182.4 W hr/mi + 
0.096 + 159.6 W hr/mi x 0.091 + 99.1 W hr/mi x 0.074 = 84.4 W hr/mi
    The combined CO2 from engine operation and the 
CO2 from the electrical consumption could be calculated by 
summing the two values, given a CO2 equivalency for 
electricity. For example, if the Watt hour CO2 equivalent 
was 0.26g CO2 per Watt hour, the total CO2 
emissions could then be expressed as the sum of the CO2 and 
CO2-equivalent emissions from both modes of operation. From 
the example above, the overall CO2 emissions would be 139 
gCO2 per mile + (84.4 W hr/mi) 22gCO2equiv per 
mile = 161g CO2 per mile.
    Utility factors can also be used to calculate a miles per gallon 
equivalent measurement similar to the CO2 example above. 
Additional assumptions are required, however, when applying utility 
factors to a Corporate Average Fuel Economy and possibly a fuel economy 
labeling miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent measure.
    Previously, when calculating PHEV CO2 emissions, the 
CO2 emissions were part of a manufacturer fleet average. The 
same is true of Corporate Average Fuel Economy. CAFE is a fleet 
average. Except where explicitly noted for dual fueled vehicles, both 
CAF[Eacute] and CO2 fleet calculations would use the cycle 
specific fleet utility factors. For the purposes of a possible label 
fuel economy, a fleet average is not the aim, but rather what the 
average driver would likely experience or expect. For this reason, the 
EPA is proposing the use of the cycle specific Multiday Individual 
Utility Factors. The individual utility factors do not weight vehicle 
miles traveled towards the longer trips like fleet utility factors. For 
a detailed explanation on utility factor development see SAEJ2841.
    Similar to determining a total CO2 emissions value for 
PHEVs, calculating a miles per gallon total for PHEVs will require an 
electricity to gasoline conversion. This miles per gallon equivalent of 
gasoline would be calculated differently for CAF[Eacute] and label. For 
a FE label number, EPA would use a miles per gallon of gasoline 
equivalent energy factor for electricity of

[[Page 58145]]

33,705 watt hours per gallon.\182\ This same gasoline equivalency would 
be used for CAF[Eacute] calculation, if the PHEV did not meet the 
minimum distance requirements of a dual fueled vehicle.\183\ In the 
case of PHEVs with diesel engines, EPA proposes to similarly require 
calculation of a miles per gallon equivalent for battery operation, but 
specifying instead to rely on a conversion using the energy content of 
diesel fuel. We propose to specify an energy content of 36,700 Watt 
hours per gallon of diesel fuel. This is based on the approximately 9 
percent higher energy density for diesel fuel relative to gasoline. We 
request comment on this approach to calculating fuel economy values for 
diesel-fueled hybrid electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 65 FR 36990, June 12, 2000.
    \183\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) and 49 CFR 538.5 Minimum Driving Range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the PHEV met the dual fuel range minimums for electricity a 
Petroleum Equivalency Factor would be used instead of the gasoline 
equivalent energy factor. For a PHEV without fuel fired accessories, 
the PEF would be 82,049 watt hours per gallon of gasoline. For details 
on PEF and gasoline equivalent energy content see 10 CFR 474.3. Using 
the procedure for calculating a dual fueled vehicle FE for CAF[Eacute] 
the fuel economy of both modes of operation would be harmonically 
averaged 50/50 and a utility factor would not be necessary.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Low Powered Vehicles
    Vehicles using the low powered vehicle provision in 40 CFR 86.115-
78(b)(4) shall use the actual distance driven in calculating cycle 
specific utility factors. The coefficients used in determining UF shall 
be as follows in table VI.B.2-5

    Table VI.B.2-5--City/Highway Specific Utility Factor Coefficients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     City         Hwy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm--dist......................................      399         399
C1..............................................       14.86        4.80
C2..............................................        2.97       13.00
C3..............................................      -84.05      -65.00
C4..............................................      153.70      120.00
C5..............................................      -43.59     -100.00
C6..............................................      -96.94       31.00
C7..............................................       14.47  ..........
C8..............................................       91.70  ..........
C9..............................................      -46.36  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.026
                                                              
    Where ND is the normalized distance (399), j is the coefficient 
index, k is the number of coefficients for city (9) and for highway 
(6), C are the coefficients listed in Table VI.B.2-5, d is distance 
driven in each cycle or phase, i is a counter representing each 
cycle or phase, and n is the number of cycles or phases needed to 
reach the end-of-test criterion.

    The calculated cycle specific utility factors for low powered 
vehicles would be applied in the same manner as paragraph B.3, except 
that the utility factors would be calculated based on measured distance 
and not assigned based on phase or cycle distance.

C. Comparable Class Categories

    EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy of 
comparable vehicles of all manufacturers.\185\ EPA's comparable class 
structure provides a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel economy to 
that of other vehicles in its class.\186\ The definitions of vehicle 
classes were last revised by EPA's 2006 labeling final rule. That 
action finalized two specific changes to the vehicle class structure. 
Separate new classes were added for sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and 
minivans (these were previously included in the Special Purpose Vehicle 
category), and the weight limit for Small Pickup Trucks was increased 
from 4,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to 6,000 pounds 
GVWR. These were non-controversial changes that were generally seen as 
a move to keep the class structure as current as possible given the 
changing vehicle market. The resulting structure is one that contains 
nine car categories, five truck categories, and a ``special purpose 
vehicle'' category. It should also be noted that the EPA-defined 
vehicle classes are used only to provide consumer information about 
fuel economy and serve no other regulatory purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
    \186\ 40 CFR 600.315-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing one modification to the class categories. 
Consistent with the distinction currently made between small and large 
pickup trucks, EPA is proposing to divide the SUV class into small and 
large SUVs. We do not believe that it is appropriate, for example, to 
include a Toyota RAV4 in the same class as a Toyota Sequoia, or a Ford 
Escape in the same class as a Ford Expedition. The single SUV category 
currently described in the regulations would be replaced by the two 
following proposed categories:
     Small sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with 
a gross vehicle weight rating less than 6,000 pounds.
     Standard sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds up to 10,000 pounds.

Although the standard pickup truck class only goes up to 8,500 pounds 
GVWR, SUVs between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds GVWR are defined as medium-
duty passenger vehicles, and they will be subject to fuel economy 
labeling starting with the 2011 model year. EPA requests comment on 
whether this is an appropriate way to distinguish the SUV classes.
    Although EPA received many comments on the 2006 rule regarding the 
class structure, some of its inherent problems, and how people may or 
may not shop within classes, there were no specific suggestions on how 
to revise the structure to resolve the issues that were raised. We 
believe that with the refinement to the SUV category we are proposing, 
the comparable class structure would generally represent the physical 
distinctions between vehicle types offered in the fleet today. However, 
there may be other distinctions between vehicles not captured in these 
categories, such as the luxury vehicle segment. The DOE/EPA Web site 
(http://www.fueleconomy.gov) incorporates vehicle cost into the sedan 
category, for example, dividing sedans into ``family,'' ``upscale,'' 
and ``luxury.'' EPA requests comment on incorporating such an approach 
into the comparable class categories, and specifically, how it might be 
done given the changing nature of vehicles and vehicle prices. We 
welcome interested parties to

[[Page 58146]]

continue working with EPA in the future on how to ensure that the 
comparable classes are kept current with the dynamic vehicle fleet. If 
it becomes necessary in the future to further modify the comparable 
class structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking. EPA requests 
general comments on the proposed modifications to comparable classes, 
and also welcomes comments on other possible ways to classify vehicles 
for comparison purposes. Comments should address how the 
classifications will be useful for the consumer who is comparison 
shopping.

D. Using Smartphone QR Codes[supreg] To Link to Fuel Economy 
Information

    For all the label designs being considered, EPA is proposing that 
manufacturers place a QR Code on the label that will link the web 
browser of a properly configured smartphone to the mobile version of 
the EPA/DOE fuel economy information Web site, or alternatively, to the 
vehicle-specific information located on the EPA/DOE Web site.\187\ 
(Note that although the proposed Label 1 design incorporates a 
different Web site URL, the intent would remain the same: to use the QR 
Code to directly link the users smartphone to vehicle-specific 
information while providing additional tools for making vehicle 
comparisons, learning more about the vehicle, etc.) Many focus group 
participants expressed excitement and interest in the prospects of 
being able to access information in this way using their mobile 
devices, and EPA believes it is a potentially useful and valuable tool 
for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ The term QR Code is a registered trademark of Denso Wave 
Incorporated, which owns the patent rights to the QR Code. However, 
the patent right is not exercised, allowing the specification of the 
QR Code to be disclosed and open for widespread use. For more 
information, see http://www.denso-wave.com/en/adcd/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QR Codes, like other two-dimensional bar codes, are simply used to 
store information. QR Codes were originally developed for use in 
tracking parts in vehicle manufacturing, and are now being used for 
other purposes, such as storing a Web site URL into an encoded graphic 
that can be scanned. These codes--the use of which is growing in 
popularity in the U.S.--are two-dimensional black and white codes (like 
a bar code) that eliminate the need to type a Web link into a mobile 
phone (an action that can be cumbersome and that many mobile users 
might prefer avoiding). Reading a QR Code requires that scanning 
software be installed on the mobile phone. Many smartphone 
manufacturers have begun to pre-install QR Code readers, but for those 
that do not, the readers are very easy to download, and many are 
available for free for nearly every type of mobile device. Once 
equipped with the correct scanning application, consumers can point and 
scan to instantly connect to information they actually want, versus 
information pushed to them.
    For example, scanning the proposed code would link the phone's web 
browser to the mobile version of the DOE/EPA Web site. At that point 
the user could view additional information about the efficiency and 
environmental impacts of the vehicle, with available options such as 
creating customized estimates based on the user's personal driving 
habits and distances. The user could also look up other vehicles and 
compare those to the vehicle they are viewing.
    EPA is proposing that the manufacturer place one of two QR Codes on 
the fuel economy label. These QR Codes would be determined based on an 
international standard that would be incorporated by reference in the 
regulations.\188\ The default option would be to insert the QR Code 
that would take the user's web browser to the mobile version of the 
DOE/EPA fuel economy information Web site. The QR Code for this site, 
including the text that EPA proposes accompanies it, would look like 
this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 
18004:2006, Information technology--automatic identification and 
data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar code symbology 
specification, August 31, 2006.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.027

    Alternatively and preferably, the manufacturer would use the QR 
Code that represents the URL where information for the specific labeled 
vehicle is available. However, this would depend upon resolving some 
specific data issues. For example, the manufacturer would have to know 
the vehicle-specific URL at the time the label is printed. This could 
require that EPA issue more frequent updates to the web site throughout 
the year, or that EPA assign a vehicle identification parameter early 
in the process. It may be the case that even if the vehicle is not yet 
included on the DOE/EPA Web site that a URL, and thus a QR Code, could 
be easily assigned or determined. EPA is confident that we can work 
with DOE to resolve any potential implementation issues prior to the 
2012 model year.

E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the ``Monroney'' Sticker

    As noted in Section VIII, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act 
(AIDA) requires the affixing of a retail price sticker to the 
windshield or side window of new automobiles indicating the 
Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of the vehicle and other required 
vehicle information. AIDA is more commonly known as the Monroney Act 
(Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of AIDA) or Price Sticker 
Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. This sticker is commonly called the 
``Monroney'' label. EPCA states that EPA ``may allow'' a manufacturer 
to comply with the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel 
economy information on the label required by AIDA, a practice that has 
been used by most manufacturers. See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2). In fact, 
EPA regulations express a specific preference that manufacturers do 
this, ``provided that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy 
label is maintained.'' See 40 CFR 600.306-08(c).
    In the third phase of focus groups we had participants consider the 
placement of the fuel economy on the Monroney label, and whether 
participants had a specific preference for where to locate the fuel 
economy information. Although participants expressed a variety of 
opinions, a slight preference emerged for displaying the fuel economy

[[Page 58147]]

information in the upper right portion of the Monroney label.
    The agencies recognize that EPCA does not require that the fuel 
economy information be on the Monroney label, and that there are 
instances when auto manufacturers may want to display the fuel economy 
information separately (e.g., if window space is limited on a small 
vehicle and/or the Monroney label size needs to be reduced). EPA does 
not intend to preclude the option of placing the new label in any 
appropriate and prominent location on the vehicle. However, the 
agencies request comment on whether we should require that the fuel 
economy information be placed in a specific location on the Monroney 
label (such as the upper right corner, or on the right side) as a 
condition of allowing the information to be included on that 
label.\189\ Although consumer preference for a specific location on the 
Monroney was vague, the agencies believe that consumers would be able 
to locate the new label information on the vehicle more easily if it 
appeared in a consistent location within the Monroney sticker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Based on 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2), EPA currently conditions 
placement of the fuel economy label in the Monroney label on a 
general requirement that the prominence and legibility of the label 
be maintained. EPA is inviting comment on expanding the conditions 
for placement in the Monroney label through addition of more 
specific requirements related to the location of the fuel economy 
label in the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies also seek comment concerning the potential for the new 
label information to create confusion about other information found on 
the Monroney Label, in particular, the star safety ratings. 
Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether consumers might 
interpret the large letter grade on Label 1 as applying to other 
aspects of the vehicle's performance (such as safety) besides fuel 
economy and environmental impacts. To mitigate this concern, the 
agencies have created a prominent black border and title indicating the 
purpose of the information. Nevertheless the agencies seek comment on 
whether additional measures should be required under 32908(b) and (g) 
to address this potential confusion.
    The agencies also seek comment on whether the co-proposed labels, 
in particular Label 1 with its use of color and large font for the 
overall letter grade, might inadvertently distract consumers from the 
black-and-white star safety ratings. As one way of addressing this 
potential issue, NHTSA proposes to require under 49 CFR 575.301 that 
the star safety ratings be located as close as physically possible to 
the new fuel economy and environmental label to help ensure that the 
star safety ratings do not get ``lost'' on the Monroney Label. 
Similarly, the agencies seek comment on whether their regulations for 
the new fuel economy and environmental label should require that it be 
located as close as physically possible to the star safety ratings.
    Another way of addressing this potential issue is by re-visiting 
the minimum size requirements for the safety rating label and the font 
of information on it. In a final rule\190\ implementing the requirement 
in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for placing safety rating 
information on the Monroney vehicle price label, the agency interpreted 
that Act's specification of a minimum size for the label as indicating 
the agency did not have any discretion regarding minimum size, instead 
of interpreting the specification as merely establishing a floor on the 
discretion of the agency to specify a minimum size. In comments made in 
response to a subsequent proposal\191\ to place an overall safety 
rating on the safety rating label, the Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety questioned that interpretation. In a recent meeting with Bosch, 
representatives of that company also questioned that interpretation. In 
light of the issues in this rulemaking and those questions, the agency 
is re-examining that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 71 FR 53572, 53576, September 12, 2006.
    \191\ 75 FR 10740, March 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

    EPA is also proposing a number of non-controversial amendments and 
corrections to the existing regulations.
    First, we are making a number of corrections to the recently 
finalized regulations for controlling automobile greenhouse gas 
emissions.\192\ These changes include correcting typographical errors, 
correcting some regulatory references, and adding some simple 
clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are correcting an oversight from the 2006 labeling rule 
regarding the applicability of testing requirements to independent 
commercial importers (ICIs). Currently several vehicle categories 
(dedicated alternative fuel, dual fuel while operating on alternative 
fuel, and MDPVs) are exempted from having to perform full 5-cycle fuel 
economy testing. These categories are allowed to use the ``derived 5-
cycle'' method, whereas other vehicles must use data from all five test 
cycles at certification to perform an evaluation that determines 
whether the test group can use the derived 5-cycle method or whether 
they must complete full 5-cycle testing. The reason for exempting these 
vehicles is that the evaluation required at certification requires the 
use of all 5 cycles as run for emissions certification, but these 
categories are not subject to the SFTP requirements, and thus such 
vehicles do not perform two of the five test procedures (the US06 high 
speed/acceleration test and the SC03 air conditioning test). Thus when 
EPA finalized the 2006 label rule we recognized that these categories 
would not have the data required to perform the certification 
evaluation, and we decided to exempt them from five cycle testing. 
However, this same exemption should have been applied to ICIs. Like the 
vehicle categories noted above, vehicles imported by ICIs are not 
required to perform the SFTP emission tests, and thus also won't have 
the necessary data to perform the 5-cycle certification evaluation. 
Therefore, we are proposing to extend the allowance to use the derived 
5-cycle method to ICIs.
    Third, we are taking steps to further clean up the regulatory 
language. This involves removing several sections that apply only for 
model years before 2008 and moving or combining several of the 
remaining sections to provide a clearer organization. We are also being 
more careful with regulatory references pointing to other sections 
within 40 CFR part 600 and to sections in 40 CFR part 86. This largely 
addresses the concern that regulatory sections numbered for certain 
model years can cause references to be incorrect or misleading over 
time. We are proposing to rely on the rounding convention as specified 
for engine testing in 40 CFR part 1065. Similarly, we are proposing to 
rely on the hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068. These 
changes allow us to centralize provisions that have general 
applicability to support our effort to have a consistent approach 
across programs. The proposed regulations also include a streamlined 
set of references to outside standards (such as SAE standards). For the 
final rule, we also intend to include the most recent updates for the 
ASTM standards we reference in part 600. We are not intending to make 
any substantive changes to the regulatory provisions affected by these 
administrative changes and are not reopening the rule for any of those 
provisions. Nevertheless, we request comment on these changes and on 
any further steps that would be

[[Page 58148]]

appropriate for maintaining clear and concise regulatory provisions.

VII. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements

    Vehicle manufacturers have been required to provide fuel economy 
labels on vehicles since 1977. The costs and benefits of label 
revisions would be those associated with changes to the current label, 
not the costs and benefits associated with production of the label 
itself. The change in cost from this proposed rule comes in the 
physical revisions to the label itself and the possible efficiencies 
achieved by meeting EPCA and EISA labeling requirements in one label, 
as well as proposed modified vehicle testing procedures, and any 
revisions of currently provided information that consumers find useful 
in informing their purchase decisions. The benefits of the rule come 
from providing labels for mass-market advanced technology vehicles for 
the first time, and from any improvements in the effectiveness of 
labels for conventional vehicles in providing accurate and useful 
consumer information on fuel consumption and environmental performance.

A. Costs Associated With This Rule

    Testing requirements for vehicles are not new. Advanced technology 
and alternative fuel vehicles have been required to undergo testing 
requirements in the past. For advanced technology vehicles, though, the 
test procedures have not previously been standardized; they have been 
handled on a case-by-case basis. Because EPA expects more advanced 
technology vehicles to come to market, we propose to codify testing 
procedures in a public process and are requesting comment on them. See 
section VI of this preamble. The testing costs described here therefore 
are not really new costs for manufacturers, since they would have to 
test the vehicles even in the absence of this rule. The cost estimates 
are provided here because they have previously not been presented, and 
EPA seeks comment on the analysis of costs presented here.
    The analysis of the projected costs of this rule follows 
conceptually the approach in the 2006 (``five-cycle'') fuel economy 
labeling rule. Increased on-going operations and maintenance (O&M) 
costs and labor hours result from the costs of printing the labels and 
increases in testing costs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in 
hybrids (PHEVs). We also allow for the costs of increased facility 
capacity to accommodate the increased testing time involved for these 
two categories of vehicles. Startup costs are treated as capital costs, 
and are amortized over ten years at 7% interest. Startup costs for this 
rule include some one-time graphic design work for each manufacturer 
subject to the rule and updating information systems and testing 
equipment for those manufacturers subject to new testing. As an aid to 
the analysis and to help articulate the range of uncertainty, we 
include both low and high cost estimates for each of these cost and 
labor hour elements. The cost estimates are $649,000 per year for the 
low estimate, and $2.8 million per year for the high estimate. For 
details of this analysis, see the ``Draft Supporting Statement for 
Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles 
(Proposed Rule),'' in the docket.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality. ``Draft Supporting Statement for 
Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor 
Vehicles (Proposed Rule), EPA ICR 2392.01.'' Compliance and 
Innovative Strategies Division and Assessment and Standards 
Division, July, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours
a. New Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid 
Electric Vehicles
i. Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles
    As explained in Section VI of this Preamble, EPA currently has no 
federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy for electric vehicles 
(EVs). To date, EPA has performed some fuel economy testing connected 
with certification applications for electric vehicles using the 
procedures developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 
specifically SAE J1634, as cancelled in October 2002. This proposal 
spells out EV testing requirements that are similar to SAE J1634, as 
cancelled in October 2002, and allows continued use of that procedure.
    In estimating the costs of this action, there is no clear baseline 
cost that manufacturers of EVs would have incurred in satisfying 
federal requirements, because existing fuel economy measurements are 
entirely specified in terms of exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions. 
For purposes of the analysis, we assume these EV costs are entirely new 
costs rather than increments to pre-existing costs. Here and in the 
facility costs section, this also means we assume no carry-over 
applications for EVs. Both these assumptions are more likely to lead to 
an overstatement of costs than an understatement.
    In 2004 the Federal Trade Commission promulgated a rule requiring 
``alternative fueled vehicles'' to include a consumer label indicating 
their estimated cruising ranges (69 FR 26926, April 9, 2004; 16 CFR 
part 309, subpart C). The covered vehicles include EVs but not plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Estimated cruising range for an EV is 
the range determined according to SAE J1634 (16 CFR 309.22(a)(2)). 
Consequently, EV manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States 
have already been subject to the same SAE J1634 testing requirements 
allowed in this rulemaking for several years. However, for purposes of 
the analysis below we treat the costs of compliance for manufacturers 
subject to the proposed rule as new costs in order to insure that they 
are fully considered in this rulemaking,
    The salient feature of SAE J1634 for cost purposes is that it 
requires, similar to a conventional vehicle, the Federal Test Procedure 
(FTP or City Test), preceded by vehicle preparation; this is followed 
by the Highway Test (HFET). The off-cycle tests (USO6, SCO3, cold FTP) 
are optional under EPA's proposal. Furthermore, cruising range 
determination requires that the FTP be repeated until the battery 
system is no longer able to maintain the FTP speed tolerances; the FTP 
in question is the full four-phase FTP, repeated as cold and hot start 
``UDDS'' or ``LA-4'' cycles until that point is reached.
    Preparation costs are estimated to be $3,163 and 30 hours per 
vehicle, per Information Collection Request (ICR) 0783.54 (OMB 2060-
0104), the certification ICR for conventional vehicles. Preparation 
includes several coast downs, a UDDS, and a soak period. The low and 
high EV test distances for FTP and HFET tests are estimated as 50 to 
250 miles. For purposes of this estimate, the cost of an FTP/HFET pair 
is $1,860, allocated 70% to the FTP and 30% to the HFET and incremented 
either by 50 or 250 divided by 7.45 (the distance of a normal FTP), or 
by 50 or 250 divided by 10.3 (the distance of the normal HFET). These 
increases are applied to an estimated five to eight EV families in the 
years through MY2013. Labor hours, estimated at 30 hours per FTP/HFET 
pair, are allocated and incremented in a similar manner. The bottom 
line is a cost between $75,300 and $486,784, and 1,073 to 7,625 hours, 
per year for the EV industry.

[[Page 58149]]

ii. Testing Requirements for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
    As explained in Section VI, the proposed EPA test procedure for 
PHEVs is an extension of the existing test procedure for hybrid 
vehicles. Off-cycle tests are already required for test groups that do 
not meet the ``litmus test;'' others would use the derived five-cycle 
adjustment. Hybrid vehicles already do FTP and HFET tests for fuel 
economy determination. The new FTP procedure would essentially run 
repeated FTPs until the charge is depleted. This is the ``charge-
depleting'' operation, when the vehicle is mainly running on its 
battery. The battery would then be recharged, and a single additional 
four-phase FTP would be conducted in what is denominated as the 
``charge-sustain'' operation. Following this, the vehicle will be 
recharged, if necessary, by running any appropriate test cycle followed 
by HFET cycles in charge-depleting operation, followed by a cycle in 
charge-sustain operation.
    For purposes of this cost analysis, the charge-sustain FTP and HFET 
cycles along with potential other cycles mandated by emissions and fuel 
economy testing requirements are considered to be continuations of 
existing requirements. The cost increment due to this proposal 
consequently derives entirely from the increased testing time in 
depleting mode. The duration of the depleting modes is estimated as 
7.45 to 50 miles over the repeated 7.45 mile FTP or 10.3 mile HFET test 
cycles. These together, applied to 5 to 8 families with no carryovers, 
add an estimated $8,528 to $80,564 in operation and maintenance (O&M) 
costs and 138 to 923 labor hours to existing hybrid testing costs.
b. Printing Costs for New Labels
    The primary variable cost for the new label design is the 
difference in cost between black-and-white and color printing. To 
estimate this cost difference, the agencies note two sources. First, in 
2007 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) examined the effects of 
requiring an environmental label that included color printing. It 
estimated the combined capital and operating costs of color labels to 
be as low as $0.02 per vehicle for large manufacturers;\194\ CARB 
expected small-scale manufacturers to switch to pre-printed color 
labels at an incremental cost of $0.05 per label, for a 4-by-6-inch 
label. Secondly, in 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated the per-page cost of 
color printing on its HP Color LaserJet 4700n printer as $0.09 per 
letter-sized page, and black-and-white printing on a dedicated black-
and-white printer as $0.015, for a cost difference of $0.075 per 
page.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ State of California, Air Resources Board. ``Staff Report: 
Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Proposed Amendments to 
the Smog Index Vehicle Emissions Label,'' May 4, 2007, http://
www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/arb/2007-06-21_isor.pdf, 
(last accessed May 3, 2010).
    \195\ Hewlett-Packard, ``Head to head comparison: color versus 
black-and-white printing,'' http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/
hpc2447wpcolorvsbwgov.pdf, (last accessed May 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing fuel economy label measures 4.5 by 7 inches, slightly 
larger than the CARB label but about \1/3\ the size of a standard page. 
For the cost estimates developed here, the agencies consider a low 
estimate of $0.03 per label in additional printing costs (based on the 
CARB label, adjusted for size), and a high estimate of $0.08 per label 
(based on the HP estimate, which may overestimate the cost based on 
page size). For the number of labels, we estimate the subject fleet 
from the April 20, 2010, U.S. Department of Transportation's Summary of 
Fuel Economy Performance,\196\ taking MY2009's 9.83 million as the low 
and MY2005's 15.9 million as the high estimate. This yields a new 
printing cost of $294,690 to $1,274,634 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, ``Summary of Fuel Economy 
Performance,'' http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/
CAFE_Performance_Report_April_2010.pdf, accessed June 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The O&M costs and labor hours discussed above can be summarized as 
follows:

                                                             Table VII.A.1-1--Testing Costs
                                                       [Labor and O&M costs for running the Tests]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Increase in number of tests                          Increase in hours
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Vehicle type/test cycle                                     Min cost                        Max cost
                                                             Min tests       increase        Max tests       increase           Min             Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV:
    Prep................................................             5.0         $18,065             8.0         $28,904             150             240
    FTP.................................................             5.0          43,691             8.0         349,530             705           5,638
    HFET................................................             5.0          13,544             8.0         108,350             218           1,748
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EV Total........................................  ..............          75,300  ..............         486,784           1,073           7,625
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHEV:
    FTP.................................................             5.0           6,510             8.0          50,563             105             705
    HFET................................................             5.0           2,018             8.0          30,001              33             218
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PHEV Total......................................  ..............           8,528  ..............          80,564             138             923
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total.......................................  ..............          83,828  ..............         567,348           1,211           8,548
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 PRINTING COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number vehicles         Min@$0.03   Number vehicles         Max@$0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Labels............................        9, 832,000          $294,690        15,932,920        $1,274,634
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total O&M...........................  ................           378,518  ................         1,841,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58150]]

2. Facility Costs
    In addition to new equipment (treated as a startup cost, below), 
the new testing requirements for EVs and PHEVs will in theory require 
expanded testing facilities for those manufacturers choosing to produce 
and sell them in the U.S. Because the cost of new facility capacity is 
highly dependent on manufacturer-specific factors (the costs of 
capital, the availability of land, the structure of work shifts, the 
existing excess capacity, etc.), we use the approximation of unitizing 
increased test costs by assuming that a facility capable of performing 
750 FTP/HFET pairs would cost $4 million. Here, the new tests are 
deemed to require these facilities in proportion to the increases in 
test time, and the costs are then annualized over ten years and 
amortized at 7% interest compounded monthly. This assumption is more 
likely to produce an overestimate of costs rather than an 
underestimate, since it does not attempt to account for the current 
excess capacity that exists in manufacturers' current test facilities. 
We assume that there is no excess capacity in our analysis. Note that 
other features of the EV and PHEV test cycles, such as recharging 
times, have been harmonized with existing test protocols. Furthermore, 
consistent with other information burden analyses for the emissions and 
fuel economy programs, we consider these as ongoing rather than startup 
costs (i.e., as the facilities depreciate they are continually being 
replaced), another conservative assumption. Applying these costs to a 
low and high estimate of 5 to 8 EV families and 5 to 8 PHEV families 
per year yields an annualized facilities cost between $25,278 and 
$210,779 per year.
    Facility costs can be summarized as in Table VII.A.2-1:

              Table VII.A.2-1--Increase in Test Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Undepreciated capital costs           Minimum           Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV test distance increase...........          $154,210        $1,233,683
PHEV test distance increase.........            22,977           246,737
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................           177,188         1,480,420
                                                       -----------------
    Amortized, 10yrs @ 7%...........            25,278           210,779
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Startup Costs
    Startup costs are counted as one-time costs that are amortized or 
discounted at an interest rate of 7% over ten years.
a. Updating Information Systems and Testing Equipment
    The estimate includes the cost of upgrading information systems for 
the estimated 8 to 10 manufacturers who will need to comply with the 
new EV and PHEV testing requirements, such as recording multiple tests, 
recording battery charge data, and communicating the resulting data to 
the information system that gets it to EPA and the label. Both low and 
high estimates use 4 weeks for four IT staff for analysis and code, and 
4 weeks for two IT staff for testing, at $100 per hour, for each 
manufacturer, resulting in an industry cost of $768,000 to $960,000. In 
addition, each manufacturer who has not previously produced hybrid-
electric vehicles is assumed to need new testing equipment costing 
$25,000 for an ammeter and $50,000 for voltage stabilizers; we estimate 
that 5-8 manufacturers will fall in this category.
b. Label Redesign
    The proposed label designs are presented in Section III. The 
changes being proposed in this rule would not affect either the 
existence or size of the label. Auto companies currently have 
significant flexibility in whether fuel economy label should be a 
stand-alone label or included in the ``Monroney label'' (which provides 
information on the price and options included for a specific vehicle), 
or where it is placed on the Monroney label. The agencies are not 
proposing any changes to this flexibility. The agencies estimate 16 to 
24 hours at $100 per hour for this work, assuming at this time that no 
specific location or size within the Monroney label is required. This 
cost is applied to the universe of separate manufacturer entities 
subject to the rule. Many specific automotive brands are parts of 
marketing groups or are owned and managed by other, parent companies. 
Allowing for these relationships, the best guess is that the rule would 
apply to 24 manufacturers and 11 independent commercial importers 
(ICIs) importing nonconforming vehicles into the U.S. for sale. Applied 
to 35 companies, then, the label redesign cost is estimated to be 
$56,000 to $84,000.
c. Annualized Startup Costs
    Total startup costs are between $1.2 and $1.6 million. When 
annualized and subjected to 7% loan repayment/discounting, the startup 
costs total $170,711 to $234,069 per year. These are summarized in 
Table VII.A.3-1:

                     Table VII.A.3-1--Startup Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cost
                Item                 -----------------------------------
                                           Minimum           Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updating Information systems........          $768,000          $960,000
Ammeter/stabilizer..................           375,000           600,000
Label redesign......................            56,000            84,000
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................         1,199,000         1,644,000
                                                       -----------------
    Amortized, 10 years at 7%.......           170,711           234,069
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58151]]

4. Cost Summary
    Table VII.A.4-1 summarizes the costs presented here. The total 
costs of this rule, excluding labor, are estimated to be about $575,000 
to $2,287,000 per year. Adding the cost of labor (estimated to be 
$61.49 per hour overall) to the above estimates brings the total cost 
to $648,952 to $2,812,465. Note that startup capital is not budgeted as 
labor. EPA and NHTSA request comment on the costs estimates, including 
any omitted costs and any other information regarding the costs of 
these requirements.

          Table VII.A.4-1--Total Annual Cost and Hours Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Min               Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COST BURDEN:
    O&M: Testing and label..........          $378,518        $1,841,981
    Facility Capital................            25,278           210,779
    Startup: one-time IT, label                170,711           234,069
     redesign, and reg
     familiarization, 10 yrs 7%.....
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total.......................           574,507         2,286,829
                                                       -----------------
HOURS BURDEN:
    O&M: Testing and label..........             1,211             8,548
    Facility Capital................                 0                 0
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total.......................             1,211             8,548
                                     -----------------------------------
    Labor Cost......................            74,446           525,635
                                     ===================================
        Total Costs, Including Labor           648,952         2,812,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As discussed in Section I.C., EPCA and EISA create similar but not 
identical requirements for labeling vehicles. EPA conducts a labeling 
program under EPCA, and NHTSA is required to conduct a labeling program 
under EISA, in consultation with EPA. While the agencies could require 
that manufacturers produce two separate labels to meet the requirements 
of the statutes, much of the information on the two labels would be 
duplicative. In addition, two different fuel economy labels might 
confuse vehicle purchasers, frustrating the purpose of providing fuel 
economy information to purchasers. Requiring that auto makers put two 
fuel economy labels on vehicles would also crowd the limited labeling 
space on vehicles. For these reasons, EPA and NHTSA are proposing to 
combine both the EPCA and the EISA requirements into one label.
    Because NHTSA's labeling under EISA is a new requirement that has 
not previously been implemented, there is no cost reduction associated 
with the proposal to use a joint label. The use of the joint label 
avoids a cost increase that would result from two separate labels. EPA 
and NHTSA are not including this cost saving in the cost analysis 
because we believe that the benefits of coordinating labeling 
requirements outweigh any possible disadvantages.

C. Benefits of Label Changes

    The benefits of this rule would come from improved provision of 
information to vehicle buyers, and more informed consumer decisions 
resulting from the changes. These benefits are difficult to estimate. 
Doing so would require predictions of changes in consumer behavior as a 
result of the label modifications. The internet survey discussed in 
Section IV.A.2 is intended to provide some insights into the 
comprehensibility and usefulness of the labels, but the results are not 
available at this time. We caution that insights into comprehensibility 
and usefulness may be limited in predicting changes in consumer 
behavior due to the proposed label change.
    Improved fuel economy reduces costs of driving a mile, but the 
technology to improve fuel economy may increase the cost of a vehicle. 
Evaluating this tradeoff requires comparing future fuel savings based 
on expectations of future fuel prices and driving patterns with known 
and immediate increases in vehicle purchase price. Some evidence 
suggests that consumers may not accurately compare future fuel savings 
with the up-front costs of fuel-saving technology when buying 
vehicles.\197\ As a result, consumers may buy less or more fuel-saving 
technology than is financially sensible for them to buy. This problem 
may be compounded by the presence of miles per gallon (MPG) as a 
primary metric for fuel economy comparison.\198\ As discussed in 
Section II.A.2, consumers can save much more fuel by choosing a 1-MPG 
improvement in fuel economy for a low-MPG vehicle than by choosing a 1-
MPG improvement for a high-MPG vehicle. However, research on the ``MPG 
illusion'' finds that consumers expect a 1-MPG improvement to produce 
the same fuel savings regardless of the efficiency of a vehicle.\199\ 
Thus, the tendency of consumers to use MPG as a primary metric for fuel 
economy increases the difficulty of estimating the fuel savings 
resulting from increased fuel economy. As a result, consumers may not 
be able to find the most cost-effective amount of fuel economy for 
their driving habits. For gasoline vehicles, new metrics on the label, 
such as gallons per hundred miles, fuel savings over 5 years, or 
environmental metrics, may make it easier for consumers to identify the 
fuel savings they are likely to receive from a vehicle, and therefore 
to judge better between vehicles with different fuel savings, costs, 
and environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Turrentine, Thomas S., and Kenneth S. Kurani, ``Car buyers 
and fuel economy?'' Energy Policy 35 (2007): 1213-1223.
    \198\ Larrick, Richard P., and Jack B. Soll, ``The MPG 
Illusion.'' Science 320 (5883) (June 20, 2008): 1593-94.
    \199\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finding the most cost-effective vehicle may be even more confusing 
with the advent of advanced technology vehicles such as EVs or PHEVs. 
Most consumers are not accustomed to shopping for vehicles that use 
energy sources other than gasoline. In addition, the cost effectiveness 
of different technologies depends on a person's driving patterns. A 
person with a short commute may have lower per-mile costs with a 
vehicle with some all-electric range, but someone with a long commute 
may have higher per-mile

[[Page 58152]]

costs or insufficient range with such a vehicle and may want to 
consider different technologies. For advanced technology vehicles, the 
label can help vehicle shoppers to understand the new technologies, and 
it can present metrics that allow consumers to make useful comparisons 
across different vehicle technologies.
    EPA and NHTSA request comment on the benefits described here, and 
on any additional benefits.

D. Summary

    The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule are 
associated with improved consumer decision-making resulting from 
improved presentation of information. At this time, EPA and NHTSA do 
not have data to quantify these impacts.
    The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from 
revisions to the fuel economy label and additional testing procedures. 
These costs are estimated to be $649,000-$2.8 million per year.
    EPA and NHTSA request comment on this assessment of the benefits 
and costs.

VIII. Agencies' Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews

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

1. Automobile Disclosure Act
    The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) requires the 
affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of 
new automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, 
the ``sticker price.'' \200\ Additional information, such as a list of 
any optional equipment offered or transportation charges, is also 
required. The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered 
prior to sale to a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ More commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike 
Monroney was the chief sponsor of the Act) or Price Sticker Act. See 
15 U.S.C. 1231-1233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, EPA may allow manufacturers of new automobiles to 
comply with the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel economy 
information on the label required by AIDA.\201\ Normally, the price 
sticker label and EPA label are combined as one large label. Failure to 
maintain the EPA label on the vehicle is considered a violation of 
AIDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Internal Revenue Code
    EPCA requires ``Gas Guzzler'' tax information to be included on the 
fuel economy label, under 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). The Internal Revenue 
code contains the provisions governing the administration of the Gas 
Guzzler Tax. It contains the table of applicable taxes and defines 
which vehicles are subject to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that 
the fuel economy to be used to assess the amount of tax will be the 
combined city and highway fuel economy as determined by using the 
procedures in place in 1975, or procedures that give comparable results 
(similar to EPCA's requirements for determining CAFE for passenger 
automobiles). This proposal would not impact these provisions.
3. Clean Air Act
    EPCA states that fuel economy tests shall, to the extent 
practicable, be carried out with the emissions tests required under 
Section 206 of the Clean Air Act.\202\ EPA is not proposing additional 
emissions tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising 
for New Vehicles
    In the mid-1970's when EPCA was passed, the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) ``took note of the dramatic increase in the number of 
fuel economy claims then being made and of the proliferation of test 
procedures then being used as the basis for such claims.'' \203\ They 
responded by promulgating regulations in 16 CFR part 259 entitled 
``Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Vehicles'' (``Fuel 
Guide''). The Fuel Guide, adopted in 1975 and subsequently revised 
twice, provides guidance to automobile manufacturers to prevent 
deceptive advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy 
information in advertising. The Fuel Guide advises vehicle 
manufacturers and dealers how to disclose the established fuel economy 
of a vehicle, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency's 
rules pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 
2996), in advertisements that make representations regarding the fuel 
economy of a new vehicle.\204\ The disclosure is tied to the claim made 
in the advertisement. If both city and highway fuel economy claims are 
made, both city and highway EPA figures should be disclosed. A claim 
regarding either city or highway fuel economy should be accompanied by 
the corresponding EPA figure. A general fuel economy claim would 
trigger disclosure of the EPA city figure, although the advertiser 
would be free to state the highway figure as well. The authority for 
the Fuel Guide is tied to the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
41-58) which, briefly stated, makes it illegal for one to engage in 
``unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 40 FR 42003, Sept. 10, 1975.
    \204\ 43 FR 55747, Nov. 29, 1978; and 60 FR 56230, Nov. 8, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. California Environmental Performance Label
    California requires each new and used vehicle offered for sale in 
the state to affix a ``Smog Index Number'' and ``Global Warming Index'' 
decal to the car window which indicates the pollution standard that 
applies to that particular car, and its exhaust emissions.\205\ This 
proposal would not impact California's regulations. The Global Warming 
index on California's label includes emissions from fuel production 
(http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/images/ep_label_large.jpg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ SB 2050 (Presley), Chapter 1192, Statutes of 1994, and AB 
1229 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (NHTSA Only)
    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because the action 
raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented as OMB requests in the docket for 
this action.
    NHTSA is also subject to the Department of Transportation's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This proposed rule is also 
significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. E.O. 12866 also requires NHTSA to submit this action to OMB 
for review and document any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations
    In addition, EPA and NHTSA both prepared an analysis of the 
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis 
is available in Section VII of this document.

[[Page 58153]]

2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2392.01. Since this is a joint proposal, the 
burden associated with these information collection requirements could 
be attributed to either agency. However, since a significant portion of 
the burden result from new EPA testing requirements, EPA has agreed to 
assume responsibility for the complete paperwork burden. Both agencies 
will consider the comments submitted regarding these potential costs as 
part of their decision in the final rule.
    The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the 
fuel economy estimates that appear on new automobile, light truck and 
medium-duty passenger vehicle sticker labels. EPA currently collects 
this information annually as part of its vehicle certification and fuel 
economy program, and will continue to do so. This proposed rule changes 
some of the content of the information submitted. Responses to this 
information collection are mandatory to obtain the benefit of vehicle 
certification under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et 
seq.) and as required under Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information 
and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). Information submitted by 
manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to 
which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are 
available for purchase, most information associated with the 
manufacturer's application is available to the public. Under section 
208 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7542(c)), all information, other 
than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available. 
Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with 
the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and 
class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.
    The projected yearly increased cost within the three-year horizon 
of the pending information collection request is $2,812,000 including 
$2,286,000 in operations and maintenance costs and $526,000 in labor 
costs. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 35. 
Responses are submitted annually by engine family, with the number of 
responses per respondent varying widely depending on the number of 
engine families being certified. Under the current fuel economy 
information authorization, an average of 12.2 responses a year are 
approved for each of 33 respondents requiring 451.2 hours per response 
and 80 hours of recordkeeping at a total cost of $10,012 per response 
for an industry total of 184,127 hours and $4,274,932 million annually, 
including capital and operations and maintenance costs. Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of 
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing 
respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, 
which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. 
Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to 
EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after September 23, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by October 25, 2010. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires agencies to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agencies certify that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of 
business using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Table VIII.B.3-1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small 
business categories included in the light-duty vehicle sector that are 
subject to the proposed rule:

            Table VIII.B.3-1--Primary SBA Small Business Categories in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Defined as small entity by SBA if
                    Industry                            less than or equal to:              NAICS codes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles:
    --vehicle manufacturers.....................  1,000 employees...................                      336111
    --independent commercial importers..........  $7 million annual sales...........      811111, 811112, 811198
                                                  $23 million annual sales..........                      441120
                                                  100 employees.....................                      423110
    --automobile dealers........................  $29 million annual sales..........                      441110
    --stretch limousine manufacturers and hearse  1,000 employees...................                      336211
     manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly

[[Page 58154]]

regulated by this proposed rule cover several types of small businesses 
including vehicle manufacturers, automobile dealers, limousine and 
hearse manufacturers, and independent commercial importers (ICIs). ICIs 
are companies that import used vehicles into the U.S. that must be 
certified for emissions compliance and labeled for fuel economy 
purposes. Small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations as 
described above will not be impacted. We have determined that the 
estimated effect of the proposed rule is to impact 1 small business 
vehicle manufacturer and 11 ICIs who currently certify vehicles with 
costs less than one percent of revenues. These 12 companies represent 
all of the small businesses impacted by the proposed regulations. The 
proposed regulations will have no new impacts on small business 
automobile dealers or small business limousine and hearse 
manufacturers. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on small 
businesses has been prepared and placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ ``Screening Analysis: Small Business Impacts from 
Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,'' EPA report, August 
12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA is proposing to 
reduce the testing burden on ICIs that would be needed for the fuel 
economy label. Under the proposal, ICIs would be allowed to test over 
two driving cycles when determining the fuel economy estimate for the 
fuel economy label instead of testing over five driving cycles as 
required for vehicle manufacturers.
    Both agencies continue to be interested in the potential impacts of 
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on the small 
business analysis and other issues related to impacts on small 
businesses.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. This rule contains no federal mandates 
for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of 
Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of 
these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule only affects 
vehicle manufacturers and the agencies estimate annual costs of less 
than $100 million (adjusted for inflation). EPA and NHTSA believe that 
the proposal represents the least costly, most cost-effective approach 
to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule. The agencies' 
estimated costs are provided in section VI. Thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted above, the 
proposed rule only affects vehicle manufacturers.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking would apply to 
manufacturers of motor vehicles and not to state or local governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although 
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA 
and NHTSA did consult with representatives of state governments in 
developing this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the 
agencies' policy to promote communications between Federal, State and 
local governments, the agencies specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed action from State and local officials.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed 
rule would be implemented at the Federal level and imposes compliance 
costs only on vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be 
affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The agencies 
specifically solicit additional comment on this proposed action from 
tribal officials.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks
    EPA and NHTSA interpret E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The proposed regulations do not require 
manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their 
vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide 
consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle 
purchasing decisions. Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is 
not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    EPA's portion of this proposed rulemaking involves technical 
standards. EPA proposes to use elements of testing standards developed 
with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Where possible, EPA 
proposes to incorporate by reference portions of SAEJ1711, SAE J2841, 
and SAE J1634. At the time of this proposal, all the above SAE 
documents are either open for update or in the process of balloting 
prior to publishing. SAE reference documents can be obtained at http://
www.SAE.org. In the absence of final published reference documents, EPA 
is proposing procedures that may differ from final SAE procedures. 
Also, differences between EPA proposed

[[Page 58155]]

procedures and final SAE procedures may be due to statutory or existing 
regulatory EPA requirements, worst case emissions testing requirements 
by EPA, and the need for EPA to address policy concerns and concerns of 
manufacturers not involved in developing SAE procedures.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The agencies have determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. The proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to 
improve or otherwise change the emissions control or fuel economy of 
their vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide 
consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle 
purchasing decisions.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

    Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, 
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel 
economy, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 575

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Fuel 
economy, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Chapter I

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend parts 85, 86 and 600 of title 40, 
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

    1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--[Amended]

    2. Section 85.1902 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  85.1902  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A defect in the design, materials, or workmanship in one or 
more emissions control or emission-related parts, components, systems, 
software or elements of design which must function properly to ensure 
continued compliance with vehicle greenhouse gas emission requirements, 
including compliance with CO2, CH4, 
N2O, and carbon-related exhaust emission standards;
* * * * *

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

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

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

    4. Section 86.165-12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.165-12  Air conditioning idle test procedure.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Measure and record the continuous CO2 concentration 
for 600 seconds. Measure the CO2concentration continuously 
using raw or dilute sampling procedures. Multiply this concentration by 
the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate at the emission sampling 
location to determine the CO2 flow rate. Calculate the 
CO2 cumulative flow rate continuously over the test 
interval. This cumulative value is the total mass of the emitted 
CO2. Alternatively, CO2 may be measured and 
recorded using a constant velocity sampling system as described in 
Sec. Sec.  86.106-96(a)(2) and 86.109-94.
* * * * *

Subpart S--[Amended]

    5. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) and 
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1818-12  Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Manufacturer has the meaning given by the Department of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 531.4.
    (c) * * *
    (1) For a given individual model year's production of passenger 
automobiles and light trucks, manufacturers must comply with a full 
useful life fleet average CO2 standard calculated according 
to the provisions of this paragraph (c). Manufacturers must calculate 
separate full useful life fleet average CO2 standards for 
their passenger automobile and light truck fleets, as those terms are 
defined in this section. Each manufacturer's fleet average 
CO2 standards determined in this paragraph (c) shall be 
expressed in whole grams per mile, in the model year specified as 
applicable. Manufacturers eligible for and choosing to participate in 
the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards for qualifying 
manufacturers specified in paragraph (e) of this section shall not 
include vehicles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance 
Alternative Standards in the calculations of their primary passenger 
automobile or light truck standards determined in this paragraph (c). 
Manufacturers shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
standards according to the provisions of Sec.  86.1865-12.
* * * * *
    (d) In-use CO2 exhaust emission standards. The in-use exhaust 
CO2 emission standard shall be the combined city/highway 
carbon-related exhaust emission value calculated for the appropriate 
vehicle carline/subconfiguration according to the provisions of Sec.  
600.113-12(g)(4) of this chapter multiplied by 1.1 and rounded

[[Page 58156]]

to the nearest whole gram per mile. For in-use vehicle carlines/
subconfigurations for which a combined city/highway carbon-related 
exhaust emission value was not determined under Sec.  600.113-12(g)(4) 
of this chapter, the in-use exhaust CO2 emission standard 
shall be the combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission 
value calculated according to the provisions of Sec.  600.208-12 of 
this chapter for the vehicle model type (except that total model year 
production data shall be used instead of sales projections) multiplied 
by 1.1 and rounded to the nearest whole gram per mile. For vehicles 
that are capable of operating on multiple fuels, including but not 
limited to alcohol dual fuel, natural gas dual fuel and plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles, a separate in-use standard shall be determined for 
each fuel that the vehicle is capable of operating on. These standards 
apply to in-use testing performed by the manufacturer pursuant to 
regulations at Sec. Sec.  86.1845-04 and 86.1846-01 and to in-use 
testing performed by EPA.
* * * * *
    6. Section 86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) 
and (m)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1823-08  Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may 
use alternative deterioration factors. For N2O, the 
alternative deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET 
emissions is the additive or multiplicative deterioration factor 
determined for (or derived from) NOX emissions according to 
the provisions of this section. For CH4, the alternative 
deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET emissions is the 
additive or multiplicative deterioration factor determined for (or 
derived from) NMOG or NMHC emissions according to the provisions of 
this section.
    (3) Other carbon-related exhaust emissions. Deterioration factors 
shall be determined according to the provisions of paragraphs (a) 
through (l) of this section. Optionally, in lieu of determining 
emission-specific FTP and HFET deterioration factors for 
CH3OH (methanol), HCHO (formaldehyde), 
C2H5OH (ethanol), and C2H4O 
(acetaldehyde), manufacturers may use the additive or multiplicative 
deterioration factor determined for (or derived from) NMOG or NMHC 
emissions according to the provisions of this section.
* * * * *
    7. Section 86.1841-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.1841-01  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of 
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Compliance with full useful life CO2 exhaust 
emission standards shall be demonstrated at certification by the 
certification levels on the FTP and HFET tests for carbon-related 
exhaust emissions determined according to Sec.  600.113-12 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    8. Section 86.1848-10 is amended by revising the section heading 
and paragraph (c)(9)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1848-10  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of 
certification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) Failure to meet the fleet average CO2 requirements 
will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon 
which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in 
violation of the fleet average CO2 standard will not be 
covered by the certificate(s). The vehicles sold in violation will be 
determined according to Sec.  86.1865-12(k)(8).
* * * * *
    9. Section 86.1865-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) 
introductory text, (d), (j)(1), (k)(8)(iii) through (v), and 
(k)(9)(iv)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1865-12  How to comply with the fleet average CO2 
standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of Sec.  
86.1801-12(j) or (k), CO2 fleet average exhaust emission 
standards apply to:
* * * * *
    (d) Small volume manufacturer certification procedures. 
Certification procedures for small volume manufacturers are provided in 
Sec.  86.1838-01. Small businesses meeting certain criteria may be 
exempted from the greenhouse gas emission standards in Sec.  86.1818-12 
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.1801-12(j) or (k).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Compliance and enforcement requirements are provided in this 
section and Sec.  86.1848-10(c)(9).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) EPA will determine the vehicles not covered by a certificate 
because the condition on the certificate was not satisfied by 
designating vehicles in those test groups with the highest carbon-
related exhaust emission values first and continuing until reaching a 
number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of noncomplying 
vehicles as determined in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. If this 
calculation determines that only a portion of vehicles in a test group 
contribute to the debit situation, then EPA will designate actual 
vehicles in that test group as not covered by the certificate, starting 
with the last vehicle produced and counting backwards.
    (iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases production of passenger cars and 
light trucks, the manufacturer continues to be responsible for 
offsetting any debits outstanding within the required time period. Any 
failure to offset the debits will be considered a violation of 
paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to 
an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered by a 
certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this 
section.
    (B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, merges with, or otherwise 
combines with another manufacturer, the controlling entity is 
responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding within the required 
time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a 
violation of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the 
manufacturer to an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered 
by a certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this 
section.
    (v) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a 
violation of the requirements of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section, a 
failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate(s) was 
issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered by the certificate, all 
occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits 
specified in paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section.
    (9) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) Failure to offset the debits within the required time period 
will be considered a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which the 
certificate(s) was issued and will be addressed pursuant to paragraph 
(k)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
    10. Section 86.1867-12 is amended by revising paragraphs 
(a)(3)(iv)(A), (a)(3)(iv)(F), (a)(3)(vi), (a)(4), and (b)(2) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 58157]]

Sec.  86.1867-12  Optional early CO2 credit programs.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) Total model year sales data will be used, instead of production 
data, except that vehicles sold in California and the section 177 
states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall not be 
included.
* * * * *
    (F) Electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric model type 
carbon-related exhaust emission values shall be included in the fleet 
average determined under paragraph (a)(1) of this section only to the 
extent that such vehicles are not being used to generate early advanced 
technology vehicle credits under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (vi) Credits are earned on the last day of the model year. 
Manufacturers must calculate, for a given model year, the number of 
credits or debits it has generated according to the following equation, 
rounded to the nearest megagram:
CO2 Credits or Debits (Mg) = [(CO2 Credit 
Threshold--Manufacturer's Sales Weighted Fleet Average CO2 
Emissions) x (Total Number of Vehicles Sold) x (Vehicle Lifetime 
Miles)] / 1,000,000

Where:
CO2 Credit Threshold = the applicable credit threshold 
value for the model year and vehicle averaging set as determined by 
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) of this section; Manufacturer's Sales Weighted 
Fleet Average CO2 Emissions = average calculated 
according to paragraph (a)(3)(vi) of this section; Total Number of 
Vehicles Sold = The number of vehicles domestically sold as defined 
in Sec.  600.511-80 of this chapter except that vehicles sold in 
California and the section 177 states determined in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of this section shall not be included; and Vehicle 
Lifetime Miles is 195,264 for the LDV/LDT1 averaging set and 225,865 
for the LDT2/HLDT/MDPV averaging set.

* * * * *
    (4) Pathway 4. Pathway 4 credits are those credits earned under 
Pathway 3 as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in the set 
of states that does not include California and the section 177 states 
determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and calculated 
according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Credits may only be 
generated by vehicles sold in the set of states that does not include 
California and the section 177 states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) 
of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Manufacturers that select Pathway 4 as described in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section may not generate early air conditioning credits 
for vehicles sold in California and the section 177 states as 
determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND CARBON-RELATED EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF 
MOTOR VEHICLES

    11. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q, Public Law 109-58.

Subpart A--General Provisions

    12. The heading for subpart A is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.001-08, Sec.  600.001-86, Sec.  600.001-93, Sec.  600.002-85, 
Sec.  600.002-93, Sec.  600.004-77, Sec.  600.006-86, Sec.  600.006-87, 
Sec.  600.006-89, Sec.  600.007-80, Sec.  600.008-01, Sec.  600.008-77, 
Sec.  600.010-86  [Removed]

    13. Subpart A is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.001-08
Sec.  600.001-86
Sec.  600.001-93
Sec.  600.002-85
Sec.  600.002-93
Sec.  600.004-77
Sec.  600.006-86

    14. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  600.001-12 through 600.011-93 as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sec.   600.001-12                       Sec.   600.001
         Sec.   600.002-08                       Sec.   600.002
         Sec.   600.003-77                       Sec.   600.003
         Sec.   600.005-81                       Sec.   600.005
         Sec.   600.006-08                       Sec.   600.006
         Sec.   600.007-08                       Sec.   600.007
         Sec.   600.008-08                       Sec.   600.008
         Sec.   600.009-85                       Sec.   600.009
         Sec.   600.010-08                       Sec.   600.010
         Sec.   600.011-93                       Sec.   600.011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The redesignated Sec.  600.001 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.001  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this part apply for 2008 and later model year 
automobiles that are not medium duty passenger vehicles, and to 2011 
and later model year automobiles including medium-duty passenger 
vehicles.
    (b) The provisions of subparts A, D, and F of this part are 
optional through the 2011 model year in the following cases:
    (1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt 
from the requirements of this subpart, except with regard to the 
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric 
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric 
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel 
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply 
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
    (c) Unless stated otherwise, references to fuel economy or fuel 
economy data in this part shall also be interpreted to mean the related 
exhaust emissions of CO2, HC, and CO, and where applicable 
for alternative fuel vehicles, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC 
and CH4. References to average fuel economy shall be 
interpreted to also mean average carbon-related exhaust emissions. 
References to fuel economy data vehicles shall also be meant to refer 
to vehicles tested for carbon-related exhaust emissions for the purpose 
of demonstrating compliance with fleet average CO2 standards 
in Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter.
    (d) The model year of initial applicability for sections in this 
part is indicated by the section number. The two digits following the 
hyphen designate the first model year for which a section is 
applicable. An individual section continues to apply for later model 
years until it is replaced by a different section that applies starting 
in a later model year. Sections that have no two-digit suffix apply for 
all 2008 and later model year vehicles, except as noted in those 
sections. If a section has a two-digit suffix but the regulation 
references that section without including the two-digit suffix, this 
refers to the section applicable for the appropriate model year. This 
also applies for references to part 86 of this chapter.

    Example 1 to paragraph (d).  Section 600.113-08 applies to the 
2008 and subsequent model years until Sec.  600.113-12 is applicable 
beginning with the 2012 model year. Section 600.111-08 would then 
apply only for 2008 through 2011 model year vehicles.

    16. The redesignated Sec.  600.002 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.002  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply throughout this part:
    3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in part 86 of 
this chapter, with three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start 
transient (``Bag 1''), stabilized (``Bag 2''), and 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'').

[[Page 58158]]

    5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP 
tests as described in subparts B and C of this part.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
    Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume 
methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
    Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate 
exclusively on alcohol.
    Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel; and
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated 
in accordance with Sec.  600.510-08(g)(1) or Sec.  600.510-12(g)(1) 
while operating on alcohol as it does while operating on gasoline or 
diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds 
the minimum driving range established by the Department of 
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Automobile has the meaning given by the Department of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.3. This includes ``passenger automobiles'' 
and ``non-passenger automobiles'' (or ``light trucks'').
    Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design 
as defined in Sec.  86.1803 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 tire means the tire specified as standard equipment by the 
manufacturer.
    Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style 
that makes up a car line.
    Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine 
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (e.g., type of fuel 
injection), catalyst usage, and other engine and emission control 
system characteristics specified by the Administrator. For electric 
vehicles, basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer and 
electric traction motor, motor controller, battery configuration, 
electrical charging system, energy storage device, and other components 
as specified by the Administrator.
    Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage, 
capacity (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics 
of the battery used as the tractive energy device.
    Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as 
defined by number of doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan, 
convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of seats (i.e., front, 
second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part 
571. Station wagons and light trucks are identified as car lines.
    Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances, 
unique to a particular design, version of application of a component, 
or component assembly capable of functionally describing its operation 
over its working range.
    Carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) means the summation of the 
carbon-containing constituents of the exhaust emissions, with each 
constituent adjusted by a coefficient representing the carbon weight 
fraction of each constituent relative to the CO2 carbon 
weight fraction, as specified in Sec.  600.113. For example, carbon-
related exhaust emissions (weighted 55 percent city and 45 percent 
highway) are used to demonstrate compliance with fleet average 
CO2 emission standards outlined in Sec.  86.1818 of this 
chapter.
    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.  
86.1828 of this chapter and used to determine compliance under Sec.  
86.1848 of this chapter for issuance of an original certificate of 
conformity.
    City fuel economy means the city fuel economy determined by 
operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the 
Federal emission test procedure, or determined according to the 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle procedures.
    Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions 
of subpart C of part 86 of this chapter.
    Combined fuel economy means:
    (1) The fuel economy value determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) 
by harmonically averaging the city and highway fuel economy values, 
weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
    (2) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-
based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation procedure 
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.
    Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United 
States, any territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia 
and who is engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to 
the ultimate purchaser.
    Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived 
from the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of 
the equation provided in Sec.  600.210.
    Diesel equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel 
with the energy equivalence of one gallon of diesel fuel. For purposes 
of this part, one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 36.7 kilowatt-
hours of electricity.
    Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive 
axles (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and 
any other feature of the drive system if the Administrator determines 
that such other features may result in a fuel economy difference.
    Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60 Hz 
alternating electric current, as commonly available in residential 
electric service in the United States, to a proper form for recharging 
the energy storage device.
    Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which 
provides tractive energy to the wheels of a vehicle.
    Electric vehicle has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this 
chapter.
    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 Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter), of 
displacement, fuel injection (or carburetion or other fuel delivery 
system), calibration, distributor calibration, choke calibration, 
auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine and emission 
control system components specified by the Administrator. For electric 
vehicles, engine code means a unique combination of manufacturer, 
electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor controller, and 
energy storage device.
    Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer 
driving

[[Page 58159]]

schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical procedures 
described in part 86 of this chapter for the respective model year, 
which are used to derive city fuel economy data.
    Footprint has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in 
Sec.  600.113 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; or
    (5) Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), commonly referred to as 
``propane,'' for LPG-powered automobiles; or
    (6) Hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles and for automobiles 
equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines.
    Fuel cell has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    Fuel cell vehicle has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this 
chapter.
    Fuel economy means:
    (1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group 
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as calculated in this part; 
or
    (2) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy pursuant to 
the provisions of part 600, subpart F, fuel economy for electrically 
powered automobiles means the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy 
as determined by the Secretary of Energy in accordance with the 
provisions of 10 CFR 474.
    Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of 
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
    Gasoline equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel 
with the energy equivalence of one gallon of gasoline. For purposes of 
this part, one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.705 kilowatt-
hours of electricity or 121.5 standard cubic feet of natural gas.
    Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in Sec.  1068.30 of 
this chapter. See Sec.  1068.5 of this chapter for the administrative 
process we use to evaluate good engineering judgment.
    Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight 
rating for the individual vehicle.
    Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional 
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is 
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear 
door which encompasses the rear window.
    Highway fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined 
either by operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule 
in the Federal highway fuel economy test procedure, or determined 
according to either the vehicle-specific 5-cycle equation or the 
derived 5-cycle equation for highway fuel economy.
    Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the 
dynamometer driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and 
analytical procedures described in subpart B of this part and which are 
used to derive highway fuel economy data.
    HFET-based fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined 
in Sec.  600.113 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
    Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the meaning given in Sec.  
86.1803 of this chapter.
    Independent Commercial Importer has the meaning given in Sec.  
85.1502 of this chapter.
    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.'' The term the 
``light truck'' includes medium-duty passenger vehicles which are 
manufactured during 2011 and later model years.
    Medium-duty passenger vehicle means a vehicle which would satisfy 
the criteria for light trucks as defined by the Secretary of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5 but for its gross vehicle weight rating 
or its curb weight, which is rated at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or has a 
vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or has a basic vehicle 
frontal area in excess of 45 square feet, and which is designed 
primarily to transport passengers, but does not include a vehicle that:
    (1) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
    (2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
    (3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the 
driver's seat; or
    (4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up 
truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered 
box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be 
considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
    Minivan means a light truck which is designed primarily to carry no 
more than eight passengers, having an integral enclosure fully 
enclosing the driver, passenger, and load-carrying compartments, and 
rear seats readily removed, folded, stowed, or pivoted to facilitate 
cargo carrying. A minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors 
and a rear liftgate. Minivans typically have less total interior volume 
or overall height than full sized vans and are commonly advertised and 
marketed as ``minivans.''
    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.  600.510-08(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.
    Non-passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This term is synonymous with ``light 
truck.''
    Passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of 
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.4.
    Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger 
compartment and an open cargo bed.
    Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) has the meaning given in 
Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.

[[Page 58160]]

    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.
    QR Code means Quick Response Code, which is a registered trademark 
of Denso Wave, Incorporated.
    Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless specified 
otherwise.
    SC03 means the test procedure specified in Sec.  86.160 of this 
chapter.
    Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized 
representative.
    Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation 
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.
    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.
    Track width has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    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.
    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 Sec.  86.159 of this 
chapter.
    US06-City means the combined periods of the US06 test that occur 
before and after the US06-Highway period.
    US06-Highway means the period of the US06 test that begins at the 
end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 130 seconds of 
the driving schedule and terminates at the end of the deceleration 
which is scheduled to occur at 495 seconds of the driving schedule.
    Van means any light truck having an integral enclosure fully 
enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying compartment. The 
distance from the leading edge of the windshield to the foremost body 
section of vans is typically shorter than that of pickup trucks and 
SUVs.
    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.
    Wheelbase has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    17. The redesignated Sec.  600.003 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.003  Abbreviations.

    The abbreviations and acronyms used in this part have the same 
meaning as those in part 86 of this chapter, with the addition of the 
following:
    (a) ``MPG'' or ``mpg'' means miles per gallon. This may be used to 
generally describe fuel economy as a quantity, or it may be used as the 
units associated with a particular value.
    (b) MPGe means miles per gallon equivalent. This is generally used 
to quantify a fuel economy value for vehicles that use a fuel other 
than gasoline. The value represents miles the vehicle can drive with 
the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.
    (c) SCF means standard cubic feet.
    (d) SUV means sport utility vehicle.
    (e) CREE means carbon-related exhaust emissions.
    18. The redesignated Sec.  600.005 is amended by revising the 
introductory text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.005  Maintenance of records and rights of entry.

    The provisions of this section are applicable to all fuel economy 
data vehicles. Certification vehicles are required to meet the 
provisions of Sec.  86.1844 of this chapter.
    (a) The manufacturer of any new motor vehicle subject to any of the 
standards or procedures prescribed in this part shall establish, 
maintain, and retain the following adequately organized and indexed 
records:
    (1) General records. (i) Identification and description of all 
vehicles for which data are submitted to meet the requirements of this 
part.
    (ii) A description of all procedures used to test each vehicle.
    (iii) A copy of the information required to be submitted under 
Sec.  600.006 fulfills the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (2) Individual records. (i) A brief history of each vehicle for 
which data are submitted to meet the requirements of this part, in the 
form of a separate booklet or other document for each separate vehicle, 
in which must be recorded:
    (A) The steps taken to ensure that the vehicle with respect to its 
engine, drive train, fuel system, emission control system components, 
exhaust after treatment device, vehicle weight, or any other device or 
component, as applicable, will be representative of production 
vehicles. In the case of electric vehicles, the manufacturer should 
describe the steps taken to ensure that the vehicle with respect to its 
electric traction motor, motor controller, battery configuration, or 
any other device or component, as applicable, will be representative of 
production vehicles.
    (B) A complete record of all emission tests performed under part 86 
of this chapter, all fuel economy tests performed under this part 600 
(except tests actually performed by EPA personnel), and all electric 
vehicle tests performed according to procedures promulgated by DOE, 
including all individual worksheets and other documentation relating to 
each such test or exact copies thereof; the date, time, purpose, and 
location of each test; the number of miles accumulated on the vehicle 
when the tests began and ended; and the names of supervisory personnel 
responsible for the conduct of the tests.

[[Page 58161]]

    (C) A description of mileage accumulated since selection of buildup 
of such vehicles including the date and time of each mileage 
accumulation listing both the mileage accumulated and the name of each 
driver, or each operator of the automatic mileage accumulation device, 
if applicable. Additionally, a description of mileage accumulated prior 
to selection or buildup of such vehicle must be maintained in such 
detail as is available.
    (D) If used, the record of any devices employed to record the speed 
or mileage, or both, of the test vehicle in relationship to time.
    (E) A record and description of all maintenance and other servicing 
performed, within 2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing under this 
part, giving the date and time of the maintenance or service, the 
reason for it, the person authorizing it, and the names of supervisory 
personnel responsible for the conduct of the maintenance or service. A 
copy of the maintenance information to be submitted under Sec.  600.006 
fulfills the requirements of this paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E).
    (F) A brief description of any significant events affecting the 
vehicle during any of the period covered by the history not described 
in an entry under one of the previous headings including such 
extraordinary events as vehicle accidents or driver speeding citations 
or warnings.
    (3) The manufacturer shall retain all records required under this 
part for five years after the end of the model year to which they 
relate. Records may be retained as hard copy or some alternative 
storage medium, provided that in every case all the information 
contained in hard copy shall be retained.
* * * * *
    19. The redesignated Sec.  600.006 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.006  Data and information requirements for fuel economy data 
vehicles.

* * * * *
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data:
    (1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 of this 
chapter (other than those chosen in accordance with the provisions 
related to durability demonstration in Sec.  86.1829 of this chapter or 
in-use verification testing in Sec.  86.1845 of this chapter), the FTP, 
highway, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel economy results, as 
applicable, from all tests on that vehicle, and the test results 
adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) For each fuel economy data vehicle, all individual test results 
(excluding results of invalid and zero mile tests) and these test 
results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 
of this chapter, data from a cold temperature FTP, performed in 
accordance with Sec.  600.111-08(e), using the fuel specified in Sec.  
600.107-08(c).
    (4) For all vehicles tested in paragraph (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section, the individual fuel economy results measured on a per-phase 
basis, that is, the individual phase results for all sample phases of 
the FTP, cold temperature FTP and US06 tests.
    (5) Starting with the 2012 model year, the data submitted according 
to paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section shall include total 
HC, CO, CO2, and, where applicable for alternative fuel 
vehicles, CH3OH, C2H5OH, 
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC and CH4. 
Manufacturers incorporating N2O and CH4 emissions 
in their fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions as allowed 
under Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter shall also submit N2O 
and CH4 emission data where applicable. The fuel economy and 
CO2 emission test results shall be adjusted in accordance 
with paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a 
manufacturer may provide fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 
carbon-related exhaust emission values derived from a previously tested 
vehicle, where the fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-
related exhaust emissions are expected to be equivalent (or less fuel-
efficient and with higher CO2 emissions and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions). Additionally, in lieu of submitting actual data 
from a test vehicle, a manufacturer may provide fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
derived from an analytical expression, e.g., regression analysis. In 
order for fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emission values derived from analytical methods to be accepted, 
the expression (form and coefficients) must have been approved by the 
Administrator.
* * * * *
    (g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel 
economy label calculations in subpart D and average fuel economy 
calculations in subpart F for the classes of automobiles within the 
categories identified in paragraphs of Sec.  600.510(a)(1) through (4). 
The test data shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) or 
(4) of this section as applicable.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3)(i) The manufacturer shall adjust all fuel economy test data 
generated by vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more 
than 6,200 miles by using the following equation:

FE4,000mi = FET[0.979 + 5.25 x 
10-6(mi)]-1

Where:

FE4,000mi = Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test 
point rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FET = Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 
0.1 mpg.
mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to 
the nearest whole mile. (ii)(A)

    The manufacturer shall adjust all CO2 test data 
generated by vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more 
than 6,200 miles by using the following equation:

CO24,000mi = CO2T[0.979 + 
5.25[middot]10-6 [middot] (mi)]
Where:

CO24,000mi = CO2 emission data adjusted to 
4,000-mile test point.
CO2T = Tested emissions value of CO2 in grams 
per mile.
mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to 
the nearest whole mile.

    (B) Emissions test values and results used and determined in the 
calculations in this paragraph (g)(3)(ii) shall be rounded in 
accordance with Sec.  86.1837 of this chapter as applicable. 
CO2 and CREE values shall be rounded to the nearest gram per 
mile.
    (4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the 
manufacturer is not required to adjust the data.
    20. The redesignated Sec.  600.007 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.007  Vehicle acceptability.

    (a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet 
the requirements of part 86 of this chapter (other than those chosen 
under the durability-demonstration provisions in Sec.  86.1829 of this 
chapter), are considered to have met the requirements of this section.
    (b) Any vehicle not meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section must be judged acceptable by the Administrator under this 
section in order for the test results to be reviewed for use in subpart 
C or F of this part. The Administrator will judge the acceptability of 
a fuel economy data vehicle on the basis of the information supplied by 
the manufacturer under Sec.  600.006(b). The criteria to be met are:

[[Page 58162]]

    (1) A fuel economy data vehicle may have accumulated not more than 
10,000 miles. A vehicle will be considered to have met this requirement 
if the engine and drivetrain have accumulated 10,000 or fewer miles. 
The components installed for a fuel economy test are not required to be 
the ones with which the mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles, 
transmission types, and tire sizes may be changed. The Administrator 
will determine if vehicle/engine component changes are acceptable.
    (2) A vehicle may be tested in different vehicle configurations by 
change of vehicle components, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, or by testing in different inertia weight classes. Also, a 
single vehicle may be tested under different test conditions, i.e., 
test weight and/or road load horsepower, to generate fuel economy data 
representing various situations within a vehicle configuration. For 
purposes of this part, data generated by a single vehicle tested in 
various test conditions will be treated as if the data were generated 
by the testing of multiple vehicles.
    (3) The mileage on a fuel economy data vehicle must be, to the 
extent possible, accumulated according to Sec.  86.1831 of this 
chapter.
    (4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust 
emission standards as certification vehicles of the respective engine-
system combination during the test in which the city fuel economy test 
results are generated. This may be demonstrated using one of the 
following methods:
    (i) The deterioration factors established for the respective 
engine-system combination per Sec.  86.1841 of this chapter as 
applicable will be used; or
    (ii) The fuel economy data vehicle will be equipped with aged 
emission control components according to the provisions of Sec.  
86.1823 of this chapter.
    (5) The calibration information submitted under Sec.  600.006(b) 
must be representative of the vehicle configuration for which the fuel 
economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions data were submitted.
    (6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy or carbon-related exhaust 
emissions 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) of this chapter, or (e)(2) (when 
applicable) only the following requirements must be met:
    (i) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 of this chapter, a 
highway fuel economy value must be generated contemporaneously with the 
emission tests used for purposes of demonstrating compliance with Sec.  
85.1509 of this chapter. No modifications or adjustments should be made 
to the vehicles between the highway fuel economy, FTP, US06, SC03 and 
Cold temperature FTP tests.
    (ii) For vehicles imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this chapter (when 
applicable) with over 10,000 miles, the equation in Sec.  600.006(g)(3) 
shall be used as though only 10,000 miles had been accumulated.
    (iii) Any required fuel economy testing must take place after any 
safety modifications are completed for each vehicle as required by 
regulations of the Department of Transportation.
    (iv) Every vehicle imported under Sec.  85.1509 or Sec.  
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), or (c)(4) of this chapter (when 
applicable) must be considered a separate type for the purposes of 
calculating a fuel economy label for a manufacturer's average fuel 
economy.
* * * * *
    (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 Sec.  86.1830 of 
this chapter, request the manufacturer to submit production vehicles of 
the configuration(s) specified by the Administrator for testing to 
determine to what extent emission noncompliance of a production vehicle 
configuration or of a group of production vehicle configurations may 
actually exist.
    (2) If the Administrator determines, as a result of his 
investigation, that substantial emission non-compliance is exhibited by 
a production vehicle configuration or group of production vehicle 
configurations, he may proceed with respect to the vehicle 
configuration(s) as provided under Sec.  600.206-08(b), Sec.  600.206-
12(b), Sec.  600.207-08(c), or Sec.  600.207-12(c) as applicable of the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
* * * * *
    21. The redesignated Sec.  600.008 is amended by revising the 
section heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.008  Review of fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 
carbon-related exhaust emission data, testing by the Administrator.

    (a) * * *
    (1)(i) 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.
    (ii) Starting with the 2012 model year, evaluations, testing, and 
test data described in this section pertaining to fuel economy shall 
also be performed for CO2 emissions and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions, except that CO2 emissions and carbon-
related exhaust emissions shall be arithmetically averaged instead of 
harmonically averaged, and in cases where the manufacturer selects the 
lowest of several fuel economy results to represent the vehicle, the 
manufacturer shall select the CO2 emissions and carbon-
related exhaust emissions value from the test results associated with 
the lowest selected fuel economy results.
    (2) * * *
    (i) The manufacturer's fuel economy data (or harmonically averaged 
data if more than one test was conducted) will be compared with the 
results of the Administrator's test.
* * * * *
    22. The redesignated Sec.  600.009 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.009  Hearing on acceptance of test data.

    (a) The manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's 
decision if the Administrator rejects any of the following:
    (1) The use of a manufacturer's fuel economy data vehicle, in 
accordance with Sec.  600.008(e) or (g), or
    (2) The use of fuel economy data, in accordance with Sec.  
600.008(c), or (f), or

[[Page 58163]]

    (3) The determination of a vehicle configuration, in accordance 
with Sec.  600.206(a), or
    (4) The identification of a car line, in accordance with Sec.  
600.002(a)(20), or
    (5) The fuel economy label values determined by the manufacturer 
under Sec.  600.312(a), then:
    (b) The request for a hearing must be filed in writing within 30 
days after being notified of the Administrator's decision. The request 
must be signed by an authorized representative of the manufacturer and 
include a statement specifying the manufacturer's objections to the 
Administrator's determinations, with data in support of such objection.
    (c) If, after the review of the request and supporting data, the 
Administrator finds that the request raises one or more substantial 
factual issues, the Administrator shall provide the manufacturer with a 
hearing in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart 
G.
    (d) A manufacturer's use of any fuel economy data which the 
manufacturer challenges pursuant to this section shall not constitute 
final acceptance by the manufacturer nor prejudice the manufacturer in 
the exercise of any appeal pursuant to this section challenging such 
fuel economy data.
    23. The redesignated Sec.  600.010 is amended by revising 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (c), and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.010  Vehicle test requirements and minimum data requirements.

    (a) Unless otherwise exempted from specific emission compliance 
requirements, for each certification vehicle defined in this part, and 
for each vehicle tested according to the emission test procedures in 
part 86 of this chapter for addition of a model after certification or 
approval of a running change (Sec.  86.1842 of this chapter, as 
applicable):
* * * * *
    (c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to 
establish fuel economy label values under Sec.  600.301, the 
manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance with Sec.  
600.008 meeting the minimum coverage of:
    (i) Data required for emission certification under Sec. Sec.  
86.1828 and 86.1842 of this chapter.
    (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.  600.115-08, for 2011 and later model 
year vehicles, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP data from the 
highest projected model year sales subconfiguration within the highest 
projected model year sales configuration for each base level. 
Manufacturers may optionally generate this data for any 2008 through 
2010 model years, and, 2011 and later model year vehicles, if not 
otherwise required.
    (iii) For additional model types established under Sec.  600.208-
08(a)(2), Sec.  600.208-12(a)(2), Sec.  600.209-08(a)(2), or Sec.  
600.209-12(a)(2) FTP and HFET data, and if required under Sec.  
600.115, 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.  600.314-08(b), the manufacturer shall submit data 
required under Sec.  600.507.
    (d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel 
economy and average carbon-related exhaust emissions. For the purpose 
of calculating the manufacturer's average fuel economy and average 
carbon-related exhaust emissions under Sec.  600.510, the manufacturer 
shall submit FTP (city) and HFET (highway) test data representing at 
least 90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model year production, by 
configuration, for each category identified for calculation under Sec.  
600.510-08(a)(1) or Sec.  600.510-12(a)(1).
    24. The redesignated Sec.  600.011 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.011  Reference materials.

    (a) Incorporation by reference. The documents referenced in this 
section have been incorporated by reference in this part. 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
phone (202) 272-0167, 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 
and is available from the sources listed below:
    (b) ASTM. The following material is available from the American 
Society for Testing and Materials. Copies of these materials may be 
obtained from American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428-2959, phone 610-832-9585. http://www.astm.org/.
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) ASTM D 1298-99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Density, 
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum 
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  600.113-08, 600.510-08, and 600.510-12.
    (3) ASTM D 3343-05 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen 
Content of Aviation Fuels, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-08.
    (4) ASTM D 3338-09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat 
of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-08.
    (5) ASTM D 240-09 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of 
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  600.113-08, and 600.510-08.
    (6) ASTM D 975-10 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR 
approved for Sec.  600.107-08.
    (7) ASTM D 1945-03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.  
600.113-08.
    (c) SAE Material. The following material is available from the 
Society of Automotive Engineers. Copies of these materials may be 
obtained from Society of Automotive Engineers World Headquarters, 400 
Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, phone (877) 606-7323 (U.S. 
and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), or at 
http://www.sae.org.
    (1) Motor Vehicle Dimensions--Recommended Practice SAE 1100a 
(Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, Society of Automotive 
Engineers, approved September 1973 as revised September 1975), IBR 
approved for Sec.  600.315-08.
    (2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test 
Procedure, October 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  600.116-12 and 
600.311-12.
    (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust 
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  600.116-12 
and 600.311-12.
    (d) ISO Material. The following material is available from the 
International Organization for Standardization. Copies of these 
materials may be obtained from the International Organization for 
Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland or 
http://www.iso.org.
    (1) ISO/IEC 18004:2006, ``Information technology--Automatic 
identification and data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar code 
symbology specification.''

[[Page 58164]]

    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart B--Fuel Economy and Carbon-Related Exhaust Emission Test 
Procedures

    25. The heading for subpart B is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.101-08, Sec.  600.101-12, Sec.  600.101-86, Sec.  600.101-93, 
Sec.  600.102-78, Sec.  600.103-78, Sec.  600.104-78, Sec.  600.105-78, 
Sec.  600.106-78, Sec.  600.107-78, Sec.  600.107-93, Sec.  600.109-78, 
Sec.  600.110-78, Sec.  600.111-80, Sec.  600.111-93, Sec.  600.112-78, 
Sec.  600.113-78, Sec.  600.113-88, Sec.  600.113-93  [Removed]

    26. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.101-08
Sec.  600.101-12
Sec.  600.101-86
Sec.  600.101-93
Sec.  600.102-78
Sec.  600.103-78
Sec.  600.104-78
Sec.  600.105-78
Sec.  600.106-78
Sec.  600.107-78
Sec.  600.107-93
Sec.  600.109-78
Sec.  600.110-78
Sec.  600.111-80
Sec.  600.111-93
Sec.  600.112-78
Sec.  600.113-78
Sec.  600.113-88
Sec.  600.113-93

    27. Section Sec.  600.106-08 is revised 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.
    28. Section Sec.  600.107-08 is revised 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 
and alternative fuel vehicles, which are given in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b)(1) Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing must 
comprise a winter-grade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-10 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011). Alternatively, EPA may 
approve the use of a different diesel fuel, provided that the level of 
kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent.
    (2) The manufacturer may request EPA approval of the use of an 
alternative fuel for cold temperature FTP testing.
    (c) Test fuels representing fuel types for which there are no 
specifications provided in Sec.  86.113 of this chapter may be used if 
approved in advance by the Administrator.
    29. Redesignate Sec.  600.108-78 as Sec.  600.108-08.
    30. Section Sec.  600.109-08 is amended by revising paragraph 
(b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.109-08  EPA driving cycles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A graphic representation of the range of acceptable speed 
tolerances is found in Sec.  86.115 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    31. Section 600.111-08 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.111-08  Test procedures.

    This section provides test procedures for the FTP, highway, US06, 
SC03, and the cold temperature FTP tests. Testing shall be performed 
according to test procedures and other requirements contained in this 
part 600 and in part 86 of this chapter, including the provisions of 
part 86, subparts B, C, and S.
    (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) The provisions of Sec.  86.128 of this chapter apply for 
vehicle transmission operation during highway fuel economy testing 
under this subpart.
    (5) 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.
    (6) 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) EPA may approve a manufacturer's request for additional 
preconditioning in unusual circumstances
    (7) Use the following procedure to determine highway fuel economy:
    (i) The dynamometer procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway 
Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (Sec.  600.109-08(b)) separated by 15 
seconds of idle. The first cycle of the

[[Page 58165]]

Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to precondition the 
test vehicle and the second is driven for the fuel economy measurement.
    (ii) The provisions of Sec.  86.135 of this chapter, except for the 
overview and the allowance for practice runs, apply for highway fuel 
economy testing.
    (iii) Only one exhaust sample and one background sample are 
collected and analyzed for hydrocarbons (except diesel hydrocarbons 
which are analyzed continuously), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. 
Methanol and formaldehyde samples (exhaust and dilution air) are 
collected and analyzed for methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of 
methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model 
year methanol-fueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is 
used for measuring HC plus methanol).
    (iv) The fuel economy measurement cycle of the test includes two 
seconds of idle indexed at the beginning of the second cycle and two 
seconds of idle indexed at the end of the second cycle.
    (8) 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. False starts 
and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must be treated as in Sec.  
86.136 of this chapter. 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 Sec.  86.1834 of this chapter, and the 
vehicle may be rescheduled for testing. The person taking the 
corrective action shall report the action so that the test records for 
the vehicle contain a record of the action.
    (9) 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 or variable speed fan(s) for additional engine 
compartment or under-vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or 
brake temperatures during dynamometer operation. With prior EPA 
approval, manufacturers may perform the test with the engine 
compartment closed, e.g. to provide adequate air flow to an intercooler 
(through a factory installed hood scoop). Additionally, the 
Administrator may conduct fuel economy testing using the additional 
cooling set-up approved for a specific vehicle.
    (iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the 
measurement highway driving cycle.
    (iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of Sec.  86.137-94(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 to 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.  600.109-08(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.  600.109-08(b) while sampling the exhaust gas.
    (viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first 
acceleration of the fuel economy measurement cycle and must end two 
seconds after the end of the deceleration to zero. At the end of the 
deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be 
recorded.
    (10) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of 
Sec.  600.111-08(a) and (b) shall be performed for each of the fuels on 
which the vehicle is designed to operate.
    (c) US06 Testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for 
conducting the US06 test are those prescribed in Sec.  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.  86.160 and 161 of 
this chapter, as applicable.
    (e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. The test procedures to be 
followed for conducting the cold temperature FTP test are generally 
prescribed in subpart C of part 86 of this chapter, as applicable. For 
the purpose of fuel economy labeling, diesel vehicles are subject to 
cold temperature FTP testing, but are not required to measure 
particulate matter, as described in Sec.  86.210 of this chapter.
    (f) Special test procedures. The Administrator may prescribe test 
procedures, other than those set forth in this subpart B, for any 
vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory testing and/or testing 
results by the procedures set forth in this part. For example, special 
test procedures may be used for advanced technology vehicles, 
including, but not limited to fuel cell vehicles, hybrid electric 
vehicles using hydraulic energy storage, and vehicles equipped with 
hydrogen internal combustion engines. Additionally, the Administrator 
may conduct fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission testing 
using the special test procedures approved for a specific vehicle.
    32. Section 600.113-12 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.113-12  Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emission calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold 
temperature FTP tests.

    The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in 
this paragraph for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with 
gasoline, diesel, alcohol-based or natural gas fuel. The calculations 
of the weighted fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
require input of the weighted grams/mile values for total hydrocarbons 
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2); and, 
additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, methanol 
(CH3OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO); and, additionally for 
ethanol-fueled automobiles, methanol (CH3OH), ethanol 
(C2H5OH), acetaldehyde 
(C2H4O), and formaldehyde (HCHO); and 
additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles, non-methane hydrocarbons 
(NMHC) and methane (CH4). For manufacturers selecting the 
fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as allowed 
under Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter the calculations of the carbon-
related exhaust emissions require the input of grams/mile values for 
nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). Emissions 
shall be determined 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 and carbon-
related exhaust emission values shall be calculated as specified in 
this section. An example fuel economy calculation appears in Appendix 
II of this part.
    (a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy as follows:
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for 
CO2, HC, and CO, and where applicable, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, 
N2O and CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144-94(b) of 
this chapter. Measure and record the

[[Page 58166]]

test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the FTP 
test. For vehicles with more than one source of propulsion energy, one 
of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with 
special features that the Administrator determines may have a 
rechargeable energy source, whose charge can vary during the test, 
calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient 
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient phase and hot stabilized phase 
of the FTP test.
    (b) Calculate the HFET fuel economy as follows:
    (1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test for 
HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, 
N2O and CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144-94(b) of 
this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy 
test for HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable 
CH3OH, C2H5OH, 
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and 
CH4 by dividing the mass values obtained in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, by the actual driving distance, measured in miles, as 
specified in Sec.  86.135 of this chapter.
    (c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy as follows:
    (1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold 
temperature FTP test for HC, CO and CO2, and where 
applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, 
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O and 
CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144-94(b) of this chapter. For 
2008 through 2010 diesel-fueled vehicles, HC measurement is optional.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold 
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the cold 
temperature FTP test in Sec.  86.244 of this chapter.
    (3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (d) Calculate the US06 fuel economy as follows:
    (1) Calculate the total grams/mile values for the US06 test for HC, 
CO and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, 
N2O and CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144-94(b) of 
this chapter.
    (2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for HC, CO and 
CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, 
N2O and CH4, for both the US06 City phase and the 
US06 Highway phase of the US06 test as specified in Sec.  86.164 of 
this chapter. In lieu of directly measuring the emissions of the 
separate city and highway phases of the US06 test according to the 
provisions of Sec.  86.159 of this chapter, the manufacturer may, with 
the advance approval of the Administrator and using good engineering 
judgment, optionally analytically determine the grams/mile values for 
the city and highway phases of the US06 test. To analytically determine 
US06 City and US06 Highway phase emission results, the manufacturer 
shall multiply the US06 total grams/mile values determined in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section by the estimated proportion of fuel use for the 
city and highway phases relative to the total US06 fuel use. The 
manufacturer may estimate the proportion of fuel use for the US06 City 
and US06 Highway phases by using modal CO2, HC, and CO 
emissions data, or by using appropriate OBD data (e.g., fuel flow rate 
in grams of fuel per second), or another method approved by the 
Administrator.
    (3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (e) Calculate the SC03 fuel economy as follows:
    (1) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO 
and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, 
N2O and CH4 as specified in Sec.  86.144-94(b) of 
this chapter.
    (2) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f) Analyze and determine fuel properties as follows:
    (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 measured using ASTM D 1298-99 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  600.011).
    (ii) Carbon weight fraction measured using ASTM D 3343-05 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
    (iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) determined using ASTM D 3338-09 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
    (2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following 
fuel properties:
    (i) Specific gravity using either ASTM D 1298-99 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  600.011) for the blend, or ASTM D 1298-99 
(incorporated by reference at Sec.  600.011) 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 measured 
using ASTM D 3343-05 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
MFg = Mass fraction gasoline = (G x SGg)/(G x SGg + M x SGm)
MFm = Mass fraction methanol = (M x SGm)/(G x SGg + M x SGm)
Where:

G = Volume fraction gasoline.
M = Volume fraction methanol.
SGg = Specific gravity of gasoline as measured using ASTM D 1298-99 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
SGm = Specific gravity of methanol as measured using ASTM D 1298-99 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).

    (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).
    (3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the 
following fuel properties:
    (i) Fuel composition measured using ASTM D 1945-03 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  600.011).
    (ii) Specific gravity measured as based on fuel composition per 
ASTM D 1945-03 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
    (iii) Carbon weight fraction, based on the carbon contained only in 
the hydrocarbon constituents of the fuel. This equals the weight of 
carbon in the hydrocarbon constituents divided by the total weight of 
fuel.
    (iv) Carbon weight fraction of the fuel, which equals the total 
weight of carbon in the fuel (i.e., includes carbon contained in 
hydrocarbons and in CO2) divided by the total weight of 
fuel.
    (4) Ethanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following 
fuel properties:
    (i) Specific gravity using either ASTM D 1298-99 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  600.011) for the blend, or ASTM D

[[Page 58167]]

1298-99 (incorporated by reference at Sec.  600.011) 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 ethanol.

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

CWF = CWFg x MFg + 0.521 x MFe

Where:

CWFg = Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of blend measured 
using ASTM D 3343-05 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
MFg = Mass fraction gasoline=(G x SGg)/(G x SGg + E x SGm)
MFe = Mass fraction ethanol=(E x SGm)/(G x SGg + E x SGm)
Where:

G = Volume fraction gasoline.
E = Volume fraction ethanol.
SGg = Specific gravity of gasoline as measured using ASTM D 1298-99 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).
SGm = Specific gravity of ethanol as measured using ASTM D 1298-99 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011).

    (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)(4)(ii).
    (g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold 
temperature FTP fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions from 
the grams/mile values for total HC, CO, CO2 and, where 
applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH, 
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O, 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.
    (1) Emission values for fuel economy calculations. The emission 
values (obtained per paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as 
applicable) used in the calculations of fuel economy in this section 
shall be rounded in accordance with Sec.  86.1837 of this chapter. The 
CO2 values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used 
in each calculation of fuel economy in this section shall be rounded to 
the nearest gram/mile.
    (2) Emission values for carbon-related exhaust emission 
calculations. (i) If the emission values (obtained per paragraph (a) 
through (e) of this section, as applicable) were obtained from testing 
with aged exhaust emission control components as allowed under Sec.  
86.1823 of this chapter, then these test values shall be used in the 
calculations of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this section.
    (ii) If the emission values (obtained per paragraph (a) through (e) 
of this section, as applicable) were not obtained from testing with 
aged exhaust emission control components as allowed under Sec.  86.1823 
of this chapter, then these test values shall be adjusted by the 
appropriate deterioration factor determined according to Sec.  86.1823 
of this chapter before being used in the calculations of carbon-related 
exhaust emissions in this section. For vehicles within a test group, 
the appropriate NMOG deterioration factor may be used in lieu of the 
deterioration factors for CH3OH, 
C2H5OH, and/or C2H4O 
emissions.
    (iii) The emission values determined in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) 
of this section shall be rounded in accordance with Sec.  86.1837 of 
this chapter. The CO2 values (obtained per this section, as 
applicable) used in each calculation of carbon-related exhaust 
emissions in this section shall be rounded to the nearest gram/mile.
    (iv) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter, N2O and CH4 emission values for use 
in the calculation of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this section 
shall be the values determined according to paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A), 
(B), or (C) of this section.
    (A) The FTP and HFET test values as determined for the emission 
data vehicle according to the provisions of Sec.  86.1835 of this 
chapter. These values shall apply to all vehicles tested under this 
section that are included in the test group represented by the emission 
data vehicle and shall be adjusted by the appropriate deterioration 
factor determined according to Sec.  86.1823 of this chapter before 
being used in the calculations of carbon-related exhaust emissions in 
this section, except that in-use test data shall not be adjusted by a 
deterioration factor.
    (B) The FTP and HFET test values as determined according to testing 
conducted under the provisions of this subpart. These values shall be 
adjusted by the appropriate deterioration factor determined according 
to Sec.  86.1823 of this chapter before being used in the calculations 
of carbon-related exhaust emissions in this section, except that in-use 
test data shall not be adjusted by a deterioration factor.
    (C) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may 
use an assigned value of 0.010 g/mi for N2O FTP and HFET 
test values. This value is not required to be adjusted by a 
deterioration factor.
    (3) 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.
    (4) For the purpose of determining the applicable in-use 
CO2 exhaust emission standard under Sec.  86.1818 of this 
chapter, the combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission 
value for a vehicle subconfiguration is calculated by arithmetically 
averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway carbon-related 
exhaust emission values, as determined in Sec.  600.113-12(a) and (b) 
of this section for the subconfiguration, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively, and rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile.
    (h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on a test fuel 
specified in Sec.  86.113 of this chapter, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation and rounded 
to the nearest 0.1 miles per gallon:

mpg = (5174 x 10\4\ x CWF x SG)/[((CWF x HC) + (0.429 x CO) + (0.273 x 
CO2)) x ((0.6 x SG x NHV) + 5471)]

Where:

HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
NHV = Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
SG = Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of 
this section.

    (2)(i) For 2012 and later model year gasoline-fueled automobiles 
tested on a test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113 of this chapter, the 
carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated 
using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per 
mile:

CREE = (CWF/0.273 x HC) + (1.571 x CO) + CO2

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in Sec.  
600.002.
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.

    (ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust

[[Page 58168]]

emissions in grams per mile for 2012 and later model year gasoline-
fueled automobiles tested on a test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113 of 
this chapter is to be calculated using the following equation and 
rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile:

CREE = [(CWF/0.273) x NMHC] + (1.571 x CO) + CO2 + (298 x 
N2O) + (25 x CH4)

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in Sec.  
600.002-08.
NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC 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.
N2O = Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CWF = Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.

    (i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in 
miles per gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2,778 by the sum of three 
terms and rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.1 mile per gallon:
    (i)(A) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/miles as obtained in 
paragraph (g) of this section), or
    (B) Zero, in the case of cold FTP diesel tests for which HC was not 
collected, as permitted in Sec.  600.113-08(c);
    (ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section); and
    (iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO2 (in grams/mile as obtained 
in paragraph (g) of this section).
    (2)(i) For 2012 and later model year diesel-fueled automobiles, the 
carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated 
using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per 
mile:

CREE = (3.172 x HC) + (1.571 x CO) + CO2

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in Sec.  
600.002-08.
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.

    (ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile 
for 2012 and later model year diesel-fueled automobiles is to be 
calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 
gram per mile:

CREE = (3.172 x NMHC) + (1.571 x CO) + CO2 + (298 x 
N2O) + (25 x CH4)

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in Sec.  
600.002-08.
NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC 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.
N2O= Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.

    (j)(1) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to 
operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (CWF x SG x 3781.8)/((CWFexHC x HC) + (0.429 x CO) + 
(0.273 x CO2) + (0.375 x CH3OH) + (0.400 x HCHO))

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 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for 
M100 fuel, CWFexHC = 0.866).
HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as 
obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) 
of this section.

    (2)(i) For 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles 
and automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and 
methanol, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to 
be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 
gram per mile:

CREE = (CWFexHC/0.273 x HC) + (1.571 x CO) + (1.374 x 
CH3OH) + (1.466 x HCHO) + CO2

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for 
M100 fuel, CWFexHC = 0.866).
HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2 = Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH3OH = Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as 
obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
    (ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile 
for 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles and 
automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol is 
to be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the 
nearest 1 gram per mile:

CREE = [(CWFexHC/0.273) x NMHC] + (1.571 x CO) + (1.374 x 
CH3OH) + (1.466 x HCHO) + CO2 + (298 x 
N2O) + (25 x CH4)

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emissions as defined in Sec.  
600.002-08.
CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for 
M100 fuel, CWFexHC = 0.866).
NMHC = 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.
N2O= Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.

    (k)(1) 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] TP23SE10.028

[[Page 58169]]

Where:

mpge = miles per gasoline gallon equivalent 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 x DNG x WFCO2

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.029

= cubic feet of natural gas fuel consumed per mile
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 1945-03 (incorporated 
by reference in Sec.  600.011).

    (2)(i) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the carbon-related 
exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated for 2012 and 
later model year vehicles using the following equation and rounded to 
the nearest 1 gram per mile:

CREE = 2.743 x CH4 + CWFNMHC/0.273 x NMHC + 1.571 
x CO + CO2

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC 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.
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.

    (ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile 
for 2012 and later model year automobiles fueled with natural gas is to 
be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 
gram per mile:

CREE = (25 x CH4) + [(CWFNMHC/0.273) x NMHC] + 
(1.571 x CO) + CO2 + (298 x N2O)

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
NMHC = Grams/mile NMHC 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.
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.
N2O = Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.

    (l)(1) For ethanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to 
operate on mixtures of gasoline and ethanol, the fuel economy in miles 
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (CWF x SG x 3781.8)/((CWFexHC x HC) + (0.429 x CO) + 
(0.273 x CO2) + (0.375 x CH3OH) + (0.400 x HCHO) 
+ (0.521 x C2H5OH) + (0.545 x 
C2H4O))

Where:

CWF = Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in paragraph 
(f)(4) of this section.
SG = Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(4) 
of this section.
CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
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.
C2H5OH = (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O 
(acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (2)(i) For 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles 
and automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and 
methanol, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to 
be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 
gram per mile:

CREE = (CWFexHC/0.273 x HC) + (1.571 x CO) + (1.374 x 
CH3OH) + (1.466 x HCHO) + (1.911 x 
C2H5OH) + (1.998 x C2H4O) + 
CO2

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
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.
C2H5OH = Grams/mile 
C2H5OH (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) 
of this section.
C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O 
(acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option 
for N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 
of this chapter, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile for 2012 and later model year methanol-fueled automobiles and 
automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol 
is to be calculated using the following equation and rounded to the 
nearest 1 gram per mile:

CREE = [(CWFexHC/0.273) x NMHC] + (1.571 x CO) + (1.374 x 
CH3OH) + (1.466 x HCHO) + (1.911 x 
C2H5OH) + (1.998 x 
C2H4O) + CO2 + (298 x 
N2O) + (25 x CH4)

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CWFexHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons 
= CWF as determined in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
NMHC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.

[[Page 58170]]

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.
C2H5OH = Grams/mile 
C2H5OH (ethanol) as obtained in paragraph (d) 
of this section.
C2H4O = Grams/mile C2H4O 
(acetaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
N2O = Grams/mile N2O as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
CH4 = Grams/mile CH4 as obtained in paragraph 
(g) of this section.

    (m) Manufacturers shall determine CO2 emissions and 
carbon-related exhaust emissions for electric vehicles, fuel cell 
vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles according to the 
provisions of this paragraph (m). Subject to the limitations on the 
number of vehicles produced and delivered for sale as described in 
Sec.  86.1866 of this chapter, the manufacturer may be allowed to use a 
value of 0 grams/mile to represent the emissions of fuel cell vehicles 
and the proportion of electric operation of electric vehicles and plug-
in hybrid electric vehicles that is derived from electricity that is 
generated from sources that are not onboard the vehicle, as described 
in paragraphs (m)(1) through (3) of this section. For purposes of 
labeling under this part, the CO2 emissions for electric 
vehicles shall be 0 grams per mile. Similarly, the CO2 
emissions for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles shall be 0 grams per 
mile for the proportion of electric operation that is derived from 
electricity that is generated from sources that are not onboard the 
vehicle.
    (1) For 2012 and later model year electric vehicles, but not 
including fuel cell vehicles, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in 
grams per mile is to be calculated using the following equation and 
rounded to the nearest one gram per mile:

CREE = CREEUP - CREEGAS

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002, which may be set equal to zero for eligible 2012 
through 2016 model year electric vehicles for a certain number of 
vehicles produced and delivered for sale as described in Sec.  
86.1866-12(a) of this chapter.
CREEUP = 0.7670 x EC, and
CREEGAS = 0.2485 x TargetCO2,

Where:

EC = The vehicle energy consumption in watt-hours per mile, 
determined according to procedures established by the Administrator 
under Sec.  600.111-08(f).
TargetCO2 = The CO2 Target Value determined 
according to Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter for passenger automobiles 
and light trucks, respectively.

    (2) For 2012 and later model year plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 
the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be 
calculated using the following equation and rounded to the nearest one 
gram per mile:

CREE = CREECD + CREECS,

Where:

CREE means the carbon-related exhaust emission value as defined in 
Sec.  600.002-08.
CREECS = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined 
for charge-sustaining operation according to procedures established 
by the Administrator under Sec.  600.111-08(f); and
CREECD = (ECF x CREECDEC) + [(1-ECF) x 
CREECDGAS]

Where:

CREECD = The carbon-related exhaust emissions determined 
for charge-depleting operation determined according to the 
provisions of this section for the applicable fuel and according to 
procedures established by the Administrator under Sec.  600.111-
08(f);
CREECDEC = The carbon-related exhaust emissions 
determined for electricity consumption during charge-depleting 
operation, which shall be determined using the method specified in 
paragraph (m)(1) of this section and according to procedures 
established by the Administrator under Sec.  600.111-08(f), and 
which may be set equal to zero for a certain number of 2012 through 
2016 model year vehicles produced and delivered for sale as 
described in Sec.  86.1866 of this chapter;
CREECDGAS = The carbon-related exhaust emissions 
determined for charge-depleting operation determined according to 
the provisions of this section for the applicable fuel and according 
to procedures established by the Administrator under Sec.  600.111-
08(f); and
ECF = Electricity consumption factor as determined by the 
Administrator under Sec.  600.111-08(f).
    (3) For 2012 and later model year fuel cell vehicles, the carbon-
related exhaust emissions in grams per mile shall be calculated using 
the method specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, except that 
CREEUP shall be determined according to procedures 
established by the Administrator under Sec.  600.111-08(f). As 
described in Sec.  86.1866 of this chapter the value of CREE may be set 
equal to zero for a certain number of 2012 through 2016 model year fuel 
cell vehicles.
    (n) Equations for fuels other than those specified in paragraphs 
(h) through (l) of this section may be used with advance EPA approval. 
Alternate calculation methods for fuel economy and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions may be used in lieu of the methods described in this 
section if shown to yield equivalent or superior results and if 
approved in advance by the Administrator.
    33. A new Sec.  600.114-12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.114-12  Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy and carbon-
related exhaust emission calculations.

    Paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section apply to data used for 
fuel economy labeling under subpart D of this part. Paragraphs (d) 
through (f) of this section are used to calculate 5-cycle 
CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emission values for the 
purpose of determining optional credits for CO2-reducing 
technologies under Sec.  86.1866 of this chapter.
    (a) City fuel economy. For each vehicle tested under Sec.  
600.010(c)(i) and (ii), determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.030

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.031

[[Page 58171]]

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.032

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]F or 20 [deg]F, and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.033

Where:

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

    (b) Highway fuel economy. (1) For each vehicle tested under Sec.  
600.010-08(a) and (c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-cycle highway fuel 
economy using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.034

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.035

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.036

and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.037

Where:

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

    (2) If the condition specified in Sec.  600.115-08(b)(2)(iii)(B) is 
met, in lieu of using the calculation in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer may optionally determine the highway fuel 
economy using the following modified 5-cycle equation which utilizes 
data from FTP, HFET, and US06 tests, and applies mathematic adjustments 
for Cold FTP and SC03 conditions:
    (i) Perform a US06 test in addition to the FTP and HFET tests.
    (ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy according to the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.038

[[Page 58172]]

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.039

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.040

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]F.

    (B)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.041
    
Where:

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

    (c) Fuel economy calculations for hybrid electric vehicles. Under 
the requirements of Sec.  86.1811, hybrid electric vehicles are subject 
to California test methods which require FTP emission sampling for the 
75 [deg]F FTP test over four phases (bags) of the UDDS (cold-start, 
transient, warm-start, transient). Optionally, these four phases may be 
combined into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). Calculations 
for these sampling methods follow.
    (1) Four-bag FTP equations. If the 4-bag sampling method is used, 
manufacturers may use the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section to determine city and highway fuel economy estimates. If this 
method is chosen, it must be used to determine both city and highway 
fuel economy. Optionally, the following calculations may be used, 
provided that they are used to determine both city and highway fuel 
economy:
    (i) City fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.042
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.043

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.044

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.045

[[Page 58173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.046

Where:

BagYXFE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during the specified bag Y of the FTP test conducted at an ambient 
temperature X of 75 [deg]F or 20 [deg]F.
US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test.
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.

    (ii) Highway fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.047
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.048

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.051

Where:

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

    (2) Two-bag FTP equations. If the 2-bag sampling method is used for 
the 75 [deg]F FTP test, it must be used to determine both city and 
highway fuel economy. The following calculations must be used to 
determine both city and highway fuel economy:
    (i) City fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.052
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.053

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.054

[[Page 58174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.055

Where:

Bag y FE20= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP test.
Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during 
combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at 
an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.056

Where:
US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test 
conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.

    (ii) Highway fuel economy.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.057
    
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.058

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.059

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.060

and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.061

Where:
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the city 
portion of the US06 test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
Bag y FE20= the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP test.
Bag x/y FEX= fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel 
during phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP test conducted at 
an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.

    (3) For hybrid electric vehicles using the modified 5-cycle highway 
calculation in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the equation in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, applies except that the 
equation for Start Fuel75 will be replaced with one of the 
following:
    (i) The equation for Start Fuel75 for hybrids tested 
according to the 4-bag FTP is:

[[Page 58175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.062

    (ii) The equation for Start Fuel75 for hybrids tested 
according to the 2-bag FTP is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.063

    (d) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. For 
each vehicle tested, determine the 5-cycle city CO2 
emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions using the following 
equation:
    (1) CityCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:

(i) StartCREE =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.064

Where:

Start CREEX = 3.6 x (Bag 1 CREEX - Bag 3 
CREEX)
Where:

Bag Y CREEX = the carbon-related exhaust emissions in 
grams per mile during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at 
an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F or 20 [deg]F.

(ii) Running CREE =
0.82 x [(0.48 x Bag275CREE) + (0.41 x Bag375CREE) 
+ (0.11 x US06 City CREE)] + 0.18 x [(0.5 x Bag220CREE) + 
(0.5 x Bag320CREE)] + 0.144 x [SC03 CREE - ((0.61 x 
Bag375CREE) + (0.39 x Bag275CREE))]

Where:

BagYXCREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over Bag Y at temperature X.
US06 City CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile 
over the ``city'' portion of the US06 test.
SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the SC03 test.

    (2) To determine the City CO2 emissions, use the 
appropriate CO2 grams/mile values instead of CREE values in 
the equations in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (e) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions. For each vehicle tested, determine the 5-cycle highway 
carbon-related exhaust emissions using the following equation:

HighwayCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:

(1) StartCREE =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.065

Where:

StartCREEX = 3.6 x (Bag1CREEX - 
Bag3CREEX)
(2) Running CREE =
1.007 x [(0.79 x US06 HighwayCREE) + (0.21 x HFETCREE)] + 0.045 x 
[SC03CREE - ((0.61 x Bag375CREE) + (0.39 x 
Bag275CREE))]

Where:

BagYXCREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over Bag Y at temperature X,
US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over the highway portion of the US06 test,
HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the HFET test,
SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the SC03 test.

    (3) To deterine the Highway CO2 emissions, use the 
appropriate CO2 grams/mile values instead of CREE values in 
the equations in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (f) CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions calculations for 
hybrid electric vehicles. Hybrid electric vehicles shall be tested 
according to California test methods which require FTP emission 
sampling for the 75 [deg]F FTP test over four phases (bags) of the UDDS 
(cold-start, transient, warm-start, transient). Optionally, these four 
phases may be combined into two phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4). 
Calculations for these sampling methods follow.
    (1) Four-bag FTP equations. If the 4-bag sampling method is used, 
manufacturers may use the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section to determine city and highway CO2 and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions values. If this method is chosen, it must be used to 
determine both city and highway CO2 emissions and carbon-
related exhaust emissions. Optionally, the following calculations may 
be used, provided that they are used to determine both city and highway 
CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emissions values:
    (i) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions.

CityCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:

(A) StartCREE =

[[Page 58176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.066

Where:

(1) StartCREE75 =
3.6 x (Bag 1CREE75 - Bag3CREE75) + 3.9 x 
(Bag2CREE75 - Bag4CREE75)

and

(2) StartCREE20 =
= 3.6 x (Bag1CREE20 - Bag3CREE20)
(B) RunningCREE =
0.82 x [(0.48 x Bag475CREE) + (0.41 x 
Bag375CREE) + (0.11 x US06 CityCREE)] + 0.18 x [(0.5 x 
Bag220CREE) + (0.5 x Bag320 CREE)] + 0.144 x 
[SC03CREE - ((0.61 x Bag375CREE) (0.39 x 
Bag475CREE))]

Where:

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over the city portion of the US06 test.
US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
miles per gallon over the Highway portion of the US06 test.
HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the HFET test.
SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the SC03 test.

    (ii) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions.

HighwayCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:
(A) StartCREE =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.067

Where:

Start CREE75 = 3.6 x (Bag1CREE75 - Bag3CREE75) 
+ 3.9 x (Bag2CREE75 - Bag4CREE75)
and
Start CREE20 = 3.6 x (Bag1CREE20 - 
Bag3CREE20)
(B) RunningCREE = 1.007 x [(0.79 x US06 Highway CREE) + (0.21 x HFET 
CREE)] + 0.045 x [SC03CREE - ((0.61 x Bag375CREE) + (0.39 
x Bag475CREE))]
Where:

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over the Highway portion of the US06 test,
HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the HFET test,
SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the SC03 test.

    (2) Two-bag FTP equations. If the 2-bag sampling method is used for 
the 75 [deg]F FTP test, it must be used to determine both city and 
highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions. 
The following calculations must be used to determine both city and 
highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions:
(i) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions.

CityCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:
(A) StartCREE =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.068

Where:

StartCREE75 = 3.6 x (Bag1/2CREE75 - Bag3/
4CREE75)
and
StartCREE20 = 3.6 x (Bag1CREE20 - 
Bag3CREE20)
Where:

Bag Y FE20 = the carbon-related exhaust emissions in 
grams per mile of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP 
test, and
Bag X/Y FE75 = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 
per mile of fuel during combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of 
the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.
(B) RunningCREE = 0.82 x [(0.90 x Bag3/475CREE) + (0.10 x 
US06CityCREE)] + 0.18 x [(0.5 x Bag220CREE) + (0.5 x 
Bag320CREE)] + 0.144 x [SC03CREE - (Bag3/
475CREE)]

Where:
US06 City CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile 
over the city portion of the US06 test, and
SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over 
the SC03 test, and
Bag X/Y FE75 = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 
per mile of fuel during combined phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of 
the FTP test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.

(ii) Highway CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions.

HighwayCREE = 0.905 x (StartCREE + RunningCREE)

Where:
(A) StartCREE =
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.069

Where:

StartCREE75 = 7.5 x (Bag1/2CREE75 - Bag3/
4CREE75)
and
StartCREE20 = 3.6 x (Bag1CREE20 - 
Bag3CREE20)
(B) RunningCREE = 1.007 x [(0.79 x US06HighwayCREE) + (0.21 x 
HFETCREE)] + 0.045 x [SC03CREE - Bag3/475CREE]
Where:

US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per 
mile over the city portion of the US06 test, and

[[Page 58177]]

SC03 CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in gram per mile over 
the SC03 test, and
Bag Y FE20 = the carbon-related exhaust emissions in 
grams per mile of fuel during Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the 20 [deg]F FTP 
test, and
Bag X/Y FE75 = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams 
per mile of fuel during phases 1 and 2 or phases 3 and 4 of the FTP 
test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.

    (3) To determine the City and Highway CO2 emissions, use 
the appropriate CO2 grams/mile values instead of CREE values 
in the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    34. Section 600.115-08 is redesignated as Sec.  600.115-11 and is 
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.115-11  Criteria for determining the fuel economy label 
calculation method.

    This section provides the criteria to determine if the derived 5-
cycle method for determining fuel economy label values, as specified in 
Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2) or (b)(2), 
as applicable, may be used to determine label values. Separate criteria 
apply to city and highway fuel economy for each test group. The 
provisions of this section are optional. If this option is not chosen, 
or if the criteria provided in this section are not met, fuel economy 
label values must be determined according to the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle method specified in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(1) or (b)(1) or Sec.  
600.210-12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable. However, dedicated 
alternative-fuel vehicles, dual fuel vehicles when operating on the 
alternative fuel, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, MDPVs, and vehicles 
imported by Independent Commercial Importers may use the derived 5-
cycle method for determining fuel economy label values whether or not 
the criteria provided in this section are met.
    (a) City fuel economy criterion. (1) For each test group certified 
for emission compliance under Sec.  86.1848 of this chapter, the FTP, 
HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests determined to be official under 
Sec.  86.1835 of this chapter are used to calculate the vehicle-
specific 5-cycle city fuel economy which is then compared to the 
derived 5-cycle city fuel economy, as follows:
    (i) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy from the 
official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08(a) or (c) or 
Sec.  600.114-12(a) or (c) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a 
mile per gallon.
    (ii) Using the same FTP data as used in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section, the corresponding derived 5-cycle city fuel economy is 
calculated according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.070

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See 
Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2)(iii) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2)(iii).
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.  
600.210-08(a)(2)(iii) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2)(ii).
FTP FE = the FTP-based city fuel economy from the official test used 
for certification compliance, determined under Sec.  600.113-08(a), 
rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (2) The derived 5-cycle fuel economy value determined in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section is multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to the 
nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
    (3) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy determined in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section is greater than or equal to the 
value determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, then the 
manufacturer may base the city fuel economy estimates for the model 
types covered by the test group on the derived 5-cycle method specified 
in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2) or 
(b)(2), as applicable.
    (b) Highway fuel economy criterion. The determination for highway 
fuel economy depends upon the outcome of the determination for city 
fuel economy in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for each test group.
    (1) If the city determination for a test group made in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section does not allow the use of the derived 5-cycle 
method, then the highway fuel economy values for all model types 
represented by the test group are likewise not allowed to be determined 
using the derived 5-cycle method, and must be determined according to 
the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(1) 
or (b)(1) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable.
    (2) If the city determination made in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section allows the use of the derived 5-cycle method, a separate 
determination is made for the highway fuel economy labeling method as 
follows:
    (i) For each test group certified for emission compliance under 
Sec.  86.1848 of this chapter, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP 
tests determined to be official under Sec.  86.1835 of this chapter are 
used to calculate the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy, 
which is then compared to the derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy, as 
follows:
    (A) The vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy from the 
official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for the test group is 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  600.114-08(b)(1) or 
Sec.  600.114-12(b)(1) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile 
per gallon.
    (B) Using the same HFET data as used in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of 
this section, the corresponding derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy is 
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.071

[[Page 58178]]

Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See 
Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2)(iii) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2)(iii).
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.  
600.210-08(a)(2)(iii) or Sec.  600.210-12(a)(2)(iii).
HFET FE = the HFET-based highway fuel economy determined under Sec.  
600.113-08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (ii) The derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section is multiplied by 0.95 and 
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
    (iii)(A) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy of 
the vehicle tested in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is greater 
than or equal to the value determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 
section, then the manufacturer may base the highway fuel economy 
estimates for the model types covered by the test group on the derived 
5-cycle method specified in Sec.  600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or Sec.  
600.210-12(a)(2) or (b)(2), as applicable.
    (B) If the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy determined 
in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) of this section is less than the value 
determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the manufacturer 
may determine the highway fuel economy for the model types covered by 
the test group on the modified 5-cycle equation specified in Sec.  
600.114-08(b)(2) or Sec.  600.114-12(b)(2).
    (c) The manufacturer will apply the criteria in paragraph (a) and 
(b) of this section to every test group for each model year.
    (d) The tests used to make the evaluations in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section will be the procedures for official test 
determinations under Sec.  86.1835. Adjustments and/or substitutions to 
the official test data may be made with advance approval of the 
Administrator.
    35. A new Sec.  600.116-12 is added to subpart B to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.116-12  Special procedures related to electric vehicles and 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

    (a) Determine fuel economy label values for electric vehicles as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 600.311 using the procedures of SAE 
J1634 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011), with the following 
clarifications and modifications:
    (1) Use one of the following approaches to define end-of-test 
criteria for vehicles whose maximum speed is less than the maximum 
speed specified in the driving schedule, where the vehicle's maximum 
speed is determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the highest 
speed over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.):
    (i) If the vehicle can follow the driving schedule within the speed 
tolerances specified in Sec.  86.115 of this chapter up to its maximum 
speed, the end-of-test criterion is based on the point at which the 
vehicle can no longer meet the specified speed tolerances up to and 
including its maximum speed.
    (ii) If the vehicle cannot follow the driving schedule within the 
speed tolerances specified in Sec.  86.115 of this chapter up to its 
maximum speed, the end-of-test criterion is based on the following 
procedure:
    (A) Measure and record the vehicle's speed (to the nearest 0.1 mph) 
while making a best effort to follow the specified driving schedule.
    (B) This recorded sequence of driving speeds becomes the driving 
schedule for the test vehicle. Apply the end-of-test criterion based on 
point at which the vehicle can no longer meet the specified speed 
tolerances over this new driving schedule. The driving to establish the 
new driving schedule may be done separately, or as part of the 
measurement procedure.
    (2) Soak time between repeat duty cycles (four-bag FTP, HFET, etc.) 
may be up to 30 minutes. No recharging may occur during the soak time.
    (3) Recharging the vehicle's battery must start within three hours 
after the end of testing.
    (4) Do not apply the C coefficient adjustment specified in Section 
4.4.2.
    (5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to 
electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the 
objectives of this part.
    (b) Determine fuel economy label values for plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles as specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 600.311 using the 
procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011), 
with the following clarifications and modifications:
    (1) Calculate a composite value for fuel economy and CO2 emissions 
representing combined operation during charge-deplete and charge-
sustain operation as follows:
    (i) Apply the following utility factors except as specified in this 
paragraph (b)(1):

    Table 1 of Sec.   600.116-12--FTP Phase-Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Urban Driving, ``City''
                                 ---------------------------
              Phase                 Distance,    Cumulative    Seq. UF
                                       mi            UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................          3.59        0.125        0.125
2...............................          7.45        0.243        0.118
3...............................         11.04        0.340        0.096
4...............................         14.9         0.431        0.091
5...............................         18.49        0.505        0.074
6...............................         22.35        0.575        0.070
7...............................         25.94        0.632        0.057
8...............................         29.8         0.685        0.054
9...............................         33.39        0.729        0.044
10..............................         37.25        0.770        0.041
11..............................         40.84        0.803        0.033
12..............................         44.7         0.834        0.031
13..............................         48.29        0.859        0.025
14..............................         52.15        0.882        0.023
15..............................         55.74        0.900        0.018
16..............................         59.6         0.917        0.017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58179]]

    Table 2 of Sec.   600.116-12--HFED Cycle-Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Highway Driving
                                  --------------------------
              HFEDS                 Distance,    Cumulative    Seq. UF
                                        mi           UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................         10.3        0.125        0.125
2................................         20.6        0.252        0.127
3................................         30.9        0.378        0.126
4................................         41.2        0.500        0.121
5................................         51.5        0.610        0.111
6................................         61.8        0.707        0.097
7................................         72.1        0.787        0.080
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) You may combine phases during FTP testing. For example, you 
may treat the first 7.45 miles as a single phase by adding the 
individual utility factors for that portion of driving and assigning 
emission levels to the combined phase. Do this consistently throughout 
a test run.
    (iii) Calculate utility factors using the following equation for 
vehicles whose maximum speed is less than the maximum speed specified 
in the driving schedule, where the vehicle's maximum speed is 
determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the highest speed 
over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.072

Where:

UFi = the utility factor for phase i. Let UF0 = 0.
j = A counter to identify the appropriate term in the summation 
(with terms numbered consecutively).
k = the number of terms in the equation (see Table 3 of this 
section).
di = the distance driven in phase i.
ND = the normalized distance. Use 399 for both FTP and HFET 
operation.
Cj = the coefficient for term j from the following table:

   Table 3 of Sec.   600.116-12--City/Highway Specific Utility Factor
                              Coefficients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Coefficient                     City             Hwy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C1......................................           14.86            4.80
C2......................................            2.97           13.00
C3......................................          -84.05          -65.00
C4......................................          153.70          120.00
C5......................................          -43.59         -100.00
C6......................................          -96.94           31.00
C7......................................           14.47  ..............
C8......................................           91.70  ..............
C9......................................          -46.36  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

n = the number of test phases (or bag measurements) before the 
vehicle reaches the end-of-test criterion.

    (2) The end-of-test criterion is based on a 1 percent Net Energy 
Change as specified in Section 3.8. The Administrator may approve 
alternate Net Energy Change tolerances as specified in Section 3.9.1 or 
Appendix C if the 1 percent threshold is insufficient or inappropriate 
for marking the end of charge-deplete operation.
    (3) Use the vehicle's Actual Charge-Depleting Range, 
Rcda, as specified in Section 6.1.3 for evaluating the end-
of-test criterion.
    (4) Measure and record AC watt-hours throughout the recharging 
procedure. Position the measurement downstream of all charging devices 
to account for any losses in the charging system.
    (5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate 
for meeting the objectives of this part.

Subpart C-- Procedures for Calculating Fuel Economy and Carbon-
Related Exhaust Emission Values

    36. The heading for subpart C is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.201-08, Sec.  600.201-12, Sec.  600.201-86, Sec.  600.201-93, 
Sec.  600.202-77, Sec.  600.203-77, Sec.  600.204-77, Sec.  600.205-77, 
Sec.  600.206-86, Sec.  600.206-93, Sec.  600.207-86, Sec.  600.207-93, 
Sec.  600.208-77, Sec.  600.209-85, Sec.  600.209-95  [Removed]

    37. Subpart C is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.201-08
Sec.  600.201-12
Sec.  600.201-86
Sec.  600.201-93
Sec.  600.202-77
Sec.  600.203-77
Sec.  600.204-77
Sec.  600.205-77
Sec.  600.206-86
Sec.  600.206-93
Sec.  600.207-86
Sec.  600.207-93
Sec.  600.208-77
Sec.  600.209-85
Sec.  600.209-95
Sec.  600.211-08

    38. Section 600.206-12 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.206-12  Calculation and use of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel 
economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission 
values for vehicle configurations.

    (a) Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions values determined for each vehicle under Sec.  
600.113-08(a) and (b) and as approved in Sec.  600.008(c), are used to 
determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined FTP/Highway-
based fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emission 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. If only one set 
of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway CO2 emissions and 
carbon-related exhaust emission values is accepted for a vehicle 
configuration, these values, rounded to the nearest gram per mile, 
comprise the city and highway CO2 emissions and carbon-
related exhaust emission values for that configuration.

[[Page 58180]]

    (2) If more than one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 
fuel economy and/or carbon-related exhaust emission values are accepted 
for a vehicle configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208-12(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each group of data, all fuel economy values are 
harmonically averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per 
gallon and all CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust 
emission values are arithmetically averaged and rounded to the nearest 
tenth of a gram per mile in order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-
related exhaust emission values for each subconfiguration at which the 
vehicle configuration was tested.
    (iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy, CO2 emissions, 
and carbon-related exhaust emission values and all HFET-based highway 
fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission 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. Fuel economy values shall be harmonically averaged, 
and CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
shall be arithmetically averaged. The resultant fuel economy 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. The resultant CO2 emissions and carbon-
related exhaust emission values, rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram 
per mile, are the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway CO2 
emissions and carbon-related exhaust emission values for the vehicle 
configuration.
    (3)(i) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under 
Sec.  600.510, 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 
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively, and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon. A 
sample of this calculation appears in Appendix II of this part.
    (ii) For the purpose of determining average carbon-related exhaust 
emissions under Sec.  600.510, the combined carbon-related exhaust 
emission value for a vehicle configuration is calculated by 
arithmetically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 
carbon-related exhaust emission values, as determined in paragraph 
(a)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and 
rounded to the nearest tenth of gram per mile.
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, 
as applicable, shall be used to calculate two separate sets of FTP-
based city, HFET-based highway, and combined values for fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each 
configuration.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission 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 vehicle configuration, that value, rounded to 
the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will comprise 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.
    39. A new Sec.  600.207-12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.207-12  Calculation and use of vehicle-specific 5-cycle-based 
fuel economy and CO2 emission values for vehicle 
configurations.

    (a) Fuel economy and CO2 emission values determined for 
each vehicle under Sec.  600.114 and as approved in Sec.  600.008(c), 
are used to determine vehicle-specific 5-cycle city and highway fuel 
economy and CO2 emission values for each vehicle 
configuration for which data are available.
    (1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and 
CO2 emission values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, 
these values, where fuel economy is rounded to the nearest tenth of a 
mile per gallon and the CO2 emission value in grams per mile 
is rounded to the nearest whole number, comprise the city and highway 
fuel economy and CO2 emission values for that configuration.
    (2) If more than one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy 
and CO2 emission values are accepted for a vehicle 
configuration:
    (i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for 
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in 
accordance with Sec.  600.209-12(a)(3).
    (ii) Within each subconfiguration of data, all fuel economy 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, and all CO2 emissions values are arithmetically 
averaged and rounded to the nearest tenth of gram per mile to determine 
5-cycle city and highway CO2 emission values for each 
subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was tested.
    (iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway 
fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section 
are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to the 
sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle 
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of 
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded 
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle 
highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
    (iv) All 5-cycle city CO2 emission values and all 5-
cycle highway CO2 emission 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 0.1 
grams per mile, are the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle highway CO2 
emission values for the vehicle configuration.
    (3) [Reserved]
    (4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section 
shall be used to calculate two separate sets of 5-cycle city and 
highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each 
configuration.
    (i) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and 
CO2 emission values from the tests performed using gasoline 
or diesel test fuel.
    (ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy and 
CO2

[[Page 58181]]

emission values from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas 
test fuel, if 5-cycle testing has been performed. Otherwise, the 
procedure in Sec.  600.210-12(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies.
    (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 comprise 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.
    40. Section 600.208-12 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.208-12  Calculation of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for a 
model type.

    (a) Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions for a base level are calculated from vehicle 
configuration fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-
related exhaust emissions as determined in Sec.  600.206-12(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 and in section 177 states are likely to 
exhibit significant differences in fuel economy, CO2 
emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from those intended for 
sale in other states, she will calculate fuel economy, CO2 
emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each base level for 
vehicles intended for sale in California and in section 177 states and 
for each base level for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the 
states.
    (2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency, CO2 
emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions 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(c)(1)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section may be 
satisfied by providing an amended application for certification, as 
described in Sec.  86.1844 of this chapter.
    (4) Vehicle configuration fuel economy, CO2 emissions, 
and carbon-related exhaust emissions, as determined in Sec.  600.206-12 
(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, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions from that vehicle configuration will constitute the 
fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions 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; and the vehicle configuration CO2 emissions and 
carbon-related exhaust emissions are arithmetically averaged in 
proportion to the respective sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 
0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the resultant carbon-related 
exhaust emission value rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile.
    (5) The procedure specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section will be repeated for each base level, thus establishing city, 
highway, and combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and 
carbon-related exhaust emissions for each base level.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (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, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions for each base level.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from the 
tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions 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, CO2 emission 
value, and a carbon-related exhaust emission value will be calculated 
by using the projected sales and values for fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each 
base level within the model type. Separate model type calculations will 
be done based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy, CO2 
emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions as determined in Sec.  
600.206-12 (a), (b) or (c), as applicable.
    (1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for 
sale in the State of California and in section 177 states are likely to 
exhibit significant differences in fuel economy, CO2 
emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions from those intended for 
sale in other states, he or she will calculate values for fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emissions for each 
model type for vehicles intended for sale in California and in section 
177 states 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)(i) 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:
    (A) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (B) The FTP-based city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.

[[Page 58182]]

    (ii) The FTP-based city carbon-related exhaust emission value of 
the model type (calculated to the nearest gram per mile) are determined 
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which 
is a product determined by multiplying:
    (A) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (B) The FTP-based city carbon-related exhaust emission value for 
the respective base level.
    (iii) The FTP-based city CO2 emissions of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest gram per mile) are determined by a sum of 
terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which is a product 
determined by multiplying:
    (A) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (B) The FTP-based city CO2 emissions 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, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions 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 and two separate sets of city, 
highway, and combined CO2 and carbon-related exhaust 
emission values for each model type.
    (i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy, 
CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust emission values 
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
    41. A new Sec.  600.209-12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.209-12  Calculation of vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy 
and CO2 emission values for a model type.

    (a) Base level. 5-cycle fuel economy and CO2 emission 
values for a base level are calculated from vehicle configuration 5-
cycle fuel economy and CO2 emission values as determined in 
Sec.  600.207 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 and CO2 emissions from those 
intended for sale in other states, he will calculate fuel economy and 
CO2 emission 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 and CO2 
emissions 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(c)(ii).
    (3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales 
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
    (i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car 
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each 
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the 
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any 
model type value is calculated for a label value.
    (iii) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by 
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 
Sec.  86.1844 of this chapter.
    (4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy and CO2 
emission values, as determined in Sec.  600.207-12(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 and CO2 emission values from that 
vehicle configuration constitute the fuel economy and CO2 
emission values 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.
    (iii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level 
has been tested, the vehicle configuration CO2 emission 
values are arithmetically averaged in proportion to the respective 
sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle 
configuration and the resultant CO2 emission value rounded 
to the nearest 0.1 gram per mile.
    (5) The procedure specified in Sec.  600.209-12 (a) will be 
repeated for each base level, thus establishing city and highway fuel 
economy and CO2 emission values for each base level.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (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 and CO2 emission values for each 
base level.
    (i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 
emission values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test 
fuel.
    (ii) If 5-cycle testing was performed on the alcohol or natural gas 
test fuel, calculate the city and highway fuel economy and 
CO2 emission values from the tests performed using alcohol 
or natural gas test fuel.
    (b) Model type. For each model type, as determined by the 
Administrator, city and highway fuel economy and CO2 
emissions values will be calculated by using the projected sales and 
fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each base level 
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done 
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy and CO2 
emission values as determined in Sec.  600.207, 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 and CO2 emissions from those 
intended for sale in other states, he will calculate fuel economy and 
CO2 emission 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.

[[Page 58183]]

    (3)(i) 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:
    (A) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (B) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base 
level.
    (ii) The 5-cycle city CO2 emissions of the model type 
(calculated to the nearest tenth of a gram per mile) are determined by 
a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which is 
a product determined by multiplying:
    (A) The sales fraction of a base level; by
    (B) The 5-cycle city CO2 emissions 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 and CO2 emission values for the model type.
    (5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel 
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city and 
highway fuel economy and CO2 emission values for each model 
type.
    (i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 
emission values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test 
fuel.
    (ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy and 
CO2 emission values from the tests performed using alcohol 
or natural gas test fuel, if 5-cycle testing was performed on the 
alcohol or natural gas test fuel. Otherwise, the procedure in Sec.  
600.210-12(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies.
    42. Section 600.210-08 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (f) Sample calculations. An example of the calculation required in 
this subpart is in Appendix III of this part.
    43. A new Sec.  600.210-12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  600.210-12  Calculation of fuel economy and CO2 emission values 
for labeling.

    (a) General labels. Except as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) 
of this section, fuel economy and CO2 emissions for general 
labels may be determined by one of two methods. The first is based on 
vehicle-specific model-type 5-cycle data as determined in Sec.  
600.209-12(b). This method is available for all vehicles and is 
required for vehicles that do not qualify for the second method as 
described in Sec.  600.115 (other than electric vehicles). The second 
method, the derived 5-cycle method, is based on fuel economy and 
CO2 emissions that are derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle 
model type data as determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 
Manufacturers may voluntarily lower fuel economy values and raise 
CO2 values if they determine that the label values from any 
method are not representative of the fuel economy or CO2 
emissions for that model type.
    (1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway model 
type fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.209-12(b), rounded to the 
nearest mpg, and the city and highway model type CO2 
emissions determined in Sec.  600.209-12(b), rounded to the nearest 
gram per mile, comprise the fuel economy and CO2 emission 
values for general fuel economy labels, or, alternatively;
    (2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Derived 5-cycle city and highway label 
values are determined according to the following method:
    (i)(A) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle city 
fuel economy using the following equation and coefficients determined 
by the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.073

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
MT FTP FE = the model type FTP-based city fuel economy determined 
under Sec.  600.208-12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

    (B) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle city 
CO2 emissions using the following equation and coefficients 
determined by the Administrator:

Derived 5-cycle City CO2 = {City Intercept{time}  + {City 
Slope{time}  x MT FTP CO2

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
MT FTP CO2 = the model type FTP-based city CO2 
emissions determined under Sec.  600.208-12(b), rounded to the 
nearest 0.1 grams per mile.

    (ii)(A) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle 
highway fuel economy using the equation below and coefficients 
determined by the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.074

Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
MT HFET FE = the model type highway fuel economy determined under 
Sec.  600.208-12(b), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

    (B) For each model type, determine the derived five-cycle highway 
CO2 emissions using the equation below and

[[Page 58184]]

coefficients determined by the Administrator:

Derived 5-cycle Highway CO2 = {Highway Intercept{time}  + 
{Highway Slope{time}  x MT HFET CO2

Where:
    Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator 
based on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy 
data.
    Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
    MT HFET CO2 = the model type highway CO2 
emissions determined under Sec.  600.208-12(b), rounded to the 
nearest 0.1 grams per mile.

    (iii) Unless and until superseded by written guidance from the 
Administrator, the following intercepts and slopes shall be used in the 
equations in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section:

City Intercept = 0.003259.
City Slope = 1.1805.
Highway Intercept = 0.001376.
Highway Slope = 1.3466.

    (iv) The Administrator will periodically update the slopes and 
intercepts through guidance and will determine the model year that the 
new coefficients must take effect. The Administrator will issue 
guidance no later than six months prior to the earliest starting date 
of the effective model year (e.g., for 2011 models, the earliest start 
of the model year is January 2, 2010, so guidance would be issued by 
July 1, 2009). Until otherwise instructed by written guidance from the 
Administrator, manufacturers must use the coefficients that are 
currently in effect.
    (3) General alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions 
label values for dual fuel vehicles. (i)(A) City and Highway fuel 
economy label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and natural gas 
vehicles when using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the 
following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.075

Where:
FEalt = The unrounded FTP-based model-type city or HFET-
based model-type highway fuel economy from the alternate fuel, as 
determined in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(ii).
5cycle FEgas = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle model-type city or highway fuel economy, as determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
FEgas = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based model 
type highway fuel economy from gasoline (or diesel), as determined 
in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(i).

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (B) City and Highway CO2 label values for dual fuel 
alcohol-based and natural gas vehicles when using the alternate fuel 
are separately determined by the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.076

Where:
CO2alt = The unrounded FTP-based model-type city or HFET-
based model-type CO2 emissions value from the alternate 
fuel, as determined in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(ii).
5cycle CO2gas = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle model-type city or highway CO2 emissions value, 
as determined in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
CO2gas = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based model 
type highway CO2 emissions value from gasoline (or 
diesel), as determined in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(i).

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel CO2 emissions label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed 
using the alternate fuel, the manufacturer may choose to use the 
alternate fuel label city or highway fuel economy and CO2 
emission values determined in Sec.  600.209-12(b)(5)(ii), rounded to 
the nearest whole number.
    (4) General alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions 
label values for electric vehicles. Determine FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy label values for electric vehicles as 
described in Sec.  600.116. Convert W-hour/mile results to miles per 
kW-hr and miles per gasoline gallon equivalent gallon. CO2 
label information is based on tailpipe emissions only, so 
CO2 emissions from electric vehicles are assumed to be zero.
    (b) Specific labels. Except as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) 
of this section, fuel economy and CO2 emissions for specific 
labels may be determined by one of two methods. The first is based on 
vehicle-specific configuration 5-cycle data as determined in Sec.  
600.207. This method is available for all vehicles and is required for 
vehicles that do not qualify for the second method as described in 
Sec.  600.115 (other than electric vehicles). The second method, the 
derived 5-cycle method, is based on fuel economy and CO2 
emissions that are derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle configuration 
data as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Manufacturers 
may voluntarily lower fuel economy values and raise CO2 
values if they determine that the label values from either method are 
not representative of the fuel economy or CO2 emissions for 
that model type.
    (1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway 
configuration fuel economy determined in Sec.  600.207, rounded to the 
nearest mpg, and the city and highway configuration CO2 
emissions determined in Sec.  600.207, rounded to the nearest gram per 
mile, comprise the fuel economy and CO2 emission values for 
specific fuel economy labels, or, alternatively;
    (2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Specific city and highway label values 
from derived 5-cycle are determined according to the following method:
    (i)(A) Determine the derived five-cycle city fuel economy of the 
configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined by 
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.077

Where:
City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
Config FTP FE = the configuration FTP-based city fuel economy 
determined under Sec.  600.206, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

    (B) Determine the derived five-cycle city CO2 emissions 
of the configuration using the equation below and coefficients 
determined by the Administrator:

Derived 5-cycle City CO2 = {City Intercept{time}  + {City 
Slope{time}  x Config FTP CO2

Where:

[[Page 58185]]

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on historic 
vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy data.
Config FTP CO2 = the configuration FTP-based city 
CO2 emissions determined under Sec.  600.206, rounded to 
the nearest 0.1 grams per mile.

    (ii)(A) Determine the derived five-cycle highway fuel economy of 
the configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined 
by the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.078

Where:
Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Config HFET FE = the configuration highway fuel economy determined 
under Sec.  600.206, rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (B) Determine the derived five-cycle highway CO2 
emissions of the configuration using the equation below and 
coefficients determined by the Administrator:

Derived 5-cycle City CO2 = {Highway Intercept{time}  + 
{Highway Slope{time}  x Config HFET CO2

Where:
Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based 
on historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on 
historic vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel economy data.
Config HFET CO2 = the configuration highway fuel economy 
determined under Sec.  600.206, rounded to the nearest tenth.

    (iii) The slopes and intercepts of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this 
section apply.
    (3) Specific alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values 
for dual fuel vehicles. (i)(A) Specific city and highway fuel economy 
label values for dual fuel alcohol-based and natural gas vehicles when 
using the alternate fuel are separately determined by the following 
calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.079

Where:
FEalt = The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or 
HFET-based configuration highway fuel economy from the alternate 
fuel, as determined in Sec.  600.206.
5cycle FEgas = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle configuration city or highway fuel economy as determined in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
FEgas = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based 
configuration highway fuel economy from gasoline, as determined in 
Sec.  600.206.

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (B) Specific city and highway CO2 emission label values 
for dual fuel alcohol-based and natural gas vehicles when using the 
alternate fuel are separately determined by the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.081

Where:
CO2alt = The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or 
HFET-based configuration highway CO2 emissions value from 
the alternate fuel, as determined in Sec.  600.206.
5cycle CO2gas = The unrounded vehicle-specific or derived 
5-cycle configuration city or highway CO2 emissions value 
as determined in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
CO2gas = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based 
configuration highway CO2 emissions value from gasoline, 
as determined in Sec.  600.206.

    The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate 
fuel CO2 emissions label value for dual fuel vehicles.
    (ii) Optionally, if complete 5-cycle testing has been performed 
using the alternate fuel, the manufacturer may choose to use the 
alternate fuel label city or highway fuel economy and CO2 
emission values determined in Sec.  600.207-12(a)(4)(ii), rounded to 
the nearest whole number.
    (4) Specific alternate fuel economy and CO2 emissions label values 
for electric vehicles. Determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway 
fuel economy label values for electric vehicles as described in Sec.  
600.116. Determine these values by running the appropriate repeat test 
cycles. Convert W-hour/mile results to miles per kW-hr and miles per 
gasoline gallon equivalent. CO2 label information is based 
on tailpipe emissions only, so CO2 emissions from electric 
vehicles are assumed to be zero.
    (c) Calculating combined fuel economy. (1) For the purposes of 
calculating the combined fuel economy for a model type, to be used in 
displaying on the label and for determining annual fuel costs under 
subpart D of this part, the manufacturer shall use one of the following 
procedures:
    (i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural 
gas-fueled automobiles, and for dual fuel automobiles operated on 
gasoline or diesel fuel, harmonically average the unrounded city and 
highway fuel economy values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of 
this section and (b)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg. (An example of this 
calculation procedure appears in Appendix II of this part).
    (ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles 
operated on the alternate fuel, harmonically average the unrounded city 
and highway values from the tests performed using the alternative fuel 
as determined in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section, weighted 
0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg.
    (iii) For electric vehicles, calculate the combined fuel economy, 
in miles per kW-hr and miles per gasoline gallon equivalent, by 
harmonically averaging the unrounded city and highway values, weighted 
0.55 and 0.45 respectively. Round miles per kW-hr to the nearest 0.001 
and round miles per gallon gasoline equivalent to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iv) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate a combined 
fuel economy value, in miles per gasoline gallon equivalent as follows:

[[Page 58186]]

    (A) Determine city and highway fuel economy values for vehicle 
operation after the battery has been fully discharged (``gas only 
operation'' or ``charge-sustaining mode'') as described in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section.
    (B) Determine city and highway fuel economy values for vehicle 
operation starting with a full battery charge (``all-electric 
operation'' or ``gas plus electric operation'', as appropriate, or 
``charge-depleting mode'') as described in Sec.  600.116-12. For 
battery energy, convert W-hour/mile results to miles per gasoline 
gallon equivalent or miles per diesel gallon equivalent, as applicable. 
Note that you must also convert battery-based fuel economy values to 
miles per kW-hr for calculating annual fuel cost as described in Sec.  
600.311-12.
    (C) Calculate a composite city fuel economy value and a composite 
highway fuel economy value by combining the separate results for 
battery and engine operation using the procedures described in Sec.  
600.116-12). Apply the derived 5-cycle adjustment to these composite 
values. Use these values to calculate the vehicle's combined fuel 
economy as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) For the purposes of calculating the combined CO2 
emissions value for a model type, to be used in displaying on the label 
under subpart D of this part, the manufacturer shall:
    (i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural 
gas-fueled automobiles, and for dual fuel automobiles operated on 
gasoline or diesel fuel, arithmetically average the unrounded city and 
highway values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section 
and (b)(1) or (2) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, 
and round to the nearest whole gram per mile; or
    (ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles 
operated on the alternate fuel, arithmetically average the unrounded 
city and highway CO2 emission values from the tests 
performed using the alternative fuel as determined in paragraphs (a)(3) 
and (b)(3) of this section, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and 
round to the nearest whole gram per mile.
    (iii) CO2 label information is based on tailpipe 
emissions only, so CO2 emissions from electric vehicles are 
assumed to be zero.
    (iv) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate combined 
CO2 emissions as follows:
    (A) Determine city and highway CO2 emission rates for 
vehicle operation after the battery has been fully discharged (``gas 
only operation'' or ``charge-sustaining mode'') as described in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (B) Determine city and highway CO2 emission rates for 
vehicle operation starting with a full battery charge (``all-electric 
operation'' or ``gas plus electric operation'', as appropriate, or 
``charge-depleting mode'') as described in Sec.  600.116-12. Note that 
CO2 label information is based on tailpipe emissions only, 
so CO2 emissions from electric vehicles are assumed to be 
zero.
    (C) Calculate a composite city CO2 emission rate and a 
composite CO2 emission rate by combining the separate 
results for battery and engine operation using the procedures described 
in Sec.  600.116-12. Use these values to calculate the vehicle's 
combined fuel economy as described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (d) Calculating combined fuel economy and CO2 emissions. (1) If the 
criteria in Sec.  600.115-11(a) are met for a model type, both the city 
and highway fuel economy and CO2 emissions values must be 
determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. If the criteria 
in Sec.  600.115-11(b) are met for a model type, the city fuel economy 
and CO2 emissions values may be determined using either 
method, but the highway fuel economy and CO2 emissions 
values must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method (or 
modified 5-cycle method as allowed under Sec.  600.114-12(b)(2)).
    (2) If the criteria in Sec.  600.115 are not met for a model type, 
the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission label 
values must be determined by using the same method, either the derived 
5-cycle or vehicle-specific 5-cycle.
    (3) Manufacturers may use any of the following methods for 
determining 5-cycle values for fuel economy and CO2 
emissions for electric vehicles:
    (i) Generate 5-cycle data as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) Decrease fuel economy values by 30 percent and increase 
CO2 emission values by 30 percent relative to data generated 
from 2-cycle testing.
    (iii) Manufacturers may ask the Administrator to approve adjustment 
factors for deriving 5-cycle fuel economy results from 2-cycle test 
data based on operating data from their in-use vehicles. Such data 
should be collected from multiple vehicles with different drivers over 
a range of representative driving routes and conditions. The 
Administrator may approve such an adjustment factor for any of the 
manufacturer's vehicle models that are properly represented by the 
collected data.
    (e) Fuel economy values and other information for advanced 
technology vehicles. (1) The Administrator may prescribe an alternative 
method of determining the city and highway model type fuel economy and 
CO2 emission values for general, unique or specific fuel 
economy labels other than those set forth in this subpart C for 
advanced technology vehicles including, but not limited to fuel cell 
vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles using hydraulic energy storage, and 
vehicles equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines.
    (2) For advanced technology vehicles, the Administrator may 
prescribe special methods for determining information other than fuel 
economy that is required to be displayed on fuel economy labels as 
specified in Sec.  600.302-12(e).
    (f) Sample calculations. An example of the calculation required in 
this subpart is in Appendix III of this part.

Subpart D--Fuel Economy Labeling

    44. The heading for subpart D is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.301-08, Sec.  600.301-12, Sec.  600.301-86, Sec.  600.301-95, 
Sec.  600.302-77, Sec.  600.303-77, Sec.  600.304-77, Sec.  600.305-77, 
Sec.  600.306-86, Sec.  600.307-86, Sec.  600.307-95, Sec.  600.310-86, 
Sec.  600.311-86, Sec.  600.313-86, Sec.  600.314-01, Sec.  600.314-86, 
Sec.  600.315-82  [Removed]

    45. Subpart D is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.301-08
Sec.  600.301-12
Sec.  600.301-86
Sec.  600.301-95
Sec.  600.302-77
Sec.  600.303-77
Sec.  600.304-77
Sec.  600.305-77
Sec.  600.306-86
Sec.  600.307-86
Sec.  600.307-95
Sec.  600.310-86
Sec.  600.311-86
Sec.  600.313-86
Sec.  600.314-01
Sec.  600.314-86
Sec.  600.315-82
    46. Redesignate specific sections in subpart D as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                600.306-08                           600.301-08
                600.307-08                           600.302-08
                600.312-86                           600.312-08
                600.313-01                           600.313-08
                600.316-78                           600.316-08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. The redesignated Sec.  600.301-08 is revised to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.301-08  Labeling requirements.

    (a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix 
or cause to be

[[Page 58187]]

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.  600.303 or:
    (2) A specific label, for those automobiles manufactured or 
imported before the date that occurs 15 days after general labels have 
been determined by the manufacturer, as described in Sec.  600.210-
08(b) or Sec.  600.210-12(b).
    (i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a 
model type (as defined in Sec.  600.002, 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.
    (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.  600.513, 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) or Sec.  600.208-12(b) of 0.1 mpg 
or more below the lowest fuel economy value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax 
of $0 is to be assessed.
    (ii) The manufacturer has the option of re-labeling vehicles during 
the first five working days after the general label value is known.
    (iii) For those vehicle model types which have been issued a 
specific label and are subsequently found to have tax liability, the 
manufacturer is responsible for the tax liability regardless of whether 
the vehicle has been sold or not or whether the vehicle has been 
relabeled or not.
    (b) Fuel economy range of comparable vehicles. The manufacturer 
shall include the current range of fuel economy of comparable 
automobiles (as described in 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 or imported before a date 16 or more 
calendar days after the initial label range is made available under 
Sec.  600.311 shall include the range from the previous model year.
    (2) Automobiles manufactured or imported more than 15 calendar days 
after the label range is made available under Sec.  600.311 shall be 
labeled with the current range of fuel economy of comparable 
automobiles as approved for that label.
    (c) The fuel economy label must be readily visible from the 
exterior of the automobile and remain affixed until the time the 
automobile is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
    (1) It is preferable that the fuel economy label information be 
incorporated into the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, 
provided that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label 
is maintained. For this purpose, all fuel economy label information 
must be placed on a separate section in the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label and may not be intermixed with that label 
information, except for vehicle descriptions as noted in Sec.  600.303-
08(d)(1).
    (2) The fuel economy label must be located on a side window. If the 
window is not large enough to contain both the Automobile Information 
Disclosure Act label and the fuel economy label, the manufacturer shall 
have the fuel economy label affixed on another window and as close as 
possible to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label.
    (3) The manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed in 
such a manner that appearance and legibility are maintained until after 
the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer.

Sec.  600.302-08  [Revised]

    48. The redesignated Sec.  600.302-08 is amended by removing and 
reserving paragraphs (h) through (j).
    49. A new Sec.  600.302-12 is added to subpart D to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.302-12  Fuel economy label--general provisions.

    This section describes labeling requirements and specifications 
that apply to all vehicles.
    The requirements and specifications in this section and those in 
Sec. Sec.  600.304 through 600.310 are illustrated in Appendix VI of 
this part. Manufacturers must make a good faith effort to conform to 
the formats illustrated in Appendix VI of this part. Label templates 
are available for download at website.here.
    (a) Basic format. Fuel economy labels must be rectangular in shape 
with a minimum height of 178 mm and a minimum width of 114 mm. Fuel 
economy labels must be printed on white or very light paper with the 
colors specified in Appendix VI of this part; any label markings for 
which colors are not specified must be in black and white. The required 
label can be divided into six separate fields outlined by a continuous 
border, as described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
    (b) Border. Use a thin line to create an outline border for the 
label.
    (c) Fuel economy grade. Include the following elements in the 
uppermost portion of the label:
    (1) At the top left portion of the field, include ``EPA'' and 
``DOT'' with a horizontal line inbetween (``EPA divided by DOT''). To 
the right of these characters, place a thin vertical line.
    (2) At the top right portion of the field, include the heading 
``Fuel Economy and Environmental Comparison''.
    (3) Below the heading, include a large circle containing the 
appropriate letter grade characterizing the vehicle's fuel economy, as 
described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (4) Include the following statement below the letter grade: The 
above grade reflects fuel economy and greenhouse gases. Grading system 
ranges from A+ to D.
    (5) Manufacturers may optionally include an additional item to 
allow for accessing interactive information with mobile electronic 
devices. To do this, include an image of an QR code that will direct 
mobile electronic devices to a Web site with fuel economy information 
that is specific to the vehicle or, if this Web site is unavailable, to 
http://fueleconomy.gov/m/. Generate the QR code as specified in ISO/IEC 
18004:2006 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011). Above the QR 
code, include the caption ``Smartphone''.
    (d) Web site. In the field directly below the fuel economy grade, 
include the following Web site reference: ``website.here''.
    (e) Fuel savings. Include one of the following statements in the 
field directly below the Web site reference:
    (1) For vehicles with calculated fuel savings relative to the 
average vehicle as specified in Sec.  600.311-12: ``Over five

[[Page 58188]]

years, this vehicle saves $x in fuel costs compared to the average 
vehicle.'' Complete the statement by including the calculated fuel 
savings as specified in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (2) For vehicles with calculated fuel costs higher than the average 
vehicle as specified in Sec.  600.311-12: ``Over five years, you will 
spend $x more in fuel costs compared to the average vehicle.'' Complete 
the statement by including the calculated increase in fuel costs as 
specified in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (3) For vehicles with calculated fuel costs no different than the 
average vehicle as specified in Sec.  600.311-12: ``Your fuel cost will 
be the same as that estimated for the average vehicle.''
    (f) Fuel economy and consumption data. Include the following 
elements in the field directly below the fuel savings statement:
    (1) Identify the vehicle's fuel type in a header bar as follows:
    (i) For vehicles designed to operate on a single fuel, identify the 
appropriate fuel. For example, identify the vehicle as ``Gasoline 
Vehicle'', ``Diesel Vehicle'', ``Ethanol (E85) Vehicle'', ``Compressed 
Natural Gas Vehicle'', etc. This includes hybrid electric vehicles that 
do not have plug-in capability. Include a fuel pump logo to the left of 
this designation. For natural gas vehicles, use the fuel pump logo 
appropriate for natural gas and add a ``CNG'' logo.
    (ii) Identify flexible-fuel vehicles and dual-fuel vehicles as 
``Dual Fuel Vehicle (Gasoline& Natural Gas)'', ``Dual Fuel Vehicle: 
(Diesel & Ethanol E85)'', etc. Include a fuel pump logo to the left of 
this designation. Also include a CNG logo, as appropriate.
    (iii) Identify plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as ``Dual Fuel 
Vehicle: Plug-in Hybrid Electric''. Include a fuel pump logo to the 
left of this designation and an electric plug logo to the right of this 
designation.
    (iv) Identify electric vehicles as ``Electric Vehicle''. Include an 
electric plug logo to the left of this designation.
    (2) Create a table below the header bar as described in this 
paragraph (f)(2) for vehicles that run on gasoline or diesel fuel with 
no plug-in capability. See Sec. Sec.  600.306 through 600.310 for 
specifications that apply for other vehicles. Create the table with 
five data values in the following sequence of columns:
    (i) Below the heading ``Gallons/100 Miles'', include the value for 
the fuel consumption rate as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (ii) Below the heading ``MPG City'', include the value for the city 
fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12. For dual-fuel vehicles 
and flexible-fuel vehicles, include the heading ``Gasoline MPG City'' 
or ``Diesel MPG City'', as appropriate.
    (iii) Below the heading ``MPG Highway'', include the value for the 
highway fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12. For dual-fuel 
vehicles and flexible-fuel vehicles, include the heading ``Gasoline MPG 
Highway'' or ``Diesel MPG Highway'', as appropriate.
    (iv) Below the heading ``CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)'', 
include the value for the CO2 emission rate as described in 
Sec.  600.311-12.
    (v) Below the heading ``Annual fuel cost'', include the value for 
the annual fuel cost as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (3) Include scale bars directly below the table of values as 
follows:
    (i) Create a scale bar in the left portion of the field to 
characterize the vehicle's combined city and highway fuel economy 
relative to the range of combined fuel economy values for all vehicles. 
Position a box with a downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar 
positioned to show where that vehicle's combined fuel economy falls 
relative to the total range. Include the vehicle's combined fuel 
economy (as described in Sec.  600.210-12(c)) inside the box. Include 
the number representing the value at the low end of the MPG or MPGe 
range and the term ``Worst'' inside the border at the left end of the 
scale bar. Include the number representing the value at the high end of 
the MPG or MPGe range and the term ``Best'' inside the border at the 
right end of the scale bar. EPA will periodically calculate and publish 
updated range values as described in Sec.  600.311. Include the 
expression ``Combined MPGe'' directly below the scale bar.
    (ii) Create a scale bar in the middle portion of the field to 
characterize the vehicle's CO2 emission rate relative to the 
range of CO2 emission rates for all vehicles. Position a box 
with a downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar positioned to show 
where that vehicle's CO2 emission rate falls relative to the 
total range. Include the vehicle's CO2 emission rate (as 
described in Sec.  600.210-12(c)) inside the box. Include the number 
representing the value at the high end of the CO2 emission 
range and the term ``Worst'' inside the border at the left end of the 
scale bar. Include the number representing the value at the low end of 
the CO2 emission range and the term ``Best'' inside the 
border at the right end of the scale bar. EPA will periodically 
calculate and publish updated range values as described in Sec.  
600.311. Include the expression ``CO2 g/mile'' directly 
below the scale bar.
    (iii) Create a scale bar in the right portion of the field to 
characterize the vehicle's level of emission control for other air 
pollutants relative to that of all vehicles. Position a box with a 
downward-pointing arrow above the scale bar positioned to show where 
that vehicle's emission rating falls relative to the total range. 
Include the vehicle's emission rating (as described in Sec.  600.311-
12) inside the box. Include ``1 Worst'' in the border at the left end 
of the scale bar and include ``10 Best'' in the border at the right end 
of the scale bar. EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated 
range values as described in Sec.  600.311. Include the expression 
``Other Air Pollutants'' directly below the scale bar.
    (4) Below the scale bars, include two statements as follows:
    (i) Include one of the following statements to identify the range 
of MPG values, which EPA will periodically calculate and publish as 
described in Sec.  600.311:
    (A) For dedicated gasoline or diesel vehicles: ``Fuel economy for 
all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from x to y 
MPG.''
    (B) For dual-fuel vehicles and flexible-fuel vehicles: ``Fuel 
economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as applicable] ranges from 
x to y MPGequivalent. Ratings are based on [GASOLINE or DIESEL FUEL] 
and do not reflect performance and ratings using [ALTERNATE FUEL]. See 
the Fuel Economy Guide or website.here for more information.''
    (ii) Include the following additional statement: ``Annual fuel cost 
is based on x miles per year at $y per gallon.'' For the value of x, 
insert the annual mileage rate established by EPA. For the value of y, 
insert the estimated cost per gallon established by EPA for gasoline or 
diesel fuel.
    (g) Footer. Include the following elements in the lowest portion of 
the label:
    (1) In the left portion of the field, include the statement: 
``Visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov to calculate estimates personalized 
for your driving, and to download the Fuel Economy Guide (also 
available at dealers).''
    (2) In the right portion of the field, include the logos for EPA, 
the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy.
    (h) Vehicle description. Where the fuel economy label is physically 
incorporated with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 
label, no further vehicle description is needed. If the fuel economy 
label is separate from the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, 
describe the vehicle in a location on the label that does not interfere 
with the other

[[Page 58189]]

required information. In cases where the vehicle description may not 
easily fit on the label, the manufacturer may request Administrator 
approval of modifications to the label format to accommodate this 
information. Include the following items in the vehicle description, if 
applicable:
    (1) Model year.
    (2) Vehicle car line.
    (3) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or 
liters whichever is consistent with the customary description of that 
engine.
    (4) Transmission class.
    (5) Other descriptive information, as necessary, such as number of 
engine cylinders, to distinguish otherwise identical model types or, in 
the case of specific labels, vehicle configurations, as approved by the 
Administrator.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) Gas guzzler provisions. For vehicles requiring a tax statement 
under Sec.  600.513, add the phrase ``Gas Guzzler Tax'' followed by the 
dollar amount. The tax value required by this paragraph (j) is based on 
the combined fuel economy value for the model type calculated according 
to Sec.  600.513 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (k) Alternative label provisions for special cases. The 
Administrator may approve modifications to the style guidelines if 
space is limited. The Administrator may also prescribe special label 
format and information requirements for vehicles that are not 
specifically described in this subpart, such as vehicles powered by 
fuel cells or hydrogen-fueled engines, or hybrid electric vehicles that 
have engines operating on fuels other than gasoline or diesel fuel. The 
revised labeling specifications will conform to the principles 
established in this subpart, with any appropriate modifications or 
additions to reflect the vehicle's unique characteristics. See 49 
U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).
    (l) Rounding. Unless the regulation specifies otherwise, do not 
round intermediate values, but round final calculated values identified 
in this subpart to the nearest whole number.
    (m) Updating information. EPA will periodically publish updated 
information that is needed to comply with the labeling requirements in 
this subpart. This includes the annual mileage rates and fuel-cost 
information, the ``best and worst'' values needed for calculating 
relative ratings for individual vehicles, and the fuel-economy grade 
criteria as specified in Sec.  600.311.
    50. A new Sec.  600.306-12 is added to subpart D to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.306-12  Fuel economy label--special requirements for natural 
gas vehicles.

    Fuel economy labels for dedicated natural gas vehicles must meet 
the specifications described in Sec.  600.302, with the following 
modifications:
    (a) Create a table with six data values in the following sequence 
of columns instead of the table described in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(2):
    (1) Below the heading ``Range (miles)'', include the value for the 
vehicle's driving range as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (2) Below the heading ``eGallons/100 Miles'', include the value for 
the fuel consumption rate as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (3) Below the heading ``MPGe City'', include the value for the city 
fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (4) Below the heading ``MPGe Highway'', include the value for the 
highway fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (5) Below the heading ``CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)'', 
include the value for the CO2 emission rate as described in 
Sec.  600.311-12.
    (6) Below the heading ``Annual fuel cost'', include the value for 
the annual fuel cost as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified 
in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(4):
    (1) ``Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as 
applicable] ranges from x to y MPG equivalent. MPGequivalent: 121.5 
cubic feet CNG = 1 gallon of gasoline energy.'' EPA will periodically 
calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement as 
described in Sec.  600.311.
    (2) ``Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at $y per 
gasoline gallon equivalent.'' EPA will periodically calculate and 
publish updated values for completing this statement as described in 
Sec.  600.311.
    51. A new Sec.  600.308-12 is added to subpart D to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.308-12  Fuel economy label format requirements--plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles.

    Fuel economy labels for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must meet 
the specifications described in Sec.  600.302, with the exceptions and 
additional specifications described in this section. This section 
describes how to label vehicles that with gasoline engines. If the 
vehicle has a diesel engine, all the references to ``gas'' or 
``gasoline'' in this section are understood to refer to ``diesel'' or 
``diesel fuel'', respectively.
    (a) Create a table with data values in the following sequence of 
columns instead of the table specified in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(2):
    (1) If the vehicle's engine starts only after the battery is fully 
discharged, include the following heading statement: ``All Electric 
(first x miles only)''. If the vehicle uses combined power from the 
battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged, include 
the following heading statement: ``Blended Electric + Gas (first x 
miles only)''. Complete the statement using the value of x to represent 
the distance the vehicle drives before the battery is fully discharged, 
as described in Sec.  600.311-12. Include the following data items 
below this heading statement:
    (i) Below the heading ``eGallons/100 miles'', include the value for 
the fuel consumption rate as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (ii) Below the heading ``Combined MPGe'', include the value for the 
combined fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (2) Include the following heading statement: ``Gas only'' and 
include the following items below this heading statement:
    (i) Below the heading ``Gallons/100 miles'', include the value for 
the appropriate fuel consumption rate as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (ii) Below the heading ``Combined MPG'', include the value for the 
appropriate combined fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (3) If the vehicle's engine starts only after the battery is fully 
discharged, include the following heading statement: ``All-Electric and 
Gas-Only Combined''. If the vehicle uses combined power from the 
battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged, include 
the following heading statement: ``Blended and Gas-Only Combined''. 
Include the following data items below this heading statement:
    (i) Below the heading ``CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)'', 
include the value for the CO2 emission rate as described in 
Sec.  600.311-12.
    (ii) Below the heading ``Annual fuel cost'', include the value for 
the annual fuel cost as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified 
in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(4):
    (1) ``Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as 
applicable] ranges from x to y MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 33.7 kW-
hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy.'' EPA will periodically calculate and 
publish updated values for completing this statement as described in 
Sec.  600.311.
    (2) ``Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at $y per 
gallon and z cents per kW-hr.'' EPA will periodically

[[Page 58190]]

calculate and publish updated values for completing this statement as 
described in Sec.  600.311.
    52. A new Sec.  600.310-12 is added to subpart D to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.310-12  Fuel economy label format requirements--electric 
vehicles.

    Fuel economy labels for electric vehicles must meet the 
specifications described in Sec.  600.302, with the following 
exceptions and additional specifications:
    (a) Create a table with data values in the following sequence of 
columns instead of the table specified in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(2):
    (1) Below the heading ``Range (miles)'', include the value for the 
maximum estimated driving distance as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (2) Below the heading ``kW-hrs/100 Miles'', include the value for 
the fuel consumption rate as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (3) Below the heading ``MPGe City'', include the value for the city 
fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (4) Below the heading ``MPGe Highway'', include the value for the 
highway fuel economy as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (5) Below the heading ``CO2 g/mile (tailpipe only)'', 
include the number 0.
    (6) Below the heading ``Annual fuel cost'', include the value for 
the annual fuel cost as described in Sec.  600.311-12.
    (b) Include the following two statements instead of those specified 
in Sec.  600.302-12(f)(4):
    (1) ``Fuel economy for all [mid-size cars, SUVs, etc., as 
applicable] ranges from x to y MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 33.7 kW-
hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy.'' EPA will periodically calculate and 
publish updated values for completing this statement as described in 
Sec.  600.311.
    (2) ``Annual fuel cost is based on x miles per year at y cents per 
kW-hr.'' EPA will periodically calculate and publish updated values for 
completing this statement as described in Sec.  600.311.
    53. A new Sec.  600.311-12 is added to subpart D to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.311-12  Determination of values for fuel economy labels.

    (a) Fuel economy. Determine city and highway fuel economy values as 
described in Sec.  600.210-12(a) and (b). Determine combined fuel 
economy values as described in Sec.  600.210-12(c). Note that the label 
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles requires separate values for 
combined fuel economy for vehicle operation before and after the 
vehicle's battery is fully discharged; we generally refer to these 
modes as ``Blended Electric+Gas'' (or ``Electric Only'', as applicable) 
and ``Gas only''.
    (b) CO2 emission rate. Determine the engine-related 
CO2 emission rate as described in Sec.  600.210-12(d).
    (c) Fuel economy grade. Determine a vehicle's fuel economy grade as 
follows:
    (1) Determine the grade that applies based on combined 
CO2 emission rates from paragraph (b) of this section 
according to the following table:

   Table 1 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria To Define Fuel Economy Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Combined CO2 (g/mi)                         Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-76.......................................  A+
77-152.....................................  A
153-229....................................  A-
230-305....................................  B+
306-382....................................  B
383-458....................................  B-
459-535....................................  C+
536-611....................................  C
612-688....................................  C-
689-764....................................  D+
765+.......................................  D
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) We may update the grading scale periodically based on the 
median CO2 emission rate for all model types. We would do 
this by doubling the median value from a given model year to establish 
the nominal full range of CO2 values, then dividing this 
full range into eleven equal intervals, after rounding to the nearest 
whole number. For reference, the grade distribution in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section is based on a median value of 421 g/mi CO2.
    (d) Fuel consumption rate. Calculate the fuel consumption rate as 
follows:
    (1) For vehicles with engines that are not plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles, calculate the fuel consumption rate in gallons per 100 miles 
(or gasoline gallon equivalent per 100 miles for fuels other than 
gasoline or diesel fuel) with the following formula, rounded to the 
first decimal place:

Fuel Consumption Rate = 100/MPG

Where:
MPG = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) of this 
section.

    (2) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate two separate 
fuel consumption rates as follows:
    (i) Calculate the fuel consumption rate based on engine operation 
after the battery is fully discharged as described in paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section.
    (ii) Calculate the fuel consumption rate during operation before 
the battery is fully discharged in gasoline gallon equivalent per 100 
miles as described in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
600.011), as described in Sec.  600.116.
    (3) For electric vehicles, calculate the fuel consumption rate in 
kW-hours per 100 miles with the following formula, rounded to the 
nearest whole number:

    Fuel Consumption Rate = 100/MPG

Where:
MPG = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) of this 
section, in miles per kW-hour.

    (e) Annual fuel cost. Calculate annual fuel costs as follows:
    (1) Calculate the total annual fuel cost with the following 
formula, rounded to nearest whole number:

Annual Fuel Cost = [f1 x Fuel Price1/
MPG1 + f2 x Fuel Price2/
MPG2] x Average Annual Miles

Where:

fi = The fraction of the vehicle's overall driving 
distance that is projected to occur for fuel i. For vehicles that 
operate on only one fuel, f1 = 1 and f2 = 0. 
For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, determine the values of 
fi from SAE J 2841 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
600.011). For dual fuel vehicles and flexible fuel vehicles, 
disregard operation on the alternative fuel.
Fuel Pricei = The estimated fuel price provided by EPA 
for fuel i. The units are dollars per gallon for gasoline and diesel 
fuel, dollars per gasoline gallon equivalent for natural gas, and 
dollars per kW-hr for plug-in electricity.
MPGi = The combined fuel economy value from paragraph (a) 
of this section for fuel i. The units are miles per gallon for 
gasoline and diesel fuel, miles per gasoline gallon equivalent for 
natural gas, and miles per kW-hr for plug-in electricity.
Average Annual Miles = The estimated annual mileage figure provided 
by EPA, in miles.

    (2) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, calculate a separate 
annual cost estimate using the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section by assuming the battery is never charged from an external power 
source. Similarly, calculate an annual cost estimate by assuming the 
battery is regularly charged from an external power source such that it 
is never fully discharged.
    (f) Fuel savings. Calculate an estimated five-year cost increment 
relative to an average vehicle by multiplying the rounded annual fuel 
cost from paragraph (e) of this section by 5 and subtracting this value 
from the median five-year fuel cost. We will calculate the median five-
year fuel cost from the annual fuel cost equation in paragraph (e) of 
this section based on a gasoline-fueled vehicle with a median fuel 
economy value. The median five-year fuel cost is $10,000 for a 21-mpg 
vehicle that drives 15,000 miles per year with gasoline priced at $2.80 
per gallon. We may periodically update this median five-year fuel cost 
to better

[[Page 58191]]

characterize the fuel economy for an average vehicle. Round the 
calculated five-year cost increment to the nearest $100. Negative 
values represent a cost increase compared to the average vehicle.
    (g) Other air pollutant score. Establish a score for exhaust 
emissions other than CO2 based on the applicable emission 
standards as shown in Table 2 of this section. For Independent 
Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject to Tier 2 
emissions standards, the air pollutant score for the vehicle is 1.

  Table 2 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Air Pollution
                                  Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      California Air
            Score               U.S. EPA Tier 2   Resources Board LEV II
                               emission standard     emission standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  .................  ULEV & LEV II large
                                                   trucks.
2............................  Bin 8............  SULEV II large trucks.
3............................  Bin 7............  ......................
4............................  Bin 6............  LEV II, option 1
5............................  Bin 5............  LEV II
6............................  Bin 4............  ULEV II
7............................  Bin 3............  ......................
8............................  Bin 2............  SULEV II
9............................  .................  PZEV
10...........................  Bin 1............  ZEV
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (h) Ranges of fuel economy and CO2 emission values. We 
will determine the range of combined fuel economy and CO2 
emission values for each vehicle class identified in Sec.  600.315. We 
will generally update these range values before the start of each model 
year based on the lowest and highest values within each vehicle class. 
We will also use this same information to establish a range of fuel 
economy values for all vehicles. Continue to use the most recently 
published numbers until we update them, even if you start a new model 
year before we publish the range values for the new model year.
    (i) Driving range. Determine the driving range for certain vehicles 
as follows:
    (1) For electric vehicles, determine the vehicle's overall driving 
range as described in Section 8 of SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference 
in Sec.  600.011), as described in Sec.  600.116. Determine separate 
range values for FTP-based city and HFET-based highway driving, then 
calculate a combined value by arithmetically averaging the two values, 
weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and round to the nearest whole 
number.
    (2) For natural gas vehicles, determine the vehicle's driving range 
in miles by multiplying the combined fuel economy described in 
paragraph (a) of this section by the vehicle's fuel tank capacity, 
rounded to the nearest whole number.
    (3) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, determine the battery 
driving range and overall driving range as described in SAE J1711 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011), as described in Sec.  
600.116, as follows:
    (i) Determine the vehicle's Actual Charge-Depleting Range, 
Rcda. Determine separate range values for FTP-based city and 
HFET-based highway driving, then calculate a combined value by 
arithmetically averaging the two values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively, and round to the nearest whole number.
    (ii) Use good engineering judgment to calculate the vehicle's 
operating distance before the fuel tank is empty when starting with a 
full fuel tank and a fully charged battery, consistent with the 
procedure and calculation specified in paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this 
section and the fuel economy values as described in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (j) [Reserved]
    (k) Charge time. For electric vehicles, determine the time it takes 
to fully charge the battery from a standard 110 volt power source to 
the point that the battery meets the manufacturer's end-of-charge 
criteria, consistent with the procedures specified in SAE J1634 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011) for electric vehicles and 
in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011) for plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles, as described in Sec.  600.116. This value may 
be more or less than the 12-hour minimum charging time specified for 
testing. You may alternatively specify the charge time based on a 220 
volt power source if your owners manual recommends charging with the 
higher voltage; you must then identify the voltage associated with the 
charge time on the fuel economy label.
    (l) California-specific values. If the Administrator determines 
that automobiles intended for sale in California are likely to exhibit 
significant differences in fuel economy or other label values from 
those intended for sale in other states, the Administrator will compute 
separate values for each class of automobiles for California and for 
the other states.
    54. Sec.  600.314-08 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.314-08  Updating label values, annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler 
Tax, and range of fuel economy 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.
    (2) For separate model types created in Sec.  600.209-08(a)(2) or 
Sec.  600.209-12(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 as follows:
    (i) The manufacturer shall use updated total model year projected 
sales for label value recalculations.
    (ii) All model year data approved by the Administrator at the time 
of the recalculation for that model type shall be included in the 
recalculation.
    (iii) Using the additional data under paragraph (b) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and 
highway values in accordance with Sec.  600.210 except that the values 
shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.210, 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

[[Page 58192]]

section by 1.0 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with 
the recalculated model type values (rounded to the nearest whole mpg) 
to all new vehicles of that model type beginning on the day of 
implementation of the running change.
    (ii) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is higher than the respective 
city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 
mpg or more, then the manufacturer has the option to use the 
recalculated values for labeling the entire model type beginning on the 
day of implementation of the running change.
    (c) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy 
values determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information 
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the 
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax as needed).
    (d) The Administrator shall periodically update the range of fuel 
economies of comparable automobiles based upon all label data supplied 
to the Administrator.
    (e) The manufacturer may request permission from the Administrator 
to calculate and use label values based on test data from vehicles 
which have not completed the Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing 
required under the provisions of Sec.  600.008-08(b). If the 
Administrator approves such a calculation the following procedures 
shall be used to determine if relabeling is required after the 
confirmatory testing is completed.
    (1) The Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing shall be 
completed as quickly as possible.
    (2) Using the additional data under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and 
highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec.  600.207 and 600.210 except 
that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.  
600.210, shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
    (4) The manufacturer may need to revise fuel economy labels as 
follows:
    (i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in 
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city 
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 0.5 mpg or 
more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated model 
type MPG values (rounded to the nearest whole number) 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.  600.513-08 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix 
labels with the recalculated model type values 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).
    55. Section 600.315-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(c) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  600.315-08  Classes of comparable automobiles.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The Administrator will classify light trucks (nonpassenger 
automobiles) into the following classes: Small pickup trucks, standard 
pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and SUVs. Starting in the 2012 model 
year, SUVs will be divided between small sport utility vehicles and 
standard sport utility vehicles. Pickup trucks and SUVs are separated 
by car line on the basis of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). For a 
product line with more than one GVWR, establish the characteristic GVWR 
value for the product line by calculating the arithmetic average of all 
distinct GVWR values less than or equal to 8,500 pounds available for 
that product line. The Administrator may determine that specific light 
trucks should be most appropriately placed in a different class or in 
the special purpose vehicle class as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) 
and (ii) of this section, based on the features and characteristics of 
the specific vehicle, consumer information provided by the 
manufacturer, and other information available to consumers.
    (i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR below 6000 
pounds.
    (ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR at or above 
6000 pounds and at or below 8,500 pounds.
    (iii) Vans.
    (iv) Minivans.
    (v) Small sport utility vehicles. Sport utility vehicles with a 
GVWR below 6000 pounds.
    (vi) Standard sport utility vehicles. Sport utility vehicles with a 
GVWR at or above 6000 pounds and at or below 10,000 pounds.
* * * * *
    (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, W201, and volume V1 are to be 
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle 
Dimensions SAE J1100a (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011), 
except as follows:
* * * * *
    56. The redesignated Sec.  600.316-08 is revised to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.316-08  Multistage manufacture.

    Where more than one person is the manufacturer of a vehicle, the 
final stage manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR 529.3) is treated as the 
vehicle manufacturer for purposes of compliance with this subpart.

Subpart E--Dealer Availability of Fuel Economy Information

    57. The heading for subpart E is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.401-77,  Sec.  600.402-77, Sec.  600.403-77, Sec.  600.404-
77, Sec.  600.405-77, Sec.  600.406-77, Sec.  600.407-77--[Removed]

    58. Subpart E is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.401-77
Sec.  600.402-77
Sec.  600.403-77
Sec.  600.404-77
Sec.  600.405-77
Sec.  600.406-77
Sec.  600.407-77

Subpart F--Procedures for Determining Manufacturer's Average Fuel 
Economy and Manufacturer's Average Carbon-related Exhaust Emissions

    59. The heading for subpart F is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.501-12, Sec.  600.501-85, Sec.  600.501-86, Sec.  600.501-93, 
Sec.  600.503-78, Sec.  600.504-78, Sec.  600.505-78, Sec.  600.507-86, 
Sec.  600.510-86, Sec.  600.510-93, Sec.  600.512-01, Sec.  600.512-86, 
Sec.  600.513-81, Sec.  600.513-91  [Removed]

    60. Subpart F is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.501-12

[[Page 58193]]

Sec.  600.501-85
Sec.  600.501-86
Sec.  600.501-93
Sec.  600.503-78
Sec.  600.504-78
Sec.  600.505-78
Sec.  600.507-86
Sec.  600.510-86
Sec.  600.510-93
Sec.  600.512-01
Sec.  600.512-86
Sec.  600.513-81
Sec.  600.513-91
    61. Redesignate Sec.  600.502-81 as Sec.  600.502.
    62. The redesignated Sec.  600.502 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.502  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart in addition to 
those in Sec.  600.002:
    (a) The Declared value of imported components shall be:
    (1) The value at which components are declared by the importer to 
the U.S. Customs Service at the date of entry into the customs 
territory of the United States; or
    (2) With respect to imports into Canada, the declared value of such 
components as if they were declared as imports into the United States 
at the date of entry into Canada; or
    (3) With respect to imports into Mexico, the declared value of such 
components as if they were declared as imports into the United States 
at the date of entry into Mexico.
    (b) Cost of production of a car line shall mean the aggregate of 
the products of:
    (1) The average U.S. dealer wholesale price for such car line as 
computed from each official dealer price list effective during the 
course of a model year, and
    (2) The number of automobiles within the car line produced during 
the part of the model year that the price list was in effect.
    (c) Equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value means a number 
representing the average number of miles traveled by an electric 
vehicle per gallon of gasoline.
    63. Sec.  600.507-12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 
introductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.507-12  Running change data requirements.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the 
manufacturer shall submit additional running change fuel economy and 
carbon-related exhaust emissions data as specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section for any running change approved or implemented under Sec.  
86.1842 of this chapter, which:
* * * * *
    (c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by 
this section to the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.314.
* * * * *
    64. Redesignate Sec.  600.509-86 as Sec.  600.509-08.
    65. Sec.  600.510-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) 
introductory text, (b)(3) introductory text, (c)(2)(iv)(B), (g)(1), (i) 
introductory text, and (j)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.510-12  Calculation of average fuel economy and average 
carbon-related exhaust emissions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The combined city/highway fuel economy and carbon-related 
exhaust emission values will be calculated for each model type in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208 except that:
* * * * *
    (3) The fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission values for 
each vehicle configuration are the combined fuel economy and carbon-
related exhaust emissions calculated according to Sec.  600.206-
12(a)(3) except that:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on 
alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(ii) divided by 
0.15 provided the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are 
met; or
* * * * *
    (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)(iv) and (v) of this section or to obtain the carbon-related 
exhaust emissions credit determined in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii) and (iii) 
of this section. The following equation must hold true:

Ealt/Epet [gteqt] 1

Where:

Ealt = [FEalt/(NHValt x 
Dalt)] x 10\6\ = energy efficiency while operating on 
alternative fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Epet = [FEpet/(NHVpet x 
Dpet)] x 10\6\ = energy efficiency while operating on 
gasoline or diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 
miles/million BTU.
FEalt is the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels 
or miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] while operated 
on the alternative fuel as determined in Sec.  600.113-12(a) and 
(b).
FEpet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated 
on petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined in Sec.  
600.113-12(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 
premeasured using a test method which has been approved in advance by 
the Administrator.
    (B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be premeasured using ASTM D 
1298-99 (incorporated by reference at Sec.  600.011).
    (iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be 
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec.  600.113.
* * * * *
    (i) For model years 2012 through 2015, and for each category of 
automobile identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the maximum 
decrease in average carbon-related exhaust emissions determined in 
paragraph (j) of this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel 
automobiles and natural gas dual fuel automobiles shall be calculated 
using the following formula, and rounded to the nearest tenth of a gram 
per mile:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.082

[[Page 58194]]

Where:

FltAvg = The fleet average CREE value in grams per mile, rounded to 
the nearest whole number, for passenger automobiles or light trucks 
determined for the applicable model year according to paragraph (j) 
of this section, except by assuming all alcohol dual fuel and 
natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated exclusively on 
gasoline (or diesel) fuel.
MPGMAX = The maximum increase in miles per gallon 
determined for the appropriate model year in paragraph (h) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) A sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a model type 
within that category of automobiles and is a product determined by 
multiplying the number of automobiles of that model type produced by 
the manufacturer in the model year by:
    (i) For gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled model types, the carbon-
related exhaust emissions value calculated for that model type in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (ii)(A) For alcohol-fueled model types, for model years 2012 
through 2015, the carbon-related exhaust emissions value calculated for 
that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
multiplied by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest gram per mile, except 
that manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for 
N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter must perform this calculation such that N2O and 
CH4 values are not multiplied by 0.15; or
    (B) For alcohol-fueled model types, for model years 2016 and later, 
the carbon-related exhaust emissions value calculated for that model 
type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (iii)(A) For natural gas-fueled model types, for model years 2012 
through 2015, the carbon-related exhaust emissions value calculated for 
that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
multiplied by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest gram per mile, except 
that manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for 
N2O and CH4 as allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of 
this chapter must perform this calculation such that N2O and 
CH4 values are not multiplied by 0.15; or
    (B) For natural gas-fueled model types, for model years 2016 and 
later, the carbon-related exhaust emissions value calculated for that 
model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (iv) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 2012 
through 2015, the arithmetic average of the following two terms, the 
result rounded to the nearest gram per mile:
    (A) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value 
for operation on gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in Sec.  
600.208-12(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value 
for operation on alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  600.208-
12(b)(5)(ii) multiplied by 0.15 provided the requirements of paragraph 
(g) of this section are met, except that manufacturers complying with 
the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 
allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter must perform this 
calculation such that N2O and CH4 values are not 
multiplied by 0.15; or
    (v) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 2012 
through 2015, the arithmetic average of the following two terms; the 
result rounded to the nearest gram per mile:
    (A) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value 
for operation on gasoline or diesel as determined in Sec.  600.208-
12(b)(5)(i); and
    (B) The combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value 
for operation on natural gas as determined in Sec.  600.208-
12(b)(5)(ii) multiplied by 0.15 provided the requirements of paragraph 
(g) of this section are met, except that manufacturers complying with 
the fleet averaging option for N2O and CH4 as 
allowed under Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter must perform this 
calculation such that N2O and CH4 values are not 
multiplied by 0.15.
    (vi) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 2016 and 
later, the combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions value 
determined according to the following formula and rounded to the 
nearest gram per mile:

CREE = (F x CREEalt) + ((1 - F) x CREEgas)

Where:

F = 0.00 unless otherwise approved by the Administrator according to 
the provisions of paragraph (k) of this section;
CREEalt = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust 
emissions value for operation on alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  
600.208-12(b)(5)(ii); and
CREEgas = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust 
emissions value for operation on gasoline or diesel fuel as 
determined in Sec. 600.208-12(b)(5)(i).

    (vii) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 2016 
and later, the combined model type carbon-related exhaust emissions 
value determined according to the following formula and rounded to the 
nearest gram per mile:

CREE = (F x CREEalt) + ((1 - F) x CREEgas)

Where:

F = 0.00 unless otherwise approved by the Administrator according to 
the provisions of paragraph (k) of this section;
CREEalt = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust 
emissions value for operation on alcohol fuel as determined in Sec.  
600.208-12(b)(5)(ii); and
CREEgas = The combined model type carbon-related exhaust 
emissions value for operation on gasoline or diesel fuel as 
determined in Sec.  600.208-12(b)(5)(i).
* * * * *
    66. Redesignate Sec.  600.511-80 as Sec.  600.511-08.
    67. Sec.  600.512-12 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  600.512-12  Model year report.

* * * * *
    (c) The model year report must include the following information:
    (1)(i) All fuel economy data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type 
calculations under Sec.  600.208-12, and subsequently required by the 
Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.507;
    (ii) All carbon-related exhaust emission data used in the FTP/HFET-
based model type calculations under Sec.  600.208-12, and subsequently 
required by the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  600.507;
    (2)(i) All fuel economy data for certification vehicles and for 
vehicles tested for running changes approved under Sec.  86.1842 of 
this chapter;
    (ii) All carbon-related exhaust emission data for certification 
vehicles and for vehicles tested for running changes approved under 
Sec.  86.1842 of this chapter;
    (3) Any additional fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission 
data submitted by the manufacturer under Sec.  600.509;
    (4)(i) A fuel economy value for each model type of the 
manufacturer's product line calculated according to Sec.  600.510-
12(b)(2);
    (ii) A carbon-related exhaust emission value for each model type of 
the manufacturer's product line calculated according to Sec.  600.510-
12(b)(2);
    (5)(i) The manufacturer's average fuel economy value calculated 
according to Sec.  600.510-12(c);
    (ii) The manufacturer's average carbon-related exhaust emission 
value calculated according to Sec.  600.510(j);
    (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

[[Page 58195]]

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.
    (8) [Reserved]
    (9) The ``required fuel economy level'' pursuant to 49 CFR parts 
531 or 533, as applicable. Model year reports shall include information 
in sufficient detail to verify the accuracy of the calculated required 
fuel economy level, including but is not limited to, production 
information for each unique footprint within each model type contained 
in the model year report and the formula used to calculate the required 
fuel economy level. Model year reports shall include a statement that 
the method of measuring vehicle track width, measuring vehicle 
wheelbase and calculating vehicle footprint is accurate and complies 
with applicable Department of Transportation requirements.
    (10) The ``required fuel economy level'' pursuant to 49 CFR parts 
531 or 533 as applicable, and the applicable fleet average 
CO2 emission standards. Model year reports shall include 
information in sufficient detail to verify the accuracy of the 
calculated required fuel economy level and fleet average CO2 
emission standards, including but is not limited to, production 
information for each unique footprint within each model type contained 
in the model year report and the formula used to calculate the required 
fuel economy level and fleet average CO2 emission standards. 
Model year reports shall include a statement that the method of 
measuring vehicle track width, measuring vehicle wheelbase and 
calculating vehicle footprint is accurate and complies with applicable 
Department of Transportation and EPA requirements.
    (11) A detailed (but easy to understand) list of vehicle models and 
the applicable in-use CREE emission standard. The list of models shall 
include the applicable carline/subconfiguration parameters (including 
carline, equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, axle ratio, 
engine code, transmission class, transmission configuration and basic 
engine); the test parameters (ETW and a, b, c, dynamometer 
coefficients) and the associated CREE emission standard. The 
manufacturer shall provide the method of identifying EPA engine code 
for applicable in-use vehicles.
    68. Sec.  600.513-08 is revised 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 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 agx 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, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
ag = Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in 
accordance with Sec.  600.208, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg 
divided by the model type city fuel economy calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  600.208, 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 
SF3IWCGFE3IWCG) - (3.5123 x 10-3 x 
SF4ETWGx FE4IWCG).

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

SF3IWCG = The 3,000 lb. inertia weight class sales in the 
model type divided by the total model type sales; the quotient shall 
be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF4ETWG = The 4,000 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 3,000 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 4,000 lb. inertial weight class base level 
combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel economy 
rounded to the nearest 0.001 mpg.

    (b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold after December 31, 1990, with 
a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value of less than 
22.5 mpg (as determined in Sec.  600.208), 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               the Gas
                                                             Guzzler Tax
                                                  but less    statement
                At least * * *                   than * * *   shall show
                                                              a tax of *
                                                                 * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 22.5......................................  ...........           $0
(ii) 21.5.....................................         22.5        1,000
(iii) 20.5....................................         21.5        1,300
(iv) 19.5.....................................         20.5        1,700
(v) 18.5......................................         19.5        2,100
(vi) 17.5.....................................         18.5        2,600
(vii) 16.5....................................         17.5        3,000
(viii) 15.5...................................         16.5        3,700
(ix) 14.5.....................................         15.5        4,500
(x) 13.5......................................         14.5        5,400
(xi) 12.5.....................................         13.5        6,400
(xii).........................................         12.5        7,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. The heading for Appendix I to Part 600 is revised to read as 
follows:

Appendix I to Part 600--Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule

* * * * *
    70. Appendix II to Part 600 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) 
to read as follows:

Appendix II to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Calculations

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Assume that the same vehicle was tested by the Federal 
Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure and a calculation similar to 
that shown in (b)(3) of this section resulted in a highway fuel 
economy of MPGh of 36.9. According to the procedure in 
Sec.  600.210-08(c) or Sec.  600.210-12(c), the combined fuel 
economy (called MPGcomb) for the vehicle may be 
calculated by substituting the city and highway fuel economy values 
into the following equation:

[[Page 58196]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.084

MPGcomb = 31.3

    71. The heading for Appendix IV to Part 600 is revised to read as 
follows:

Appendix IV to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 Through 
2011 Model Year Vehicles

* * * * *
    72. The heading for Appendix V to Part 600 is revised to read as 
follows:

Appendix V to Part 600--Fuel Economy Label Style Guidelines for 2008 
Through 2011 Model Year Vehicles

* * * * *
    73. Appendix VI to Part 600 is added to read as follows:

Appendix VI to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Labels and Style 
Guidelines for 2012 and Later Model Years

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 58197]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.086

[[Page 58198]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.087

[[Page 58199]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.088

[[Page 58200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.089

[[Page 58201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.090

[[Page 58202]]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

Appendix VIII to Part 600--[Removed]

    74. Appendix VIII to Part 600 is removed.

Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Chapter V

    In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 
1232 and 49 U.S.C. 32908 and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50, 
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter V as follows:

PART 575--CONSUMER INFORMATION

    1. Revise the authority citation for part 575 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 20168, 
and 32908, Public Law 104-414, 114 Stat. 1800, Public Law 109-59, 
119 Stat. 1144, 15 U.S.C. 1232(g), Public Law 110-140; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart D--Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Consumer Information

    2. Amend Sec.  575.301 by revising the section heading and adding 
and reserving paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  575.301  Vehicle labeling of safety rating information.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    3. Add and reserve new Subpart E to part 575 to read as follows:

Subpart E--Fuel Economy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Other 
Pollutant Emissions Labeling for New Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks; Consumer Information [Reserved]

    Dated: August 30, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
    Dated: August 27, 2010.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010-22321 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P