[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58078-58202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22321]
[[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
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[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: [email protected].
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: [email protected], or Assessment and Standards Division
Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; e-mail address
[email protected]. 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:
[email protected].
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