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

[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77871-77969]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27de06-19]
[[Page 77872]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8257-5]
RIN 2060-AN14

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
changes to the methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates
that are posted on window stickers of all new cars and light trucks
sold in the United States. This final rule will greatly improve the EPA
fuel economy estimates to more accurately inform consumers about the
fuel economy they can expect to achieve in the real world. The new test
methods take into account several important factors that affect fuel
economy in the real world, but are missing from the existing fuel
economy tests. Key among these factors are high speeds, aggressive
accelerations and decelerations, the use of air conditioning, and
operation in cold temperatures. Under the new methods, the city miles
per gallon (mpg) estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will
drop by about 12 percent on average relative to today's estimates, and
city mpg estimates for some vehicles will drop by as much as 30
percent. The highway mpg estimates for most vehicles will drop on
average by about 8 percent, with some estimates dropping by as much as
25 percent relative to today's estimates. These changes will take
effect starting with 2008 model year vehicles, available at dealers in
2007. We also are adopting a new fuel economy label design with a new
look and updated information that should be more useful to prospective
car buyers. The new label features more prominent fuel cost
information, an easy-to-use graphic for comparing the fuel economy of
different vehicles, clearer text, and a Web site address for more
information. Manufacturers will be phasing in the new design during the
2008 model year. Finally, for the first time we are requiring fuel
economy labeling of certain passenger vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000
lbs gross vehicle weight rating. Because of the Department of
Transportation's recent regulation that brings medium-duty passenger
vehicles into the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program starting in
2011, EPA is now statutorily obligated to include these vehicles in the
fuel economy labeling program. Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a
subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight
that includes large sport utility vehicles and vans, but not pickup
trucks. Vehicle manufacturers are required to post fuel economy labels
on medium-duty passenger vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 26, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 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, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.\1\ 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.
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS Codes a regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................. 336111, 336112..... Motor vehicle
manufacturers.
Industry................. 81112, 811198, Commercial importers of
54154. vehicles and vehicle
components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

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

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
A. Background
B. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
1. Revised Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy
Estimates
2. New Labeling Requirement for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design
4. New Vehicle Class Categories and Definitions
5. Test Procedure Modifications
C. Why is EPA Taking This Action?
1. Energy Policy Act of 2005
2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual Driving Experience
3. Representing Real-World Conditions on the Fuel Economy Tests
D. When Will the New Requirements Take Effect?
1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
2. Implementation of New Label Design
3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy Labeling Methods
F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact CAFE Standards or Test
Procedures
G. Public Participation
II. New Test Methods and Calculation Procedures for Fuel Economy Labels
A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Methodology

[[Page 77873]]

1. Overview of Public Comments on the 5-Cycle Methodology
2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology From Proposal
B. Derivation of the MPG-Based Methodology
C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel Economy Label Values
D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
E. Implementation of the New Fuel Economy Methods
1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for 2011 and Later Model Years
2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Label Estimates
3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
A. Background
B. Label Size and Orientation
C. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
E. ``Your Mileage Will Vary'' Statement
F. Environmental Information Statement
G. Government Logos and Web site Link
H. Temporary Transitional Statement
I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis
J. Labeling Requirements for Dual Fueled Vehicles
K. Addition of Final Regulatory Specifications for Label Content
and Design
IV. Testing Provisions
A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From
Certain Emission Tests
1. Diesel Vehicles
2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
B. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures
1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and Highway Segments
2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP
3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing Provisions
V. Projected Cost Impacts
A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles Into Fuel Economy Label Calculations
1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through 2010 Model Years (MY)
2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years
3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden
B. Revised Label Format and New Information Included
C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06, and Cold FTP Tests
D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing
E. Fees
F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate
VI. Implementation and Other Provisions
A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable Vehicles
B. Fuel Economy Ranges for Comparable Fuel Economy Graphic
C. Temporary Option To Add ``Old Method'' City and Highway
Estimates on Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle Labels
D. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a Metric
E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel Economy Calculator
F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel Costs
G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet
VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations
A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
B. Energy Policy Act of 2005
C. Other Statutes and Regulations
1. Automobile Disclosure Act
2. Internal Revenue Code
3. Clean Air Act
4. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
Transportation Equity Act of 2005
5. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy
Advertising for New Vehicles
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

This final rule has three key elements. First, we are finalizing
changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fuel economy
testing and calculation procedures so that the miles per gallon (mpg)
estimates for passenger cars and light-duty trucks will better reflect
what consumers achieve in the real-world. Second, we are updating the
fuel economy window sticker that appears on all new cars and light
trucks sold in the U.S., which will make the window sticker more useful
and understandable to consumers. Third, for the first time we are
requiring fuel economy labeling of certain passenger vehicles between
8,500 and 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), such as the
largest sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and passenger vans.
This final rule follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on February 1, 2006.\2\ In the NPRM, we proposed changes to
the testing and calculation procedures used to calculate the fuel
economy estimates that appear on window stickers that are posted on all
new cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The NPRM also
proposed changes to the fuel economy label design and content. We
received comments on the NPRM from a wide variety of stakeholders,
including the automobile manufacturing industry, environmental groups,
consumer organizations, state governments, and the general public.
These comments are available for public viewing in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. Docket content can be viewed and/or downloaded at http://
www.regulations.gov.\3\ Our responses to these comments are detailed in
the Response to Comments document, which is available in the public
docket and on our Web site.\4\ In this section of the final rule we
describe some background information and provide a brief description of
the content, timing, and rationale for the final program. For
additional background and details regarding the proposal, readers
should consult the NPRM and related documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006), Available in the public
docket and on our Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm.
\3\ Enter the docket i.d. number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169) in the
Keyword field and choose ``All Documents (Open and Closed for
Comment).''
\4\ See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm or
http://www.regulations.gov.

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

A. Background

With this final rule, EPA is helping car buyers make more informed
decisions when considering a vehicle's fuel economy. Fuel economy, or
gas mileage, continues to be a major area of public interest for
several reasons. Passenger vehicles account for approximately 40
percent of all U.S. oil consumption. Finally, the more miles a car gets
per gallon of gasoline, the more money the owner saves on fuel costs.
With consumers' renewed interest in fuel savings due to higher gasoline
prices, providing mileage estimates that more closely reflect real-
world driving has once again become important for consumers who
comparison-shop.
The EPA fuel economy estimates have appeared on the window stickers
of all new cars and light trucks since the late 1970's and are well-
recognized by consumers. The window sticker displays two fuel economy
estimates: One for city driving and one for highway driving. These
estimates, in units of miles per gallon, essentially serve two
purposes: (1) To provide consumers with a basis on which to compare the
fuel economy of different vehicles, and (2) to provide consumers with a
reasonable estimate of the fuel economy they can expect to achieve.
While the EPA fuel economy estimates have generally been a useful tool
for comparing the relative fuel economy of different vehicles, they
have been less useful for predicting the fuel economy that consumers
can reasonably expect to achieve in the real world. Consumers need to
be provided with accurate,

[[Page 77874]]

easily understandable, and relevant information regarding the fuel
economy of new vehicles. This final rule improves the information
provided to consumers regarding the fuel economy of new vehicles.
The city fuel economy estimate is currently based on the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), which was designed to measure a vehicle's
tailpipe emissions under urban driving conditions. The driving cycle
used for the FTP was developed in the mid-1960's to represent home-to-
work commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of the tests used to
determine emissions compliance today. The FTP includes a series of
accelerations, decelerations, and idling (such as at stop lights). It
also includes starting the vehicle after it has been parked for an
extended period of time (called a ``cold start''), as well as a start
on a warmed-up engine (called a ``hot start''). The total distance
covered by the FTP is about 11 miles and the average speed is about 21
mph, with a maximum speed of about 56 mph.
The highway fuel economy estimate is currently based on the Highway
Fuel Economy Test (HFET), which was developed by EPA in 1974 and was
designed to represent a mix of interstate highway and rural driving. It
consists of relatively constant higher-speed driving, with no engine
starts or idling time. The HFET covers a distance of about 10 miles, at
an average speed of 49 mph and a top speed of about 60 mph.
A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy estimates is that the
underlying test and calculation procedures do not fully represent
current real-world driving conditions. Some of the key limitations are
that the highway test has a top speed of only 60 miles per hour, both
the city and highway tests are run at mild climatic conditions (75
[deg]F), both tests have mild acceleration rates, and neither test is
run with the use of fuel-consuming accessories, such as air
conditioning. Over the past few years, there have been several
independent studies comparing EPA's fuel economy estimates to the real-
world experience of consumers. These studies confirm that there is
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy, and provide
substantial evidence that EPA's mileage ratings often overestimate
real-world fuel economy. Although these studies differ in a number of
variables, including their test methods, driving conditions, and fuel
economy measurement techniques, they indicate that EPA's approach to
estimating fuel economy needs to be improved to better represent some
key real-world fuel economy impacts.
The methods used today for calculating the city and highway mpg
estimates have been in place since the 1970's, and the results of these
methods were adjusted only once in the mid-1980's to bring them closer
to consumer's expectations.\5\ Since that time, there have been many
changes affecting the way Americans drive--speed limits are higher,
road congestion has increased, vehicle performance has increased,
vehicle technologies have changed markedly, and more vehicles are
equipped with energy-consuming accessories like air conditioning. Our
analysis shows that these changes, along with several other factors,
again indicate a need to revise the testing and calculation procedures
underlying the fuel economy window sticker estimates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling procedures
that were applicable to 1985 and alter model year vehicles. Based on
in-use fuel economy data collected at the time, it was evident that
the fuel economy estimates needed to be adjusted downward in order
to more accurately reflect consumers' average fuel economy
experience. 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. See 49 FR 13832 (April 6, 1984).
\6\ See the Technical Support Document and ``Vehicle Fuel
Economy Labeling and the Effect of Cold Temperature, Air-
Conditioning Usage and Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,'' by
Eldert Bontekoe and Richard A. Rykowski, 2005. These are available
in the public docket for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe the new fuel economy estimates will provide car buyers
with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of different
vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy varies from
driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as different
driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of accessories, loads,
weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different drivers of the same
vehicle will experience different fuel economy as these and other
factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a ``perfect'' fuel
economy test that will provide accurate real-world fuel economy
estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there will always be
consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy. The EPA
estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers,
particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to
another. Nevertheless, we do believe that the new fuel economy test
methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate
estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world. Under
the new methods, the city mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most
vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average relative to today's
estimates. City estimates for some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles,
including gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, will decrease by 20 to 30
percent. The highway mpg estimates for most vehicles will drop on
average by about 8 percent, with some estimates dropping by as much as
25 percent relative to today's estimates.
While the inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual
real-world driving behavior and conditions, it is essential that our
fuel economy estimates continue to be derived primarily from
controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. Because the test is
controlled and repeatable, an EPA fuel economy estimate can be used for
comparison of different vehicle models and types. In other words, when
consumers are shopping for a car, they can be sure that the fuel
economy estimates were measured using a ``common yardstick''--that is
the same test run under the exact same set of conditions, making the
fuel economy estimates a fair comparison from vehicle-to-vehicle. While
some organizations have issued their own fuel economy estimates based
on real-world driving, such an approach introduces a wide number of
often uncontrollable variables--different drivers, driving patterns,
weather conditions, temperatures, etc.--that make repeatable tests
impossible. Our new fuel economy test methods are more representative
of real-world conditions than the current fuel economy tests--yet we
retain our practice of relying on controlled, repeatable, laboratory
tests. EPA and manufacturers test over 1,250 vehicle models annually
and every test is run under an identical range of conditions and under
a precise driver's trace, which assures that the result will be the
same for an individual vehicle model no matter when and where the
laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature, road grade,
driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the result of the
test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy on a trip-to-
trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result. Therefore, a
repeatable test provides a level playing field for all vehicles, which
is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one vehicle to another.
Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm the values achieved
by the manufacturers' testing, and this can only be achieved with a
highly repeatable test or set of tests.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to revise
the fuel economy labeling methods to better reflect a variety of real-
world factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of

[[Page 77875]]

the 2005 Energy Policy Act directs EPA to ``* * * update or revise the
adjustment factors in [certain sections of the fuel economy labeling
regulations]
to take into consideration higher speed limits, faster
acceleration rates, variations in temperature, use of air conditioning,
shorter city test cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use
of other fuel depleting features.'' This final rule fully addresses
this statutory requirement. Section VII contains a detailed analysis of
the statute and regulations.

B. What Requirements Are We Adopting?

This final rule establishes new methods for determining the city
and highway fuel economy estimates for the sole purpose of fuel economy
labeling by incorporating fuel economy results over a broader range of
driving conditions. The new methodology will result in EPA fuel economy
estimates that better approximate the miles per gallon that consumers
achieve in real-world driving. These changes include some revisions to
existing test procedures. In addition, we are revising the format and
content of the fuel economy label to make the information more useful
and easily understandable to consumers. The new rule also requires that
medium-duty passenger vehicles (a subset of vehicles 8,500 to 10,000
lbs gross vehicle weight) have fuel economy labels. We also are
finalizing minor changes related to the fuel economy information
program, including revising the comparable vehicle classes and adding a
new provision for the electronic distribution of the annual Fuel
Economy Guide. An overview of each of these requirements follows, with
additional detail provided in subsequent sections of this final rule.
1. Revised Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
This final rule revises the test methods by which the city and
highway fuel economy estimates are calculated. We are replacing the
current method, established in 1984, of adjusting the city (FTP) test
result downward by 10 percent and the highway (HFET) test result
downward by 22 percent. Instead, we are finalizing the proposed
approach that incorporates additional test methods that address factors
that impact fuel economy but that are missing from today's tests--
specifically, higher speeds, more aggressive driving (e.g., higher
acceleration rates), the use of air conditioning, and the effect of
cold temperature and other factors.
Since 1984 when we last updated the fuel economy estimate
methodology, EPA has established several new test cycles for emissions
certification. EPA had become concerned that the FTP omitted many
critical driving modes and conditions that existed in actual use, and
that emissions could be substantially higher during these driving modes
compared to the FTP.\7\ Manufacturers frequently designed their
vehicles' emission control systems to meet the specified FTP test
conditions, often neglecting emissions control over other driving
conditions, resulting in higher real-world emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Emissions from driving modes not reflected on EPA test
procedures became known as ``off-cycle'' emissions, meaning that
they occurred during driving conditions not typically encountered
over EPA's emission test cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The need for action to address off-cycle emissions was recognized
by Congress in the passage of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Section 206(h) required EPA to study
and revise as necessary the test procedures used to measure emissions,
taking into consideration the actual current driving conditions under
which motor vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel,
temperature, acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA
required EPA to establish emission standards for carbon monoxide under
cold (20[deg]F) temperature conditions.
In 1992, EPA published rules implementing the 202(j) cold
temperature testing requirement, acknowledging that the ambient
temperature conditions of the FTP test (run between 68 and 86 [deg]F)
did not represent the full range of ambient temperature conditions that
exist across the United States and that cold temperature had different
emissions effects on different vehicle designs.\8\ EPA's cold
temperature emission regulations required manufacturers to conduct FTP
testing at 20 [deg]F. By promulgating this new test procedure and
associated carbon monoxide emission standard, EPA sought to encourage
manufacturers to employ better emission control strategies that would
improve ambient air quality across a wider range of in-use temperature
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See 57 FR 31888 (July 17, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA requirement, EPA published a
report in 1993 which concluded that the FTP cycle did not represent the
full range of urban driving conditions that could impact the in-use
driving emission levels.\9\ Consequently, EPA promulgated a rule in
1996 that established two new test procedures, with associated emission
standards, that addressed certain shortcomings with the current FTP.
Known as the ``Supplemental FTP,'' or ``SFTP,'' these procedures,
similar to the cold temperature FTP, encouraged the use of the better
emission controls across a wider range of in-use driving conditions in
order to improve ambient air quality.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test Procedure
Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
\10\ See 61 FR 54852 (October 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the SFTP test cycles, the US06, was designed to address high
speed, aggressive driving behavior (with more severe acceleration
rates) and rapid and frequent speed fluctuations. The US06 test
contains both lower-speed city driving and higher-speed highway driving
modes. Its top speed is 80 mph, and average speed is 48 mph. The top
acceleration rate exceeds 8 mph per second. The other SFTP test, the
SC03, was designed to address air-conditioner operation under a full
simulation of high temperature (95 [deg]F), high sun-load, and high
humidity. The SC03 drive cycle was designed to represent driving
immediately following a vehicle startup, and rapid and frequent speed
fluctuations. Its top speed is about 55 mph and average speed is 22
mph. The top acceleration rate is about 5 mph per second.
The basis for the SFTP rulemaking was a study of real-world driving
in four cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and Los Angeles, where
driving activity was measured on instrumented vehicles as well as by
chase cars.\11\ At that time, it was found that 18 percent of the
driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the speed/acceleration
distribution of the FTP drive schedule. More recent real-world driving
activity data indicates that driving has become even more aggressive
than it was in 1992. Recent real-world activity data collected in
California and Kansas City found that about 28 percent of driving
(vehicle miles traveled) is at speeds greater than 60 mph. Further,
about 33 percent of recent real-world driving falls outside of the FTP/
HFET speed and acceleration activity region. This is based on extensive
chase car studies in California and instrumented vehicle studies in
Kansas City.\12\ Our assessment of these

[[Page 77876]]

recent real-world driving activity studies is described in detail in
the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ These studies were not designed to produce results that
would be representative of driving behaviors throughout the U.S.
Nonetheless, they were the best and most current data upon which to
base design of the new test cycles.
\12\ A ``chase car'' study is a study in which driving behavior
is recorded by an instrumented vehicle that follows vehicles on the
road to record the behavior of the followed vehicle. In some cases
the chase car is equipped with a laser rangefinder to enable the
data collection systems to accurately determine the speed of the
chased vehicle relative to the chase car. An instrumented vehicle
study is a study in which data is collected from customer vehicles
where the customer has agreed to allow their vehicle to be equipped
with data collection instrumentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone do not fully capture the
broad range of real-world driving conditions; indeed, this has already
been conclusively demonstrated by the research that led to the revision
of the FTP for emission test purposes. In order for EPA's fuel economy
tests to be more representative of key aspects of real-world driving,
it is critical that we consider the test conditions represented by
these additional emission tests. The additional test methods will bring
into the fuel economy estimates the test results from the five
emissions tests in place today: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP.
Thus, we refer to this as the ``5-cycle'' method. The five test
procedures that make up the 5-cycle method and some of their key
characteristics are summarized in the table below.

Table I-1.--Characteristics of the Fuel Economy and Emission Tests of the 5-Cycle Methodology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg speed Max speed Max accel
Test Designed to represent (mph) (mph) (mph/sec) Ambient conditions Primary use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Test Procedure (FTP).......... Urban stop-and-go 21 58 3.3 75 [deg]F............... Emissions & fuel economy
driving from 1970's. testing.
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET)...... Rural driving........... 48 60 3.3 75 [deg]F............... Fuel economy testing.
US06.................................. High speeds and 48 80 8.5 75 [deg]F............... Emissions testing.
aggressive driving.
SC03.................................. Air conditioner 22 55 5.1 95 [deg]F & 40% relative Emissions testing.
operation. humidity.
Cold FTP.............................. Cold temperature 21 58 3.3 20 [deg]F............... Emissions testing.
operation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the new requirements, rather than basing the city mpg
estimate solely on the adjusted FTP test result, and the highway mpg
estimate solely on the adjusted HFET test result, each estimate will be
based on a ``composite'' calculation of all five tests, weighting each
appropriately to arrive at new city and highway mpg estimates. The new
city and highway estimates will each be calculated according to
separate city and highway ``5-cycle'' formulae that are based on fuel
economy results over these five tests. The conditions represented by
each test will be ``weighted'' according to how frequently those
conditions occur over average real-world city or highway driving. For
example, we have derived weightings to represent driving cycle effects,
trip length, air conditioner compressor-on usage (it is the activity of
the compressor that most significantly affects emissions and fuel
economy), and operation over various temperatures. This methodology is
described in detail in Section II and in the Technical Support Document.
We also are finalizing a downward adjustment to account for effects
that are not reflected in our existing five test cycles. There are many
factors that impact fuel economy, but are difficult to account for in
the test cell on the dynamometer. These include roadway roughness, road
grade (hills), wind, low tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice,
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicle loads (e.g., trailers,
cargo, multiple passengers), and others. We need to account for these
factors in our new fuel economy calculation methods, as they will lower
a driver's fuel economy beyond those factors represented by our
existing test cycles. We are finalizing a 9.5 percent downward
adjustment to account for these non-dynamometer effects, based on
detailed analyses of the impacts of each of these factors using the
most recent technical information and studies available. Additional
detail regarding this factor can be found in Section II and in the
Technical Support Document.
Because the 5-cycle method is inherently vehicle-specific, the
difference between today's label values and the new fuel economy
estimates may vary significantly from vehicle to vehicle. In general,
however, the new approach will result in city fuel economy estimates
that are about 8 to 15 percent lower than today's labels for the
majority of conventional vehicles. The city mpg estimates for the
manufacturers of most vehicles will drop by about 12 percent on average
relative to today's estimates. For vehicles that achieve generally
better fuel economy, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new
city estimates will be about 20 to 30 percent lower than today's
labels. The new highway fuel economy estimates will be about 5 to 15
percent lower for the majority of vehicles, including most hybrids. The
highway mpg estimates for the manufacturers of most vehicles will drop
on average by about 8 percent, with estimates for most hybrid vehicles
dropping by 10 to 20 percent relative to today's estimates.
This final rule will greatly improve the EPA fuel economy
estimates, so that they come closer to the fuel economy that consumers
achieve in the real world. However, these are still estimates, and even
with the improved fuel economy test methods we are finalizing today,
some consumers will continue to get fuel economy that is higher or
lower than the new estimates. No single test or set of tests can ever
account for the wide variety of conditions experienced by every driver.
2. New Labeling Requirement for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
Based on the public comments and on specific events that have
transpired since the NPRM was published, we are finalizing in this rule
a fuel economy labeling program for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
(MDPVs), a subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR.
MDPVs were first defined in the regulation that put in place the
``Tier 2'' emission standards and gasoline sulfur controls.\13\ This
newly-defined class of vehicles includes SUVs and passenger vans
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR, but excludes large pick-up trucks.
The specific regulatory definition was designed to capture in the
light-duty vehicle emissions

[[Page 77877]]

program some of the heavy-duty vehicles that are designed and used
predominantly for passenger use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is
required to establish regulations that require a manufacturer to attach
a label to each ``automobile'' manufactured in a model year.\14\
``Automobile'' is defined as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs GVWR,
and those vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT
determines are appropriate for inclusion in the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) program.\15\ ``Automobile'' for the purposes of labeling
also includes vehicles at no more than 8,500 lbs GVWR whether or not
the Department of Transportation (DOT) has included those vehicles in
the CAFE program.\16\ EPA has no authority to require labels on
vehicles that are not automobiles, therefore EPA has no authority to
require labeling of either vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or vehicles
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that are not included by DOT in the
CAFE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
\15\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
\16\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the time of EPA's proposal, DOT has included some vehicles
above 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs in its CAFE program,
beginning in model year 2011.\17\ Since these vehicles now meet the
definition of automobile, EPA is authorized to include these vehicles
in labeling program. This final rule requires fuel economy labels on
these MDPVs beginning in model year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design
We are adopting a new fuel economy label format that is easier to
read, has improved graphic design, and contains information that should
be more useful to prospective car buyers. The final label design
reflects input from the public comments received and from market
testing of prototype label designs conducted via a series of focus
groups. In addition to displaying revised city and highway mpg
estimates, the new label features the following items:
? A new layout featuring an updated fuel pump graphic, a
prominent heading, and prominent government logos;
? More prominent estimated annual fuel cost information,
including the addition of the basis for the estimated annual fuel cost
(dollars per gallon and miles driven per year);
? An easy-to-use graphic that allows quick comparison of the
labeled vehicle with other vehicles in its class;
? A simplified statement noting that ``Your mileage will
vary'';
? A link to the EPA/DOE Web site http://www.fueleconomy.gov; and,
? A transition statement noting that the mpg estimates are
the result of new EPA methods beginning with the 2008 models (for
inclusion on labels of model year 2008 and 2009 vehicles only).

Details about the label design and content are found in Section III. An
example label is shown below (actual size of the label is required by
statute to be 4.5 inches tall by 7 inches wide).

[[Page 77878]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.017

4. New Vehicle Class Categories and Definitions
EPCA requires that the label contain ``the range of fuel economy of
comparable automobiles of all manufacturers.'' \18\ EPA regulations
define what constitutes ``comparable automobiles.'' We proposed and are
finalizing changes to the vehicle class categories to better reflect
the current vehicle market and to allow consumers to make more
appropriate fuel economy comparisons. Specifically, we are finalizing
our proposal to add the vehicle class categories of ``Sport Utility
Vehicle'' and ``Minivan,'' with appropriate definitions, to the list of
categories used to classify vehicles for fuel economy comparison
purposes. We are also redefining the ``Small Pickup Truck'' class by
increasing the weight limit criteria. Section VI contains additional
detail on these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Test Procedure Modifications
We are finalizing several changes to existing test procedures to
allow the collection of appropriate fuel economy data and to ensure
that existing test procedures better represent real-world conditions.
Specifically, we are finalizing the following test procedure changes:
? A revised US06 test protocol that will collect the US06
exhaust emissions in two emissions samples (bags) in order to
separately assess city and highway fuel economy over this test, with
several alternative methods of determining a two-bag result allowed);
? Mandatory operation of the heater/defroster during the
cold temperature FTP for emissions and fuel economy testing;
? Testing diesel vehicles on the cold temperature FTP; and
? Requiring hybrid vehicles to perform all four phases/bags of the FTP.

Details regarding these changes are described in Section IV.

C. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

1. Energy Policy Act of 2005
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to update
or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world
factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act
directs EPA to `` * * * update or revise the adjustment factors in
[certain sections of the fuel economy labeling regulations]
to take
into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates,
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel
depleting features.'' This final rule does take into account these
conditions and will address this statutory requirement. The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and other relevant statutes are discussed in greater
detail in Section VII.
2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual Driving Experience
First, it is important to stress that the EPA city and highway mpg
numbers are

[[Page 77879]]

estimates--they cannot give consumers an exact indication of the fuel
economy they will achieve. The complete range of consumer fuel economy
experience can not be represented perfectly by any one number. Fuel
economy varies based on a wide range of factors, some of which we have
discussed above. There will always be consumers that achieve real-world
fuel economy both better and worse than a given estimate.
In recent years, there have been a number of studies, conducted by
a variety of sources, suggesting that there is often a shortfall
between the EPA estimates and real-world fuel economy. Several
organizations have provided consumers with their own fuel economy
estimates, which in some cases vary significantly from EPA's estimates.
Each of these studies differs in its test methods, driving cycles,
sampling of vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel economy. There are
strengths and weaknesses of each study, which we discuss further in the
Technical Support Document. Collectively, these studies indicate there
are many cases where real-world fuel economy falls below the EPA
estimates. The studies also indicate that real-world fuel economy
varies significantly depending on the conditions under which it is
evaluated. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, these studies reflect a wide
range of real-world driving conditions, and show that typical fuel
economy can be much lower than EPA's current estimates.
3. Representing Real-World Conditions on the Fuel Economy Tests
The current city and highway fuel economy tests do not represent
the full range of real-world driving conditions. The 1985 adjustment
factors were designed to ensure that the fuel economy estimates across
the vehicle fleet reflected the average impacts of a number of
conditions not represented on the tests. However, as we noted earlier,
many changes have occurred since then that make it once again desirable
to reevaluate the fuel economy test methods and adjustment factors.
Given the significant degree of variation that is apparent across
vehicles, we believe it is important to reconsider the approach of
``one-size-fits-all'' adjustment factors and instead move to an
approach that more directly reflects the impacts of fuel economy on
individual vehicle models.
There are several key limitations in the FTP and HFET tests that
cause them to not adequately reflect real-world driving today. First,
most consumers understandably think ``highway'' fuel economy means the
fuel economy you can expect under freeway driving conditions. In fact,
the highway test has a top speed of 60 mph, since the test was
developed more than 20 years ago to represent rural driving conditions
at a time when the national speed limit was 55 miles per hour. The
national speed limit has since been eliminated, many states have
established speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and much driving
is at even higher speeds. Recent real-world driving studies indicate
that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at
speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This analysis is detailed in the
Technical Support Document.) These studies also show that 33 percent of
real-world driving VMT falls outside the FTP/HFET speed and
acceleration activity region. Thus, a substantial amount of high speed
driving behavior is not captured in today's FTP or HFET tests. This is
a weakness in our current fuel economy test procedures. Since higher
speed driving has a negative impact on fuel economy, incorporating
these higher speed driving conditions into the fuel economy tests would
lower the fuel economy estimates.
Second, the maximum acceleration rates of both the FTP and HFET
tests are a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per second (mph/sec),
considerably lower than the maximum acceleration rates seen in real-
world driving. Recent real-world driving studies indicate that maximum
acceleration rates are as high as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant
activity occurs beyond 3.3 mph/sec. (This analysis is detailed in the
Technical Support Document.) At the time these tests were first
developed, the real-world accelerations were higher than 3.3 mph/sec,
but the test cycle's acceleration rates were limited to accommodate the
mechanical limitation of the dynamometer test equipment. These
constraints no longer exist with today's dynamometers, so we now have
the ability to incorporate higher maximum acceleration rates that more
closely reflect those of actual driving. As with high speed driving,
higher acceleration rates have a negative impact on fuel economy; thus,
if these higher accelerations were factored into our fuel economy
methods, the estimates would be lower.
The maximum deceleration rate of the FTP and HFET tests is
important to consider as well, because it relates to the regenerative
breaking effect of hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and HFET tests
include a mild maximum deceleration rate of -3.3 mph/sec; yet in recent
real-world driving rates as high as -11 to -17 mph/sec were recorded.
(This analysis is detailed in the Technical Support Document.) Under
higher deceleration rates, the effects of regenerative breaking for
hybrid electric vehicles are diminished, thereby lowering fuel economy.
In this regard, today's FTP and HFET tests result in a higher fuel economy
for hybrid vehicles than is achieved under typical driving conditions.
Third, both the FTP and HFET tests are run at mild ambient
conditions (approximately 75 [deg]F), while real-world driving occurs
at a wide range of ambient temperatures. Moderate conditions tend to be
optimal for achieving good fuel economy, and fuel economy is lower at
temperatures colder or warmer than the 75 [deg]F test temperature. Only
about 20 percent of VMT occurs between 70 and 80 [deg]F, approximately
15 percent of VMT occurs at temperatures above 80 [deg]F, and 65
percent occurs below 70 [deg]F. (This analysis is detailed in the
Technical Support Document.) Moreover, neither the FTP nor HFET tests
are run with accessories operating, such as air conditioners, heaters,
or defrosters. These accessories, most notably air conditioning, can
have a significant impact on a vehicle's fuel economy.
Finally, there are many factors that affect fuel economy that
cannot be replicated on dynamometer test cycles in a laboratory. These
include road grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g., tire pressure),
snow/ice, precipitation, fuel effects, and others. It is not possible
to develop a test cycle that captures the full range of factors
impacting fuel economy. However, it is clear that the FTP and HFET
tests alone are missing some important elements of real-world driving.
All of these factors can reduce fuel economy. This largely explains why
our current estimates often do not reflect consumers' real-world fuel
economy experience.

D. When Will the New Requirements Take Effect?

1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
We want the public to benefit from the improved information
provided by the new fuel economy estimates as soon as possible.
Therefore, these new regulations take effect with the 2008 model year
vehicles, which will be available for sale at dealers in 2007. We
believe this is the earliest possible date for implementation.
Manufacturers can legally begin selling 2008 models as early as January
2, 2007. However, we are phasing in the new test methods in order to
provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time to plan for increased
fuel economy testing necessitated by the 5-cycle approach.

[[Page 77880]]

For the first three model years (2008 through 2010), we provide
manufacturers with the option of deriving the 5-cycle fuel economy
using a scale of adjustments based on an analysis of data developed
from the 5-cycle method. This approach, called the ``mpg-based''
method, incorporates the effects of higher speed/aggressive driving,
air conditioning use, and colder temperatures, but less directly than
the 5-cycle vehicle-specific method.\19\ The mpg-based adjustments were
derived by applying the 5-cycle formulae to a data set of recent fuel
economy test data, and developing a regression line through the data.
(See Section II for a full description of this approach). These
adjustments differ based on the mpg a vehicle obtains over the FTP
(City) or HFET (Highway) tests. In other words, every vehicle with the
same mpg on the FTP test receives the same adjustment for its city fuel
economy label. Likewise, every vehicle with the same mpg on the HFET
test will receive the same adjustment for its highway fuel economy
label. This method of adjustment would not require any testing beyond
the FTP/HFET tests already performed today, thus, it can be implemented
sooner than the 5-cycle approach as an interim improvement to our fuel
economy test methods. However, during this time frame, manufacturers
may optionally choose to run full 5-cycle testing for any of their
vehicle models.\20\ The phase-in will provide consumers with more
accurate estimates as soon as possible, while allowing the industry the
necessary lead time to prepare for the necessary testing under the 5-
cycle approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The ``mpg-based'' method is termed the ``derived 5-cycle''
approach in the regulatory text.
\20\ Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally use the 5-cycle
approach prior to the 2011 model year must use that approach to
determine both city and highway label estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starting with the 2011 model year, the 5-cycle approach will be
required. Under this approach, the manufacturers will be required to
implement vehicle-specific 5-cycle testing across some portion of their
fleet. The manufacturers will use the emission certification test
results over the five test procedures to calculate 5-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values. However, we are finalizing criteria as
proposed that will allow continued use of the mpg-based adjustments in
cases where we can predict with reasonable certainty that the fuel
economy results under the mpg-based approach will not differ
significantly from the results achieved by the 5-cycle method. These
criteria and the methodology by which vehicles are selected for 5-cycle
testing in the 2011 and later model years are described in detail in
Section II.
2. Implementation of New Label Design
In order to allow manufacturers to transition to the new label
format, we are allowing use of the new label format to be optional
until September 1, 2007. This date aligns with the date manufacturers
must place National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) crash
test ratings on the vehicle pricing labels of all vehicles manufactured
as of that date. The September 1, 2007 date allows manufacturers to
redesign their vehicle pricing labels only once to incorporate two new
federal labeling requirements. However, we encourage manufacturers to
implement the new label format as quickly as possible such that the
majority of 2008 vehicles on dealer lots exhibit the new label format.
All 2008 model year vehicles must use the new methods to calculate fuel
economy estimates. Labels on all 2008 models will have a statement
indicating that the fuel economy estimates are based on new methods.
3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
The requirement for MDPVs to be labeled with city and highway fuel
economy estimates begins with the 2011 model year. EPA does not have
the authority to require labeling of MDPVs sooner because of our
authority is linked to NHTSA's determination of CAFE standards for
vehicles over 8,500 lbs GVWR.\21\ However, we encourage manufacturers
to voluntarily label these vehicles sooner, if at all possible. Many
vehicles in the MDPV category have counterpart models below 8,500 lbs
GVWR, and these vehicles receive fuel economy labels today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908, 32901(a)(3)(B), and Section VII for a
detailed explanation of EPA's legal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy Labeling Methods

In the proposal, we expressed an interest in ensuring that the new
methods continue to reflect real-world fuel economy into the future,
and we encouraged stakeholders to submit data that would inform future
analysis and potential changes to the methodology. We believe it is
critical to ensure that the fuel economy methods are periodically
evaluated. We are committed to evaluating the 5-cycle method every
several years (e.g., five years) to ensure that it appropriately
accounts for advancements in vehicle technology, changes in driving
patterns, and any new data collected on in-use fuel economy. We also
remain open to reviewing any valid test data indicating that any of our
assumptions were inappropriate for a specific vehicle and considering
modifications to the 5-cycle formulae overall to account for these
differences. In the public comments, some stakeholders expressed an
interest in conducting studies of in-use fuel economy. We welcome
stakeholders to submit any such future data for use in our periodic
evaluation of the fuel economy test methods.
We are also committed to offering technical guidance to any
stakeholder interested in undertaking an in-use testing and data-
collection program. By seeking our technical input up front,
stakeholders can better ensure that the data is collected in a way that
is ultimately best-suited to evaluate potential changes to the
methodology. However, we note that collecting in-use fuel economy data
alone can only indicate whether or not the 5-cycle estimates are
accurate; it would not provide the information needed to actually
improve the 5-cycle equations. The 5-cycle approach is based on
emission test results over the five test cycles and on the weighting of
a number of factors based on their average impact across all U.S.
driving. Data on in-use fuel economy alone, without complementary
driving behavior and activity data representative of the fleet, is
insufficient to initiate changes that may be appropriate to the 5-cycle
weighting factors.
Finally, several commenters suggested that EPA conduct an
evaluation of the 5-cycle method prior to model year 2011, when the 5-
cycle method becomes required. If appropriate data is submitted prior
to the end of 2008, we would plan to review it in a timely manner. If
such data suggests that changes to the 5-cycle approach are necessary,
we would plan to issue a separate rulemaking to address changes to the
methodology, providing adequate lead time to the industry to comply.

F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact CAFE Standards or Test Procedures

This final rule does not alter the FTP and HFET driving cycles, the
measurement techniques, or the calculation methods used to determine
CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE for passenger automobiles be determined
from the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that
give comparable results), which are the city and highway tests of
today, with a few small adjustments for minor procedural changes that
have occurred since

[[Page 77881]]

1975.\22\ This final rule will not impact the CAFE calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Public Participation

A wide variety of interested parties participated in the rulemaking
process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided
opportunity for public comment following the proposal published on
February 1, 2006.\23\ We held a public hearing on the proposal in
Romulus, Michigan on March 3, 2006. At that hearing, oral comments on
the proposal were received and recorded. A written comment period
remained open until April 3, 2006. Comments and hearing testimony have
been placed in the docket for this rule. We considered these comments
in developing the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have prepared a detailed Response to Comments document, which
describes the comments we received on the proposal and our response to
each of these comments. The Response to Comments is available in the
docket for this rule and on the EPA Web site.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ or
http://www.regulations.gov.

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

II. New Test Methods and Calculation Procedures for Fuel Economy Labels

The current fuel economy label values are based on measured fuel
economy over city and highway driving cycles, which are then adjusted
downward by 10 and 22 percent, respectively, to account for a variety
of factors not addressed in EPA's vehicle test procedures. These
adjustments are intended to account for differences between the way
vehicles are driven on the road and over the test cycles. Such
differences include air conditioning use, higher speeds, more
aggressive accelerations and decelerations, widely varying ambient
temperature and humidity, varying trip lengths, wind, precipitation,
rough road conditions, hills, etc. The purpose of the new methods is to
expand the basis for the fuel economy labels to include actual vehicle
testing over a wider range of driving patterns and ambient conditions
than is currently covered by the city (FTP) and highway (HFET) fuel
economy tests.
For example, vehicles in the real world are often driven more
aggressively and at higher speeds than is represented in the FTP and
HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the US06
test cycle into the fuel economy label values will make the label
values more realistic. Drivers often use air conditioning in warm,
humid conditions, while the air conditioner is turned off during the
FTP and HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the
SC03 test cycle into the fuel economy label values will reflect the
added fuel needed to operate the air conditioning system. Vehicles also
often are driven at temperatures below 75[deg]F, at which the FTP and
HFET tests are performed. The incorporation of measured fuel economy
over the cold temperature FTP test into the fuel economy label values
will reflect the additional fuel needed to start up a cold engine at
colder temperatures.
The new vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach to calculating fuel
economy labels will incorporate estimates of the fuel efficiency of
each vehicle during high speed, aggressive driving, air conditioning
operation and cold temperatures into each vehicle's fuel economy label.
It will combine measured fuel economy over the two current fuel economy
tests, the FTP and HFET, as well as that over the US06, SC03 and cold
FTP tests into estimates of city and highway fuel economy for labeling
purposes. The test results from each cycle (and in some cases, portions
of cycles or emission ``bags'')\25\ will be weighted to represent the
contribution of each cycle's attributes to onroad driving and fuel
consumption. The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach will eliminate the
need to account for the effect of aggressive driving, air conditioning
use and colder temperatures on fuel economy through generic factors (as
done today) which may not appropriately reflect that particular
vehicle's sensitivity to these factors. A generic adjustment is still
necessary to account for factors not addressed by any of the five
dynamometer tests (e.g., road grade, wind, low tire pressure, gasoline
quality, etc.). The derivation of this adjustment factor is discussed
further below and in Chapter III of the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the
regulations as the ``cold start'' test and the ``hot start'' test.
Each of these parts is divided into two periods, or ``phases'': a
``transient'' phase and a ``stabilized'' phase. Because the
stabilized phase of the hot start test is assumed to be identical to
the stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold start
stabilized phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called
``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the
exhaust samples are collected. The phases are run in the following
order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2),
and hot start transient (Bag 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests are only performed on
a sub-set of new vehicle configurations, and only for emissions
compliance purposes. In contrast, for fuel economy purposes, FTP and
HFET tests are performed on many more vehicle configurations. In order
to minimize the number of additional US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests
resulting from the new testing and calculation procedures, we are
allowing manufacturers to estimate the fuel economy over these three
tests for vehicle configurations that are not normally tested for
emissions compliance purposes, using the fuel economy measurements that
are normally available. This is currently done on a more limited basis
for both the FTP and HFET, and is referred to as analytically derived
fuel economy (ADFE).\26\ This method uses test data to determine the
sensitivity of fuel economy to various vehicle parameters, and once
these relationships are well established, we will issue guidance that
provides manufacturers with the appropriate equations to use. We
believe that these provisions are designed to represent a reasonable
balance between the need for accurate fuel economy data and the need to
contain the cost of testing for both industry and EPA, where we
reasonably believe that actual testing would not produce a
significantly different result. We always retain the right to order
actual confirmatory testing where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ EPA's current policy for analytically derived fuel economy
estimates for the FTP and HFET tests is contained in the EPA
memorandum entitled, ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,'' March 11, 2004, CCD-04-06 (LDV/
LDT). This memorandum is issued under 40 CFR 600.006-89(e), which
allows manufacturers to use analytical methods to determine fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also are finalizing the proposed provisions that allow
manufacturers to use the interim approach to fuel economy label
estimation, the ``mpg-based'' approach described below, when the
available 5-cycle fuel economy data indicate that a vehicle test
group's 5-cycle fuel economy is very close to that estimated by the
mpg-based curve. The mpg-based method will also be used to determine
label values for MDPVs that become mandatory with the 2011 model year,
as discussed further in Section II.E.2.
Even with these provisions, we expect that some manufacturers will
have to perform some additional US06, SC03, or cold FTP tests to
address differences in vehicle designs which are not covered by the
analytical derivation methodology. Other manufacturers may voluntarily
choose to perform additional tests voluntarily to improve accuracy over
the analytical derivation methodology, especially in cases where

[[Page 77882]]

manufacturers have worked to improve fuel efficiency over the new test
cycle conditions (e.g., during cold temperatures or with air
conditioning on). Depending on how manufacturers choose to apply this
method, this additional testing could prompt the construction or
modification of test facilities. (Test burden and cost issues are
discussed further in Section V of this preamble.) Therefore, in order
to allow sufficient lead-time for the construction of these facilities,
we are finalizing the proposed provisions that allow manufacturers the
option of using an interim set of adjustments through the 2010 model
year. These interim adjustments are not vehicle-specific, but instead
reflect the effects of high speeds, hard accelerations, air
conditioning use, and cold temperatures, etc., on the average vehicle.
The vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach becomes mandatory with the 2011
model year. However, a manufacturer can voluntarily use the 5-cycle
method prior to the 2011 model year for any vehicle model.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally use the 5-cycle
approach prior to the 2011 model year must use that approach to
determine both city and highway label estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interim set of adjustments is termed the ``mpg-based''
approach. (See Figure II-1 for a graphical depiction of these
adjustments.) The mpg-based approach is a sliding scale of adjustments
which varies according to a vehicle's measured fuel economy over the
FTP and HFET tests. The mpg-based adjustments were developed from
applying the 5-cycle formulae to 615 recent model year vehicles and
determining the average difference between the 5-cycle and current city
and highway fuel economies.\28\ Thus, because the data used to develop
the mpg-based adjustments were derived from 5-cycle fuel economies, the
mpg-based adjustments include the effects of high speeds, aggressive
driving, air conditioning, and colder temperatures. However, they do so
based on the impact of these factors on the average vehicle, not the
individual vehicle, which is the case with the 5-cycle formulae. For
example, for vehicles with fuel economy of 20-30 mpg over the FTP
(i.e., city) test, the mpg-based approach would adjust the city fuel
economy downward by 20-22 percent (or 4 to 7 mpg), versus today's
single 10 percent downward adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label
values under the mpg-based approach tend to be about 11 percent lower
on average than today's label values. For vehicles with fuel economy of
25-35 mpg over the HFET (i.e., highway) test, the mpg-based approach
would adjust the highway fuel economy downward by about 28 percent (or
7 to 10 mpg), versus today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus,
highway fuel economy label values under the mpg-based approach would
tend to be about 8 percent lower than today's label values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Our database consists of 615 vehicles spanning the 2003 to
2006 model years. For these vehicles we have emission and/or fuel
economy test data on all five test procedures. Additionally,
manufacturers assisted with the development of this database by
submitting detailed fuel economy data for the three phases (or
``bags'') of the FTP and the Cold FTP (EPA requires that they submit
only the composite emissions and fuel economy data for certification
or fuel economy labeling). The database includes data from 14 hybrid
vehicles and one diesel vehicle, and represents all types of
vehicles from all major manufacturers and most smaller manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that both approaches utilize the 5-cycle fuel economy
formulae in some fashion, it is useful to begin this section with a
description of how the fuel economy measured over the 5 test cycles are
combined to represent city and highway fuel economy. Then we will
describe how the fleet-average formulae for the mpg-based approach were
derived from these 5-cycle fuel economy estimates. Finally, we compare
fuel economy label results from both the 5-cycle and mpg-based methods
to onroad fuel economy data from a variety of sources.
Under the new methods, we are replacing the 0.90 and 0.78
adjustment factors for city and highway fuel economy, respectively,
with new factors which are not simply constants. For model years 2008-
2010, a manufacturer has the option of using two distinct methodologies
to calculate the city and highway fuel economy values for any specific
vehicle. One approach is called the mpg-based method, since the city
and highway label values are based on the fuel economy (or mpg)
measured over the FTP and HFET, respectively. The other approach is
called the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, since the city and
highway label values are based on the test results of five test cycles,
the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP. Both approaches also include an
additional downward adjustment to represent effects not reflected in
our existing laboratory dynamometer testing. Beginning with the 2011
model year, manufacturers are required to use the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle method, but may still use the mpg-based approach on vehicles most
sensitive to the new test conditions. Under the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle approach, the fuel economy measurements over the 5 dynamometer
test cycles will all be performed on (or estimated for) a specific
vehicle in the current model year. The mpg-based approach uses historic
fuel economy data over the 5 test cycles to estimate a fleet-wide
average relationship between (1) FTP fuel economy and 5-cycle city fuel
economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle highway fuel economy.
Under the mpg-based approach, a specific vehicle's city and highway
fuel economy labels are based on this fleet-wide average relationship,
as opposed to that vehicle's own results over the 5 test cycles. In
other words, under the mpg-based approach every vehicle with the same
fuel economy over the FTP test will receive the same city fuel economy
label value. Likewise, every vehicle with the same fuel economy over
the HFET test will receive the same highway fuel economy label value.
This is illustrated further in Section II.B below. Below we present the
specific equations under the two approaches which would be used to
convert fuel economies measured over the dynamometer cycles into city
and highway fuel economy values.

A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Methodology

The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach bases a vehicle's fuel
economy label values on fuel economy measurements over five test
cycles: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP. These measurements are
combined based on detailed estimates, or ``weightings,'' of how and
when vehicles are driven, as well as under what ambient conditions. The
5-cycle formulae are derived from extensive data on real-world driving
conditions, such as driving activity, temperatures, air conditioner
operation, trip length, and other factors. We refer readers to the
Technical Support Document for a detailed description of the
development of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae.
1. Overview of Public Comments on the 5-Cycle Methodology
Of those commenters addressing the 5-cycle formulae, most commented
on the thoroughness of the analyses which supported the various cycle
weighting factors (also called coefficients) included in the formulae.
However, Honda, and to some extent Environmental Defense, criticized
several aspects of the 5-cycle formulae. These comments are addressed
in detail in the Response to Comments document. Overall, the key
criticisms included:
(1) The 5-cycle formulae had not been validated for individual
vehicles. In particular, these commenters claimed that the 5-cycle
coefficients assume that all vehicles respond the same to various

[[Page 77883]]

changes in driving pattern and ambient conditions;
(2) The three new test cycles represent extreme conditions, and;
(3) The 5-cycle method could penalize advanced fuel efficient
technologies.

We present a summary of our responses to these three concerns below.
Additional detail can be found in the Response to Comments Document.
First, all of the approaches to calculating label values involve
relationships between driving activity or ambient conditions and fuel
consumption. These relationships are never exact for each and every
vehicle. The 5-cycle formulae utilize more vehicle-specific fuel
consumption data than the mpg-based and current label approaches.
Therefore, the 5-cycle approach is based on fewer assumptions regarding
how individual vehicles react to temperature, soak time, low and high
speed driving, aggressive driving, idling, air conditioning, etc. The
5-cycle method, by incorporating additional data from the three newer
test cycles, improves our ability to estimate fuel economy outside of
the conditions evaluated by the FTP and HFET tests. We provide examples
and a detailed description of this analysis in the Technical Support
Document.
Second, Honda states that the three new tests address vehicle
conditions that are so extreme that their use in the above types of
interpolations is actually worse than simply assuming that all vehicles
have the same response to the conditions being addressed by the three
tests. However, none of the available data indicates that this is the
case, and Honda did not provide data to support their claim. All of the
driving conditions addressed by the three tests clearly occur in-use.
Our detailed analysis of recent real-world driving activity studies is
contained in the Technical Support Document and Response to Comments
document. In particular, use of fuel economy data over the cold FTP at
20 [deg]F improves our ability to estimate fuel economy at 50 [deg]F,
compared to projecting fuel economy at 50 [deg]F solely using the FTP
test data at 75 [deg]F. This analysis is detailed in the Technical
Support Document as well.
Third, Honda states that these aspects of the 5-cycle formulae
might actually penalize advanced fuel-efficient technology relative to
conventional technology vehicles. Our comparisons of 5-cycle fuel
economy for hybrids fall in the range of onroad fuel economy estimates
developed by various organizations (see Section II of the Technical
Support Document). It is true that the 5-cycle formulae decrease the
fuel economy of some hybrid vehicles more than conventional vehicles,
compared to the current label approach. However, this is easily
explained by the way that current hybrid technology works under various
operational and ambient conditions. For example, many current hybrid
engine shut-off strategies cease to operate when the heater is turned
on at cold temperatures. The current label approach assumes that any
engine shut-off strategies operating over the FTP and HFET tests always
operate in in-use. This is clearly not correct. Thus, some additional
adjustment to current hybrid vehicle fuel economy is to be expected.
Available data on hybrid fuel economy outside of the conditions
addressed by the FTP and HFET confirm the impact of the 5-cycle
formulae. We expect that future hybrid technology will significantly
improve fuel economy over real-world conditions outside the FTP and
HFET tests. Such improvements in real-world fuel economy will be
reflected under the new 5-cycle estimates.
2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology From Proposal
We received very few comments that provided new data with which to
modify the proposed methodology. However, based on a few comments and
new data we obtained, the methodology we are finalizing differs from
the proposed methodology in three ways. First, we reevaluated an
assumption with respect to the effect of ambient temperature on running
fuel use. This reduced the weighting factor for cold temperature
running fuel use. Second, we obtained new vehicle trip length data from
extensive vehicle monitoring ongoing in Atlanta. This increased our
estimate of trip length during city driving, which then reduced the
contribution of start fuel use to average fuel consumption during city
driving. Third, we updated our analyses based on the Federal Highway
Administration's release of 2004 fuel economy estimates and revised
2003 fuel economy estimates. This analysis, along with addressing
public comments, decreased the non-dynamometer adjustment factor
slightly. Readers are referred to the Technical Support Document for
detailed discussions of the analyses noted briefly below.
In response to Honda's comments regarding the assumptions involved
in developing the 5-cycle formulae, we reevaluated our assumption
regarding the effect of ambient temperature on running fuel use. This
was the one area where the relationship in the proposed 5-cycle formula
was based on a simple assumption of linearity and not on the results of
actual vehicle testing. We performed an analysis of running fuel use of
several vehicles tested at 20 [deg]F, 50 [deg]F, and 75 [deg]F and
determined that the effect was non-linear. Using the new relationship
reduced the city and highway formulae's weighting of running fuel use
at 20 [deg]F from 0.30 to 0.18.
Since the time of the proposal, we also obtained vehicle trip data
from extensive vehicle monitoring which is ongoing in Atlanta. Across a
total of 668,000 vehicle trips, the average trip length was found to be
7.25 miles. This is 20 percent longer than found in Atlanta in the
early 1990's. When we extrapolate this increase to the results of other
studies performed in the early 1990's, we determined that a more
reasonable estimate of trip length during city driving would be 4.1
miles, as opposed to the 3.5 mile estimate proposed in the 5-cycle city
fuel economy formulae. This effectively reduces the contribution of
start fuel use in the estimation of city fuel economy.
Also, since the proposal, the Federal Highway Administration
published onroad fuel economy estimates for 2004, as well as a revised
onroad fuel economy estimate for 2003. These estimates are roughly 3%
lower than those contained in their 2003 report, which was the basis of
our proposal. At the same time, Honda correctly pointed out that we had
inappropriately assumed that the changes in FTP and HFET test
procedures implemented with the Supplemental FTP rule increased
measured fuel economy by 3%. These changes, plus other minor
adjustments, led us to revise the factor for non-dynamometer effects
from 0.89 to 0.905 (meaning that this factor further reduces both city
and highway estimates by 9.5 percent). Detailed discussion and analyses
of the non-dynamometer factor can be found in Section 5.0 of the
Response to Comments document and Chapter III of the Technical Support
Document.
With these revisions, under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach,
the city fuel economy value will be calculated as follows:

[[Page 77884]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.000

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.001

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.002

Where:

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

For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag FTP the
calculation for start fuel consumption is somewhat different:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.003

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.004

and
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.005

Likewise,

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.006

Where:

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

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag 75 [deg]F FTP
will substitute the fuel economy over Bag 4 for Bag 2 in the
appropriate places in the above equation (except in the case of the
cold FTP, where hybrids, like conventional vehicles, will run a 3-bag
test). The resulting equation for hybrid vehicles thus becomes:

[[Page 77885]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.007

Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle formula, the highway fuel
economy value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.008

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.009

and,

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.010

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

For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested over a 4-bag 75 [deg]F
FTP the highway fuel economy is calculated using the following
equations:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.011

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.012

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.013

and,
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.014

[[Page 77886]]

and,

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.015

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.

Additional equations are necessary in the unusual cases where a
manufacturer test a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle using a 2-bag FTP;
these equations are detailed in the Technical Support Document.

B. Derivation of the MPG-Based Methodology

Although the 5-cycle vehicle-specific method will be optionally
available to manufacturers starting with the 2008 model year, it is the
mpg-based approach that will be more widely utilized for the 2008
through 2010 model years. Starting with the 2011 model year the mpg-
based approach may continue to be used where test data demonstrates
that the 5-cycle method is unlikely to produce significantly different
results. The mpg-based method applies an adjustment to a vehicle's FTP
or HFET test result based on that vehicle's measured fuel economy on
the FTP or HFET.
The mpg-based adjustments were developed from applying the 5-cycle
formulae to fuel economy data from 615 recent model year vehicles and
determining the average relationship between the 5-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values and FTP and HFET fuel economy values. Thus,
because the data used to develop the average adjustments were derived
from 5-cycle fuel economies, the mpg-based adjustments include the
effect of high speeds, aggressive driving, air conditioning, and colder
temperatures. However, they do so based on the impact of these factors
on the average vehicle and do not reflect the fuel economy actually
achieved during these types of driving by individual vehicles, which is
the case with the 5-cycle formulae. As indicated by a comparison of the
fuel economy label values developed using the mpg-based and 5-cycle
approaches (see Figures II-1 and II-2), these ``fleet-average''
adjustments are reasonably accurate for most vehicles.
For example, for vehicles with FTP fuel economy ranging from 20 to
30 mpg, the mpg-based approach will adjust the FTP fuel economy result
downward by 20-22 percent (i.e., by 4 to 7 mpg), versus today's 10
percent downward adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label values under
the mpg-based approach will tend to be about 10-12 percent lower than
today's label values. For vehicles with HFET fuel economy in the range
of 25 to 35 mpg the mpg-based approach on average will adjust the HFET
fuel economy downward by 28 percent (i.e., by 7 to 10 mpg), versus
today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, highway fuel economy
label values under the mpg-based approach will tend to be about 8
percent lower than today's label values.
The characteristics of the mpg-based equations can be seen in
Figures II-1 and II-2 below. The 5-cycle fuel economies for 615 recent
model year vehicles are represented by the individual data points on
the charts. Hybrid vehicles are represented by large squares on the
charts. The mpg-based fuel economy curve, represented by the regression
line on the chart, was developed from these data. The horizontal axis
is the measured FTP fuel economy.
Under the mpg-based approach, the city fuel economy value will be
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.016

Where:

FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the FTP
test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75[deg]F. This value is
normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle models included in
the ``model type'' vehicle grouping as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.

[[Page 77887]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.018

Likewise, the highway fuel economy value will be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.019

Where:

HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test. This
value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle models
included in the ``model type'' vehicle grouping as defined in 40 CFR
600.002-93.

[[Page 77888]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.020

These equations differ from those that we proposed in two ways.
First, as described above, we have modified the 5-cycle fuel economy
formulae slightly based on additional information received since the
proposal. Second, we have added 192 additional vehicles to our 5-cycle
fuel economy database. The mpg-based equations developed for the
proposal were based on 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003 to
2005 model year vehicles, whereas the mpg-based equations shown above
were based on 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 615 2003 to 2006 model
year vehicles. The net effect of these two changes is that the city and
highway fuel economy adjustments to the FTP and HFET fuel economy
values are a few percent smaller than those based on the proposed mpg-
based equations.
As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations were developed from the
5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 615 2003-2006 model year vehicles.
In order to keep the mpg-based equations up-to-date and reflecting
changes in vehicle technology, EPA will update these equations
periodically using the same methodology, but no more frequently than on
an annual basis. We will update the mpg-based equations periodically,
especially if we determine that doing so would significantly change the
label results, using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy
estimates for the previous three or more model years. These revised
mpg-based equations will be issued through the publication of an EPA
guidance document. The final regulations contain the equations that are
applicable to 2008 model year vehicles, as well as the components of
the equations to be utilized for future model year vehicles.
We plan to update the mpg-based curves periodically using all of
the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the previous three or
more model years. We proposed that these revised mpg-based equations
would be issued through the publication of an EPA guidance document
which would be released by January 1 of the calendar year prior to the
model year to which the equations first apply. We suggested in the
proposal that this meant, for example, that mpg equations for the 2012
year would be published prior to January 1 of 2011. However, we now
recognize that the model year for many manufacturers can begin almost a
full year before the start of the identically-named calendar year
(i.e., the 2012 model year can begin on January 2, 2011). Manufacturers
commented that issuing guidance applicable to a given model year
potentially mere days or weeks from the start of that model year for
some vehicle lines did not provide adequate lead time. We agree, and we
are finalizing regulations that require EPA to issue guidance regarding
revisions to the equations by no later than July 1 of the calendar year
prior to the earliest start of the model year that starts in the
following calendar year. In other words, for new equations to be
applicable to the 2010 model year (which can begin as early as January
2, 2009), EPA must issue guidance prior to July 1, 2008.

C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel Economy Label Values

The impact of the new methodology on city and highway fuel economy
label values was assessed using the same database of 615 recent model
year vehicles used to develop the mpg-based adjustments discussed
above. It is important to realize that these are projections based on
historical data, and that the actual impacts on fuel economy label
values will be dependent upon how a given vehicle performs over the
specific tests. Figures II-3 and II-4 show, for city and highway fuel
economy, respectively, how the label values would change under the 5-cycle

[[Page 77889]]

method for each vehicle in the 615-vehicle database. Figures II-5 and
II-6 show, for city and highway fuel economy, respectively, the
distributions of the percent change in label values relative to the
current labels. More than 90 percent of the vehicles would have new
city label values that are from 8 to 15 percent lower than their
current label values. Figure II-3 also shows that the new city label
values for most hybrid vehicles will be between 20 and 30 percent lower
than today's city label values. Figure II-4 shows that about 90 percent
of the vehicles in the database, including most hybrids, would have new
highway label estimates that are from 5 to 15 percent lower than
today's current highway estimates. Under the current method all
vehicles would receive the same adjustment to account for the variety
of factors now accounted for by the new methodology. Under the 5-cycle
method vehicles receive differing ``adjustments'' relative to the
current label values based on each vehicle's response to the five
tests. Table II-1 presents the average results of this comparison for
all 615 vehicles, as well as various sub-sets of vehicles.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.021

[[Page 77890]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.022
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.023
[[Page 77891]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.024

Table II-1.--Effect of 5-Cycle Formulae on City and Highway Fuel Economy Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Highway Combined*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent Percent
Current 5-Cycle change Current 5-Cycle change Current 5-Cycle change
(mpg) (mpg) (percent) (mpg) (mpg) (percent) (mpg) (mpg) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrids.............................................. 42.7 33.0 -22.3 42.8 36.9 -12.9 42.6 35.0 -17.1
Diesel (1 vehicle)................................... 26.2 23.4 -10.7 35.3 32.0 -9.3 29.6 27.6 -6.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Highest FE........................................ 30.9 26.9 -12.9 36.6 34.0 -6.9 33.2 30.5 -8.0
12 Lowest FE......................................... 10.2 9.5 -6.9 14.8 14.8 -0.2 11.9 11.9 0.4
Average.............................................. 18.6 16.5 -10.8 24.6 22.8 -7.4 20.9 19.6 -6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively. Combined fuel economy for 5-cycle MPG is based on
weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively (discussed further in Chapter II.C of the Technical Support Document).

As can be seen from Table II-1, use of the 5-cycle formulae will
reduce both current city and highway fuel economy label values. For
conventional vehicles, city and highway fuel economy values will be
reduced an average of 10.8 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. The
reduction in city fuel economy label values for conventional vehicles
with higher than average fuel economy will be slightly higher than
average (-12.9%), while the reduction for conventional vehicles with
lower than average fuel economy will typically be slightly lower than
average (-6.9%). The reduction in highway fuel economy for conventional
vehicles varies less around the average in the same way that it does
for city fuel economy. Vehicles with higher than average fuel economy
will typically experience a reduction in the highway label value
similar to all conventional vehicles, while vehicles with lower than
average fuel economy at the other end of the spectrum will, on average,
see little to no change in their highway label value (or possibly a
modest increase in some cases). Again, this is explained by each
vehicle's fuel economy response to the new test cycles, and some
vehicles are more sensitive to the new test conditions than others.
The impact on hybrid vehicles will be greater, averaging a 22.3
percent reduction for city fuel economy and 12.9 percent for highway
fuel economy.\29\ This greater impact occurs primarily because a number
of the fuel efficient aspects of hybrid vehicles produce their maximum
benefit under conditions akin to the FTP and HFET tests, and are
somewhat less beneficial during aggressive driving, colder ambient
temperatures and when the air conditioner is turned on. However, these
vehicles will still remain among the top fuel economy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ The database of 615 vehicles includes 14 hybrid vehicles.
All the hybrid models available as of the 2006 model year are
represented in the database: Honda Insight, Honda Civic, Honda
Accord, Toyota Prius, Toyota Highlander/Lexus RX400h, Ford Escape/
Mercury Mariner, and Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one diesel vehicle in our 5-cycle fuel economy database. The

[[Page 77892]]

impact of the 5-cycle formulae on this one diesel is very similar to
that for the average conventional, gasoline-fueled vehicle.
The impact of the mpg-based formulae will be very similar on
average to those shown in Table II-1 above for conventional vehicles.
This is not surprising, since the mpg-based formulae are based
essentially on the average results of the 5-cycle formulae. However,
the mpg-based formulae will increase the city fuel economy of hybrid
vehicles slightly, as indicated in Table II-2. This occurs because
there are only 14 hybrid vehicles in the database, compared to 601
gasoline-fueled, conventional vehicles. The mpg-based regression of
city fuel economy, therefore, represents essentially the impact of the
5-cycle formulae on conventional vehicles, which is less than that for
hybrids. The mpg-based regression of highway fuel economy is
essentially the same for conventional and hybrid vehicles.

Table II-2.--Effect of MPG-Based Formulae on Conventional and Hybrid Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Highway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
Current MPG-based change Current MPG-based change
(mpg) (mpg) (percent) (mpg) (mpg) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional...................... 18.6 16.5 -10.9 24.6 22.7 -7.8
Hybrids........................... 42.7 35.1 -16.7 42.8 38.4 -9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II-3 summarizes the projected impact of the new methods (5-
cycle and mpg-based) relative to the current label values of the 615
vehicle database.

Table II-3.--Effect of New Methods on Fuel Economy Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City fuel economy estimate Highway fuel economy estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 5-Cycle MPG- based Current 5-Cycle MPG- based
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Vehicles:
MPG........................... 18.6 16.5 16.5 24.6 22.8 22.7
Percent Change................ ........... -10.8% -10.9% ........... -7.4% -7.8%
Hybrid Vehicles:
MPG........................... 42.7 32.4 35.1 42.8 36.7 38.4
Percent Change................ ........... -23.6% -16.7% ........... -13.2% -9.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to looking at the overall change in fuel economy
estimates for all vehicles in the database, we also focused on those
manufacturers responsible for the majority of sales in the U.S. This
approach may better reflect the changes likely to be seen by the
majority of consumers. In effect, Table II-3 above includes vehicles by
Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce in the percent change, and these vehicles
are weighted equally with cars made by GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and
other top-selling manufacturers. According to Autodata Corporation, the
seven manufacturers with the greatest U.S. market share account for
more than 90 percent of U.S. sales. Table II-4 shows these
manufacturers, their 2005 U.S. market share, and the average percent
change in city and highway fuel economy estimates for each of these
manufacturers as represented in our database. As can be seen in the
table, the city mpg estimates for these manufacturers will drop by
about 12 percent on average relative to today's estimates, and highway
estimates will drop by about 8 percent on average. It is important to
note, however, that these estimates are not intended to represent or
include the entirety of a manufacturer's product line, and should not
be interpreted as such. These estimates are derived from our database
of 615 test vehicles for which data on all five emission and fuel
economy test procedures is available, and because of differing ways in
which manufacturers test their vehicles and submit data to EPA, the
database may not reflect the range of makes and models similarly across
manufacturers.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ The database spreadsheet is available in the public docket
for review.

Table II.-4.--Effect of New Methods on Fuel Economy Estimates for Major Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average change Average change
2005 U.S. in city fuel in highway
Manufacturer market share economy fuel economy
(percent)* estimate estimate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors.................................................. 25.9 -10 -11
Ford Motor Co................................................... 17.9 -12 -10
DaimlerChrysler................................................. 14.9 -10 -11
Toyota.......................................................... 13.7 -11 -7
Honda........................................................... 8.9 -13 -7

[[Page 77893]]

Nissan.......................................................... 6.1 -11 -7
Hyundai......................................................... 2.9 -13 -8
Average......................................................... .............. -12 -8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: Autodata Corp., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.

D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates

In the proposal, we compared fuel economy label values based on the
current, mpg-based, and 5-cycle formulae to estimates of onroad fuel
economy developed by a number of organizations. In the short time since
the proposal, little new data has become available. Also, as described
above, we are finalizing only minor changes to the proposed mpg-based
and 5-cycle formulae. Thus, overall, the relative comparisons described
in the proposal remain largely unchanged. We describe these generally
below, and refer the reader to Chapter II of the Technical Support
Document for a detailed description of these comparisons.
We begin with a comparison of 5-cycle fuel economy values with the
fleetwide fuel economy estimates developed by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). There are several differences in these two
estimates. First, we do not have fuel economy data for all vehicles
sold over the past 20-30 years over all five test procedures.
Therefore, we cannot develop a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate for the
current onroad fleet directly. Instead, we compare 5-cycle fuel economy
values to the current label values for the vehicles for which we have
5-cycle fuel economy data, and then extrapolate this relationship to
the rest of the vehicle fleet. Also, the FHWA light truck class
includes vehicles above 8,500 pound GVWR. The fuel economy estimated
for this class therefore requires adjustment to be comparable to EPA's
light-duty truck class. We also make this comparison for cars and light
trucks combined, in order to avoid differences in the ways that FHWA
categorizes vehicles.
Since the NPRM, FHWA has published onroad fuel economy estimates
for the 2004 vehicle fleet and updated their estimates for 2003. FHWA's
estimates of light truck fuel economy onroad are almost 20 percent
lower than their previous estimate for the 2002-2003 fleets. After
adjusting for the difference in light truck categories, FHWA data
indicate that combined car and light truck fuel economy averaged 19.7-
19.9 mpg during 2003 and 2004. Extrapolating the fuel economy label
estimates from the 615 vehicles in our certification database to the
entire fleet produces an average combined fuel economy of 19.9 mpg.
This close match-up is not surprising, given that the value of the
factor representing effects not simulated during the dynamometer tests
(e.g., wind, road grade, etc.) was set using the FHWA estimates of
onroad fuel economy.
Next, several governmental and non-governmental organizations
perform their own fuel economy assessments. Of these, the American
Automobile Association (AAA) and Consumer Report have tested the
greatest number of vehicles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has
recently begun a program where drivers can submit their own fuel
economy measurements via the Internet. Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL) has also been operating an extensive hybrid demonstration project
for a few years as part of DOE's Freedom Car project.
Each of these estimates of onroad fuel economy has their relative
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the non-governmental
organization testing include the fact that the vehicles are tested on
actual roads, usually in traffic and under real environmental
conditions. The primary weaknesses of this testing are:
(1) The driving patterns involved are not typically published, so
they may or may not be representative of average U.S. driving,
(2) Vehicles are tested throughout the year, so some vehicles are
tested in hot weather and others in cold weather, and some under
moderate conditions, thus leading to results that are not comparable
across vehicles and that may not reflect average U.S. driving, and
(3) In some cases, the actual test procedures used to measure the
volume of fuel consumed during the test are not described, leaving some
doubt as to their accuracy. Still, because of the public interest in
these estimates, we have compared them to our mpg-based and 5-cycle
label estimates.
We updated our comparison of mpg-based and 5-cycle fuel economy
estimates to Consumer Report's fuel economy estimates for 2000-2005
model year vehicles which were also in our 5-cycle database. We were
also able to match 70 of these vehicles with those in our 5-cycle fuel
economy database.\31\ As in the NPRM, we focused on Consumer Report's
combined fuel economy, which is a harmonic average of its fuel economy
measurements for city driving, highway driving, and a 150-mile trip. On
average, the mpg-based combined fuel economy values are 3 percent
higher than those of Consumer Report, while the 5-cycle fuel economy
values are 2% higher than those of Consumer Report. Thus, there is an
excellent match between the composite mpg-based fuel economy and the
Consumer Report combined fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ In the NPRM, we identified 151 vehicles which were both
tested by Consumer Reports and in our certification database.
However, many of these matching vehicles were not from the same model year.

[[Page 77894]]

Table II-5.--Consumer Reports and Current EPA and MPG-Based Fuel Economy: 303 Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Current EPA label MPG-based
reports ---------------------------------------------------
------------- Difference* Difference
MPG MPG (percent) MPG (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City........................................... 14.2 20.4 -30 18.0 -21
Highway........................................ 29.3 26.9 9 24.7 19
Combined....................................... 20.7 22.9 -9 21.2 -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II-6 presents the same comparisons, except that it includes
the 5-cycle estimates and only includes the 70 matched vehicles.

Table II-6.--CR and Current EPA, 5-Cycle and MPG-Based Fuel Economy: 70 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Current EPA label 5-cycle MPG-based
reports -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Difference* Difference Difference
MPG MPG (percent) MPG (percent) MPG (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City......................................................... 14.3 20.4 -30 18.0 -21 17.8 -20
Highway...................................................... 29.3 26.4 11 24.3 21 24.1 22
Combined..................................................... 20.6 22.7 -9 21.0 -2 20.9 -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also updated our comparison to onroad fuel economy as estimated
by AAA.\32\ We were able to match 61 out of the 163 vehicles from their
2004 report to vehicles in our 5-cycle certification database. This is
lower than the 98 models which we matched in the analysis described in
the NPRM due to the use of a more stringent criterion that the vehicles
match in terms of model year. As AAA only develops a single fuel
economy estimate for each vehicle (i.e., no separate city or highway
estimates), we compared their estimates to combined fuel economy values
using the mpg-based and 5-cycle formulae. On average, the mpg-based
combined fuel economy values exceeded those of AAA by 6.7%, while the
5-cycle fuel economy values exceeded those of AAA by 6.1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ AAA Auto Guide: 2004 New Cars and Trucks. AAA Publishing, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We obtained a recent compilation of consumer's onroad fuel economy
estimates which have been submitted to the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's ``Your MPG'' database. Unlike Consumer Report and AAA,
drivers submit their own estimates of onroad fuel economy and city/
highway driving split to the YourMPG Web site. The strength of this
type of data is the fact that the vehicle is being operated by the
owner or regular driver in typical use. The weaknesses are the unknown
representativeness of the sample, the unknown nature of the technique
used by the owner/driver to measure fuel economy and the unknown time
period over which fuel economy is generally assessed (e.g., a couple of
tanks full or the past year). The database now contains 8180 estimates
of fuel economy for 4192 vehicles, compared to 2544 estimates of fuel
economy for 1794 vehicles at the time of the NPRM. The database does
not provide sufficiently precise vehicle descriptions to match vehicles
to those in our 5-cycle database. Thus, we limit our comparison to the
mpg-based method. We combined the mpg-based city and highway label
values using each driver's estimate of the percentage of their driving
that was in city or highway conditions. If a driver did not provide an
estimate of the breakdown of their driving pattern, we assumed that
their driving was 43 percent city and 57 percent highway in terms of
miles driven (not time driven).
Diesels appear to perform better onroad than gasoline vehicles
compared to their current or mpg-based label values. Onroad fuel
economy by diesels in the YourMPG database exceeded the current label
combined label values by 4.3 percent. In contrast, conventional
gasoline vehicles fell short of their current combined label values by
1.4 percent.

Table II-7. --YourMPG Versus Current and MPG-Based Label Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Current Difference MPG-based Difference
Vehicle type estimates YourMPG label (percent) label (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional gasoline............. 7330 23.8 24.1 -1.4 21.7 9.1
High MPG Conventional Gasoline*... 680 35.1 35.8 -1.7 31.6 11.2
Hybrid Gasoline................... 520 43.2 47.1 -8.2 40.5 6.3
Diesel............................ 221 41.8 40.1 4.3 35.3 18.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined EPA Label fuel economy value of 32 mpg or greater, representing about the top 10% fuel economy
conventional vehicles.

We also performed similar comparisons of EPA label and various
onroad fuel economy estimates focusing specifically on hybrids and high
fuel economy conventional vehicles. In the NPRM, we did this analysis
for hybrids. However, we received some comments that highlighting the
impact on hybrid vehicles specifically was misleading. The reason given
was that, if hybrids performed differently on the road compared to
their label values, it was

[[Page 77895]]

due to their relatively high fuel economy and not because of their
hybrid technology. However, we found that the relationship between mpg-
based and 5-cycle label values and the onroad fuel economy estimates
for conventional vehicles with relatively high fuel economy is
consistently more similar to that of lower fuel economy conventional
vehicles than to hybrids.
There is a significant degree of scatter in the various estimates
of onroad hybrid fuel economy. Those from DOE's FreedomCar program,
Consumer Report and Edmunds \33\ tend to be much lower than those from
YourMPG and AAA. EPA's Kansas City data, although not representative of
the entire country, tends to fall in between these other two sets of
onroad hybrid estimates. The 5-cycle combined label values tend to be
in line with the lower set of estimates. The mpg-based label values
tend to be somewhat higher than the lower set of estimates, but well
below those of YourMPG and AAA. As described in the NPRM, the fuel
economy of hybrids is more sensitive to driving patterns and ambient
conditions than conventional vehicles. The scatter in the various
onroad fuel economy estimates for hybrids likely reflects this fact, as
each estimate is based on a unique set of driving activity and ambient
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See http://www.edmunds.com.

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

Overall, the mpg-based and 5-cycle fuel economy label values
compare favorably with estimates of onroad fuel economy made by other
organizations. However, lack of detailed knowledge of the driving
conditions and test procedures behind many of the latter estimates
prevents systematic comparisons, especially involving individual
weighting factors in the 5-cycle formulae.

E. Implementation of the New Fuel Economy Methods

1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for 2011 and Later Model Years
In addition to finalizing the mpg-based adjustments for the 2008-
2010 model years, as mentioned above, we are finalizing as proposed
selection criteria for the continued use of this method for 2011 and
later model years. These criteria will indicate for a given vehicle
test group whether the full 5-cycle testing would result in
significantly different fuel economy label values than the mpg-based
approach. If not, then those vehicles could use the mpg-based method
rather than the 5-cycle method. This approach is designed to avoid
additional test burden where the fuel economy label values would not be
significantly different under the 5-cycle method.
Each year, manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with federal
emission standards by performing tests over all five test procedures.
The vehicles on which these tests are performed are known as ``emission
data vehicles'', which are selected to represent the ``worst-case''
emitting vehicle in a group of vehicles, known as a ``test group'',
which share common engine and emission control designs.\34\ EPA issues
certificates of emission conformity for each test group of vehicles in
each model year. Thus, for each test group, there exists a set of
official certification test data from all five test cycles--FTP, HFET,
US06, SC03 and Cold FTP. The fuel economy measured from these official
certification tests can be inserted into the 5-cycle city and highway
formulae to determine city and highway fuel economy values. Since FTP
and HFET testing is included in the official certification data, the
mpg-based city and highway fuel economy values can also be determined.
Thus, for each emission data vehicle, the 5-cycle city and highway fuel
economy values then can be compared to the mpg-based city and highway
fuel economy values. We believe that it is reasonable to allow
continued use of the mpg-based line when the available 5-cycle fuel
economy data (from emissions certification) indicates that the mpg-
based fuel economy determined from the official FTP and HFET tests
performed for the test group are similar enough to the 5-cycle fuel
economy determined from the official FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP
tests for that same test group. In that case, the manufacturer can use
the mpg-based method for all model types covered under the EPA
certificate of conformity that is represented by the 5-cycle data
submitted to represent those vehicles. The manufacturer will not need
to conduct 5-cycle testing for fuel economy labeling for these model types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ The ``emission data vehicle'' is the test vehicle chosen to
represent a ``test group'' for emission certification purposes. A
``test group'' is made up of vehicles that share common combustion
cycle, engine type, fuel type, fuel metering system, catalyst
construction and precious metal content, engine displacement, number
and arrangement of cylinders, and emission standards. The emission
data vehicle is required to be the vehicle within the test group
that is expected to be worst-case for exhaust emissions. In general
the criteria that cause the emission data vehicle to be worst-case
for emissions will also cause it to be worst-case for fuel economy
(e.g., it will be the heaviest vehicle in the test group, with an
automatic transmission, four-wheel drive, etc.). In general, the
FTP, HFET, US06 and SC03 are performed on the emission data vehicle
to demonstrate that the test group complies with the federal
emission standards. The Cold FTP is performed on the worst-case
vehicle within a durability group, which represents a larger group
of vehicles, including those covered in the test group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To accomplish this, we defined the lower bound of a tolerance band
around the mpg-based line as the criteria for whether the mpg-based
line could be used or whether 5-cycle testing would be required for
further vehicle models within a test group. As proposed, we are
finalizing four and five percent as the tolerance bands for the city
and highway mpg lines, respectively. Mathematically, the tolerance line
is defined by Y x mpg-based fuel economy, where Y is 0.96 for city fuel
economy and 0.95 for highway fuel economy. In other words, if the 5-
cycle city fuel economy value is greater than or equal to 0.96 times
the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle model types covered
under the certificate of conformity for that test group are eligible to
use the mpg-based method to determine both city and highway fuel
economy label estimates. Similarly, when the 5-cycle highway fuel
economy is greater than or equal to 0.95 times the mpg-based highway
fuel economy, all vehicle model types covered under the certificate of
conformity in that test group are required to use the vehicle-specific
5-cycle approach. This can be done using analytically derived fuel
economy estimates, when appropriate. This approach is appropriate
because those vehicles with a 5-cycle value above the mpg-based line
that used the mpg-based line would simply be reducing their fuel
economy down to the average level, even though the 5-cycle data
indicated better than average performance was likely for that vehicle
group. Because of the better-than-average performance, we expect that
most manufacturers will want to do complete 5-cycle testing for
vehicles likely to be significantly above the mpg-based line.
This approach is illustrated in the Figures II-7 and II-8, below.
The black squares in these figures represent situations where the mpg
line does not do a good job (based on the tolerance criteria as shown
by the dashed line) of predicting the 5-cycle fuel economy. Those
vehicles with black squares in the two charts below may not use the
mpg-based approach, but instead must perform additional testing to
achieve better fuel economy estimates. Note that these charts do not
show the entire range of FTP and HFET fuel economy on the x-axis, and
thus do not show all those vehicles ``passing'' or ``failing'' the city
or highway criteria. For the purpose of illustrating this concept it
helps to isolate the FTP range from 20 to 30 mpg and the HFET range
from 30 to 40 mpg.

[[Page 77896]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.025
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.026

If the 5-cycle city fuel economy falls below the mpg-based city
fuel economy by more than four percent (i.e., below the tolerance
line), but the 5-cycle highway fuel economy does not fall below the
mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent (i.e., above
the tolerance line), all the vehicle configurations represented by the
emission data vehicle are required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach for both city and highway fuel economy, since fuel economy
values for all five cycles are important in estimating 5-cycle city
fuel economy. However, if the 5-cycle highway fuel economy is less than
the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent (i.e.,
below the tolerance line), but the 5-cycle city fuel economy is not
more than four percent lower than the mpg-based city fuel economy
(i.e., above the tolerance line), all the vehicle configurations
represented by the emission data vehicle will use the mpg-based
approach to estimate the city fuel economy label. For the highway label in

[[Page 77897]]

this case, all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission
data vehicle may use an approximate 5-cycle formula. This formula
includes vehicle-specific fuel economy measurements for the FTP, HFET
and US06 tests, but the SC03 and cold FTP test values may be estimated
based on relationships developed from other vehicles. This is
appropriate because the impact of the cold FTP test on highway fuel
economy in the 5-cycle formula is not vehicle-specific, but estimated
(or modeled) based on known relationships. Also the impact of the SC03
test on highway fuel economy is very small, particularly compared to
that for the US06 test.
The criteria for use of the mpg-based approach in model year 2011
and later (5-cycle city fuel economy above four percent and 5-cycle
highway fuel economy above five percent) are based on the balance of
three factors. First, we designed them to be sufficiently large so that
typical test-to-test variability would not cause a test group to fail
the criteria. This may be a greater concern for the highway fuel
economy comparison, due to the dominance of the US06 fuel economy
(which inherently has greater test-to-test variability than the other
tests) in the 5-cycle formula. Second, we want to minimize the
potential error in the fuel economy label. Label fuel economy values
are rounded to the nearest whole mpg. Thus, we felt it important to
keep the difference between the 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy
values within roughly one mpg, if possible. In other words, if the
difference between the two methods is less than 1 mpg, then the two
methods would produce the same label value. If the difference is more
than 1 mpg then we would expect the 5-cycle method to result in a
different label value, and thus it is more important to trigger the
requirement for additional testing. Third, we want to avoid requiring
additional fuel economy testing that will have little to no impact on
the label values.
The four percent tolerance band for city fuel economy is equivalent
to roughly 0.6-0.7 mpg on average. Due to the contribution of a number
of independent fuel economy measurements in the 5-cycle city formula,
the effect of test to test variability should be much lower than four
percent. Based on the 5-cycle test results of 615 recent model year
vehicles, we estimate that about 96 percent of test groups would fall
above the four percent tolerance line. Thus, we believe that this
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
The five percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy is
equivalent to roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is slightly higher
than the typical error associated with rounding. However, due to the
dominant contribution of the US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle highway
formula, and the fact that this test tends to have relatively high
variability, we are concerned that test-to-test variability could be on
the order of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle highway formula. We estimate
that about 87 percent of test groups would fall above the five percent
tolerance line. Thus, again, we believe that this criterion adequately
satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
Overall, allowing the continued use of the mpg-based approach in
this way will reduce the number of additional SC03 and cold FTP tests
by about 96 percent and reduce the number of additional US06 tests by
about 87 percent. Moreover, this significant reduction in test burden
is achieved with no significant impact on the fuel economy estimate.
2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Label Estimates
As noted in Section I, we are finalizing in this rule a fuel
economy labeling program for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), a
subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR. MDPVs were first
defined in the regulation that put in place the ``Tier 2'' emission
standards.\35\ This newly-defined class of vehicles includes SUVs and
passenger vans between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR, but excludes large
pick-up trucks. The specific regulatory definition was designed to
capture in the Tier 2 vehicle emissions program those vehicles that are
designed predominantly for passenger use.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000).
\36\ This is the regulatory definition of Medium-Duty Passenger
Vehicle, found in 40 CFR 86.1803-01: Medium-duty passenger vehicle
(MDPV) means any heavy-duty vehicle (as defined in this subpart)
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds
that is designed primarily for the transportation of persons. The
MDPV definition does not include any vehicle which:
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is
required to establish regulations that require a manufacturer to attach
a label to each ``automobile'' manufactured in a model year.\37\
``Automobile'' is defined as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs GVWR,
and those vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT
determines are appropriate for inclusion in the CAFE program.\38\
``Automobile'' for the purposes of labeling also includes vehicles at
no more than 8,500 lbs GVWR whether or not DOT has included those
vehicles in the CAFE program.\39\ EPA has no authority to require
labels on vehicles that are not automobiles, therefore EPA has no
authority to require labeling of either vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR,
or vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that are not included by
DOT in the CAFE program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
\38\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
\39\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the time of EPA's proposal, DOT has included some vehicles
above 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs in its CAFE program,
beginning in model year 2011.\40\ Since these vehicles now meet the
definition of automobile, EPA is authorized to include these vehicles
in the labeling program. EPA is now requiring fuel economy labels on
MDPVs (as defined in the CAFE program), beginning with model year 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MDPVs are currently subject to emission standards that apply on the
existing Federal Test Procedure, and many also undergo emission testing
on the current Highway Fuel Economy Test due to requirements in
California. Beginning with the 2011 model year, manufacturers will be
routinely testing MDPVs over the FTP and the HFET tests in order to
comply with the CAFE program. However, MDPVs are not today subject to
all of the additional emission tests we are utilizing for the 5-cycle
method.\41\ Specifically, MDPVs are not subject to the 1996 SFTP
regulations.\42\ The SFTP regulations include the US06 and SC03 test
procedures, both of which are necessary elements of the 5-cycle fuel
economy methodology. These two test cycles represent high speed and
aggressive driving (US06), and impacts of air conditioner operation
(SC03). We do not believe it is appropriate to require SFTP testing for
MDPVs for fuel economy purposes alone, but we are not prepared at this
time to establish SFTP standards

[[Page 77898]]

for MDPVs. In the Tier 2 regulations, we acknowledged that MDPVs were
not covered by SFTP requirements, and we specifically noted that SFTP
emission standards would be addressed in a future regulation.\43\ We
believe that the appropriate time to consider 5-cycle fuel economy
testing for MDPVs is during or after development of appropriate SFTP
emission standards for MDPVs. We plan to address SFTP emission
standards for MDPVs in the near future. At that time, we will also
assess the appropriateness of 5-cycle fuel economy testing for MDPVs.
However, we are finalizing a program that requires MDPVs to use the
mpg-based adjustments to calculate fuel economy estimates. The database
of 615 vehicles used to generate the mpg-based adjustments includes
vehicles similar in many respects to existing MDPVs, with similar FTP
and HFET fuel economy as measured today. For example, the database
includes models of the Chevrolet Suburban below 8,500 lbs GVWR, which
are very similar to the versions of the same vehicle that is above
8,500 lbs GVWR and classified as an MDPV. Additionally, because the
mpg-based adjustment is essentially the average relationship between
FTP and HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle fuel economy results, we believe
that the resulting label values for MDPVs will be an adequate
representation. The mpg-based approach does not require testing beyond
what will be required to meet the CAFE program in model year 2011.
Manufacturers will simply take their FTP and HFET test results
(conducted for the CAFE program) and apply them to the mpg-based
equation to determine their fuel economy label values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ MDPVs are currently required under the Tier 2 program to
meet a carbon monoxide standard on the cold FTP test; compliance
with this standard is being phased in over the 2008 and 2009 model years.
\42\ See 61 FR 54852 (Oct. 22, 1996).
\43\ See 65 FR 6789 (Feb. 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
When a vehicle is required to generate data from all five test
cycles, there are multiple ways for the manufacturer to accomplish
this. One way would be to perform the three additional tests--the US06,
SC03, and cold FTP tests (the FTP and HFET would be performed under
current and future requirements). The other way is to estimate fuel
economy values over the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests analytically
(i.e., analytically derived fuel economy, or ADFE) from testing of a
similar vehicle over these three cycles. Under this method,
manufacturers will be allowed to estimate the effect of differences in
inertia test weight, road load horsepower, and N/V ratio (the ratio of
engine revolutions to vehicle speed when the vehicle is in its highest
gear) on fuel economy, and use these estimates to calculate predicted
fuel economy over the three new fuel economy test cycles. A procedure
to estimate the effect of these three vehicle parameters on FTP and
HFET fuel economy has already been developed.\44\ We plan to work with
manufacturers to appropriately analytically derive fuel economy for the
US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests, or otherwise utilize data for these
tests already available from certification vehicles. We will implement
these estimation procedures using agency guidance, as is currently done
for FTP and HFET fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ U.S. EPA Memorandum ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel
Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later,'' CCD-04-06 (LDVLDT),
March 11, 2004. Available in the public docket for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content

A. Background

We proposed to update the design of the fuel economy label to
better convey its information to the public. We took comment on four
alternative label designs. We received overwhelming public support for
revamping the label and numerous constructive comments for enhancing
the final label content. Based on these public comments, we developed
additional alternatives for how information might be presented on the
label. We gauged consumer reaction to these alternatives by conducting
a series of focus groups in five cities across the country. These
groups provided valuable feedback which we used to establish the final
label. The docket to this rule includes the final report entitled
``Fuel Economy Focus Groups--Phase Two Findings'' that contains details
about the focus groups.
The label format and content we are finalizing today reflects input
from the public comments and focus group research. The modern design of
this label more effectively communicates fuel economy estimates and
related information to the customer. Section I of this preamble
provides a graphic of the new fuel economy label and key considerations
that went into developing its final design. This section presents the
specific elements on the final label.
We plan to conduct public outreach and education to increase
consumer awareness of the new label's design and content. We believe
that we can increase consumer comprehension by jointly-sponsoring an
outreach campaign with car dealers and other interested stakeholders
that could include explanatory materials, such as a brochure that
dealers could distribute to customers.

B. Label Size and Orientation

Although we proposed to maintain the label's size at 7 inches by
4.5 inches, we experimented with its orientation. Two of the four
alternative labels proposed were positioned vertically (portrait), and
two horizontally (landscape) as today's label. Public comments highly
supported one of the vertically oriented versions (identified in the
proposed rule as ``Alternative 4.'' \45\ The commenters that provided
reasons for this preference indicated that the new look, along with the
graphically presented comparison information, helped convey the fuel
economy information desired by the customer, discussed further in
Section III.C below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Note that the NPRM contained four label alternatives,
printed in the Appendix to the proposed regulations on pages 5510-
5513, labeled Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4. These same labels were
posted on EPA's Web site, but in a slightly different order and with
different nomenclature (Label A, B, C, and D). In the following
discussion we refer to the labels printed in the NPRM and use that
nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some automakers expressed concerns with the vertical label
orientation. Their primary apprehension was that the new Department of
Transportation--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety
rating label, required on price stickers (``Monroney'' label) of all
cars produced on or after September 1, 2007,\46\ competes for space
with the fuel economy label. Some manufacturers had already redesigned
their price stickers to accommodate the safety rating label beside a
horizontally positioned fuel economy label. These companies stated that
because the price sticker contains a great deal of information,
changing the fuel economy label orientation would be difficult from a
graphic design standpoint. One manufacturer commented that it had
already printed stock price stickers containing horizontally oriented
fuel economy labels and would bear an added cost of redesigning and
reprinting the stickers if EPA required the vertical label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See 71 FR 53572 (Sept. 12, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To consider further the above comment, we tested both horizontal
and vertical versions of the label (Figure III-1) with the focus
groups. While the focus groups expressed a slight preference for the
vertical orientation, this preference was not strongly held. Some
participants remarked that the vertical label was easier to read ``top
to bottom''; however, a contrasting observation made in many of the
focus groups was that on the vertical label the text within the gray
area of the fuel pump was more difficult to read. [Insert photo Figure
III-1: Preliminary vertical

[[Page 77899]]

and horizontal designs for focus group review.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.027

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Although public comments indicated a preference for the vertical
orientation, the primary reasons given were more relevant to the design
elements (particularly the gray ``watermark'' fuel pump design with
information it its ``window'' and the bar graphic showing comparable
fuel economy) rather than the label orientation itself. Therefore, in
order to address both the consumers' needs and the automakers'
concerns, our final label contains the new design elements supported by
public comments and its appearance is oriented horizontally. The label
size remains unchanged from the current label, at 7'' wide by 4.5''
high, and the final layout incorporates several important changes

[[Page 77900]]

to improve legibility and consumers' understanding of the label information.

C. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

We proposed two contrasting depictions comparing a particular
vehicle's fuel economy to that of all other vehicles in its class: a
text statement and a graphic depiction (Figure III-2). On three of the
proposed labels, we specified separate city and highway comparable fuel
economy information on the bottom half of the label in a text
statement, similar to the current label. On one of the vertically
oriented labels (Alternative 4) we proposed a graphical bar scale that
indicated where the vehicle's combined fuel economy would fall compared
to all other vehicles in its class.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.028

Public commenters strongly favored the graphical version, many
noting that it was similar to the Federal Trade Commission's
EnergyGuide ratings placed on new appliances.
One industry comment suggested that the graphical way of presenting
comparable fuel economy highlighted a weakness in the comparable
vehicle class designations. Automakers expressed concern that ``the
graphic representation may portray a significant volume of sales as
having low fuel economy, even though many consumers would be shopping
in only subgroups of EPA's classes.'' They recommended that EPA retain
its current text portrayal of comparable fuel economy, but if
significant comments were to favor the graphic design, they asked to
work with EPA and through additional focus groups to develop a design
that addresses their competitive concerns. Although their concerns were
directed at the graphic, the underlying issue is EPA's comparable class
designations. A separate discussion of comparable classes is in Section
VI.F.
We also tested these representations of comparable fuel economy
with the focus groups and they responded positively to the graphic
version of combined fuel economy. Participants indicated that they were
more likely to use this information, since it was much more clearly
displayed in the graphical version. Many participants commented further
that the range of combined fuel economy was more useful than the city/
highway ranges of the verbal text.
One commenter stated that the within-class graphic did not provide
enough context for consumers because many people do not shop within a
single class, but instead may be simultaneously considering a variety
of types of vehicles (for example, SUVs or minivans). The commenter
suggested an alternate version of this graphic containing a bar scale
that represents the fuel economy range of all vehicles, with the range
of the specific vehicle class embedded in the overall range. We tested
this alternative with the focus groups, along with an enhanced graphic,
similar to the one proposed in the Alternative 4 label. These
alternatives are shown in Figure III-3.

[[Page 77901]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.029

The focus groups slightly preferred Option 1 because of its
simplicity, many participants noting that they already knew which class
of vehicles they would be considering. Others preferring Option 2
mentioned that it could influence some people to reconsider vehicles
with higher fuel economy. Although some participants thought the added
fuel economy range in Option 2 was useful, many thought it was too much
information or were confused by what it represents.
Because public comment and focus group reaction has been positive,
we are finalizing a comparable fuel economy graphic similar to Option 1
(Figure III-3). This graphic shows the range of fuel economy for the
comparable class of vehicles and indicates where the specific vehicle
falls on that range. The focus groups comprehended it easily at a
glance, an important consideration given how briefly most viewers look
at the labels on dealer lots. We recognize that the added information
provided by revealing the fuel economy range of all vehicles may be
valuable to some, but because of clarity and ease of comprehension, we
are finalizing the simpler within-class graphic. Those desiring more
detailed information about comparable fuel economy can find it on the
Fuel Economy Guide and at http://www.fueleconomy.gov, referenced at the
bottom of the label.

D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost

We proposed to elevate the visibility of the estimated annual fuel
cost information by increasing its size and location on the label
(Figure III-4, Option 1). Additionally, we proposed to include further
information on which the estimated annual fuel costs are determined--
specifically the number of miles driven per year and the price of fuel
per gallon. (This information is currently optional on the label, but
manufacturers typically do not include it). Public commenters and focus
group participants responded favorably to these changes.
One commenter suggested that a single cost estimate would not match
most drivers' experiences, and that a cost range would be more valuable
for those who drove more exclusively under city or highway conditions.
To explore this comment, we developed an option that showed three
separate fuel cost estimates (Figure III-4, Option 2):
(1) Combined estimate based on a mix of city and highway driving;
(2) City estimate based on all city driving; and
(3) Highway estimate based on all highway driving.
Both options were tested with the focus groups.

[[Page 77902]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.030

The focus groups had mixed reactions to these options, but slightly
preferred Option 1 because it was simpler and provided all of the vital
information. Others thought that the combined estimate would be more
accurate, since they did not drive exclusively in either city or
highway conditions. Alternatively, those that preferred seeing the
added city/highway fuel costs did so because they did drive under one
condition more often than another; others simply preferred having more
information.
We are finalizing Option 1 based on positive response from both
public commenters and focus groups. While the option to include
separate city and highway annual fuel costs may provide additional
useful information for some consumers, others may disregard it
altogether because of its complexity. Furthermore, there is enough
information provided on the simpler graphic that a person could
determine their own customized fuel cost estimate by modifying one or
more parameters (e.g. mpg, dollars-per-gallon, or miles-per-year).
As explained in further detail in Section III.I, the estimated
annual fuel cost is determined using a weighted combination of
estimated city and highway fuel economy values. Currently the combined
fuel economy is based on a weighting of 55% city mpg and 45% highway
mpg. We proposed changing the weighting to 43% city mpg and 57% highway
mpg, but as discussed in Section III.I we are not finalizing this as
proposed, choosing instead to retain the 55/45 weighting factors.

E. ``Your mileage will vary'' Statement

We proposed to include a statement on the label stating, ``Your
actual mileage can vary significantly depending on how you drive and
maintain your vehicle and other factors.'' This statement reinforces to
customers that the mpg values are estimates only and that drivers will
experience different fuel economy depending on many factors. Most
commenters favored some sort of disclaimer statement and provided a
number of suggestions. Some proposed that the statement both highlight
the inexact nature of the estimate and educate consumers on which
factors may lead to improved fuel economy. Others suggested that the
statement distinguish between factors that drivers could and could not
control. We tested three alternative versions with the focus groups: a
slight modification to the proposed version, one having a list of fuel
economy tips, and the other simply pointing to a Web site where one
could find the tips. These are shown in Figure III-5.

[[Page 77903]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.031

The focus group reaction was divided uniformly between the three
options provided. Some liked seeing the more-detailed tips, while
others preferred the Web link, since the list of tips was incomplete.
Some thought that fewer details coupled with a Web link would be
appropriate.
All factors that impact fuel economy cannot be listed on the fuel
economy label because they are too numerous. Our proposed statement was
designed to capture two of the biggest categories that drivers can
control: Driving style and vehicle maintenance, with a blanket ``and
other factors'' clause added. ``How you drive'' covers such factors
such as speed, acceleration, use of air conditioning, braking, and
driving predominantly in either city or highway conditions. ``How you
maintain your vehicle'' covers factors like tire pressure, oil changes,
tune-ups, and other maintenance. Both of these categories include
factors that the driver can control in most cases.
The focus groups generally thought that the ``other factors''
clause was unnecessary. To increase the likelihood that consumers will
read and understand the message that fuel economy will vary, we believe
that a simpler statement is preferable. We considered adding the Web
address to the statement in order to reflect the desire within the
focus groups for access to more detailed information. However, in
designing the final label format, we realized that it would be
redundant because it is located directly above the identical Web site
that is provided at the bottom right border of the label. Therefore, we
are finalizing a statement that states, ``Your actual mileage will vary
depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle,'' to be located
near the Web address at the bottom of the label.

F. Environmental Information Statement

Historically, EPA has rated fuel economy and emissions from 0-10 on
the Green Vehicle Guide Web site (http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/). We
sought comment on allowing companies to voluntarily include EPA air
pollution and/or greenhouse gas ratings on the fuel economy label.
While auto manufacturers supported alerting consumers to these issues,
they did not favor adding emissions ratings to the label, because they
may dilute the fuel economy information. Another comment from the auto
industry was that the emissions factors and weights associated with the
ratings presented in the Green Vehicle Guide are subjective and
debatable. Thus, they recommended that we continue to present environmental
ratings on the web, where there is ample space for elaboration.
One environmental group did not support rating a vehicle's
greenhouse gas emissions from 0-10 because the scale was ``too
coarse,'' but recommended that we instead educate consumers on how
their vehicle choice impacts the environment. Two different
environmental groups favored mandating both greenhouse gas and smog
scores on the label. One of these groups disagreed with the auto
manufacturers, stating that there was ample space on the label to
present the scores without interfering with fuel economy information.
The other group further suggested that we compare these scores
numerically and graphically to all vehicles, as in the NPRM, and that
we include an official EPA ``Seal of Approval'' to the most
environmentally benign vehicles. Because some comments suggested
further improvements to our method for calculating these scores, and
because a clear preference for how to present this information did not
emerge from the comments, we are not finalizing provisions for
including this information on the label at this time. We remain open to
suggestions for a voluntary environmental labeling program that could
be implemented in the future.
To further consider those comments suggesting that we instead
educate consumers on the relation of fuel economy and environmental and
societal issues, we tested the following ``environmental statement''
with the focus groups: ``Buying a vehicle with better fuel economy
helps protect the environment and reduces dependence on oil.'' Focus
groups were strongly divided on this statement. Some asserted that it
was ``preachy'' and ``stating the obvious,'' while others argued that
it was consistent with EPA's mission and, even if obvious, addressed a
concern felt by most of the population.
We are finalizing a label design that does not incorporate an
environmental statement. While we agree that it is important to make a
connection between a vehicle's fuel efficiency and the environment, we
agree with focus group comments that most consumers already recognize
this relationship. Additionally, since most of the new label space is
utilized by statutorily-required information, a practical concern was
that we would not be able to add this statement without creating a
``fine print'' look. However, both the Fuel Economy Guide and the
http://www.fueleconomy.gov Web site (referenced on the label) include details

[[Page 77904]]

about the impact of fuel economy on the environment, for consumers
wishing to explore these issues further.

G. Government Logos and Web Site Link

We proposed to include prominent EPA and DOE logos on the label and
a prominent reference to ``EPA'' on the label title. These changes
reflect earlier market research indicating that people were unaware of
the fuel economy estimates' origin, and that knowing the government was
the source of this information added to its credibility. Since public
commenters and focus groups responded favorably to this proposal, the
final label design includes the government logos at the bottom and
``EPA Fuel Economy Estimates'' in the title.
We also proposed to require placement of the jointly-sponsored EPA-
DOE Web site http://www.fueleconomy.gov on the label. Since commenters and
focus group members reacted positively to adding a web link, we are
finalizing this requirement.

H. Temporary Transitional Statement

We asked commenters if the label should include transitional
language indicating that the estimates are based on new methods. Such a
statement could help customers understand why the fuel economy
estimates are lower, especially when 2007 models having current fuel
economy estimates are on dealer lots with 2008 models having new
estimates. Commenters generally responded positively. Automakers
suggested a brief statement, while another commenter suggested slightly
longer wording. We tested the following transitional statement with the
focus groups: ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with
2008 models.'' The meaning of this sentence was generally clear to the
groups. A few participants wondered what the ``new EPA methods'' were,
but determined after some discussion that the Web site provided on the
label may give further explanation. We are finalizing this transitional
statement for inclusion on the final fuel economy label.
We asked the groups how long this statement should be retained, and
responses varied widely, from one year to the duration of an average
consumer's vehicle purchase cycle. We believe that the transitional
statement should be used while both the old and the new label formats
appear simultaneously on vehicles on dealer lots. When all vehicles on
the lot have labels with the new format (estimates based on new
methods), there will be less potential for confusion. By the time 2010
models can be offered for sale (as early as January 2, 2009), all new
vehicles on dealer lots will have the new label format and the
transitional statement will no longer be necessary. Therefore, we are
requiring the transition statement on the labels of all 2008 and 2009
model year vehicles.

I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis

For calculating the combined fuel economy displayed on the label
(and also factored into the estimated annual fuel cost calculation), we
proposed a weighting of 43% city and 57% highway. Currently this value
is based on a 55% city/45% highway weighting. The 43/57 weighting was
based on the new 5-cycle method and reflects average miles driven (not
time spent) at speeds below and above 45 mph respectively, based on
existing data for on-road driving patterns. This analysis is detailed
in the Technical Support Document. We received comments that the 43/57
split was not intuitive to most drivers and that consumers may think
more in terms of the percent of time they spend driving in city or
highway conditions, rather than in percent of distance traveled. Some
commenters suggested a simple 50/50 split, which is more intuitive to
car buyers; others suggested retaining the 55/45 split since it is
closer to the intuitive 50/50 split.
The basis for the 43/57 city-highway weighting as used to assess 5-
cycle fuel economy fleetwide is discussed in the Technical Support
Document. The issue for the label is how best to convey the fuel
economy information most relevant to consumers and which city/highway
weighting supports that purpose.
We agree with the comments that a 43/57 split based on distance is
not intuitive to consumers. We considered the suggested 50/50 split,
since likely most consumers think of ``combined'' fuel economy as an
equal mix of city and highway driving. The 55/45 split was used
historically to determine combined fuel economy since it is consistent
with the statutory requirements for determining fuel economy for CAFE
standards and the Gas Guzzler tax.\47\ Thus, since it will remain the
required weighting for the Gas Guzzler tax that appears on the label
for applicable vehicles, it is most consistent to continue using the
55/45 split for combined fuel economy as well. We do not want to cause
consumer confusion by using different city/highway weightings to
calculate different numbers appearing on the label. Therefore, we are
finalizing that a 55/45 weighting be used to calculate the combined
fuel economy displayed on the label and used to calculate the estimated
annual fuel costs. This decision does not impact the underlying city/
highway split used analytically to determine fleetwide composite 5-
cycle fuel economy, as discussed in the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) and 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Labeling Requirements for Dual Fueled Vehicles

Flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) (also called dual-fueled or bi-
fueled vehicles) are vehicles that can operate either on gasoline or
diesel fuel, or on an alternative fuel such as ethanol or methanol.
Currently, for FFVs, manufacturers may voluntarily include the fuel
economy estimates (and estimated annual fuel costs) for the alternative
fuel on the label. This is part of the EPCA statute which requires that
for dual fueled vehicles, the label must:
``(A) indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on
gasoline or diesel fuel;
(B) clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile;
(C) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be
operated; and
(D) contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional
information required by subsection (c)(2) of this section is published
and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See, 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current labeling requirements for dual-fueled vehicles are
consistent with these EPCA requirements. We did not propose changes to
these requirements, and we did not seek comment on the topic. However,
EPA received a late public comment from several environmental and
consumer groups urging EPA to require manufacturers to include for FFVs
the fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of both gasoline and
E85 (mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).
Historically, the EPA did not require fuel economy on the label for
ethanol FFVs, because a vast majority of these vehicles operated on
gasoline only, since ethanol was not widely available, and many owners
were unaware they were driving an FFV. However, in recent months there
has been a sharp increase in national interest in alternatives to
fossil-based fuels, flexible-fueled vehicles, and ethanol in
particular. With increased awareness and availability of these
vehicles, the late comment suggested that the label be required to not
only display separate gasoline and E85 fuel economy and annual cost
estimates, but also to provide EPA smog and greenhouse gas

[[Page 77905]]

scores and the ratio of ethanol to gasoline (which is not always 85:15)
on the label. These additions would help alert customers that although
the fuel economy of dual fuel models may be lower than gasoline-only
models, they are still reducing environmental impact by using alcohol fuel.
Since we did not request comments on this topic, we are not
finalizing requirements today that differ from the current regulations.
However, we agree that it is important to provide consumers with
complete fuel economy information on alternatively fueled vehicles,
particularly in light of the rising sale of flex-fueled vehicles and a
developing E85 fuel infrastructure. We agree that it is important for
consumers to understand that fuel economy on E85 is typically about 20%
to 30% lower than on gasoline, due to the lower energy density of
E85.\49\ Consumers can view the gasoline and E85 estimates of all FFVs
in the Fuel Economy Guide and on the http://www.fueleconomy.gov Web site. We
reiterate that manufacturers may voluntarily include the E85 (or other
alternative fuel) mpg and estimated annual fuel costs on the label
today, and we strongly encourage them to do so. The final label design
includes a placeholder for such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Based on fuel economies of gasoline and E85 reported in the
Model Year 2006 Fuel Economy Guide, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not finalizing a requirement today, because we believe the
issue (for manufacturers to display E85 fuel economy information on the
label in addition to gasoline) deserves a more carefully considered
approach. The label design we are finalizing was developed based on
extensive public comments and focus group input. None of the options
considered included E85 fuel economy information. Before requiring the
inclusion of E85 fuel economy for FFVs, there are many questions we
would consider for the design and placement of this information, such
as: (1) How to clearly present E85 mpg relative to gasoline; (2) how to
educate consumers that E85 helps reduce greenhouse gases and reduce oil
consumption; (3) how to best convey estimated annual fuel costs of E85
(particularly given the volatility of E85 prices across the country),
and (4) how to graphically depict comparable class fuel economy for E85
in addition to gasoline. In the next year, EPA will evaluate its legal
authority to require manufacturers to include E85 fuel economy on the
label. If we determine that we have statutory authority, we would then
plan to work with interested stakeholders to assess how best to present
E85 fuel economy information on the label. We welcome the input of
stakeholders in this process, and we look forward to suggestions on how
to best convey both the fuel economy and environmental benefit
information on E85 relative to gasoline.

K. Addition of Final Regulatory Specifications for Label Content and Design

We proposed ``placeholder'' regulatory text that specifies the
label content and design, knowing that the final label design would
depend on the outcome of both the public comments and the focus group
research. The final regulations contain the details for the format and
content of the label.

IV. Testing Provisions

A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From Certain
Emission Tests

Certain vehicles are currently exempt from some of the emission
tests that we are including in the 5-cycle method.\50\ These vehicles
include diesel vehicles and alternative-fueled vehicles. In order to
update the fuel economy methods for these vehicles, we proposed
additional provisions and are finalizing them in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See the applicable regulations at 40 CFR 86.1810(i)(4) and
40 CFR 86.1811-04(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Diesel Vehicles
Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently subject to Cold FTP emission
standards and thus do not have a 20 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) FTP (i.e., Cold
FTP) fuel economy result to use in the 5-cycle formulae. Therefore, we
proposed that beginning with the 2008 model year for certification
diesel vehicles, a Cold FTP be performed for the purpose of collecting
fuel economy data.
Accordingly, we also proposed and requested comments on winter-
grade diesel fuel specifications for use during the Cold FTP test.
Specifically, we proposed the use of a #1-D (winter-grade)
diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for
Diesel Fuel Oils,'' \51\ and that complies with 40 CFR Part 80,\52\
where the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent. We
further proposed the use of a manufacturer-specified diesel fuel, with
EPA approval, in lieu of a conventional diesel fuel under the alternate
test procedure provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94, where the level of
kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent. Since we did not receive
any comments regarding the winter-grade diesel fuel specification, we
are finalizing these provisions as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ ASTM International Specification D975-04C ``Standard
Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels'' (November 1, 2005) describes
the seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of
diesel engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM
Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is the direct
responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-
Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.
\52\ 40 CFR Part 80--Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle Standards and Highway
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation
of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway
Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, we did receive comments regarding requiring the Cold FTP
for diesel vehicles. The auto industry cited the potential for major
laboratory retrofitting, which required additional lead time, and
suggested that EPA not require diesels to perform the Cold FTP until
the 2011 model year. They further suggested that Cold FTP testing for
diesels be optional in the 2008-2010 model years.
We have evaluated the comments regarding additional lead time for
laboratory retrofitting to perform the Cold FTP test for diesel
vehicles and believe they have merit. To accommodate Cold FTP testing
of diesel vehicles, manufacturers may need to add a heated flame
ionization detection (FID) system, including heated probes, lines and
filters. Some manufacturers may need to further modify their facilities
for site specific designs and configurations, such as additional
insulation to prevent water condensation in the sampling system or
modifying the length of the exhaust collection hoses.
As a result, we are changing the provisions for requiring Cold FTP
diesel testing from the proposal, as follows. First, we are providing
additional lead time by extending the requirement for Cold FTP diesel
testing from the 2008 model year to the 2011 model year. This will
allow manufacturers additional lead time to address any facility
modifications. Second, we will not require the measurement of
particulate matter (PM) during the Cold FTP diesel test, since PM is
not part of the fuel economy carbon balance calculation, and thus has
no impact on fuel economy. Third, for manufacturers voluntarily using
the 5-cycle method during the 2008-2010 model years, fuel economy over
the Cold FTP may be reported based on carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon
dioxide (CO₂) measurements only, excluding the hydrocarbon
(HC). Based on limited existing data showing that HC makes up a
negligible fraction of the total cold fuel economy results (less than
0.1%), the

[[Page 77906]]

measure of HC will not be required during the 2008-2010 model years.
This interim provision is another way to address manufacturers' concern
about lead time for diesel cold testing facility upgrades, as measuring
HC at cold temperatures requires the use of a heated FID, which many
manufacturers do not have in existing cold facilities. In the 2011
model year and beyond, manufacturers will be required to conduct and
report the results from the Cold FTP diesel testing, including the CO,
CO₂, and HC measurements.
2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
There are two types of alternative-fueled vehicles: (1) Flexible-
fuel vehicles (FFVs; also known as dual-fueled, bi-fueled, or multi-
fueled vehicles) that can operate on gasoline or diesel and/or some
alternative fuel (e.g., ethanol or methanol), and (2) dedicated
alternative fueled vehicles that operate only on the alternative fuel
(e.g., such as compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles).
FFVs are subject to the SFTP (which includes the US06 and SC03
tests) and Cold CO emission standards and test requirements, but only
when operating on gasoline. Thus, we proposed that the fuel economy
label values of FFVs when operating on gasoline be determined using the
same mpg-based or 5-cycle approaches applicable to gasoline vehicles
and thus additional testing for US06, SC03 and Cold FTP while operating
on the alternative fuel would not be required. Although the fuel
economy values when operating on an alternative fuel are not required
to be reported on the label, manufacturers may voluntarily include
these values on the label and they are also reported in the annual Fuel
Economy Guide. In addition, the mpg-based and 5-cycle approaches only
use fuel economy values measured in terms of miles per gallon of
gasoline or diesel fuel. Thus, we proposed an approach to specify how
manufacturers of FFVs must determine and report the fuel economy label
values when the vehicle is operated on an alternative fuel. We proposed
that the city and highway fuel economy label values must reflect the
same adjustment factors relative to FTP and HFET fuel economy,
respectively, developed using the applicable mpg-based or 5-cycle
approach for gasoline. Specifically, the city and highway fuel economy
values when the FFV is operated on gasoline would be used to calculate
the mpg-based or 5-cycle approach (whichever applicable). Then, the
city and highway fuel economy values calculated from the mpg-based or
5-cycle approach would be divided by the city and highway fuel economy
during FFV gasoline operation to determine a ratio. This ratio would
then be applied to the city and highway fuel economy values when the
FFV is operated on an alternative fuel. This would allow the
manufacturer to determine a mpg-based or 5-cycle, alternative fuel
equivalent value for the purpose of voluntary labeling and Fuel Economy
Guide reporting purposes.
For example, assume that the measured FTP and HFET fuel economy is
24 and 32 mpg, respectively, for an FFV operating on gasoline, and 18
mpg and 26 mpg, respectively, for a FFV operating on the alternative
fuel. Using the measured gasoline values and the mpg-based approach,\53\
we can calculate the city and highway fuel economy, as shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ Section II contains a derivation of these equations. This
method for determining the fuel economy label values for FFVs can be
used when the city and highway values are determined by either the
mpg-based method or the 5-cycle method, whichever is applicable. In
this example we demonstrate the use of the mpg-based method.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.032

The resulting city and highway label values for the FFV when
operating on gasoline are 19 mpg and 23 mpg, respectively. We divide
these values (19 and 23 mpg) by the measured city and highway fuel
economy values, 24 and 32 mpg, during FFV gasoline operation to
determine the ratios.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.033

For this example, the ratios would be 0.826 (e.g., 19 mpg divided
by 24 mpg) for the city ratio and 0.719 (23 mpg divided by 32 mpg) for
the highway ratio. To calculate the mpg-based city and highway fuel
economy values for an FFV operating on alternative fuel (for voluntary
inclusion on the label or in the Fuel Economy Guide,) multiply the
measured values (18 mpg and 26 mpg) by their respective ratios.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.034

The estimates reported on the label and in the Fuel economy guide
would be 15 mpg (e.g., 18 mpg times 0.826, the city ratio from gasoline
operation) for the city fuel economy and 19 mpg (e.g., 26 mpg times
0.719, the highway ratio from gasoline operation) for the highway fuel
economy. This can also be done using the 5-cycle approach, as
applicable.
We did not receive any comments on the proposed label methods for FFVs

[[Page 77907]]

and, as such, we are finalizing the provisions as stated in the proposal.
Manufacturers of FFVs may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at
their discretion for reporting fuel economy when operating on the
alternative fuel. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be
required to conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures on the
alternative fuel and use both the 5-cycle city and highway calculation
methods to determine fuel economy label. In addition, for Cold FTP
testing under the 5-cycle approach, the use of a manufacturer-specified
alternative fuel, with EPA approval, will be used under the alternate
test procedure provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94. As stated above,
manufacturers will report these values in the annual Fuel Economy Guide
and may voluntarily include these values on the label.
Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles are also exempt from the SFTP
and Cold FTP emission standards. As a result, these vehicles will not
have the SFTP and Cold FTP fuel economy data needed to determine 5-
cycle fuel economy values. We proposed that manufacturers of dedicated
alternative-fueled vehicles be able to use the mpg-based approach in
the 2011 model year and beyond, as well as during the 2008-2010 model
years, in order to avoid conducting additional tests for fuel economy
reasons only. Further, since the mpg-based approach uses fuel economy
values measured in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline or diesel
fuel, the fuel economy of dedicated alternative fuel vehicles must be
expressed in terms of its gasoline equivalent prior to using the mpg-
based formula. Currently, all dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles
express fuel economy values in terms of a gasoline equivalent.\54\ For
this case, we proposed that the fuel economy values for a dedicated
alternative vehicle expressed in gasoline equivalents are directly
determined using the mpg-based approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ See Sec. 600.113-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We did not receive any comments on the proposed provisions for
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles and, as such, we are finalizing
the provisions as stated above.
Finally, we proposed that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-
fueled vehicles may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at their
discretion. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be required
to conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures on the alternative
fuel, and then convert all the alternative fuel values into gasoline
equivalents prior to use in the 5-cycle formulae for city and highway
label values. Because dedicated alternative fuel vehicles are not
subject to the Cold FTP test procedures today, there is no cold test
fuel specification for alternative fuel (e.g., CNG or E85). Thus, if a
manufacturer wishes to do 5-cycle testing, it would need to request EPA
approval of the cold test fuel under the special test procedure
provisions in 40 CFR 86.113-94.
We did not receive any comments on the proposed provisions for
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles to optionally use the 5-cycle
approach and, as such, we are finalizing the provisions as stated in
the proposal.

B. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures

To ensure that the 5-cycle method is more reflective of real-world
operating conditions, there are a few procedural changes that need to
be made to certain existing emission tests procedures. First, we
proposed procedural changes in the US06 tests, as described below.
Second, we sought comment on the issue of requiring manufacturers to
run the heater and/or defroster during the cold FTP test. Third, we
proposed to codify the existing practice of requiring four-phase FTP
measurements for gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.
1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and Highway Segments
The US06 driving schedule contains elements of both city and
highway driving, yet the exhaust sample is collected in only one
sample, or ``bag.'' In order to more accurately reflect the city
portion of the driving schedule into the city fuel economy estimate,
and the highway portion of the driving schedule into the highway fuel
economy estimate, we proposed a revised test protocol that would
require collecting the exhaust sample into two bags. This has the
benefit of more accurately capturing how a vehicle's fuel economy would
be impacted over the various types of driving reflected in the driving
schedule.
We undertook a test program to determine the technical feasibility
of splitting the US06 exhaust sample in two bags, and whether it would
impact emissions results for compliance purposes. We evaluated the
effects of conducting a US06 split-phase (i.e., two bag) emissions test
versus the current US06 single-phase (one bag) emission test on ten
vehicles at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. Based on this evaluation, the US06 split-phase
sampling methodology was shown to be feasible for fuel economy purposes
and required only initial software reprogramming for the revised
sampling periods and minimal hardware changes to enable the emissions
analyzers to perform US06 split-phase emission testing. In addition,
creating a US06 split-phase sampling period did not result in any
significant difference in criteria pollutant emissions results. The
full report on this US06 split phase evaluation program is available in
the docket.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ Mitcham, A. & Fernandez, A., ``Feasibility of Revising the
US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase Sampling Test Procedure'' U.S.
EPA, Office of Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We received comments from the auto industry that the costs of
collecting US06 exhaust emissions into two bags are substantial, but
they did not provide any cost data to substantiate this claim. Further,
the auto industry claimed that there will be decreased accuracy and
increased variability if the US06 test is split into two phases, yet
they did not provide additional data or analysis to support this claim.
Finally, the auto industry claimed that significant software changes
and lead time would be required to implement the two-phase bag software
for diesel vehicles due to necessary one-phase PM sample collection
systems for diesels, integrated real-time total hydrocarbon (THC) data
collection for fuel economy calculations, and the alignment with
methane (CH₄) bag measurements for compliance with the
emission standard. The auto industry recommended that we allow the use
of alternative methods of determining the US06 city and highway fuel
economy in lieu of conducting a two-bag US06 test. One suggested method
was to use second-by-second data over a one-bag US06 test, either from
modal bench analyzers or via On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) data stream
information, to determine the city portion and highway portion and
develop a two-bag US06 fuel economy calculation. Finally, it was
suggested that we allow some flexibility for future methods that may be
developed to measure or derive the city and highway US06 fuel economies.
While we continue to believe the two-bag US06 measurement proposed
is a valid approach that will not lead to significant differences in
emission results, we also believe that the alternative approaches
suggested by the auto industry could yield technically valid results
and thus have merit. As a result of the comments, we have revised the
proposal and are finalizing the requirements below for the two-bag US06
measurement.
For the 2008 through 2010 model years, those manufacturers choosing to

[[Page 77908]]

use the 5-cycle approach must either conduct the two-bag US06 test or
determine two-bag results from a one-bag test using an alternative
method (as discussed below). For the 2011 model year and beyond, for
all certified test groups, the two-bag US06 must be conducted or data
supplied in two-bag US06 format.
To determine US06 two-bag fuel economy, manufacturers may use
alternate test methods in lieu of conducting an actual two-bag US06.
Such alternate test methods include: (1) Conducting a one-bag US06 and
using emissions analyzer modal data to determine the appropriate ratio
of city and highway operation; or (2) conducting a one-bag US06 and
using OBD fuel rate (e.g., grams of fuel per second) data to determine
the appropriate ratio of city and highway operation over the one-bag
US06. Additionally, the manufacturers may use other methods based on
good engineering judgment, with EPA review and approval, as long as
these methods achieve equivalent or better, technically valid results
based on manufacturer submitted data. For the case of conducting a one-
bag US06 and using the emissions analyzer modal or OBD fuel rate data,
the ratio of city and highway operation over the one-bag US06 is
applied to the CO, CO₂ and HC results in order to determine
the city and highway US06 fuel economy values, constituting a
``virtual'' two-bag US06. However, this option only applies for
determining the city and highway US06 fuel economy and, thus, is not
applicable for determining US06 emissions. The requirements for
conducting a two-bag US06 and the options for alternately measuring or
deriving the two-bag US06 outlined above are applicable to both
gasoline and diesel vehicles.
2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP
The current Cold FTP conducted at 20 [deg]F includes the option to
use the heater and/or defroster.\56\ While we understand that some
manufacturers today are using the heater and/or the defroster during
the Cold FTP, it is not mandatory and therefore subject to inconsistent
usage across manufacturers and vehicle lines. We expect that, in the
real-world, it would be highly unusual for drivers not to use the
heater/defroster when the temperature is cold, including at 20 [deg]F
experienced during the Cold FTP. In order to more closely reflect real
world operation, and to ensure a level playing field across
manufacturers and vehicle lines when performing this test, we sought
comment on requiring manufacturers to operate the heater and/or
defroster during the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ See 40 CFR 86.230-94(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in the NPRM, we conducted a test program through the
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) that measured the impacts of heater
and defroster operation on fuel economy for three vehicles during a 20
[deg]F Cold FTP. We compared the fuel economy results with heater/
defroster operational to the results of the heater/defroster non-
operational on each vehicle. The Cold FTP fuel economy with the heater/
defroster on was significantly lower than that with the heater/
defroster off, ranging from -6.0 percent (~1 mile per gallon lower on a
non-hybrid vehicle) to -17.9 percent (~8 miles per gallon lower on a
hybrid vehicle). We did not observe a significant impact on CO or other
measured emissions as a result of the use of the heater/defroster on
the Cold FTP. The results of this test program indicated that different
vehicles were impacted more than others, indicating that it is
important to capture the impact on fuel economy of heater and defroster
use during cold conditions. The full report of this test program is
contained in the docket.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ``VOC/PM Cold
Temperature Characterization and Interior Climate Control Emissions/
Fuel Economy Impact; Final Report Volume II.'' Prepared for U.S. EPA
under contract 68-C-05-018, SwRI Project No. 03.11382.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The auto industry commented that the heater/defroster requirement
should be deferred until we have a better understanding of real-world
operation of heater/defroster systems. Some manufacturers suggested
that there is a far smaller impact on fuel economy due to defroster/
heater operation than EPA estimates in the proposal based on the SwRI
test program, but they provided no data to support this claim.
Several state and environmental organizations supported the
requirement to use the heater/defroster on the Cold FTP test and
recommended that we develop a standardized methodology based on
realistic usage patterns. One commenter also cited the level playing
field aspect, noting that manufacturers who choose to use more
realistic test conditions may be penalized relative to those who do not.
We believe, as we stated in the proposal, that it is important to
reflect the heater/defroster operation in our fuel economy test
procedures since heater/defroster operation can have an additional
impact on fuel economy,\58\ these accessories are used in the real-
world at cold temperatures including 20 [deg]F, and it is necessary to
maintain a level playing field across manufacturers to prevent gaming
of the test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ``VOC/PM Cold
Temperature Chracterization and Interior Climate Control Emissions/
Fuel Economy Impact: Final Report Volume II.'' Prepared for U.S. EPA
under contract 68-C-05-018, SwRI Project No. 03.11382.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We support the need for the heater/defroster test procedure to
reflect real world operation. However, we believe that a standardized
test protocol must be implemented as soon as possible so that this
real-world impact is taken into account in the new fuel economy test
methods. There are many approaches for how the heater and defroster
usage could be incorporated into the Cold FTP test procedures,
including specifying appropriate fan speed settings, timing of turning
on the heater/defroster during the test, and accounting for various
vehicle climate control designs. Therefore, we sought comment on the
methods for how heater/defroster usage could be specified in the cold
FTP procedure.
Specifically, we discussed a concept that started the test with the
airflow directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow
source set to outside air (not recirculation), and the air temperature
set to high. Approximately 2 minutes into the test, the fan speed could
be turned to maximum and left there for the duration of the test. This
would mimic typical driver behavior in that we expect many drivers
would not turn the fan to maximum until the engine is producing some
level of heat, which most vehicles will do within a couple minutes of
driving. The second concept involved the automatic climate control
systems set to achieve an inside air temperature of 72[deg]F, and the
fan speed, if independently selectable, would be operated as described
above. The third concept related to vehicles with multiple zones
(either driver and passenger, or front and rear) and required operating
the controls for all zones as described above. Finally, since some
climate control systems might not be compatible with these
instructions, we proposed to allow a manufacturer to request the use of
special test procedures, under 40 CFR 86.1840-01, subject to EPA approval.
We received comments from the auto industry that the test protocol
for running the heater/defroster should mimic as closely as possible
how drivers typically operate the heater/defroster system in the real-
world. Specifically, they commented that a driver would not keep the
fan speed at

[[Page 77909]]

maximum for 43 minutes, the effective length of the test, and that many
electronic systems automatically bring the fan speed down as the
vehicle warms up, and that some vehicles can not simultaneously be in
defrost mode and have the blower off. They also commented on the
potential impact of this operation on the stringency of existing and
proposed emission standards (e.g., proposed Mobile Source Air Toxics
cold hydrocarbon standards).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ See 60 FR 15804, ``Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Mobile Sources'' (March 29, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are finalizing mandatory heater/defroster operation during the
Cold FTP, but with some changes to the test protocol to more closely
reflect real world operation. Further, we are addressing issues of lead
time with respect to applicable model years for mandatory heater/
defroster operation during the Cold FTP.
We are revising the applicable model years for implementation of
mandatory heater/defroster operation during the Cold FTP. For the 2008
through 2010 model years, only those manufacturers choosing to
optionally use the 5-cycle approach are required to operate the heater/
defroster during the Cold FTP. This will allow manufacturers time to
fully assess any impacts related to the EPA's Mobile Source Air Toxic
(MSAT) cold hydrocarbon proposed standards,\60\ which would also be
determined based on the Cold FTP test. Again, we reiterate that our
heater/defroster testing, run under a worst-case protocol, did not
indicate an impact on emissions. However, we understand that some
manufacturers desire additional lead time for conducting their own
analyses to confirm these results. For the 2011 model year and beyond
when the 5-cycle approach becomes effective, manufacturers are required
to operate the heater/defroster during the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The test protocol we are finalizing has been revised from that
outlined in the proposal as follows. At the start of the test, manually
controlled climate control systems will have the airflow will be
directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow source
set to outside air (not recirculation), the fan speed set to off or
``low'' and the air temperature set to the hottest setting. At the
second idle of the test (approximately two minutes into the test,
allowing the engine to accumulate some heat) the fan speed will be set
to maximum. At the sixth idle of the test, at approximately 505 seconds
into the test (corresponds with the end of bag 1 and the start of bag 2
of the Cold FTP), the fan speed setting will be reduced to the lowest
possible setting to maintain air flow, and the temperature setting will
remain at the hottest setting. These settings will be held for the
remainder of the test, including the final bag following the 10 minute
soak period. For automatic climate control systems, the manufacturer
can manually override the system and use the provisions specified for
manual systems, or the system selector will be set to heater or
defroster mode and the temperature will be set to 72[deg]F for the
duration of the test. All other aspects of heater/defroster operation
and climate control settings during the Cold FTP discussed in the
proposal will be finalized unchanged. For vehicles with multiple zone
climate control systems (e.g., front and rear temperature/fan controls
and/or separate driver/passenger temperature/fan controls), the same
fan and temperature settings should be set and maintained for all the
zones for both manual and automatic interior climate control systems,
if feasible. If these settings are not feasible, manufacturers may
request and use alternate settings, with prior agency approval, only
for vehicles with multiple zone climate control systems. If a
manufacturer does request alternate settings for multiple zone systems,
at a minimum, the settings for the front passenger zone of the multiple
zone system must follow the protocols set forth above.
The regulations specify that the manufacturer must use good
engineering judgment and consider potential engine control changes that
may be directly impacted by the temperature setting on the manually
controlled systems (e.g. has direct input to, or can directly affect,
the engine control logic). For example, when the heater or defroster is
engaged a system may employ such strategies as disabling of engine-off
idling features, disabling of cylinder deactivation, or different
engine idling speed. Also, at the 20[deg]F ambient temperature of the
Cold FTP, it is highly unlikely that vehicles will experience any use
of the air conditioning compressor during defroster operation and any
fuel economy differences between heater and defroster operation would
be related to engine control changes (e.g., engine off logic, idle
speed changes, spark advance changes).
We recognize that there may be unique climate control systems that
are not addressed through these protocols. To address such systems,
manufacturers can request in writing EPA approval of alternative
heater/defroster test protocols/procedures.
3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing Provisions
The FTP consists of two parts referred to as the ``cold start'' and
the ``hot start'' portion of the test. The ``cold start'' portion is
performed following an eight to twelve hour soak at a stable
temperature of 72[deg]F that stabilizes the vehicle and brings the
engine coolant temperature to a ``cold'' condition. The ``hot start''
portion is performed following prescribed driving sufficient to bring
the vehicle (and engine coolant) up to full operating temperature, and
then a ten minute soak that stabilizes the vehicle. The cold start and
hot start are divided into two periods, or ``phases'': A ``transient''
phase and a ``stabilized'' phase (i.e., the vehicle is warmed up),
which constitute what is known as the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS). The emissions for each of the FTP phases are collected
in ``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the
exhaust samples are collected. The full four phases of the FTP are
conducted in the following order: Cold start transient phase (bag 1),
cold start stabilized phase (bag 2), hot start transient phase (bag 3),
and hot stabilized phase (bag 4).
For conventional vehicles, the stabilized phase of the hot start
test (bag 4) is assumed to be identical to the stabilized phase of the
cold start test (bag 2). Thus, the hot stabilized phase (bag 4) is
typically not performed for conventional vehicles and is accounted for
in the emission and fuel economy results mathematically by including
the cold stabilized phase (bag 2) results twice in the calculation.
However, since hybrid-electric vehicles have dual energy sources that
can be operated in synergistic modes, the gasoline or diesel engine is
supplemented by the electric motor and may not be at peak, optimized
operating temperatures during the entire FTP. Based on this, the EPA
and manufacturers recognized that the assumption regarding the
equivalence of the cold and hot stabilized phases, and counting the
cold stabilized phase twice in the calculation, may not be valid for
hybrid vehicles. Consequently, we currently require hybrid-electric
vehicles to conduct all four phases of the FTP.
For hybrid-electric vehicles, the emissions collection process for
the FTP can be performed in two different ways: (1) ``4-bag procedure--
the emissions are collected in an individual bag (e.g., bag 1, bag 2,
bag 3, and bag 4) for each phase and analyzed, a total composite
emissions number is calculated based on the emissions in all the bags,
and the

[[Page 77910]]

emissions numbers for each of the bags and the composite emissions are
reported; or (2) the emissions from the cold start transient phase and
cold start stabilized phase are collected in bag 1 and analyzed, the
emissions from the hot start transient phase and hot start stabilized
phase emissions are collected in bag 2 and analyzed, a composite number
is calculated based on the emissions in both bags, and the emissions
for both bag 1 and bag 2, and composite emissions are reported. The
first collection method, a 4-bag FTP, and the second collection method,
a 2-bag FTP, are similar in that the emissions are collected over the
full four-phases of the FTP. However, the two methods differ in that
for the 2-bag FTP, the bags are combined as follows: bag 1 is a
combination of bag 1 and bag 2 of the 4-bag FTP, and bag 2 is a
combination of bag 3 and bag 4 of the 4-bag FTP.
Therefore, for the purposes of this rulemaking in relation to
hybrid-electric vehicles, we are concerned about two distinct things:
(1) The number of phases (e.g., four phases for hybrid-electric
vehicles versus three phases for conventional vehicles, as described
above) required to be conducted during the FTP and (2) the number of
bags (e.g. two bags versus 4 bags, as described above) that the
emissions are collected in over the FTP, in particular, for hybrid-
electric vehicles, which we want to require the full four phases for
the FTP.
We currently require hybrid-electric vehicles to perform the
complete set of four phases of the FTP and referenced the existing,
special test procedure provisions in the regulations (40 CFR 86.1840-
01) as the basis for this. Rather than continue using the special test
procedure provisions, we proposed to develop explicit regulatory
language to require full-four phase testing of hybrid-electric
vehicles. Additionally, the 5-cycle formula for hybrid-electric
vehicles requires the four phases of the FTP as inputs for these
vehicles. Therefore, we also proposed to develop explicit regulatory
language that requires hybrid-electric vehicles to conduct all four
phases of the FTP for both emissions and fuel economy testing. Finally,
we proposed to require that the emissions from the full four phases of
the FTP be collected in individual bags (i.e., four bags; one bag for
each phase) for all tests using the FTP, including the cold temperature
FTP, for those vehicles defined as hybrid-electric vehicles. We also
requested comment on the proposal, and on whether use of the phrase
``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and identify
vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.
We received the following comments regarding requiring the hybrid
electric vehicle test procedures. First, the auto industry commented
that 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n) of our regulations, which aligns with
California, already requires the full four phases of the FTP for
hybrid-electric vehicles for emissions testing, and therefore suggested
we should retain section 86.1811-04(n) as-is without further codifying
language requiring the full four phase FTP. Second, the comments
suggested that we also define the four-phase, two-bag FTP and four-
phase, four-bag FTP in part 600 of our regulations so that it is only
applicable to fuel economy measurement, not for emissions measurement,
which is contained in part 86 of our regulations. Third, the comments
supported our proposal to extend the full four-phase FTP testing for
hybrid vehicles to the Cold FTP. Finally, the comments cited that
requiring four bags would force facility modifications with significant
costs and lead time issues and identified the benefits of the four-
phase, two-bag approach, including improved accuracy and alignment with
California. To address this, the comments recommended that we add 5-
cycle fuel economy equations for both two-bag and four-bag testing with
appropriate bag fuel consumption weighting by theoretical distance
traveled to ensure consistent label adjustments between two- and four-
bag data. Finally, we did not receive any comments on whether the use
of the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.
As a result of these comments, we have revised the proposal and are
finalizing the requirements for hybrid electric vehicle test procedures
as follows. First, for requiring the full, four-phase FTP testing for
emissions, we agree that 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n) does properly reference
the California procedures which require the full four phase FTP. In
addition, part 600 refers back to procedures in part 86, including 40
CFR 86.1811-04(n) which references the California procedure for four-
phase FTP testing. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop further
language to require the full four phase FTP.
Second, we proposed to extend the requirement for full, four phase
FTP testing of hybrid vehicles to the Cold FTP. Upon further analysis
of this provision, we are not finalizing this requirement. As discussed
in Chapter III of the Final Technical Support Document, vehicles may
not be fully warmed up during bag 2 of the Cold FTP. Thus, fuel economy
over a bag 4 of the Cold FTP would likely be higher than that over bag
2. Thus, vehicles tested over a 4-bag Cold FTP would likely have higher
fuel economy per the 5-cycle formulae than those tested over a three
bag test. This would result in inconsistent fuel economy estimates for
conventional and hybrid vehicles. Therefore, we will continue the
current practice of only requiring a three-bag Cold FTP for both
conventional and hybrid vehicles.
Third, we understand that some manufacturers may require some new
software and additional test equipment to implement a four-phase, 4-bag
test. In addition, since our test procedures are aligned with
California requiring full four phase FTP testing for hybrid-electric
vehicles, this essentially is an issue of how to divide and analyze the
emissions results. While we are finalizing a requirement for four-phase
FTP results, manufacturers may choose to collect the sample either in
four bags or two bags, as discussed above. Accordingly, we are
finalizing today an option for a 5-cycle formula that allows for four-
phase, 2-bag FTP inputs for hybrid-electric vehicles. Our analysis of
this option in the Technical Support Document shows that there is no
significant difference in fuel economy results from using a 2-bag
versus 4-bag equation.
Finally, since we did not receive any comments on whether the use
of the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required, we
believe this terminology is sufficient and will use ``hybrid electric
vehicle'' in reference to the four-phase, four-bag FTP.

V. Projected Cost Impacts

The majority of the costs of this rule are due to an increase in
the manufacturer test burden. While manufacturers conduct tests today
for emissions compliance and fuel economy reporting, they test a more
limited set of vehicles than will be necessary for the fuel economy
labeling calculations in model years 2011 and beyond. There are also
startup costs to implement the new fuel economy reporting requirements
beginning during the transition period from model year 2008 through 2010.
The final rule requires calculation of fuel economy values based on
the 5-cycle formulae beginning with model year 2011 for some vehicle
test groups. As discussed in detail elsewhere in this preamble, for
model years 2008 through 2010, manufacturers may use the mpg-based
calculation for the five-cycle fuel

[[Page 77911]]

economy values or they may conduct voluntary testing. For model years
2011 and beyond, if the five-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
for an emission data vehicle group are below 96 percent and 95 percent
of the mpg-based regression line, respectively, then all the vehicle
configurations represented by the emission data vehicle (e.g., all
vehicles within the vehicle test group) would use the 5-cycle approach.
Vehicles within a test group falling below the city fuel economy band
would be required to conduct US06, SC03, and Cold FTP tests; those
falling below the 5 percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy
values but not below the city tolerance band would be required to
conduct US06 tests (the effects of cold temperature and air
conditioning would be modeled). In addition, we expect that some of
these vehicles falling below the tolerance band may be eligible to
estimate fuel economy for a given test through the application of
analytically derived fuel economy values. Some data are currently
available for vehicles that have conducted all 5 tests; based on these
data, EPA has estimated the number of vehicles for which additional
testing would be required because they fall below the 4 and 5 percent
tolerance bands, as discussed further in Section II.
EPA received no comments on the overall methodology of its cost
analysis or the general cost assumptions used in that analysis.
However, we received comments on a number of specific proposal issues
having cost implications, including changes to various test procedures.
These issues are specified in Section IV and the Response to Comments
document. The impacts of the resolution of these issues on the final
cost analysis are summarized here and are discussed in more detail in
the Technical Support Document.
As in the cost study for the proposed rule, we are presenting low
and high estimates of the economic impact for two time frames: (1)
Model years 2008 to 2010, and (2) model year 2011 and thereafter. The
low and high estimates of testing burden scenarios provide boundaries
on the potential testing costs and informational startup costs.

A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles Into Fuel Economy Label Calculations

1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through 2010 Model Years
We are finalizing as proposed our estimate that no additional tests
will be required during model year (MY) 2008 through MY 2010.
Manufacturers may simply apply the mpg-based adjustments to the same
FTP and HFET test results that they otherwise would conduct for the
fuel economy labeling program today (see Section II). While
manufacturers have the option of conducting and reporting full 5-cycle
test results, such tests are not required by this final rule, and we
have not included this testing in our cost estimates. Manufacturers
that voluntarily choose to conduct full 5-cycle testing would incur
some additional testing costs, which we have not included in our cost
estimates, since we do not have any means of predicting which
manufacturers would choose this option, or for which vehicle models, or
the amount of additional testing that would be performed.
2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years
To derive low and high estimates for the number of additional tests
required for our proposal, we used EPA data on the number of FTP/HFET,
US06, SC03, and Cold FTP tests. Based on MY 2004 data\61\, 1,250 fuel
economy vehicles were tested with the FTP and highway fuel economy
tests.\62\ Data show that 330 SFTP (US06 and SC03) tests were conducted
and 220 Cold FTP tests. Consequently, if all fuel economy vehicles were
required to undergo full 5-cycle tests, approximately 920 additional
SFTP tests and 1,030 Cold FTP tests would be required. EPA estimated,
based on an analysis of our 423 vehicle dataset, that 8 percent of the
test groups will fall outside a band approximately less than or equal
to 96 percent of the regression for the city test and 23 percent
outside a band approximately less than or equal to 95 percent of the
highway regression. Taking the 2004 numbers above as a baseline, 92
percent of the additional SC03 and Cold FTP tests otherwise required
would be avoided for city fuel economy; 77 percent of the additional
US06 tests would be avoided. Thus, for example, the initial estimate of
increased testing burden for SC03 would be 8 percent of the difference
between 1250 and 330. The low and high estimates under these
assumptions are generated by differing estimates of the effect of
another feature that will be available for MY 2011 and after--and
expanded use of ADFE as an alternative to conducting vehicle tests. The
low and high burden estimates assumes that 20 percent and 0 percent of
the additional tests would thereby be avoided, respectively.\63\ Based
on this analysis in our proposal, we estimated that potential increases
in yearly testing could range as follows: 169-212 additional US06
tests, 59-74 additional SC03 tests, and 66-82 additional Cold FTP tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Model year 2004 certification data was the latest complete
model year of data available at the time of the proposal. The
certification data for model year 2005 is not significantly different.
\62\ The figure is approximate because the city FTP test may be
used and recorded primarily as a fuel economy test, an emissions
test, or both.
\63\ Based on EPA's current guidance to auto manufacturers on
the use of ADFE, up to 20% of FTP/HFET tests are allowed to be
calculated through ADFEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This approach is retained in the final cost analysis, with one
adjustment. The percent falling outside the tolerance band for the city
test and for the highway test should only count the vehicles that are
below the tolerance band in both cases, that is, only those vehicles
with fuel economy lower than 4 and 5 percent below the regression
lines, respectively. With this correction, 4 percent of the test groups
would trigger additional testing as falling below the city fuel economy
regression tolerance and 13 percent below the highway regression
tolerance. With the ADFE assumptions unchanged, the corrected
additional test estimates range as follows: 96-120 additional US06
tests; 29-37 additional SC03 tests, and 33-41 Cold FTP tests.
Based on manufacturer comments, we have further revised the
estimated test burden as a result of the four issues discussed in the
following sections.
a. Fuel Economy Labeling for Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
As discussed in Section I, MDPVs will be included in the labeling
program beginning with model year 2011. This change is based on NHTSA's
expansion of the CAFE program to include MDPVs beginning the same model
year. As discussed in Section I, we are finalizing fuel economy test
methods for MDPVs that will not require additional testing beyond that
which the CAFE program will require beginning in model year 2011 (i.e.,
the FTP and HFET tests). Therefore, we are projecting no additional
costs in this final rule to extend labeling to MDPVs.
b. Cold FTP Diesel Testing
EPA proposed to require Cold FTP testing for light-duty diesel
vehicles beginning with the 2008 model year. As discussed in Section
IV, Cold FTP diesel testing is now optional until model year 2011,
except for those manufacturers that voluntarily choose to do 5-cycle
testing. Auto manufacturers commented that the proposed cost analysis
neglected to account for Cold FTP diesel testing costs during MY 2008-
MY 2010. The test burdens, including capital

[[Page 77912]]

costs, were addressed in the proposal in terms of the number of tests
estimated for MY 2011 and after. The preamble noted that eight city/
highway test pairs were conducted for the five light-duty diesel
vehicles certified in MY 2006.
Estimating the number of light-duty diesel vehicles certified in MY
2011 and beyond is difficult at this point, but several manufacturers
have announced plans to expand or introduce diesel products in this
time frame. As a result, for the final rule cost analysis we have
doubled the number of certified light-duty diesel test groups in MY
2011 from five to ten. Accordingly, we have increased the estimated
Cold FTP test volume from our proposed range of 66-82 tests and the
corrected range of 33-41 tests to a range of 41-49 tests for the final
rule. For the final rule, both low and high estimates for testing costs
increase approximately $20,000 per year reflecting the increased number
of tests under the unchanged testing cost assumptions of the proposal
(Cold FTP facility upgrades are considered separately below).
Additionally, the additional testing requirement is reflected in an
increase in the corrected total capital costs (unamortized) for Cold
FTP facilities of $770,000-$1,373,000 to a $957,000-$1,640,000 (unamortized).
In addition, commenters raised a number of technical issues
regarding laboratory configurations and the difficulty of establishing
cold test facility retrofits to accommodate diesel testing without a
transition period. Extending the beginning of diesel cold testing
requirement to 2011 is intended to address some of these concerns,
particularly the lead time needed to implement laboratory
modifications. To more fully account for the cost of these laboratory
upgrades, we have revised the estimate by increasing capital costs by
$55,000 for each of ten manufacturers to account for these upgrades.
c. Two-Bag US06 Measurements
The proposal included the costs of the requirement for two-bag US06
measurements as startup costs involving information system programming
and validation tests, but not new facility costs. We are retaining
these estimates for the final rule.
As discussed in Section IV, we received comments on the costs of
collecting US06 exhaust emissions in two bags, particularly in view of
software changes and the lead time needed to implement two-bag
software. In response, EPA will accept alternative methods of
calculating two-bag data. These alternatives are available for those
manufacturers choosing to use the 5-cycle approach in the 2008 through
2010 model years, as well as manufacturers required to perform 5-cycle
testing in model years 2011 and beyond. Our evaluation indicated that
the new provisions provide ample lead time to be implemented.
Therefore, accommodating two-bag US06 measurements would not
significantly impact the cost analysis presented in our proposal.
d. Four-Phase FTP for Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicles
The proposal included no additional costs for the four-phase FTP
requirement for hybrid-electric vehicles. As discussed in Section IV,
we received comments on costs of the proposed four-phase FTP in terms
of lead time and installation of new hardware, software, and test
equipment. In response to these comments, four-phase FTP testing will
be required, but may be conducted as either a 2-bag or 4-bag
measurement as suggested by the auto industry, as discussed in Section
IV. Consequently, we foresee no additional cost impacts.
3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden
a. Capital Costs
The proposal estimated a capital cost of $4 million for a facility
able to perform 750 US06 tests a year, $9 million for an environmental
facility able to conduct 300 to 428 SC03 tests per year, and $10
million for an environmental facility able to conduct 300 to 428 Cold
FTP tests per year. These costs were applied on a per-test basis to the
increased tests required by the proposal, amortized at 7% and
annualized over ten years. The resulting capital cost was $524,000 to
$866,000 per year. Correcting the estimated number of new tests,
applying the same facility costs to the increased estimate for Cold
diesel testing, and adding the facility upgrades for Cold diesel, as
discussed above, this capital cost has been adjusted to a low/high
range of $375,000 to $560,000.
b. Labor and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
The proposal included costs of $1,860 to $2,441 for running each of
the tests, allocated between labor and O&M based on prior Information
Collection Requests. Adjusting for the corrected and additional testing
as discussed above, we have changed our cost estimates from a proposed
range of $606,000-$757,000 to a range of $343,000-$424,000 for the
final rule.
c. Startup Costs
Startup costs are treated like capital costs, annualized over ten
years and discounted at 7% beginning with model year 2008. The proposal
included $3,472,000 in total information system costs, including
reprogramming to report the new data, label design changes, plus
$28,000 to $196,000 for information systems for the US06 split phase
sample system. Finally, $195,000 to $651,000 was provided for
validation testing of the US06 split phase sampling. Discounted and
annualized, this came to $526,000 to $615,000 per year, industry-wide.
For the final rule, we have increased our range of estimated
startup costs to $663,000-$752,000 to account for the additional
information systems needed to manage the increased complexity of the
fuel economy labeling reporting system. The auto industry commented
that existing database management systems would need to be modified to
accommodate the changes in fuel economy labeling calculations. EPA
proposed to apply the mpg-line label calculations (i.e., ``derived 5-
cycle'') at the vehicle test level, meaning the FTP or HFET results
from a test vehicle would undergo the derived 5-cycle calculations to
determine a fuel economy label value. The final rule requires applying
the derived 5-cycle equation at the model-type rather than test level;
however, this approach is not available for the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle label calculation option and MY 2011 requirements. Therefore, the
cost analysis has been updated to account for this increased
information system burden.
Manufacturers will incur a one-time cost to upgrade their fuel
economy data and reporting systems to account for the new fuel economy
calculation procedures. Based on a projection of EPA's information
development contract costs, we have increased the industry information
startup costs (unamortized) by $933,450. This increases the annualized
and discounted startup costs to a low/high range of $659,000 to
$748,000 for the industry as a whole.

B. Revised Label Format and New Information Included

This cost item was included in the startup information portion of
the cost analysis in the proposal. No adjustments have been made in the
final analysis.

C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06, and Cold FTP Tests

As proposed, we do not expect capital or operating costs to
increase due to

[[Page 77913]]

submission of additional information associated with additional tests.
However, we do expect additional startup costs for information system
programming. The startup burden has been modified as discussed above.

D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing

As proposed, the final rule does not include an increase in the
number of vehicles targeted for confirmatory testing. We are not
revising our proposed estimation of manufacturer confirmatory testing
under the criteria of failed or high emission levels, unexpectedly high
fuel economy, fuel economy leader within class, and fuel economy near
the Gas Guzzler tax threshold.

E. Fees

The proposed rule did not include an increase in the fees to cover
any increase in costs of issuing certificates of conformity under the
new label rule. Instead, EPA will monitor its compliance testing and
associated costs and, if necessary, in the future adjust the fees to
include any new costs. We have retained this approach in the final rule.

F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate

As discussed above and summarized in the table below, aggregate
annual costs for MY 2008 through MY 2010 are estimated to range from
$663,000-$752,000, compared with the proposed range of $526,000-
$615,000. For MY 2011 and beyond, aggregated annual costs are estimated
to range from $1,377,000-$1,732,000 compared with the proposed range of
$1,655,000-$2,238,000.

Table 5-1--Aggregate Annual Costs to Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2008 through MY 2010 MY 2011 and after
Cost Element ---------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Volume (Labor, O&M).................................... $0 $0 $343,000 $424,000
Facilities (Capital, Annualized)............................ 0 0 375,000 560,000
Startup (Capital, Annualized)............................... 663,000 752,000 659,000 748,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 663,000 752,000 1,381,000 1,732,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Implementation and Other Provisions

A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable Vehicles

The EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy
of comparable vehicles of all manufacturers.\64\ EPA's comparable class
structure provides a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel economy to
that of other vehicles in its class. We proposed to add separate
classes for SUVs and minivans, which were previously included in the
Special Purpose Vehicle category. We also proposed to modify the
definition of ``small pickup trucks'' by increasing the weight limit
from 4,500 pounds GVWR to 6,000 pounds GVWR. All comments on these
proposals were favorable. Auto manufacturers suggested minor
clarifications to the definition of minivan in order to distinguish it
further from SUVs. We agree with these suggestions and are finalizing
changes accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So-called ``crossover'' vehicles are those that meet the definition
of more than one vehicle class, and thus are difficult to categorize.
EPA currently uses discretion to assign these vehicles to a class on a
case-by-case basis. For example, we attempt to determine which class
assignment makes sense from a consumer perspective (e.g., is it more
likely to be considered by consumers looking for a minivan or for an
SUV) and what marketing segment is being targeted by the manufacturer.
We did not propose to change how we are addressing the recent
proliferation of ``crossover'' vehicles, but we requested comments on
whether we should create a separate ``crossover'' class. Some public
comments supported the creation of this class, but did not suggest how
to define it. Auto companies were opposed to it, citing the
difficulties in creating a meaningful class definition. Lacking such a
definition that would clearly distinguish between a ``crossover''
vehicle and other vehicle classes, we are not creating a separate class
for crossover vehicles. 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.
In portraying the range of fuel economy for comparable vehicles on
the label, several commenters noted that the comparable class structure
does not adequately provide consumers with meaningful fuel economy
comparisons, and that class distinctions have been blurring in recent
years. Commenters noted that many consumers shop across classes. These
commenters did not suggest any specific revisions to the class
structure to address these concerns; rather, their suggestions relate
to the presentation of the comparable class information on the label,
which is addressed in Section III. Additionally, manufacturers
expressed concern that the wide fuel economy ranges of some classes are
not necessarily representative of vehicles that consumers would
normally compare (the example they cite is the midsize class, which
contains the Toyota Prius and the Rolls Royce Phantom). Auto
manufactures further noted that the highest sales vehicles are
typically near the midpoint of the range, and that vehicles at either
end of the range (low and high fuel economy) are typically vehicles
with low sales volume or ``niche'' vehicles. They suggest that
consumers usually shop within subsets of the defined vehicle classes,
and not across the entire class. To address these concerns,
manufacturers recommended against using a graphical representation of
the comparable class fuel economy, and that EPA should continue to use
the text that is used today. However, they did not suggest any specific
changes to the class structure to address these concerns.
We believe that with the changes we are finalizing today, the
comparable class structure generally represents the distinctions
between vehicle types offered in the fleet today. Absent suggestions
during the public comment period for new comparable vehicle
classifications, we are finalizing the comparable class structure
largely as proposed, with minor changes as discussed above. We welcome
interested parties to continue working with EPA in the future on how to
ensure that the comparable classes are kept current with the dynamic
vehicle fleet. If it becomes necessary in the future to further modify
the comparable class

[[Page 77914]]

structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking.

B. Fuel Economy Ranges for Comparable Fuel Economy Graphic

Along with the label's new graphic of comparable fuel economy
(Figure III.3), we proposed both how EPA would inform manufacturers of
the within-class fuel economy ranges for the label, and how they are to
present this information on the label if range data is not available in
time for printing (which can occur for models introduced early in the
year). For example, between August and September of each year, EPA
typically issues guidance to the manufacturers specifying the fuel
economy ranges for the comparable classes to be used on labels. Since
we did not know the final design of the comparable fuel economy element
at the time of the proposal, we suggested regulatory text nearly
identical to the existing language, which requires the term ``N/A''
(for ``Not Applicable'') to replace actual range values when data is
not yet available. However, since we are finalizing a graphical
presentation of comparable fuel economy instead of regulatory text, it
is necessary to use a different method to illustrate this information
when the range is not yet available. Without the upper and lower range
bounds, it is impossible to indicate where the vehicle's actual
combined fuel economy falls on the range bar. Therefore, in cases when
range data for the current model year is not available in time for
printing the label, manufacturers must use the ranges of the previous
model year. The vehicle's combined fuel economy will appear on the
range bar relative to where it falls within the previous model year's
range.
Model year 2008 vehicles introduced to the public before EPA can
determine the 2008 fuel economy ranges must be considered further,
because the previous model year range data is based on the 2007 methods
for determining fuel economy, and is thus not comparable to the new
data. Therefore, until EPA issues guidance on model year 2008
comparable class ranges, manufacturers must include the 2007 range data
adjusted to account for the new methods. Upon issuance of this rule, we
will provide these ``2007-adjusted'' ranges to manufacturers via
guidance letter as soon as possible.

C. Temporary Option To Add ``Old Method'' City and Highway Estimates on
Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle Labels

As discussed previously, all model year 2008 vehicles are required
to calculate the city and highway fuel economy label estimates using
the new methods being finalized today. Some manufacturers indicated
that they may introduce model year 2008 vehicles as early as January 2,
2007. Consumers will then be comparing vehicles having fuel economy
estimates based on the new methods to a large volume of model year 2007
vehicles having estimates based on the old methods. To address this, we
are finalizing a temporary option allowing manufacturers to add
additional information in fine print to model year 2008 vehicle labels
indicating what the fuel economy estimates would have been using the
old method. In other words, all model year 2008 vehicles are still
required to estimate the city and highway fuel economy estimates using
the new methods, but manufacturers may optionally add--in fine print
only--information indicating what the estimates would have been under
the previous methods. This option is available only until June 1, 2007,
when a more significant number of 2008 models should be available for
sale, and, thus, there will be few model year 2007 vehicles on dealer
lots with which to compare. This option is available for labels with
either the old or new design.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ As discussed in Section III, the new fuel economy label
design becomes mandatory on September 1, 2007, before which
manufacturers may optionally use it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

EPCA defines fuel economy as ``* * * the average number of miles
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator* * *''
\66\ Thus, EPA's fuel economy labeling program has historically
expressed fuel economy in miles per gallon (mpg). We requested comments
on how a gallons-per-mile fuel consumption metric could be used and
presented publicly, such as in the Fuel Economy Guide. A few
manufacturers suggested that it may be more meaningful to express fuel
efficiency in terms of consumption (gallons per 100 miles) than in
terms of economy (miles per gallon), because consumption directly
measures the amount of fuel used, a metric related to cost that
consumers may consider when filling up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule maintains the requirement that the label must
express the estimates in terms of fuel economy, instead of fuel
consumption. Since historically we have expressed fuel efficiency in
miles per gallon, it is a metric that Americans understand. Our concern
is that without a long-term, comprehensive public awareness campaign,
any changes to the metric could confuse the public. Some commenters
mentioned their interest in pursuing research and public education on
the fuel consumption metric, and we look forward to learning more in
the future from those stakeholders exploring the issue.
However, the labels currently provide an easy way to compare the
fuel consumption of different vehicles. The estimated annual fuel cost
information on the label is based on the fuel consumption metric: it is
the dollar equivalent of the number of gallons consumed over 15,000
miles. Thus we believe that including the estimated annual fuel cost on
the label is a valuable metric for consumers, because it relates
directly to fuel consumption. We are also locating the estimated annual
fuel cost information more prominently on the new label to raise public
awareness.

E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel Economy Calculator

In the proposed rule, we suggested implementing a web calculator in
which consumers could input their own customized information in order
to estimate more accurately their expected in-use fuel economy. User-
specific information could include such factors as number of miles
driven, mix of city and highway driving, air conditioner usage, average
speed driven, ambient temperature, per gallon price of fuel, and
others. We received several positive comments that a web calculator
would be a useful tool, and could provide users with valuable insight
on the effects of these factors on their fuel economy. Another
commenter urged EPA to ensure that the tool would provide accurate
results. We plan to consider further how to best design and implement a
calculator tool, and we may seek additional input from interested
stakeholders.

F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel Costs

To determine the estimated annual fuel cost, we currently require
that manufactures use the same fuels that they require or recommend to
customers. In the proposal we did not intend to change this, but we
inadvertently omitted the text, ``or recommended,'' from the
parenthetical statement in the regulatory text at 600.307-08(a)(3)(iv),
regarding the fuel type used to determine the estimated annual fuel
cost on the label. Therefore, we are adding the words, ``or

[[Page 77915]]

recommended,'' to the regulations, which means that manufactures must
use the fuel that they require or recommend to customers as a basis for
the estimated annual fuel cost.

G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet

We proposed adding language to the regulations that allows dealers
to fulfill their requirement to provide customers with copies of the
Fuel Economy Guide booklet by using an on-site computer.\67\ This
method has been used on a trial basis in recent years. One commenter
opposed this idea, citing that people are disinclined to use computers,
and that the success of this method has been neither studied nor
proven. However, the National Auto Dealer Association commented that
this proposal should be finalized, because it is a more efficient,
effective way of providing customers with this information. We agree
that there are people who are disinclined to use computers, but we
expect dealers who opt to provide the guide electronically to also
provide assistance as needed to customers who want to access and/or
print portions of the Fuel Economy Guide using the dealership's
computer. Regulations that provide dealers with the option to provide
the Fuel Economy Guide in this way do not relieve dealerships of the
responsibility to make the Guide ``available to prospective buyers.''
\68\ We are finalizing this requirement as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
\68\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908 (c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations

A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information,
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on
window stickers of all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an
annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to
the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's
average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this
compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program).\69\ The responsibilities for these requirements were
split between EPA, DOT and the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is
responsible for establishing the test methods and calculation
procedures for determining the fuel economy estimates to be posted on
the window stickers and in the annual booklet (the Fuel Economy Guide),
and for determining a manufacturer's corporate average fuel
economy.\70\ DOT is responsible for administering the CAFE compliance
program, including establishing standards for non-passenger automobiles
and determining if manufacturers are complying with the applicable CAFE
standards, and assessing any penalties as needed.\71\ DOE is
responsible for publishing and distributing the annual fuel economy
information booklet.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ See Pub. L. 94-163.
\70\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904, 32908.
\71\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904.
\72\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute
in 1976. These regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 600. The
provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 model year,
established test methods and 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 into a single number.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ See 41 FR 38685 (Sept. 10, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under EPCA, EPA's fuel economy labeling regulations require
manufacturers to label each ``automobile'' they produce. EPCA defines
``automobile'' in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) as:

* * * a 4-wheeled vehicle * * * rated at--
(A) Not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; or
(B) More than 6,000, but less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight, if the Secretary decides by regulation that--
(i) An average fuel economy standard * * * for the vehicle is
feasible; and
(ii) An average fuel economy * * * for the vehicle will result
in significant energy conservation or the vehicle is substantially
used for the same purposes as a vehicle rated at not more than 6,000
pounds gross vehicle weight.

Further, section 32902 authorizes DOT to set CAFE standards for
``automobiles,'' and section 32908 authorizes EPA to set labeling
requirements for ``automobiles.'' Specifically, section 32908 states
that, for the purpose of section 32908, `` `automobile' includes an
automobile rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight
regardless of whether [DOT]
has applied this chapter to the automobile
under section 32901(a)(3)(B).'' The effect of this is to essentially
expand EPA's labeling authority to vehicles between 6,000 and 8,500
pounds GVWR, without the need for any finding by DOT to bring such
vehicles into the definition of automobile under section
32901(a)(3)(B). Therefore, based on the definition of ``automobile'' in
EPCA, EPA's labeling regulations are required to cover (1) all vehicles
below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and (2) those vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000
lbs GVWR that DOT has determined by regulation should be subject to
CAFE standards under EPCA. EPA has no authority under EPCA to require
fuel economy labeling for vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or for
vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR where DOT has not made the
requisite regulatory determination to apply the CAFE standards. Those
vehicles do not meet the definition of ``automobile,'' and EPA's
authority to require fuel economy labeling is limited to ``automobiles.''
The Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has recently
determined that certain vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 GVWR will be
considered automobiles and subject to CAFE standards starting with
model year 2011 (see 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006)). Based on this
determination EPA is amending its labeling regulations in this final
rule to include these vehicles. See the discussion regarding the
adoption of fuel economy labeling regulations for medium-duty passenger
vehicles in Section I.C.2.
EPCA requires manufacturers of automobiles to attach a fuel economy
label to a prominent place on each automobile manufactured in a model
year and also requires the dealers to maintain the label on the
automobile.\74\ EPCA specifies minimum requirements for the information
to be included on the fuel economy label.\75\ This final rule retains
these items, as required:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
\75\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. The fuel economy of the automobile.
b. The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.
c. The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all
manufacturers.
d. A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year.
e. The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the
sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064).

[[Page 77916]]

f. Other information required or authorized by the Administrator
that is related to the information required [within items a. through d.].
EPCA also defines ``fuel economy'' as the average number of miles
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by EPA.\76\ Thus, this final
rule retains the requirement to report fuel economy as miles-per-gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPCA also requires EPA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing
information that is ``simple and readily understandable.'' \77\ This
booklet is more 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.'' \78\ This final rule makes
minor changes to these regulations by allowing manufacturers and
dealers to make the Fuel Economy Guide available electronically to
customers as an option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Energy Policy Act of 2005

Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs EPA to
``update or revise the adjustment factors in sections 600.209 85 and
600.209 95, of the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 (1995)
Fuel Economy Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles to
take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates,
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel
depleting features.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ See Pub. L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Other Statutes and Regulations

1. Automobile Disclosure Act
The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) \80\ requires the
affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of
new automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price,
that is, the ``sticker price.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ 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, manufacturers and importers of new automobiles are
required to affix a label to such vehicles with an EPA label containing
fuel economy information.\81\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See 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). This 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
final rule does 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 Sec. 32904(c). This final rule incorporates three
additional emissions tests, required under the Clean Air Act
regulations, for fuel economy testing, as discussed in detail in
Section II. We are also making several changes to existing emissions
tests. These changes are being finalized under the authority of Section
206 of the Clean Air Act, which permits the Administrator to define, and to

[[Page 77917]]

revise from time to time, the test procedures used to determine
compliance with applicable emission standards.
4. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
Transportation Equity Act of 2005
This action is expected to have no impact on the federal income tax
credits for consumers who purchase new hybrid, diesel, dedicated
alternative fuel, or fuel cell vehicles that meet certain eligibility
requirements beginning on January 1, 2006 that the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) has established under Section 1341 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005.\82\ IRS uses ``unadjusted'' laboratory FTP (city) fuel
economy test values to determine tax credit eligibility for light-duty
vehicles. Accordingly, the changes being finalized today for ``adjusted''
fuel economy values will have no impact on the tax credit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ See Pub. L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, this action is expected to have no impact on the ``High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities'' regulations EPA is establishing
under Section 1121 of the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in
the process of developing proposed regulations to identify low emission
and energy-efficient vehicles for the purpose of assisting states
administering high-occupancy vehicle facility transportation plans. EPA
anticipates that the fuel economy values used to identify these
vehicles will be the ``unadjusted'' FTP-based fuel economy test values.
Accordingly, the changes in this final rule are anticipated to have no
impact on the HOV facilities program.
5. 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.'' \83\ 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,\84\ 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. 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ See 40 FR 42003 (Sept. 10, 1975).
\84\ See 43 FR 55747 (Nov. 29, 1978); and 60 FR 56230 (Nov. 8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Pursuant to the
terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers
this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the
Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
Technical Support Document. A copy of the analysis is available in the
docket for this action and the analysis is summarized in Section VI of
this document.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the
fuel economy estimates that appear on new automobile and light truck
(and, starting with model year 2011, 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 final 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 increased cost within the three-year horizon of the
pending information collection request is $747,830 in one-time startup
costs, after being annualized and discounted at 7%. No increase in
other capital costs, or in operations and maintenance or labor costs,
are anticipated during this period. 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 information authorization, an average of 8.4
responses a year are approved for each of 35 respondents requiring
549.2 hours per response and 56.6 hours of recordkeeping at a total
cost of $46,427 per response for an industry total of 178,109 hours and
$14.2 million annually, including capital, operations and maintenance,
and labor costs. This rule will increase this burden by 0 hours and
$747,830 per year during the next three years (high estimate) for an
industry total of $14.9 million annually.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a

[[Page 77918]]

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of business
using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A small
business that manufactures automobiles has a NAICS code of 336111.
Based on Small Business Administration size standards, a small business
for this NAICS code is defined as a manufacturer having less than 1000
employees. Out of a total of approximately 80 automotive manufacturers
subject to this final rule, EPA estimates that approximately 10 of
these could be classified as small entities based on SBA size
standards. Unlike large manufacturers with complex and diverse product
lines, we expect that the small entities (generally these are vehicle
importers and vehicle converters) will be able use the results of tests
they are already conducting for emissions compliance to satisfy the
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements. Therefore, we expect that
these small entities will face minimal additional burden due to the new
fuel economy labeling requirements.
Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) have averaged about 50
imported engine families per year for the last three model years. There
are approximately 10 ICIs subject to this final rule. If we assume that
the ICIs and other small entities account for five percent of the
vehicle models for which fuel economy labels are needed (a proportion
that is certainly an overestimate, but useful for placing an upper
bound on the estimated cost impacts for small entities), then these
entities must generate about 65 different fuel economy labels. Using
the total estimated costs from Section V of this preamble, the average
annual cost per labeled vehicle configuration is about $1,280-1,760,
and the total annual cost for 20 small entities can be estimated to be
$85,000-114,000. The total average annual cost for an individual
importer or small manufacturer can therefore be estimated to be a
maximum of $4,250-5,700. We have recently collected data on the
currently operating small entities in the ICI and vehicle conversion
categories; this data indicates that the average annual revenue for
these companies is approximately $4.8 million. Therefore, the projected
cost increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent of the average revenue for
small importers or manufacturers. Because of the limited range of
vehicle configurations typically offered by these small entities, we
believe that the maximum cost for these entities will be even lower
than the low end of the ranges shown above. Our methodology for
estimating costs in Section V assumes that manufacturers have diverse
product lines, and thus ultimately will need to perform some level of
additional testing in 2011 and later model years. Using costs based on
such an assumption will tend to overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle
converters, who typically produce or import a single model or configuration.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to
the private sector in any single year. We believe that this rule
represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to achieve
the goals

[[Page 77919]]

of the final rule. The costs are discussed in Section V and in the
Technical Support Document. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal
level and impose compliance costs only on motor vehicle manufacturers.
Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they purchase
and use motor vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

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

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The regulations
do not require manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the fuel
economy of their vehicles. The purpose of this 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.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on January 26, 2007.

IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

Statutory authority for the fuel economy labeling program can be
found in 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, 49 U.S.C. 32901-32917, and Pub. L. 109-58.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

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

40 CFR Part 600

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

Dated: December 11, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

? For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 86 and 600 of title
40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

? 2. The table of references in Sec. 86.1(b)(1) is amended by revising
the entry for ``ASTM D 975-04c Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel
Oils'' to read as follows:

[[Page 77920]]

Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. and name 40 CFR part 86 reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
ASTM D 975-04c Standard Specification for 86.1910, 86.213-11.
Diesel Fuel Oils.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart B--[Amended]

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

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

The procedures described in Sec. Sec. 86.158-08, 86.159-08,
86.160-00, and 86.162-00 discuss the aggressive driving (US06) and air
conditioning (SC03) elements of the Supplemental Federal Test
Procedures (SFTP). These test procedures consist of two separable test
elements: A sequence of vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions
with a driving schedule (US06) that tests exhaust emissions under high
speeds and accelerations (aggressive driving); and a sequence of
vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions with a driving schedule
(SC03) which includes the impacts of actual air conditioning operation.
These test procedures (and the associated standards set forth in
subpart S of this part) are applicable to light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks.
(a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust emissions of THC, CO,
NO_X, CH₄, and CO₂. For diesel-cycle
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.110.
(b) Each test procedure follows the vehicle preconditioning
specified in Sec. 86.132-00.
(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test procedure for emissions on the US06
driving schedule (see Sec. 86.159-08) is designed to determine gaseous
exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks while
simulating high speed and acceleration on a chassis dynamometer
(aggressive driving). The full test consists of preconditioning the
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as specified in Sec. 86.132-00,
and an engine idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after which the vehicle is
accelerated into the US06 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted
exhaust is collected continuously for subsequent analysis, using a
constant volume (variable dilution) sampler or critical flow venturi
sampler. Optionally, as specified in Sec. 86.159-08 and in part 600 of
this chapter, a proportional part of the diluted exhaust may be
collected continuously in two bag samples, one representing US06 City
driving and the other representing US06 Highway driving. If two bag
samples are collected, for petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles for
which THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.110, the analytical system shall be configured
to calculate THC for the US06 City phase and the US06 Highway phase as
described in Sec. 86.159-08.
(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test procedure for determining exhaust
emissions with the air conditioner operating (see Sec. 86.160-00) is
designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions from light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks while simulating an urban trip during
ambient conditions of 95 [deg]F, 100 grains of water/pound of dry air
(approximately 40 percent relative humidity), and a solar heat load
intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test consists of vehicle
preconditioning (see Sec. 86.132-00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)), an
engine key-off 10 minute soak, an engine start, and operation over the
SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust is collected
continuously during the engine start and the SC03 driving cycle for
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler.
(e) The emission results from the aggressive driving test (Sec.
86.159-08), air conditioning test (Sec. 86.160-00), and FTP test
(Sec. 86.130-00 (a) through (d) and (f)) (conducted on a large single
roll or equivalent dynamometer) are analyzed according to the
calculation methodology in Sec. 86.164-08 and compared to the
applicable SFTP emission standards in subpart S of this part.
(f) These test procedures may be run in any sequence that maintains
the applicable preconditioning elements specified in Sec. 86.132-00.

? 4. A new Sec. 86.159-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) Overview. The dynamometer operation consists of a single, 600
second test on the US06 driving schedule, as described in appendix I,
paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle is preconditioned in
accordance with Sec. 86.132-00, to bring it to a warmed-up stabilized
condition. This preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2 minute idle
period that proceeds directly into the US06 driving schedule during
which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are
collected for analysis. US06 emissions may optionally be collected in
two bag samples representing US06 City and US06 Highway emissions, as
provided for in this section and in part 600 of this chapter. Emissions
from seconds 0-130 and seconds 495-596 are collected in one bag to
represent US06 City emissions, and emissions from seconds 130-495 are
collected in a second bag to represent US06 Highway emissions. If
engine stalling should occur during cycle operation, follow the
provisions of Sec. 86.136-90 (engine starting and restarting). For
gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in
bags are analyzed for THC, CO, CO₂, CH₄, and
NO_X. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is
sampled and analyzed continuously according to the provisions of Sec.
86.110. Parallel bag samples of dilution air are analyzed for THC, CO,
CO₂, CH₄, and NO_X.
(b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All official US06 tests shall be
run on a large single roll electric dynamometer, or an approved
equivalent dynamometer configuration, that satisfies the requirements
of Sec. 86.108-00.
(2) Position (vehicle can be driven) the test vehicle on the
dynamometer and restrain.
(3) Required US06 schedule test dynamometer inertia weight class
selections are determined by the test vehicles test weight basis and
corresponding equivalent weight as listed in the tabular information of
Sec. 86.129-94(a) and discussed in Sec. 86.129-00 (e) and (f).
(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia weight and roadload horsepower
requirements for the test vehicle according to Sec. 86.129-00 (e) and
(f). The dynamometer's horsepower adjustment settings shall be set to
match the force imposed during dynamometer operation with actual road
load force at all speeds.
(5) The vehicle speed as measured from the dynamometer rolls shall
be used. A speed vs. time recording, as evidence of dynamometer test
validity, shall be supplied on request of the Administrator.
(6) The drive wheel tires may be inflated up to a gauge pressure of
45 psi (310 kPa), or the manufacturer's recommended pressure if higher
than 45 psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The drive wheel tire
pressure shall be reported with the test results.
(7) The driving distance, as measured by counting the number of
dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, shall be determined for the test.

[[Page 77921]]

(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles may be tested
either in a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. In
order to test in the two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive and all-
wheel drive vehicles may have one set of drive wheels disengaged; four-
wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles which can be shifted to a two-wheel
mode by the driver may be tested in a two-wheel drive mode of operation.
(9) During dynamometer operation, a fixed speed cooling fan with a
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000 cfm will be positioned so as to
direct cooling air to the vehicle in an appropriate manner with the
engine compartment cover open. In the case of vehicles with front
engine compartments, the fan shall be positioned within 24 inches (61
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case of vehicles with rear engine
compartments (or if special designs make the above impractical), the
cooling fan(s) shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air
to maintain vehicle cooling. The Administrator may approve modified
cooling configurations or additional cooling if necessary to
satisfactorily perform the test. In approving requests for additional
or modified cooling, the Administrator will consider such items as
actual road cooling data and whether such additional cooling is needed
to provide a representative test.
(c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall be large enough to virtually
eliminate water condensation in the system.
(d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system adjustment.
(e) Perform the test bench sampling sequence outlined in Sec.
86.140-94 prior to or in conjunction with each series of exhaust
emission measurements.
(f) Test activities. (1) The US06 consists of a single test which
is directly preceded by a vehicle preconditioning in accordance with
Sec. 86.132-00. Following the vehicle preconditioning, the vehicle is
idled for not less than one minute and not more than two minutes. The
equivalent dynamometer mileage of the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).
(2) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
(i) Immediately after completion of the preconditioning, idle the
vehicle. The idle period is not to be less than one minute or greater
than two minutes.
(ii) With the sample selector valves in the ``standby'' position,
connect evacuated sample collection bags to the dilute exhaust and
dilution air sample collection systems.
(iii) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps, the
temperature recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC
analysis recorder (diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger of the
constant volume sampler, if used, petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC
analyzer continuous sample line should be preheated to their respective
operating temperatures before the test begins.
(iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
(A) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).
(B) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of
diesel-cycle vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031 liters/sec).
(C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by the venturi design.
(v) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
(vi) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the exhaust sample bag,
the dilution air sample bag, turn on the petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder chart, and record
both gas meter or flow measurement instrument readings, (if applicable).
(vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting the gas flow measuring
device, but prior to the first acceleration. Begin the first
acceleration 5 seconds after starting the measuring device.
(viii) Operate the vehicle according to the US06 driving schedule,
as described in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part. Manual
transmission vehicles shall be shifted according to the manufacturer
recommended shift schedule, subject to review and approval by the
Administrator. For further guidance on transmissions see Sec. 86.128-00.
(ix) Paragraphs (f)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) of this section apply to
vehicles for which the manufacturer is collecting US06 City and US06
Highway emissions for subsequent analysis according to the provisions
of part 600 of this chapter. Vehicles for which emissions are being
collected in a single continuous sample for subsequent analysis must be
tested according to paragraph (x) of this section, and this paragraph
(f)(2)(ix) will not apply.
(A) At two seconds after the end of the deceleration which is
scheduled to occur at 128 seconds (i.e., at 130 seconds),
simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 City'' bags and
samples to the ``US06 Highway'' bags and samples, switch gas flow
measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
recorder chart if applicable) to ``standby'' mode, and start gas flow
measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before the acceleration which is
scheduled to occur at 136 seconds, record the measured roll or shaft
revolutions.
(B) At two seconds after the end of the deceleration which is
scheduled to occur at 493 seconds (i.e., at 495 seconds),
simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06 Highway'' bags
and samples to the ``US06 City'' bags and samples, switch off gas flow
measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 2 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
recorder chart if applicable), and start gas flow measuring device No.
1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 if
applicable). Before the acceleration which is scheduled to occur at 500
seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 2
gas meter reading or flow measurement instrument. As soon as possible
transfer the ``US06 Highway'' exhaust and dilution air bag samples to
the analytical system and process the samples according to Sec.
86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on
all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample collection
phase of the test.
(x) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last
deceleration (i.e., engine off at 596 seconds).
(xi) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) and position the
sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position. Record the measured
roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow
measurement instrument.
(xii) As soon as possible, transfer the exhaust and dilution air
bag samples (or the US06 City exhaust and dilution air bag samples, if
applicable) to the analytical system and process the samples according
to Sec. 86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust
sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample
collection phase of the test.

[[Page 77922]]

(xiii) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the
cooling fan, close the engine compartment cover, disconnect the exhaust
tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
(xiv) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.

? 5. A new Sec. 86.164-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.164-08 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations.

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

(i) Y_WSFTP = 0.35(Y_FTP) + 0.37(Y_SC03)
+ 0.28(Y_US06)

Where:

(A) Y_WSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a particular
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP, SC03,
and US06 schedules. Values of Y_WSFTP are obtained for
each of the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NO_X and CO.
(B) Y_FTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile
(Y_WM) based on the measured driving distance of the FTP
test schedule.
(C) Y_SC03 = Calculated mass emissions per mile based on
the measured driving distance of the SC03 test schedule.
(D)(1) Y_US06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile based
on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule; or,
(2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.159-08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter:
Y_US06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 City'' phase (sampled during
seconds 1-130 and seconds 495-596 of the US06 driving schedule) and
the ``US06 Highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 130-495 of the
US06 driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of
the US06 test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NO_X) = Y_WSFTP(NMHC) + Y_WSFTP(NO_X)

Where:

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

(2) When the test vehicle is not equipped with air conditioning,
the final reported test results for the SFTP composite
(NMHC+NO_X) and optional composite CO standards shall be
computed by the following formulas.

(i) Y_WSFTP = 0.72(Y_FTP)+0.28(Y_US06)

Where:

(A) Y_WSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a particular
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP and
US06 schedules. Values of Y_WSFTP are obtained for each of
the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NO_X and CO.
(B) Y_FTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm) based
on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C)(1) Y_US06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile based
on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule; or,
(2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.159-08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter:
Y_US06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 City'' phase (sampled during
seconds 1-130 and seconds 495-596 of the US06 driving schedule) and
the ``US06 Highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 130-495 of the
US06 driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of
the US06 test schedule.

(ii) Composite (NMHC+NO_X) = Y_WSFTP(NMHC) +
Y_WSFTP(NO_X)

Where:

(A) Y_WSFTP(NMHC) = results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section for NMHC.
(B) Y_WSFTP(NO_X) = results of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section for NO_X.

(d) The NO_X humidity correction factor for adjusting
NO_X test results to the environmental test cell air
conditioning ambient condition of 100 grains of water/pound of dry air is:

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

Where:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

? 6. A new Sec. 86.201-11 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.201-11 General applicability.

(a) This subpart describes procedures for determining the cold
temperature carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from 1994 and later model
year new gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, and
for emissions sampling for determining fuel economy according to part
600 of this chapter for 2011 and later model year new gasoline-fueled
and diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
(b) All of the provisions of this subpart are applicable to testing
conducted at a nominal temperature of 20 [deg]F (-7 [deg]C).
(c) The provisions that are specifically applicable to testing at
temperatures between 25 [deg]F (-4 [deg]C) and 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C)
are specified in Sec. 86.246-94 of this subpart.

? 7. A new Sec. 86.205-11 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.205-11 Introduction; structure of this subpart.

(a) This subpart describes the equipment required and the
procedures to follow in order to perform gaseous exhaust emission tests
on gasoline-fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable
under part 600 of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks. Subpart A of this part sets forth testing requirements and test
intervals necessary to comply with EPA certification procedures.
(b) A section reference without a model year suffix refers to the
section applicable for the appropriate model years.
(c) Three topics are addressed in this subpart. Sections 86.206
through 86.215 set forth specifications and equipment requirements;
Sec. Sec. 86.216 through 86.226 discuss calibration methods and
frequency; test procedures and data requirements are listed (in
approximate order of performance) in Sec. Sec. 86.227 through 86.245.

? 8. A new Sec. 86.206-11 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.206-11 Equipment required; overview.

This subpart contains procedures for exhaust emission tests on
gasoline-fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable
under part 600 of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks. Equipment required and specifications are as follows:
(a) Exhaust emission tests. Exhaust from gasoline-fueled and
petroleum-fueled diesel cycle (where applicable under part 600 of this
chapter) vehicles is tested for gaseous emissions using the Constant
Volume Sampler (CVS) concept (Sec. 86.209). Equipment necessary and
specifications appear in Sec. Sec. 86.208 through 86.214.
(b) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving schedule specifications. Fuel
specifications for exhaust emission testing for gasoline-fueled and
petroleum-fueled diesel cycle vehicles are specified in Sec. 86.213.
Analytical gases are specified in Sec. 86.214. The EPA Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule

[[Page 77923]]

(UDDS) for use in gasoline-fueled emission tests is specified in Sec.
86.115 and Appendix I to this part.

? 9. A new Sec. 86.210-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.210-08 Exhaust gas sampling system; Diesel-cycle vehicles not
requiring particulate emissions measurements.

(a) General applicability. The exhaust gas sampling system
requirements of Sec. 86.109-4 (which apply to Otto-cycle vehicles),
also apply to diesel vehicles that are not required to undergo
particulate measurement as allowed under Sec. 600.111-08(e) of this
chapter, except that heated flame ionization detector (HFID), probe,
sample lines and filters are required as described below.
(1) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles require a heated flame
ionization detector (HFID) (375 [deg]±20 [deg]F (191
[deg]±11 [deg]C)) sample for total hydrocarbon (THC)
analysis. The HFID sample must be taken directly from the diluted
exhaust stream through a heated probe and continuously integrated
measurement of diluted THC is required. Unless compensation for varying
mass flow is made, a constant mass flow system must be used to ensure a
proportional THC measurement.
(2) For natural gas-fueled and liquefied petroleum gas-fueled
diesel vehicles either a heated flame ionization detector (HFID)
[375[deg]±20 [deg]F (191[deg]±11 [deg]C)]
or a
non-heated flame ionization detector may be used for hydrocarbon analysis.
(3) Other sampling systems may be used if shown to yield equivalent
or superior results and if approved in advance by the Administrator.
(b) Component description. The components necessary for petroleum-
fueled diesel vehicle exhaust sampling shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) The PDP system shall conform to all of the requirements listed
for the exhaust gas PDP-CVS (Sec. 86.109-94(a)(3)).
(2) The CFV-CVS sample system shall conform to all of the
requirements listed for the exhaust gas EFC sample system (Sec.
86.109-94(a)(5)).
(3) The THC probe (when the THC probe is required) shall be:
(i) Installed at a point where the dilution air and exhaust are
well mixed.
(ii) Heated and insulated over the entire length to maintain a 375
[deg]±20 [deg]F (191 [deg]±11 [deg]C) wall temperature.
(iii) 0.19 in. (0.48 cm) minimum inside diameter.
(4) It is intended that the THC probe be free from cold spots
(i.e., free from spots where the probe wall temperature is less than
355 [deg]F). This will be determined by a temperature sensor located on
a section of the probe wall outside of the walls of the sampling
system. The temperature sensor shall be insulated from any heating
elements on the probe. The sensor shall have an accuracy and precision
of ±2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C).
(5) The dilute exhaust gas flowing in the THC sample system shall be:
(i) At 375 [deg]F±10 [deg]F (191 [deg]C±6
[deg]C) immediately before the heated filter. This will be determined
by a temperature sensor located immediately upstream of the filter. The
sensor shall have an accuracy and precision of ±2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C).
(ii) At 375 [deg]F±10 [deg]F (191 [deg]C ±6
[deg]C) immediately before the HFID. This will be determined by a
temperature sensor located at the exit of the heated sample line. The
sensor shall have an accuracy and precision of ±2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C).
(6) It is intended that the dilute exhaust gas flowing in the THC
sample system be between 365 [deg]F and 385 [deg]F (185 [deg]C and 197
[deg]C).
(7) The requirements for the continuous HC measurement system are
as follows:
(i) The system must use an ``overflow'' zero and span system. In
this type of system, excess zero or span gas spills out of the probe
when zero and span checks of the analyzer are made. The ``overflow''
system may also be used to calibrate the HC analyzer per Sec.
86.1321(b), although this is not required.
(ii) No other analyzers may draw a sample from the continuous HC
sample probe, line or system, unless a common sample pump is used for
all analyzers and the sample line system design reflects good
engineering practice.
(iii) The overflow gas flow rates into the sample line shall be at
least 105% of the sample system flow rate.
(iv) The overflow gases shall enter the heated sample line as close
as practicable to the outside surface of the CVS duct or dilution tunnel.

? 10. Section 86.211-94 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 86.211-94 Exhaust gas analytical system.

The provisions of Sec. 86.111-94 apply to this subpart, except
that the NO_X analyzer is optional. The exhaust gas
analytical system must contain components necessary to determine
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and
formaldehyde. The exhaust gas analytical system is not required to
contain components necessary for determining oxides of nitrogen.

? 11. A new Sec. 86.213-11 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.213-11 Fuel specifications.

(a) Gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
Gasoline having the following specifications will be used by the
Administrator except that the Administrator will not use gasoline
having a sulfur specification higher than 0.0045 weight percent.
Gasoline having the specifications set forth in the table in this
section, or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the
Administrator, may be used by the manufacturer except that the octane
specification does not apply. In lieu of using gasoline having these
specifications, the manufacturer may, for certification testing, use
gasoline having the specifications specified in Sec. 86.113-04
provided the cold CO emissions are not decreased. Documentation showing
that cold CO emissions are not decreased must be maintained by the
manufacturer and must be made available to the Administrator upon
request. The table listing the cold CO fuel specifications described in
the text in this section follows:

Table--Cold CO Fuel Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold CO low octane Cold CO high octane \1\
Item ASTM test value or range value or range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(RON+MON)/2, min................... D 2699................ 87.8±.3.... 92.3±0.5.
Sensitivity, min................... D 2699................ 7.5................... 7.5.
Distillation range:
IBP, deg.F..................... D 86.................. 76-96................. 76-96.
10% point, deg.F............... D 86.................. 98-118................ 105-125.
50% point, deg.F............... D 86.................. 179-214............... 195-225.
90% point, deg.F............... D 86.................. 316-346............... 316-346.

[[Page 77924]]

EP, max, deg.F................. D 86.................. 413................... 413.
Sulfur, wt. %...................... D 3120................ 0.0015-0.008.......... 0.0015-0.008.
Phosphorous, g/U.S gal, max........ D 3231................ 0.005................. 0.005.
Lead, g/gal, max................... ...................... 0.01.................. 0.01.
RVP, psi........................... D 4953................ 11.5±.3.... 11.5±.3.
Hydrocarbon composition............ D 1319................
Olefins, vol. pct.............. ...................... 12.5±5.0... 10.0±5.0.
Aromatics, vol. pct............ ...................... 26.4±4.0... 32.0±4.0.
Saturates...................... ...................... Remainder............. Remainder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gasoline having these specifications may be used for vehicles which are designed for the use of high-octane
premium fuel.

(b) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks. Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing
under part 600 of this chapter must be a winter-grade diesel fuel as
specified in ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel
Oils.'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 86.1) Such test fuel must
also comply with the requirements of part 80 of this chapter. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The Administrator
may approve the use of a different diesel test fuel, provided that the
level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20 percent.

? 12. A new Sec. 86.230-11 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.230-11 Test sequence: general requirements.

(a) Sequence steps. Figure C94-1 of Sec. 86.230-94 shows the steps
encountered as the test vehicle undergoes the procedures subsequently
described, to determine conformity with the standards set forth.
(b) Driving schedule. The Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)
test procedure (see Sec. 86.115 and appendix I to this part) is used
for vehicle preconditioning and testing.
(c) Ambient temperature level. (1) Ambient temperature levels
encountered by the test vehicle shall average 20 [deg]
±5
[deg]F (-7 [deg]C ±2.8 [deg]C) and shall not be less than 10
[deg]F (-14 [deg]C) nor more than 30 [deg]F (-1 [deg]C) during vehicle
preconditioning, except for preconditioning performed in accordance
with Sec. 86.232(a)(7), and during all emission testing.
(2) The ambient temperature reported shall be a simple average of
the test cell temperatures measured at constant intervals no more than
one minute apart. Before the driving cycle may begin, the test cell
temperature shall be 20 [deg]F ±3 [deg]F (-7 [deg]C
±1.7 [deg]C) when measured in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. The temperature may not exceed 25 [deg]F (-4 [deg]C) or
fall below 15 [deg]F (-9 [deg]C) for more than three consecutive
minutes during the test.
(d) Vehicle positioning. The vehicle shall be approximately level
during all phases of the test sequence to prevent abnormal fuel
distribution.
(e) Engine compartment cooling. (1) Fixed speed air cooling of the
engine compartment with the compartment cover open shall be utilized
during testing that is conducted by the Administrator and, optionally
for certification testing, by the manufacturer. If a separate movable
fan is used, it shall be squarely positioned within 12 inches (30.5
centimeters) of the front of vehicles with front engine compartments.
In the case of vehicles with rear engine compartments (or if special
designs make the normal front engine positioning impractical), the
cooling fan shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air to
maintain vehicle cooling. The fan capacity shall normally not exceed
5,300 cfm (2.50 cubic meters per second). If, however, the manufacturer
showed (as provided in Sec. 86.135-94(b)) that additional cooling is
necessary, the fan capacity may be increased or additional fans used if
approved in advance by the Administrator. The cooling air temperature
shall be measured at the inlet to the fan.
(2) In lieu of using a separate fan, an air handling system that is
integral with the test cell may be used provided comparable air
movement is obtained. The cooling air temperature shall be measured in
the center of a vertical plane that is located approximately 2 feet in
front of the vehicle.
(3) The manufacturer may use, for certification testing,
alternative engine compartment cooling fans or systems, including those
which provide a variable air flow, if the manufacturer has determined
that comparable results are obtained.
(f) Heater and defroster usage. The vehicle interior climate
control system shall be operated with the interior heating system on
and the air flow directed to the mode that primarily defrosts the front
window during the test. Air conditioning controls shall be set to the
``Off'' position. No supplemental auxiliary heat is permitted during
the dynamometer procedure. The heater may be used at any temperature
and fan settings during vehicle preconditioning. The manufacturer shall
use the vehicle's controls to achieve the operation specified in this
paragraph (f). The manufacturer shall use good engineering judgment and
take into account engine control changes (e.g., engine-off logic, idle
speed operation, spark advance changes) and engine control features
that may be directly affected by the fan or temperature settings.
(1) Manually controlled systems. (i) Prior to the first
acceleration of the test at T=20 seconds the climate control settings
shall be set as follows (these settings may be initiated prior to
starting the vehicle if allowed by the vehicle's climate control system):
(A) Temperature: Manually operated systems shall be set to maximum
heat. Automatic systems optionally using the provisions of this
paragraph (f)(1) shall be set to 72 degrees F or higher.

[[Page 77925]]

(B) Fan speed: Full off, or if a full off position is not
available, to the lowest available speed.
(C) Airflow direction: Airflow directed to the front window (window
defrost mode). Based on good engineering judgment, an alternative vent
setting may be used if necessary to achieve the temperature and fan
speed settings in this paragraph (f)(1).
(D) Air source: If independently controllable, the airflow source
control shall be set to the position which draws outside air.
(ii) At the second idle of the test cycle, which occurs at the
first deceleration to zero miles per hour at T=125 seconds, the fan
speed shall be set to maximum, and, if not already set in this
position, the airflow shall be directed fully to the front window in
the window defrost mode. Temperature and air source settings shall
remain as set in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. These settings shall
be completed by T=130 seconds.
(iii) At the sixth idle of the test cycle, which occurs at the
deceleration to zero miles per hour at T=505 seconds, the fan speed
shall be set to the lowest setting that maintains air flow. This
setting shall be completed by T=510 seconds. Based on good engineering
judgment, the manufacturer may use alternative vent and/or higher fan
speed settings for the remainder of the test. Temperature and air
source settings shall remain as set in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this
section for the remainder of the test.
(2) Automatic systems. Automatic systems may use either the
provisions in paragraph (f)(1) of this section or manufacturers may set
the temperature at 72 degrees F and the air flow control to the front
window defroster mode for the entire duration of the test.
(3) Multiple-zone systems. For vehicles with separate driver and
passenger controls, or for vehicles with separate controls for the
front seating region and for the passenger region behind the driver,
all sets of temperature and fan controls shall be set according to
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section.
(4) Alternative test procedures. The Administrator may approve the
use of other settings under Sec. 86.1840-01 if, for example, a
vehicle's climate control system is not compatible with the provisions
of this section.

? 13. A new section 86.237-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.237-08 Dynamometer test run, gaseous emissions.

(a) The complete dynamometer test consists of a cold start drive of
approximately 7.5 miles (12.1 kilometers) and a hot start drive of
approximately 3.6 miles (5.8 kilometers).
(b) If the preconditioned vehicle is not already on the
dynamometer, it shall be pushed into position.
(c) The vehicle is allowed to stand on the dynamometer during the
ten minute time period between the cold and hot start test. The cold
start test is divided into two periods. The first period, representing
the cold start ``transient'' phase, terminates at the end of the
deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 505 seconds of the driving
schedule. The second period, representing the ``stabilized'' phase,
consists of the remainder of the driving schedule, including engine
shutdown. The hot start test is identical to the first part or
transient phase of the cold start test. Therefore, the hot start test
terminates after the first period (505 seconds) is run.
(d) The dynamometer run consists of two tests, a cold start test,
after a minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-hour soak according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.132, and a hot start test following the cold
start test by 10 minutes. The vehicle shall be stored prior to the
emission test in such a manner that precipitation (e.g., rain or dew)
does not occur on the vehicle. The complete dynamometer test consists
of a cold start drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km) and simulates a hot start
drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km). The vehicle is allowed to stand on the
dynamometer during the 10 minute time period between the cold and hot
start tests. The cold start test is divided into two periods. The first
period, representing the cold start ``transient'' phase, terminates at
the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 505 seconds
of the driving schedule. The second period, representing the
``stabilized'' phase, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule
including engine shutdown. The hot start test, similarly, consists of
two periods. The first period, representing the hot start ``transient''
phase, terminates at the same point in driving schedule as the first
period of the cold start test. The second period of the hot start test,
``stabilized'' phase, is assumed to be identical to the second period
of the cold start test. Therefore, the hot start test terminates after
the first period (505 seconds) is run. Measurement of NO_X
and particulate matter is not required.
(e) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
(1) Place drive wheels of vehicle on dynamometer without starting
engine.
(2) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the
cooling fan.
(3) For all vehicles, with the sample selector valves in the
``standby'' position, connect evacuated sample collection bags to the
dilute exhaust and dilution air sample collection systems.
(4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, with the sample selector valves
in the ``standby'' position, insert fresh sample collection impingers
into the methanol sample collection system, fresh impingers or a fresh
cartridge into the formaldehyde sample collection system and fresh
impingers (or a single cartridge for formaldehyde) into the dilution
air sample collection systems for methanol and formaldehyde (background
measurements of methanol and formaldehyde may be omitted and
concentrations assumed to be zero for calculations in Sec. 86.144).
(5) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps (except the
particulate sample pump, if applicable), the temperature recorder, the
vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC analysis recorder (diesel-cycle
only). (The heat exchanger of the constant volume sampler, if used,
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer continuous sample line and
filter, methanol-fueled vehicle THC, methanol and formaldehyde sample
lines, if applicable, should be preheated to their respective operating
temperatures before the test begins).
(6) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
(i) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 1/sec).
(ii) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of
diesel-cycle and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles) flow rate is
0.066 cfm (0.031 1/sec).
(iii) For methanol samples, the flow rates shall be set such that
the system meets the design criteria of Sec. 86.109 and Sec. 86.110.
For samples in which the concentration in the primary impinger exceeds
0.5 mg/l, it is recommended that the mass of methanol collected in the
secondary impinger not exceed ten percent of the total mass collected.
For samples in which the concentration in the primary impinger does not
exceed 0.5 mg/l, analysis of the secondary impingers is not necessary.
(iv) For formaldehyde samples, the flow rates shall be set such
that the system meets the design criteria of Sec. 86.109 and Sec.
86.110. For impinger samples in which the concentration of formaldehyde
in the primary impinger exceeds 0.1 mg/l, it is recommended

[[Page 77926]]

that the mass of formaldehyde collected in the secondary impinger not
exceed ten percent of the total mass collected. For samples in which
the concentration in the primary impinger does not exceed 0.1 mg/l,
analysis of the secondary impingers is not necessary.
(7) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
(8) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the ``transient''
exhaust sample bag, the ``transient'' methanol exhaust sample, the
``transient'' formaldehyde exhaust sample, the ``transient'' dilution
air sample bag, the ``transient'' methanol dilution air sample and the
``transient'' formaldehyde dilution air sample (turn on the petroleum-
fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder
chart and record both gas meter or flow measurement instrument
readings, if applicable), turn the key on, and start cranking the engine.
(9) Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place the transmission
in gear.
(10) Twenty seconds after the engine starts, begin the initial
vehicle acceleration of the driving schedule.
(11) Operate the vehicle according to the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (Sec. 86.115).

Note: During particulate testing, if applicable, adjust the flow
rate through the particulate sample probe to maintain a constant
value within ±5 percent of the set flow rate. Record the
average temperature and pressure at the gas meter or flow instrument
inlet. If the set flow rate cannot be maintained because of high
particulate loading on the filter, the test shall be terminated. The
test shall be rerun using a lower flow rate, or larger diameter
filter, or both.

(12) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at
505 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the
``transient'' bags and samples to the ``stabilized'' bags and samples,
switch off gas flow measuring device No. 1, switch off the No. 1
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator, mark the petroleum-
fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart, start gas flow measuring
device No. 2, and start the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 2. Before the acceleration which is scheduled to occur
at 510 seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and reset
the counter or switch to a second counter. As soon as possible transfer
the ``transient'' exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical
system and process the samples according to Sec. 86.140 obtaining a
stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on all analyzers within 20
minutes of the end of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain
methanol and formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24
hours of the end of the sample collection phase of the test.
(13) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last
deceleration (at 1,369 seconds).
(14) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 2 and if applicable, turn off
the hydrocarbon integrator No. 2, mark the hydrocarbon recorder chart
and position the sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position
(and open the valves isolating particulate filter No. 1, if
applicable). Record the measured roll or shaft revolutions (both gas
meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings), and reset the
counter. As soon as possible, transfer the ``stabilized'' exhaust and
dilution air samples to the analytical system and process the samples
according to Sec. 86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading of the
exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the
sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and formaldehyde
sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end of the
sample period. (If it is not possible to perform analysis on the
methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should
be stored in a dark cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. The
samples should be analyzed within fourteen days.)
(15) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the
cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover.
(16) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle.
(17) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(2) of this
section for the hot start test, except only two evacuated sample bags,
two methanod sample impringers, and two formaldehyde sample impingers
are required. The step in paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin
between 9 and 11 minutes after the end of the sample period for the
cold start test.
(18) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at
505 seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1
(and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1, mark the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart) and position the
sample selector valve to the ``standby'' position. (Engine shutdown is
not part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll
or shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow
measurement instrument). (Carefully remove the third pair of
particulate sample filters from its holder and place in a clean petri
dish and cover, if applicable.)
(19) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start ``transient''
exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical system and process
the samples according to Sec. 86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading
of the exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end
of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and
formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end
of the sample period. (If it is not possible to perform analysis on the
methanol and formaldehyde samples, within 24 hours the samples should
be stored in a dark cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. The
samples should be analyzed within fourteen days.)
(20) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and
drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
(21) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
(22) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions will proceed
according to Sec. 86.138. For all others this completes the test sequence.

? 14. Section 86.244-94 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 86.244-94 Calculations; exhaust emissions.

The provisions of Sec. 86.144-94 apply to this subpart, except
that NO_X measurements are optional. Should NO_X
measurements be calculated, note that the humidity correction factor is
not valid at colder temperatures. Light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks must calculate and report the weighted mass of each relevant
pollutant, i.e., THC, CO, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, CH4, NO_X, and
CO₂ in grams per vehicle mile.

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES

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

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901--23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.

Subpart A--[Amended]

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

Sec. 600.001-08 General applicability.

[[Page 77927]]

passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles manufactured prior to January
26, 2007 may optionally comply with the provisions of this subpart.
(b)(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.

? 17. A new Sec. 600.002-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.002-08 Definitions.

3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in 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'').
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(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.
Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design
as defined in part 86 of this chapter.
Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as
computed under Sec. 600.510 for a specific class of automobiles
produced by a manufacturer that is subject to average fuel economy standards.
Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the
differential (or equivalent) turns for each turn of the drive wheels.
Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia
weight class and transmission class.
Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style
that makes up a car line.
Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (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.
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.
86.1828-01 of this chapter and used to determine compliance under Sec.
86.1848-01 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. 600.210-08.
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.
Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing
tractive energy on board a vehicle such as storage batteries or a flywheel.
Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system
combination (as defined in part 86 of this chapter), of displacement,
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.

[[Page 77928]]

Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer
driving 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.
FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in
Sec. 600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of FTP testing.
Fuel means:
(1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered
automobiles; or
(2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or
(4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles.
Fuel economy means:
(1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as calculated in this part;
or
(2) The equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy for an electrically
powered automobile as determined by the Secretary of Energy.
Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight
rating for the individual vehicle.
Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear
door which encompasses the rear window.
Highway fuel economy means the 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. 600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is
affixed to new automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part.
Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile,
as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This
term is interchangeable with ``non-passenger automobile''.
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, with a total
interior volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and rear seats readily
removed or folded to floor level to facilitate cargo carrying. A
minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors and a rear liftgate.
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.
Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine,
and transmission class.
Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device
to convert energy stored in an energy storage device into a form
suitable to power the traction motor.
Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to
operate exclusively on natural gas.
Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
(1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or
diesel fuel;
(2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated
in Sec. 600.510(g)(1) while operating on natural gas as it does while
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
(3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds
the minimum driving range established by the Department of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
Nonpassenger automobile means a light truck.
Passenger automobile means any automobile which the Secretary of
Transportation determines is manufactured primarily for use in the
transportation of no more than 10 individuals.
Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger
compartment and an open cargo bed.
Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of
vehicle units domestically produced in a particular model year but not
exported, and for a foreign manufacturer, means the number of vehicle
units of a particular model imported into the United States.
Rounded means a number shortened to the specific number of decimal
places in accordance with the rounding method specified in ASTM E 29-67
(Reapproved 1973) ``Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating which
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified
Limiting Values.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
SC03 means the test procedure specified in Sec. 86.160-00 of this
chapter.
Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation
or his authorized representative.
Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized
representative.

[[Page 77929]]

Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended
roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment
open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily
removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof
line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to
the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats
readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle
configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any
other operational characteristics or parameters which the Administrator
determines may significantly affect fuel economy within a vehicle
configuration.
Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the
following common features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic,
or semi-automatic); number of forward gears used in fuel economy
testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed automatic, two-speed
semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel
drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter
type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, variable ratio); and
other transmission characteristics that may be determined to be
significant by the Administrator.
Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further
subdivide within a transmission class if the Administrator determines
that sufficient fuel economy differences exist. Features such as gear
ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift
calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish
characteristics within a transmission class.
Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which
is used in the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on
its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86
of this chapter.
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. 86.159-08 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 device, and having
no body sections protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading
edge of the windshield.
Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of basic engine,
engine code, inertia weight class, transmission configuration, and axle
ratio within a base level.
Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy means the fuel economy
calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 600.114-08.

? 18. A new Sec. 600.006-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) For certification vehicles with less than 10,000 miles, the
requirements of this section are considered to have been met except as
noted in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit the following information for
each fuel economy data vehicle:
(i) A description of the vehicle, exhaust emission test results,
applicable deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust emission levels, and
test fuel property values as specified in Sec. 600.113-08.
(ii) A statement of the origin of the vehicle including total
mileage accumulation, and modification (if any) form the vehicle
configuration in which the mileage was accumulated. (For modifications
requiring advance approval by the Administrator, the name of the
Administrator's representative approving the modification and date of
approval are required.) If the vehicle was previously used for testing
for compliance with part 86 of this chapter or previously accepted by
the Administrator as a fuel economy data vehicle in a different
configuration, the requirements of this paragraph may be satisfied by
reference to the vehicle number and previous configuration.
(iii) A statement that the fuel economy data vehicle for which data
are submitted:
(A) Has been tested in accordance with applicable test procedures;
(B) Is, to the best of the manufacturer's knowledge, representative
of the vehicle configuration listed; and
(C) Is in compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards.
(2) The manufacturer shall retain the following information for
each fuel economy data vehicle, and make it available to the
Administrator upon request:
(i) A description of all maintenance to engine, emission control
system, or fuel system, or fuel system components performed within
2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing.
(ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a description of all
maintenance to electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration,
or other components performed within 2,000 miles prior to fuel economy
testing.
(iii) A copy of calibrations for engine, fuel system, and emission
control devices, showing the calibration of the actual components on
the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
(iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a copy of calibrations for
the electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, or other
components on the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
(v) If calibrations for components specified in paragraph (b)(2)
(iii) or (iv) of this section were submitted previously as part of the
description of another vehicle or configuration, the original submittal
may be referenced.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data:
(1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of part 86 of this
chapter (other than those chosen in accordance with Sec. Sec. 86.1829-
01(a) or 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.
(d) The manufacturer shall submit an indication of the intended
purpose of the data (e.g., data required by the general labeling
program or voluntarily submitted for specific labeling).
(e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a
manufacturer may

[[Page 77930]]

provide fuel economy values derived from an analytical expression,
e.g., regression analysis. In order for fuel economy values derived
from analytical methods to be accepted, the expression (form and
coefficients) must have been approved by the Administrator.
(f) If, in conducting tests required or authorized by this part,
the manufacturer utilizes procedures, equipment, or facilities not
described in the Application for Certification required in Sec.
86.1844-01 of this chapter, the manufacturer shall submit to the
Administrator a description of such procedures, equipment, and facilities.
(g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel
economy label calculations in subpart D and average fuel economy
calculations in subpart F for the classes of automobiles within the
categories identified in paragraphs 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) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data generated by
vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more than 6,200
miles by using the following equation:

FE_4,000mi = FE_T[0.979 + 5.25x10-6 (mi)]-1

Where:

FE_4,000mi = Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test
point rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE_T = Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
mi = System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to
the nearest whole mile.

(4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the
manufacturer is not required to adjust the data.

? 19. A new Sec. 600.007-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.007-08 Vehicle acceptability.

(a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet
the requirements of part 86 of this chapter (other than those chosen
per Sec. 86.1829-01(a) 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:
(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. The deterioration factors established for the
respective engine-system combination per Sec. 86.1841-01 of this
chapter as applicable will be used.
(5) The calibration information submitted under Sec. 600.006(b)
must be representative of the vehicle configuration for which the fuel
economy data were submitted.
(6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy purposes must be
representative of a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to produce
under the provisions of a certificate of conformity.
(7) For vehicles imported under Sec. 85.1509 or Sec.
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) 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-
08(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.
(c) If, based on review of the information submitted under Sec.
600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle meets the requirements of this section, the fuel economy data
vehicle will be judged to be acceptable and fuel economy data from that
fuel economy data vehicle will be reviewed pursuant to Sec. 600.008.
(d) If, based on the review of the information submitted under
Sec. 600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle does not meet the requirements of this section, the
Administrator will reject that fuel economy data vehicle and inform the
manufacturer of the rejection in writing.
(e) If, based on a review of the emission data for a fuel economy
data vehicle, submitted under Sec. 600.006(b), or emission data
generated by a vehicle tested under Sec. 600.008(e), the Administrator
finds an indication of non-compliance with section 202 of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of the regulation thereunder, he may take
such investigative actions as are appropriate to determine to what
extent emission non-compliance actually exists.
(1) The Administrator may, under the provisions of Sec. 86.1830-01
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

[[Page 77931]]

Sec. 600.206(b)(2) or Sec. 600.207(c)(1), as applicable of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
(f) All vehicles used to generate fuel economy data, and for which
emission standards apply, must be covered by a certificate of
conformity under part 86 of this chapter before:
(1) The data may be used in the calculation of any approved general
or specific label value, or
(2) The data will be used in any calculations under subpart F,
except that vehicles imported under Sec. Sec. 85.1509 and 85.1511 of
this chapter need not be covered by a certificate of conformity.

? 20. A new Sec. 600.008-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) Testing by the Administrator. (1) The Administrator may require
that any one or more of the test vehicles be submitted to the Agency,
at such place or places as the Agency may designate, for the purposes
of conducting fuel economy tests. The Administrator may specify that
such testing be conducted at the manufacturer's facility, in which case
instrumentation and equipment specified by the Administrator shall be
made available by the manufacturer for test operations. The tests to be
performed may comprise the FTP, highway fuel economy test, US06, SC03,
or Cold temperature FTP or any combination of those tests. Any testing
conducted at a manufacturer's facility pursuant to this paragraph shall
be scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible.
(2) Retesting and official data determination. For any vehicles
selected for confirmatory testing under the provisions of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, the Administrator will follow this procedure:
(i) The manufacturer's data (or harmonically averaged data if more
than one test was conducted) will be compared with the results of the
Administrator's test.
(ii) If, in the Administrator's judgment, the comparison in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section indicates a disparity in the data,
the Administrator will repeat the test or tests as applicable.
(A) The manufacturer's average test results and the results of the
Administrator's first test will be compared with the results of the
Administrator's second test as in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(B) If, in the Administrator's judgment, both comparisons in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, indicate a disparity in the
data, the Administrator will repeat the applicable test or tests until:
(1) In the Administrator's judgment no disparity in the data is
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator or by
comparison of the manufacturer's average test results and a test by the
Administrator; or
(2) Four tests of a single test type are conducted by the
Administrator in which a disparity in the data is indicated when
compared as in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iii) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity
indicated by comparison of manufacturer's average test results with a
test by the Administrator, the test values generated by the
Administrator will be used to represent the vehicle.
(iv) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator, the harmonic
averages of the fuel economy results from those tests will be used to
represent the vehicle.
(v) If the situation in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of this section
occurs, the Administrator will notify the manufacturer, in writing,
that the Administrator rejects that fuel economy data vehicle.
(b) Manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing. (1) If the
Administrator determines not to conduct a confirmatory test under the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, manufacturers will conduct
a confirmatory test at their facility after submitting the original
test data to the Administrator whenever any of the following conditions
exist:
(i) The vehicle configuration has previously failed an emission
standard;
(ii) The test exhibits high emission levels determined by exceeding
a percentage of the standards specified by the Administrator for that
model year;
(iii) The fuel economy value of the FTP or HFET test is higher than
expected based on procedures approved by the Administrator;
(iv) The fuel economy for the FTP or HFET test is close to a Gas
Guzzler Tax threshold value based on tolerances established by the
Administrator; or
(v) The fuel economy value for the FTP or highway is a potential
fuel economy leader for a class of vehicles based on cut points
provided by the Administrator.
(2) If the Administrator selects the vehicle for confirmatory
testing based on the manufacturer's original test results, the testing
shall be conducted as ordered by the Administrator. In this case, the
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing specified under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section would not be required.
(3) The manufacturer shall conduct a retest of the FTP or highway
test if the difference between the fuel economy of the confirmatory
test and the original manufacturer's test equals or exceeds three
percent (or such lower percentage to be applied consistently to all
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing as requested by the
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator).
(i) The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a retest, accept
the lower of the original and confirmatory test fuel economy results
for use in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) The manufacturer shall conduct a second retest of the FTP or
highway test if the fuel economy difference between the second
confirmatory test and the original manufacturer test equals or exceeds
three percent (or such lower percentage as requested by the
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator) and the fuel economy
difference between the second confirmatory test and the first
confirmatory test equals or exceeds three percent (or such lower
percentage as requested by the manufacturer and approved by the
Administrator). The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a second
retest, accept the lowest of the original test, the first confirmatory
test, and the second confirmatory test fuel economy results for use in
subpart C or F of this part.
(4) The Administrator may request the manufacturer to conduct a
retest of the US06, SC03 or Cold Temperature FTP on the basis of fuel
economy that is higher than expected as specified in criteria provided
by the Administrator. Such retests shall not be required before the
2011 model year.
(c) Review of fuel economy data. (1) Fuel economy data must be
judged reasonable and representative by the Administrator in order for
the test results to be used for the purposes of subpart C or F of this
part. In making this determination, the Administrator will, when
possible, compare the results of a test vehicle to those of other
similar test vehicles.
(2) If testing was conducted by the Administrator under the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the data from this
testing, together with all other fuel economy data submitted for that
vehicle under Sec. 600.006(c) or (e) will be evaluated by the
Administrator for reasonableness and representativeness per paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be

[[Page 77932]]

accepted for use in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section.
(3) If confirmatory testing was conducted by the manufacturer under
the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the data from this
testing will be evaluated by the Administrator for reasonableness and
representativeness per paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use
in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section.
(4) If no confirmatory testing was conducted by either the
Administrator or the manufacturer under the provisions of paragraph (a)
and (b) of this section, respectively, then the data submitted under
the provisions of Sec. 600.006(c) or (e) shall be accepted for use in
subpart C or F of this part.
(i) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(ii) If more than one test was conducted, the harmonic average of
the test results shall be accepted for use in subpart C or F of this part.
(d) If, based on a review of the fuel economy data generated by
testing under paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator
determines that an unacceptable level of correlation exists between
fuel economy data generated by a manufacturer and fuel economy data
generated by the Administrator, he/she may reject all fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer until the cause of the discrepancy is
determined and the validity of the data is established by the manufacturer.
(e)(1) If, based on the results of an inspection conducted under
Sec. 600.005(b) or any other information, the Administrator has reason
to believe that the manufacturer has not followed proper testing
procedures or that the testing equipment is faulty or improperly
calibrated, or if records do not exist that will enable him to make a
finding of proper testing, the Administrator may notify the
manufacturer in writing of his finding and require the manufacturer to:
(i) Submit the test vehicle(s) upon which the data are based or
additional test vehicle(s) at a place he may designate for the purpose
of fuel economy testing.
(ii) Conduct such additional fuel economy testing as may be
required to demonstrate that prior fuel economy test data are
reasonable and representative.
(2) Previous acceptance by the Administrator of any fuel economy
test data submitted by the manufacturer shall not limit the
Administrator's right to require additional testing under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(3) If, based on tests required under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the Administrator determines that any fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer and used to calculate the manufacturer's
fuel economy average was unrepresentative, the Administrator may
recalculate the manufacturer's fuel economy average based on fuel
economy data that he/she deems representative.
(4) A manufacturer may request a hearing as provided in Sec.
600.009 if the Administrator decides to recalculate the manufacturer's
average pursuant to determinations made relative to this section.

? 21. A new Sec. 600.010-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.010-08 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. Sec. 86.079-32, 86.079-33 and
86.082-34 or 86.1842-01 of this chapter, as applicable):
(1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures.
(2) The manufacturer shall generate highway fuel economy data by:
(i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
(ii) Using an analytical technique, as described in Sec. 600.006(e).
(3) The manufacturer shall generate US06 fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternate fueled
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternate fuel may
optionally generate this data using the alternate fuel.
(4) The manufacturer shall generate SC03 fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternate fueled
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternate fuel may
optionally generate this data using the alternate fuel.
(5) The manufacturer shall generate cold temperature FTP fuel
economy data by testing according to the applicable procedures.
Alternate fueled vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on
alternate fuel may optionally generate this data using the alternate fuel.
(6) The data generated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section, shall be submitted to the Administrator in combination with
other data for the vehicle required to be submitted in part 86 of this
chapter.
(b) For each fuel economy data vehicle:
(1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP and HFET fuel economy data by:
(i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
(ii) Use of an analytical technique as described in Sec.
600.006(e), in addition to testing (e.g., city fuel economy data by
testing, highway fuel economy data by analytical technique).
(2) The data generated shall be submitted to the Administrator
according to the procedures in Sec. 600.006.
(c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to
establish fuel economy label values under Sec. 600.306-08, the
manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance with Sec.
600.008-08 meeting the minimum coverage of:
(i) Data required for emission certification under Sec. Sec.
86.001-24, 86.079-32, 86.079-33, 86.082-34, 86.1828-01 and 86.1842-01
of this chapter, as applicable,
(ii) (A) FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales
configuration for each base level, and
(B) If required under Sec. 600.115-08, 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(a)(2) or Sec. 600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and if
required under Sec. 600.115-08, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data

[[Page 77933]]

from each subconfiguration included within the model type.
(2) For the purpose of recalculating fuel economy label values as
required under Sec. 600.314(b), the manufacturer shall submit data
required under Sec. 600.507.
(d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel
economy. For the purpose of calculating the manufacturer's average fuel
economy under Sec. 600.510, the manufacturer shall submit data
representing at least 90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model
year production, by configuration, for each category identified for
calculation under Sec. 600.510(a).

? 22. The table of references in Sec. 600.011-93(b)(1) is revised to
read as follows:

Sec. 600.011-93 Reference materials.

* * * * *
(b) * * *

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

? 23. A new Sec. 600.101-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.101-08 General applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later
model year automobiles, except medium duty passenger vehicles,
manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to 2011 and later model
year medium-duty passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles manufactured
prior to January 26, 2007 may optionally comply with the provisions of
this subpart.

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

Sec. 600.106-08 Equipment requirements.

The requirements for test equipment to be used for all fuel economy
testing are given in Subparts B and C of part 86 of this chapter.

? 25. A new Sec. 600.107-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.107-08 Fuel specifications.

(a) The test fuel specifications for gasoline, diesel, methanol,
and methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are given in Sec. 86.113 of this
chapter, except for cold temperature FTP fuel requirements for diesel
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 D975-04c
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' and that complies with
part 80 of this chapter. This incorporation by reference was approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American
Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S.
EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and
14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. 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.

? 26. A new Sec. 600.109-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.109-08 EPA driving cycles.

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

? 27. A new Sec. 600.110-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.110-08 Equipment calibration.

The equipment used for fuel economy testing must be calibrated
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.116 and 86.216 of this chapter.

? 28. A new Sec. 600.111-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.111-08 Test procedures.

(a) FTP testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for
conducting the FTP test are those prescribed in Sec. Sec. 86.127
through 86.138 of this chapter, as applicable, except as provided for
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (The evaporative loss portion of
the test procedure may be omitted

[[Page 77934]]

unless specifically required by the Administrator.)
(b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel
Economy Dynamometer Procedure (HFET) consists of preconditioning
highway driving sequence and a measured highway driving sequence.
(2) The HFET is designated to simulate non-metropolitan driving
with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph. The
cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop per mile and consists of warmed-
up vehicle operation on a chassis dynamometer through a specified
driving cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is
collected continuously for subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide using a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is continuously analyzed for
hydrocarbons using a heated sample line and analyzer. Methanol and
formaldehyde samples are collected and individually analyzed for
methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and formaldehyde may
be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-fueled vehicles
provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for measuring HC plus
methanol).
(3) Except in cases of component malfunction or failure, all
emission control systems installed on or incorporated in a new motor
vehicle must be functioning during all procedures in this subpart. The
Administrator may authorize maintenance to correct component
malfunction or failure.
(4) Transmission. The provisions of Sec. 86.128 of this chapter
apply for vehicle transmission operation during highway fuel economy
testing under this subpart.
(5) Road load power and test weight determination. Sec. 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) Vehicle preconditioning. The HFET is designed to be performed
immediately following the Federal Emission Test Procedure, Sec. Sec.
86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter. When conditions allow, the tests
should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be
scheduled within three hours of the Federal Emission Test Procedure
(including one hour hot soak evaporative loss test, if applicable) the
vehicle should be preconditioned as in paragraph (b)(6) (i) or (ii) of
this section, as applicable.
(i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak
(68 [deg]F-86 [deg]F) since the completion of the Federal Emission Test
Procedure, or has experienced periods of storage outdoors, or in
environments where soak temperature is not controlled to 68 [deg]F-86
[deg]F, the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a
dynamometer through one cycle of the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, Sec. 86.115 of this chapter.
(ii) In unusual circumstances where additional preconditioning is
desired by the manufacturer, the provisions of Sec. 86.132(a)(3) of
this chapter apply.
(7) Highway fuel economy dynamometer procedure. (i) The dynamometer
procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (Sec. 600.109(b)) separated by 15 seconds of idle. The first
cycle of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to
precondition the test vehicle and the second is driven for the fuel
economy measurement.
(ii) The provisions of Sec. 86.135 (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h)
and (i) Dynamometer procedure of this chapter, 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) Engine starting and restarting. (i) If the engine is not
running at the initiation of the highway fuel economy test
(preconditioning cycle), the start-up procedure must be according to
the manufacturer's recommended procedures.
(ii) False starts and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must
be treated as in Sec. 86.136(d) and (e). If the vehicle stalls during
the measurement cycle of the highway fuel economy test, the test is
voided, corrective action may be taken according to Sec. 86.1834-01 as
applicable, and the vehicle may be rescheduled for test. The person
taking the corrective action shall report the action so that the test
records for the vehicle contain a record of the action.
(9) Dynamometer test run. The following steps must be taken for
each test:
(i) Place the drive wheels of the vehicle on the dynamometer. The
vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer.
(ii) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the
cooling fan(s) required. Manufacturers may request the use of
additional cooling fans for additional engine compartment or under-
vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or brake temperatures
during dynamometer operation.
(iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the
measurement highway driving cycle.
(iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of Sec. 86.137(b)(3)
through (6) of this chapter apply for highway fuel economy test except
that only one exhaust sample collection bag and one dilution air sample
collection bag need be connected to the sample collection systems.
(v) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified
in Sec. 600.109(b).
(vi) When the vehicle reaches zero speed at the end of the
preconditioning cycle, the driver has 17 seconds to prepare for the
emission measurement cycle of the test.
(vii) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified
in Sec. 600.109(b) while sampling the exhaust gas.
(viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first
acceleration of the fuel economy measurement cycle and must end two
seconds after the end of the deceleration to zero. At the end of the
deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be recorded.
(10) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of
Sec. 600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed for each of the fuels on
which the vehicle is designed to operate.

[[Page 77935]]

(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 through
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. 86.210-08 of this chapter.

? 29. A new Sec. 600.112-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.112-08 Exhaust sample analysis.

The exhaust sample analysis must be performed according to Sec.
86.140, or Sec. 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.

? 30. A new Sec. 600.113-08 is added to read as follows:

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

The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in
this paragraph for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with
gasoline, diesel, alcohol-based or natural gas fuel. The calculations
of the weighted fuel economy values require input of the weighted
grams/mile values for total hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO),
and carbon dioxide (CO₂); and, additionally for methanol-
fueled automobiles, methanol (CH₃OH) and formaldehyde
(HCHO); and additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC) and methane (CH₄) for the FTP, HFET,
US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests. Additionally, the specific
gravity, carbon weight fraction and net heating value of the test fuel
must be determined. The FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP
fuel economy values shall be calculated as specified in this section.
An example appears in Appendix II of this part.
(a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for
HC, CO and CO₂; and, additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, CH₃OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural
gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH₄ as specified in Sec.
86.144 of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the FTP
test. For vehicles with more than one source of propulsion energy, one
of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with
special features that the Administrator determines may have a
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.
(1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test for
HC, CO and CO₂, and where applicable CH₃OH, HCHO,
NMHC and CH₄ as specified in Sec. 86.144(b) of this
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy
test for HC, CO and CO₂, and where applicable
CH₃OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH₄ by dividing the mass
values obtained in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the actual
distance traveled, measured in miles, as specified in Sec. 86.135(h)
of this chapter.
(c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold
temperature FTP test for HC, CO and CO₂; and, additionally
for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH₃OH and HCHO; and
additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH₄
as specified in Sec. 86.244 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.
(1) Calculate the total grams/mile values for the US06 test for HC,
CO and CO₂; and where applicable CH₃OH, HCHO,
NMHC and CH₄, as specified in Sec. 86.164 of this chapter.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for HC, CO and
CO₂; and where applicable CH₃OH, HCHO, NMHC 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 HC, CO, and CO₂ 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 grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO
and CO₂; and additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles,
CH₃OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled
automobiles NMHC and CH₄ as specified in Sec. 86.144 of
this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)(1) Gasoline test fuel properties shall be determined by
analysis of a fuel sample taken from the fuel supply. A sample shall be
taken after each addition of fresh fuel to the fuel supply.
Additionally, the fuel shall be resampled once a month to account for
any fuel property changes during storage. Less frequent resampling may
be permitted if EPA concludes, on the basis of manufacturer-supplied
data, that the properties of test fuel in the manufacturer's storage
facility will remain stable for a period longer than one month. The
fuel samples shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel properties:
(i) Specific gravity per ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990)
``Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity),
or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by
Hydrometer Method''. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West

[[Page 77936]]

Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(ii) Carbon weight fraction per ASTM D 3343-90 ``Standard Test
Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels.'' This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) per ASTM D 3338-92 ``Standard Test
Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels.''
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library,
EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following
fuel properties:
(i) Specific gravity using either:
(A) ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for
Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude
Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method'' for the
blend. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library,
EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html or:
(B) ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for
Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude
Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method'' for the
gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol fuel component and
combining as follows. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
SG = SG_g x volume fraction gasoline + SG_m x
volume fraction methanol.
(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation:

CWF = CWF_g x MF_g + 0.375 x MF_m

Where:

CWF_g = Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of
blend per ASTM D 3343-90 ``Standard Test Method for Estimation of
Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels.'' This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

MF_g=Mass fraction gasoline=(G x SG_g)/(G x
SG_g + M x SG_m)

MF_m=Mass fraction methanol=(M x SG_m)/(G x
SG_g + M x SG_m)

Where:

G=Volume fraction gasoline.
M=Volume fraction methanol.
SG_g=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured by ASTM D
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation
by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Room 3340,
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
SG_m=Specific gravity of methanol as measured by ASTM D
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation
by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Room 3340,
Washington DC, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(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).

[[Page 77937]]

(iii) Net heating value (BTU/lb) per ASTM D 240-92 ``Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th
Street, NW, Room 3340, Washington DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the
following fuel properties:
(i) Fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91 ``Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography.'' This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington DC, or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(ii) Specific gravity (based on fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91
``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas
Chromatography.'') This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(iii) Carbon weight fraction based on the carbon contained only in
the HC constituents of the fuel=weight of carbon in HC constituents
divided by the total weight of fuel.
(iv) Carbon weight fraction of fuel=total weight of carbon in the
fuel (i.e., includes carbon contained in HC and in CO₂)
divided by total weight of fuel.
(g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP fuel economy from the grams/mile values for total HC,
CO, CO₂ and, where applicable, CH₃OH, HCHO, NMHC
and CH₄ and, the test fuel's specific gravity, carbon weight
fraction, net heating value, and additionally for natural gas, the test
fuel's composition. The emission values (obtained per paragraph (a)
through (e) of this section, as applicable) used in each calculation of
this section shall be rounded in accordance with Sec. 86.094-
26(a)(6)(iii) or Sec. 86.1837-01 of this chapter as applicable. The
CO₂ values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used
in each calculation of this section shall be rounded to the nearest
gram/mile. The specific gravity and the carbon weight fraction
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded using
three places to the right of the decimal point. The net heating value
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded to the
nearest whole Btu/lb.
(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles tested on test fuel
specified in Sec. 86.113-04(a), the fuel economy in miles per gallon
is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (5174 x 10 \4\ x C 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) Round the calculated result to the nearest 0.1 miles per
gallon.
(i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in
miles per gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by the sum of three terms:
(i) (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) Round the quotient to the nearest 0.1 mile per gallon.
(j) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to
operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:

mpg = (CWF x SG x 3781.8)/((CWF_exHC 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.
CWF_exHC = Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons
= CWF_g as determined in (f)(2)(ii) of this section (for
M100 fuel, CWF_exHC = 0.866).
HC = Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO = Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO₂ = Grams/mile CO₂ as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section.
CH₃OH = Grams/mile CH₃OH (methanol) as
obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO = Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g)
of this section.

(k) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the fuel economy in
miles per gallon of natural gas is to be calculated using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.035

[[Page 77938]]

Where:

mpg_e=miles per equivalent gallon of natural gas.
CWF_HC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on the hydrocarbon
constituents in the natural gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section.
D_NG=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.
CWF_NMHC=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.
CO_2NG=grams of carbon dioxide in the natural gas fuel
consumed per mile of travel.
CO_2NG=FC_NG D_NG WF_CO2
Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.036

Where:

CWF_NG = the carbon weight fraction of the natural gas
fuel as calculated in paragraph (f) of this section.
WF_CO2 = 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 1945-91 ``Standard Test
Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography.'' This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters
Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street,
NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(l) Equations for fuels other than those specified in paragraphs
(h) through (k) of this section may be used with advance EPA approval.

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

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

This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under
Subpart D of this part.
(a) City fuel economy. For each vehicle tested under Sec. 600.010-
08(c)(i) and (ii), determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.037

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.038

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.039

Where:

Bag Y FE_x = 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] TR27DE06.040

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. Sec. 600.010-08(a) and (c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-

[[Page 77939]]

cycle highway fuel economy using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.041

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.042

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.043

and,
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.044

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] TR27DE06.045

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.046

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.047

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.

[[Page 77940]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.048

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. 86.1811-04(n), 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] TR27DE06.049

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.050

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.051

and
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.052

(B) Running FC (gallons per mile) =
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.053

Where:

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

(ii) Highway fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.054

[[Page 77941]]

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.055

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.056

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.057

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.058

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] TR27DE06.059

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.060

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.061

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.062

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 FE_x = 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.

[[Page 77942]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.063

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 FE_x = 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] TR27DE06.064

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.065

Where:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.066

and
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.067

and
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.068

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 FE_x = 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:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.069

(ii) The equation for Start Fuel₇₅ for hybrids tested
according to the 2-bag FTP is:

[[Page 77943]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.070

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

Sec. 600.115-08 Criteria for determining the fuel economy label
calculation method for 2011 and later model year vehicles.

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), as applicable, may be used to
determine label values for 2011 and later model year vehicles. 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 for 2011 and later model year vehicles must be
determined according to the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method specified
in Sec. 600.210-08(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable.
(a) City fuel economy criterion. (1) For each test group certified
for emission compliance under Sec. 86.1848-01 of this chapter, the
FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests determined to be official
under Sec. 86.1835-01 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) and
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon.
(ii) Using the same FTP data as used in paragraph (a)(i) of this
section, the corresponding derived 5-cycle city fuel economy is
calculated according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.071

Where:

City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See
Sec. 600.210-08(a)(2)(iii).
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.
600.210-08(a)(2)(iii.)
FTP FE = the FTP-based city fuel economy from the official test used
forcertification 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), 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), 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. 86.1848-01 of this chapter, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold
FTP tests determined to be official under Sec. 86.1835-01 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) 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] TR27DE06.072

Where:

Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator. See
Sec. 600.210-08(a)(2)(iii).
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator. See Sec.
600.210-08(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.

[[Page 77944]]

(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), 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).
(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 official tests used to determine
compliance with emission standards under Sec. 86.1835-01(c).
Adjustments and/or substitutions to the official test data may be made
with advance approval of the Administrator.

Subpart C--[Amended]

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

Sec. 600.201-08 General applicability.

? 34. A new Sec. 600.206-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.
600.113(a) and (b) and as approved in Sec. 600.008-08 (c), are used to
determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined FTP/Highway-
based fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which data
are available.
(1) If only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel
economy values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values,
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city
and highway fuel economy values for that configuration.
(2) If more than one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway
fuel economy 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(a)(3).
(ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in
order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was
tested.
(iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy values and all HFET-based
highway fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to
the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
(3) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under Sec.
600.510-08, the combined fuel economy value for a vehicle configuration
is calculated by harmonically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec. 600.206(a)(1)
or (2) 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.
(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 fuel economy values for
each configuration.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
(b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will 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.

? 35. A new Sec. 600.207-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.
600.114-08 and as approved in Sec. 600.008-08 (c), are used to
determine vehicle-specific 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
for each vehicle configuration for which data are available.
(1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city and highway fuel
economy values for that configuration.
(2) If more than one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy
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(a)(3).
(ii) Within each subconfiguration of data, all values are
harmonically averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per
gallon in order to determine 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was
tested.
(iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway
fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (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.
(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, highway
fuel economy values for each configuration.

[[Page 77945]]

(i) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values from
the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy 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(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.

? 36. A new Sec. 600.208-08 is added to read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 77946]]

? 37. A new Sec. 600.209-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) Base level. 5-cycle fuel economy values for a base level are
calculated from vehicle configuration 5-cycle fuel economy values as
determined in Sec. 600.207-08 for low-altitude tests.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each base level for
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new
basic engines and base level(s) if:
(i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
(ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine
(i.e., they are not included in the calculation of the original base
level fuel economy values); and
(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are
represented by test data in accordance with Sec. 600.010-08 (c)(ii).
(3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
(i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any
model type value is calculated for a label value.
(iii) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by
providing an amended application for certification, as described in
Sec. 86.1844-01 of this chapter.
(4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as
determined in Sec. 600.207-08(a), (b), or (c), as applicable, are
grouped according to base level.
(i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
(ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon.
(5) The procedure specified in Sec. 600.209-08 (a) will be
repeated for each base level, thus establishing city and highway fuel
economy values for each base level.
(6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude,
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel
economy for the base level.
(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
(i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy 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 values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
(b) Model type. For each model type, as determined by the
Administrator, a city and highway fuel economy value will be calculated
by using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base
level within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be
done based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as
determined in Sec. 600.207-08, as applicable.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.0001.
(3) The 5-cycle city fuel economy values of the model type
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which
is a fraction determined by dividing:
(i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
(ii) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base
level.
(4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined
fuel economy values for the model type.
(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city and
highway fuel economy values for each model type.
(i) Calculate the city and highway fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if 5-
cycle testing was performed on the alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
Otherwise, the procedure in Sec. 600.210(a)(3) or (b)(3) applies.

? 38. A new Sec. 600.210-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) General labels. Fuel economy for general labels can be
determined by two methods. The first is based on vehicle-specific
model-type 5-cycle data as determined in Sec. 600.209-08(b). This
method is optional beginning in the 2008 model year for all vehicles,
including medium-duty passenger vehicles, and required beginning in the
2011 model year (except for medium-duty passenger vehicles) unless
otherwise indicated according to the provisions in Sec. 600.115-08.
The second method is the derived 5-cycle method, and is based on fuel
economy that is derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle

[[Page 77947]]

model type data as determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This
method is required for 2008 through 2010 model years (except for
medium-duty passenger vehicles, in which case it is optional), and is
permitted beginning in 2011 model year under the provisions of Sec.
600.115-08. If the manufacturer determines that the resulting label
values from either of these methods are not representative of the fuel
economy for that model type, they may voluntarily lower these values.
All 2011 and later model year medium-duty passenger vehicles must be
labeled for fuel economy, using the derived 5-cycle method or, at the
manufacturer's option, the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. Fuel
economy label values for dual fuel vehicles operating on alcohol-based
or natural gas fuel are calculated separately.
(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway model
type fuel economy determined in Sec. 600.209-08(b), rounded to the
nearest mpg, comprise the fuel economy values for general fuel economy
labels, or, alternatively;
(2) Derived 5-cycle labels. Derived 5-cycle city and highway label
values are determined according to the following method:
(i) 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] TR27DE06.073

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. 600.208-08(a), rounded to the nearest tenth.

(ii) 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] TR27DE06.074

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. 600.208-08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.

(iii) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, 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.

The Administrator will periodically update the slopes and
intercepts via 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 in
currently in effect.
(3) General alternate fuel label values for dual-fueled vehicles.
(i) City and Highway 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] TR27DE06.076

Where:

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

[[Page 77948]]

they may voluntarily lower these values. All 2011 and later model year
medium-duty passenger vehicles must be labeled for fuel economy, using
the derived 5-cycle method or, at the manufacturer's option, the
vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. Fuel economy label values for dual
fuel vehicles operating on alcohol-based or natural gas fuel are
calculated separately.
(1) Vehicle-specific 5-cycle labels. The city and highway
configuration fuel economy determined in Sec. 600.207-08, rounded to
the nearest mpg, comprise the fuel economy 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) Determine the derived five-cycle city fuel economy of the
configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined by
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.077

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. 600.206-08, rounded to the nearest tenth.

(ii) Determine the derived five-cycle highway fuel economy of the
configuration using the equation below and coefficients determined by
the Administrator:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.078

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. 600.206-08, rounded to the nearest tenth.

(iii) The slopes and intercepts of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this
section apply.
(3) Specific alternate fuel label values for dual-fueled vehicles.
(i) Specific city and highway 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] TR27DE06.079

Where:
FE_alt = The unrounded FTP-based configuration city or
HFET-based configuration highway fuel economy from the alternate
fuel, as determined in Sec. 600.206.
5cycle FE_gas = 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.
FE_gas = The unrounded FTP-based city or HFET-based
configuration highway fuel economy from gasoline, as determined in
Sec. 600.206-08.

The result, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the alternate
fuel 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 value result in Sec. 600.207-
08(a)(4)(ii), rounded to the nearest whole number.
(c) 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 Sec. 600.307-08, the manufacturer shall:
(1)(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 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); or
(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.
(d)(1) Label values for 2008-2010 model year automobiles (except
medium-duty passenger vehicles) the city and highway values for a model
type must be determined by the same method. If the manufacturer
optionally chooses to determine fuel economy for a model type using the
vehicle-specific 5-cycle method, that method must be used to determine
both the city and highway fuel economy.
(2) For 2011 and later model year automobiles, if the criteria in
Sec. 600.115-08(a) are met for a model type, both the city and highway
fuel economy must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
method. If the criteria in Sec. 600.115-08(b) are met for a model
type, the city fuel economy may be determined using either method, but
the highway fuel economy must be determined using the vehicle-specific
5-cycle method (or modified 5-cycle method as allowed under Sec.
600.114-08(b)(2)).
(3) If the criteria in Sec. 600.115-08 are not met for a model
type, the city and highway label values must be determined by using the
same method, either the derived 5-cycle or vehicle-specific 5-cycle.

[[Page 77949]]

? 39. A new Sec. 600.211-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.211-08 Sample Calculation of fuel economy values for labeling.

An example of the calculation required in this subpart appears in
Appendix III of this part.

Subpart D--[Amended]

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

Sec. 600.301-08 General applicability.

(a) Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this subpart are
applicable to 2008 and later model year automobiles, except medium duty
passenger vehicles, manufactured on or after January 26, 2007, and to
2011 and later model year medium-duty passenger vehicles. All 2008
automobiles manufactured prior to January 26, 2007 may optionally
comply with the provisions of this subpart.
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.

? 41. A new Sec. 600.306-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.306-08 Labeling requirements.

(a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix
or cause to be affixed and each dealer shall maintain or cause to be
maintained on each automobile:
(1) A general fuel economy label (initial, or updated as required
in Sec. 600.314-08) as described in Sec. 600.307-08 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).
(i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a
model type (as defined in Sec. 600.002-08, he shall also affix
specific labels on all automobiles within this model type, except on
those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that labels
are required to bear range values as required by paragraph (b) of this
section, or determined by the Administrator, or as permitted under
Sec. 600.310-86.
(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. 600.513-08, at or below the minimum tax-free value, the following
statement must appear on the specific label:
``[Manufacturer's name]
may have to pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on
this vehicle because of the low fuel economy.''
(4)(i) At the time a general fuel economy value is determined for a
model type, a manufacturer shall, except as provided in paragraph
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, relabel, or cause to be relabeled, vehicles
which:
(A) Have not been delivered to the ultimate purchaser, and
(B) Have a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value
(as determined in Sec. 600.208-08(b) of 0.1 mpg or more below the
lowest fuel economy value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax of $0 is to be
assessed.
(ii) The manufacturer has the option of 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. 600.311-08 and 600.314-08) 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. 600.311-08(c) 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. 600.311-08(c) or
(d) 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. 600.307-
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.

? 42. A new Sec. 600.307-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.307-08 Fuel economy label format requirements.

Examples of fuel economy labels for gasoline and diesel vehicles,
dual fuel vehicles and alternate fuel vehicles are provided in Appendix
IV of this part. Detailed printing specifications are given in Appendix
V of this part, and unless otherwise permitted, apply to the provisions
in this section. The Administrator may approve modifications to the
style guidelines in cases where there may be space limitations and/or
legibility concerns.
(a) Fuel economy labels must be:
(1) Rectangular in shape with a minimum height of 4.5 inches (114
mm) and a minimum length of 7.0 inches (178 mm) as specified in
Appendix V of this part.
(2) Printed in a color which contrasts with the background paper color.
(3) Have a contrasting border, with dimensions specified in
Appendix V of this part.
(b) Label information. The information on the label shall contain:
(1) The titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', centered over the
applicable fuel economy estimates.
(2) The numeric, whole-number city and highway estimates, as
determined in Sec. 600.210-08, as specified in Appendix V of this
part. The font size

[[Page 77950]]

of the numbers may be larger than specified, provided: that the city
and highway numbers are equal in size; that the titles ``CITY MPG'' and
``HIGHWAY MPG'' are increased in the same proportion; and that doing so
does not obscure the other information on the label.
(i) For dedicated gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled,
and natural gas-fueled automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy
estimates calculated in accordance with Sec. 600.210-08.
(ii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy estimates for operation
on gasoline or diesel fuel as calculated in Sec. 600.210-08(a) and (b).
(3) The fuel pump logo.
(4) The following phrase: ``Your actual mileage will vary depending
on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.'', located and formatted as
shown in Appendix V of this part.
(5) The statement: ``Expected range for most drivers: ---- to ----
mpg'', placed underneath both the city and highway estimates, centered
to the estimate numbers. The range values for this statement are to be
calculated in accordance with the following:
(i) The lower range values shall be determined by multiplying the
city and highway estimates by 0.83, then rounding to the next lower
integer value.
(ii) The upper range values shall be determined by multiplying the
city and highway estimates by 1.17 and rounding to the next higher
integer value.
(6) The top border shall contain the centered title ``EPA Fuel
Economy Estimates'' in a contrasting color.
(7) Alternate fuel titles. (i) For dedicated alcohol-fueled
automobiles, the title ``[insert appropriate fuel (e.g., ``ETHANOL
(E85))'']
*''. The title shall be positioned and sized according to the
style guidelines in Appendix V of this part.
(ii) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the title
``NATURAL GAS *''. The title shall be positioned in the grey area above
the window of the fuel pump logo, in a size and format specified in
Appendix V of this part.
(iii) For alcohol-based dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual
fuel automobiles, the title ``Dual Fuel Vehicle*'', and directly below
that, the title ``[insert appropriate conventional fuel (example
Gasoline)]-[insert appropriate alternate fuel (example ``Ethanol
(E85)'']''. Both of these titles are centered in the grey area above
the window of the fuel pump logo, with a size and format specified in
Appendix V of this part.
(8) Alternate fuel information. (i) For dedicated alcohol-fueled
automobiles, the title ``[insert appropriate fuel (example ``E85'')]''
centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY
MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix V of this part.
(ii) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobile, the title
``GASOLINE EQUIVALENT'' centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above
the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix
V of this part.
(iii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the title ``GASOLINE'' [or ``DIESEL'', as applicable]
centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY
MPG'' with a size and format specified in Appendix V of this part.
(9) The bottom border of the label shall contain the following
centered statement, formatted according to the style guidelines in
Appendix V: ``See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or
http://www.fueleconomy.gov''.
(10) If the label is separate from the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label, the vehicle description, as described in
paragraph (d) of this section, located on the label such that it does
not interfere with the other required information. In cases where the
vehicle description information may not easily fit on the label, the
manufacturer may request Administrator approval of modifications to the
label format to accommodate this information.
(11) Comparison fuel economy. A graphic depiction of comparison
fuel economy information, in the style and format given in Appendix V
of this part, containing the following elements:
(i) A bar that represents the total range of combined fuel economy
for the applicable class of comparison fuel economy.
(ii) A downward pointing tail-less arrow, located at the top of the
bar positioned on the bar where that vehicle's combined fuel economy
falls relative to the range of comparable vehicles.
(iii) The combined fuel economy value for the vehicle as determined
in Sec. 600.210-08(c), located directly above the arrow.
(iv) The statement ``This Vehicle'' directly above the combined
fuel economy number.
(vi)(A) For gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles, the statement
``Combined Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This Vehicle''
statement, and centered above the bar.
(B) For dual fuel vehicles, the statement ``Combined Gasoline [or
``Diesel'', as appropriate]
Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This
Vehicle'' statement, and centered above the bar, in two lines, if needed.
(C) For dedicated natural gas vehicles, the statement ``Combined
Gasoline Equivalent Fuel Economy'', located above the ``This Vehicle''
statement, and centered above the bar, in two lines, if needed.
(v) The upper and lower MPG ranges for that class of vehicles, with
the lower range shown directly to the left of the bar and the upper
range directly to the right of the bar. The range values are those
determined in accordance with Sec. 600.311.
(vi) The statement ``All [name of the comparable vehicle class]s'',
centered below the bar. The names of the comparable classes given in
Sec. 600.315-08 apply. For the purpose of presenting the name of the
class on the label, the following class names may be shortened as
indicated: minicompact cars may be ``Minicompacts'', subcompact cars
may be ``Subcompacts'', compact cars may be ``Compacts'', small station
wagons may be ``Small Wagons'', midsize station wagons may be ``Midsize
Wagons'', large station wagons may be ``Large Wagons'', small pickup
trucks may be ``Small Pickups'', standard pickup trucks may be
``Standard Pickups'', and sport utility vehicles may be ``SUVs''.
(12)(i) The statement: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Cost:'' followed by
the appropriate value calculated in accordance with paragraph (f) or
(g) of this section and the statement ``based on [EPA-provided number
of miles per paragraph (f) of this section]
miles at [the EPA-provided
dollar cost per gallon of the required fuel for that vehicle]
per
gallon of gasoline.'' The estimated annual fuel cost value for alcohol
dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel vehicles to appear on
the fuel economy label shall be that calculated based on operating the
vehicle on gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in paragraphs (f) and
(g) of this section.
(ii) At the manufacturer's option, the label may also contain the
estimated annual fuel cost value based on operating the vehicle on the
alternative fuel.
(13) The Gas Guzzler statement, when applicable (see paragraph (e)
of this section), must be located on the bottom half of the label,
either in the space reserved for alternate fuel information, or, if the
vehicle is an alternate fuel vehicle, directly beneath this space.

[[Page 77951]]

(14) Alternate fuel statement. (i) For dedicated alternate fuel
automobiles, the statement: ``* This vehicle operates on NATURAL GAS
FUEL [or other alternate fuel as appropriate]
only. Fuel economy is
expressed in gasoline equivalent values.'' This statement is located on
the right-hand bottom portion of the label. See Appendix V of this part
for details of location, size and format.
(ii) For dual fuel automobiles, the statement: ``*Fuel economy when
operating on E85 [or other alternate fuel as appropriate]
will yield
different values than gasoline [or diesel as appropriate]. See Fuel
Economy Guide for more information.'' Optionally, this statement may be
replaced with the city, highway and combined fuel economy values using
the alternate fuel, in a size and format specified in Appendix V of
this part.
(c) The city mpg number shall be displayed on the upper half of the
left side of the label and the highway mpg number displayed on the
upper half of the right side of the label. If the manufacturer chooses
to enlarge the label from that specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the logo and the fuel economy label values, including the
titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', must be increased in the same
proportion.
(d) Vehicle description information for general and specific
labels.
(1) Where the fuel economy label is physically incorporated with
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the
applicable vehicle description, as set forth in this paragraph, does
not have to be repeated if the information is readily found on this label.
(2) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle
description on general labels will be as follows:
(i) Model year;
(ii) Vehicle car line;
(iii) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or
liters whichever is consistent with the customary description of that
engine;
(iv) Transmission class.
(v) 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.
(e)(1) For fuel economy labels of passenger automobile model types
requiring a tax statement under Sec. 600.513-08, the phrase ``Gas
Guzzler Tax'' followed by the dollar amount, in a size and format
specified in Appendix V of this part.
(2) The tax value required by this paragraph shall be based on the
combined fuel economy value for the model type calculated in accordance
with Sec. 600.513-08 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(f) Estimated annual fuel cost--general labels. The annual fuel
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a model type
shall be computed by using values for the fuel cost per gallon of the
recommended fuel as specified by the manufacturer in the owner's manual
and average annual mileage, predetermined by the Administrator, and the
combined fuel economy determined in Sec. 600.210(c).
(1) The annual fuel cost estimate for a model type is computed by
multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF = 0.823 equivalent gallons)
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The inverse of the combined fuel economy value determined in
Sec. 600.210-08(c) for a model type (as determined in Sec. 600.210-
08(a), rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile (natural gas must
be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile, where 100
SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons).
(2) The product computed in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel
cost estimate that appears on general labels for the model type.
(g) Estimated annual fuel cost--specific labels. (1) The annual
fuel cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a vehicle
configuration will be computed by using the values for the fuel cost
per volume (gallon for liquid fuels, cubic feet for gaseous fuels) and
average mileage and the fuel economy determined by multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons)
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The inverse, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile,
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the combined fuel economy
value determined in Sec. 600.210-08(c) for a vehicle configuration (as
determined in Sec. 600.210-08(b).
(2) The product computed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel
cost estimate that appears on specific labels for that vehicle
configuration.
(h) For model year 2008 and 2009 automobiles only, the following
statement, located directly above the fuel pump logo, centered in the
label: ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 2008
models.'' The size and format is specified in Appendix V to this part.
(i) For model year 2008 vehicles manufactured or imported prior to
September 1, 2007, manufacturers may optionally use the label format
provisions of Sec. 600.307-95. In this case, the following information
must be included on the label:
(1) The city and highway estimates, as determined according to the
provisions in Sec. 600.210-08.
(2) The statement ``These estimates reflect new EPA methods
beginning with 2008 models.'', centered, and located in a prominent
position on the label, preferably near the top of the label.
(j) For model year 2008 vehicles manufactured or imported prior to
June 1, 2007, the manufacturer may optionally include the city and
highway fuel economy determined under the provisions of Sec. 600.209-
95, presented in fine print underneath the city and highway mpg numbers
from paragraph (c) of this section, in a statement as follows: ``[xx]
MPG under old methods''.
(1) The font size may not exceed 8 points and may not be bold.
(2) If the optional provisions of paragraph (i) of this section are
selected, the location of the fuel economy estimates allowed under this
paragraph (j) may be either:
(i) underneath the large city and highway miles-per-gallon numbers,
or
(ii) in a statement at the bottom of the label as follows: ``*Fuel
economy under the old methods would be [xx]
MPG city and [xx] MPG
highway''. The statement required in paragraph (i)(2) must contain an
asterisk (*) after the word ``models''.

? 43. A new Sec. 600.311-08 is added to read as follows:

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

(a) The Administrator will determine the range of combined fuel
economy values for each class of comparable automobiles comprising the
maximum and minimum combined fuel economy

[[Page 77952]]

values for all general labels as determined in Sec. 600.210-08(c).
(b)(1) The ranges for a model year will be made available on a date
specified by the Administrator that closely coincides to the date of
the general model introduction for the industry.
(2) If the Administrator has not made available the fuel economy
ranges prior to the model introduction, the ranges from the previous
model year must be used.
(3) For 2008 model year automobiles manufactured or imported prior
to the date specified in Sec. 600.306-08(b), the Administrator will
provide initial fuel economy ranges based upon data from 2007 models
that have been adjusted in accordance with the derived 5-cycle
calculations in Sec. 600.210-08.
(c) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in California are likely to exhibit significant differences in
fuel economy from those intended for sale in other states, he/she will
compute separate ranges of fuel economy values for each class of
automobiles for California and for the other states.
(d) For high altitude vehicles determined under Sec. 600.310, both
general and specific labels will contain the range of comparable fuel
economy computed in this section.
(e) The manufacturer shall include the appropriate range of fuel
economy determined by the Administrator in paragraph (b) of this
section, on each label affixed to an automobile within the class,
except as provided in Sec. 600.306(b)(1).

? 44. A new Sec. 600.314-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.314-01 Updating label values, annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler
Tax, and range of fuel 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(a).
(2) For separate model types created in Sec. 600.209-08(a)(2), the
manufacturer shall recalculate the model type values for any additions
or deletions of subconfigurations to the model type. Minimum data
requirements specified in Sec. 600.010(c) shall be met prior to
recalculation.
(3) Label value recalculations shall be performed 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. 600.210-08 except that the
values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.
600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(4)(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 mpg or
more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated 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. 600.207-08 and 600.210-08
except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with Sec.
600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(4) Relabeling. (i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel
economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the
respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this
section by 0.5 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with
the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg') to all new
vehicles of that model type beginning 15 days after the completion of
the confirmatory test.
(ii) If both the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 0.1 mpg or
more and the recalculated gas guzzler tax rate determined under the
provisions of Sec. 600.513-08 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix
labels with the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg')
and gas guzzler tax statement and rates to all new vehicles of that
model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory
test.
(5) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy
values determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section,
the manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax if required by Department of
Treasury regulations).

? 45. A new Sec. 600.315-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.315-08 Classes of comparable automobiles.

(a) The Secretary will classify automobiles as passenger
automobiles or light trucks (nonpassenger automobiles) in accordance
with 49 CFR part 523.
(1) The Administrator will classify passenger automobiles by car
line into one of the following classes based on interior volume index
or seating capacity except for those passenger automobiles which the
Administrator determines are most appropriately placed in a different
classification or classed as special purpose vehicles as provided in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

[[Page 77953]]

(i) Two seaters. A car line shall be classed as ``Two Seater'' if
the majority of the vehicles in that car line have no more than two
designated seating positions as such term is defined in the regulations
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 571.3.
(ii) Minicompact cars. Interior volume index less than 85 cubic feet.
(iii) Subcompact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal
to 85 cubic feet but less than 100 cubic feet.
(iv) Compact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to
100 cubic feet but less than 110 cubic feet.
(v) Midsize cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to
110 cubic feet but less than 120 cubic feet.
(vi) Large cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 120
cubic feet.
(vii) Small station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index less than 130 cubic feet.
(viii) Midsize station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index greater than or equal to 130 cubic feet but less than 160 cubic feet.
(ix) Large station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index greater than or equal to 160 cubic feet.
(2) The Administrator will classify light trucks (nonpassenger
automobiles) into the following categories: small pickup trucks,
standard pickup trucks, vans, minivans, SUVS and special purpose
vehicles. Pickup trucks will be separated by car line on the basis of
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). For pickup truck car lines with
more than one GVWR, the GVWR of the pickup truck car line is the
arithmetic average of all distinct GVWR's less than or equal to 8,500
pounds available for that car line.
(i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR less than 6000 pounds.
(ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR of 6000
pounds up to and including 8,500 pounds.
(iii) Vans.
(iv) Minivans.
(v) Sport utility vehicles.
(3) (i) Special purpose vehicles. All automobiles with GVWR less
than or equal to 8,500 pounds and all medium-duty passenger vehicles
which possess special features and which the Administrator determines
are more appropriately classified separately from typical automobiles
or which do not meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section will be classified as special purpose vehicles.
(ii) All automobiles which possess features that could apply to two
classes will be classified by the Administrator based on the
Administrator's judgment on which class of vehicles consumers are more
likely to make comparisons.
(4) Once a certain car line is classified by the Administrator, the
classification will remain in effect for the model year.
(b) Interior volume index--passenger automobiles. (1) The interior
volume index shall be calculated for each car line which is not a
``Atwo seater'' car line, in cubic feet rounded to the nearest 0.1
cubic foot. For car lines with more than one body style, the interior
volume index for the car line is the arithmetic average of the interior
volume indexes of each body style in the car line.
(2) For all body styles except station wagons, minivans and
hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat)
equipped with seatbelts as required by DOT safety regulations, interior
volume index is the sum, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the
front seat volume, the rear seat volume, if applicable, and the luggage
capacity.
(3) For all station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks with more than
one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) equipped with seatbelts as
required by DOT safety regulations, interior volume index is the sum,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the front seat volume, the
rear seat volume, and the cargo volume index.
(c) All interior and cargo dimensions are measured in inches to the
nearest 0.1 inch. All dimensions and volumes shall be determined from
the base vehicles of each body style in each car line, and do not
include optional equipment. The dimensions H61, W3, W5, L34, H63, W4,
W6, L51, H201, L205, L210, L211, H198, and volume V1 are to be
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle
Dimensions SAE J1100a (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee,
Society of Automotive Engineers, approved September 1973 and last
revised September 1975) except as noted herein:
(1) SAE J1100a(2.3)--Cargo dimensions. All dimensions measured with
the front seat positioned the same as for the interior dimensions and
the second seat, for the station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks, in
the upright position. All head restraints shall be in the stowed
position and considered part of the seat.
(2) SAE J1100a(8)--Luggage capacity. Total of columns of individual
pieces of standard luggage set plus H boxes stowed in the luggage
compartment in accordance with the procedure described in 8.2. For
passenger automobiles with no rear seat or with two rear seats with no
rear seatbelts, the luggage compartment shall include the area to the
rear of the front seat, with the rear seat (if applicable) folded, to
the height of a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the front seatback.
(3) SAE J1100a(7)--Cargo dimensions. (i) L210-Cargo length at
second seatback height-hatchback. The minimum horizontal dimension from
the ``X'' plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the second seatback
to the inside limiting interference of the hatchback door on the zero
``Y'' plane.
(ii) L211--Cargo length at floor-second-hatchback. The minimum
horizontal dimensions at floor level from the rear of the second
seatback to the normal limiting interference of the hatchback door on
the vehicle zero ``Y'' plane.
(iii) H198--Second seatback to load floor height. The dimension
measured vertically from the horizontal tangent to the top of the
second seatback to the undepressed floor covering.
(d) The front seat volume is calculated in cubic feet by dividing
1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and rounding the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H61--Effective head room-front. (In inches, obtained according
to paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W3+W5+5)/2-Average of shoulder and hip room-front, if hip
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 and
W5 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
(ii) W3-Shoulder room-front, if hip room is not more than 5 inches
less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section), and
(3) L34--Maximum effective leg room-accelerator. (In inches,
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(e) The rear seat volume is calculated in cubic feet, for vehicles
within a rear seat equipped with rear seat belts (as required by DOT),
by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and
rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H63--Effective head room-second. (Inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W4+W6+5)/2-Average of shoulder and hip room-second, if hip
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W4 and
W6 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
(ii) W4--Shoulder room-second, if hip room is not more than 5
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section), and

[[Page 77954]]

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

Subpart E--[Amended]

? 46. A new Sec. 600.405-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.405-08 Dealer requirements.

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

? 47. A new Sec. 600.407-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.407-08 Booklets displayed by dealers.

(a) Booklets displayed by dealers in order to fulfill the
obligations of Sec. 600.405 may be either
(1) The printed copy of the annual Fuel Economy Guide published by
the Department of Energy, or;
(2) Optionally, dealers may display the Fuel Economy Guide on a
computer that is linked to the electronic version of the Fuel Economy
Guide (available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov), or;
(3) A booklet approved by the Administrator of EPA containing the
same information, format, and order as the Fuel Economy Guide published
by the Department of Energy. Such a booklet may highlight the dealer's
product line by contrasting color of ink or boldface type and may
include other supplemental information regarding the dealer's product
line subject to approval by the Administrator.
(b) A manufacturer's name and logo or a dealer's name and address
or both may appear on the back cover of the hard copies of the Fuel
Economy Guide.

Subpart F--[Amended]

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

Sec. 600.507-08 Running change data requirements.

(a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the
manufacturer shall submit additional running change fuel economy data
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section for any running change
approved or implemented under Sec. Sec. 86.079-32,

[[Page 77955]]

86.079-33, or 86.082-34 or 86.1842-01 as applicable, which:
(1) Creates a new base level or,
(2) Affects an existing base level by:
(i) Adding an axle ratio which is at least 10 percent larger (or,
optionally, 10 percent smaller) than the largest axle ratio tested.
(ii) Increasing (or, optionally, decreasing) the road-load
horsepower for a subconfiguration by 10 percent or more for the
individual running change or, when considered cumulatively, since
original certification (for each cumulative 10 percent increase using
the originally certified road-load horsepower as a base).
(iii) Adding a new subconfiguration by increasing (or, optionally,
decreasing) the equivalent test weight for any previously tested
subconfiguration in the base level.
(b)(1) The additional running change fuel economy data requirement
in paragraph (a) of this section will be determined based on the sales
of the vehicle configurations in the created or affected base level(s)
as updated at the time of running change approval.
(2) Within each newly created base level as specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, the manufacturer shall submit data from the
highest projected total model year sales subconfiguration within the
highest projected total model year sales configuration in the base level.
(3) Within each base level affected by a running change as
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, fuel economy data shall
be submitted for the vehicle configuration created or affected by the
running change which has the highest total model year sales. The test
vehicle shall be of the subconfiguration created by the running change
which has the highest projected total model year sales within the
applicable vehicle configuration.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by
this section to the Administrator in accordance with Sec. 600.314(b).
(d) For those model types created under Sec. 600.208-08(a)(2), the
manufacturer shall submit data for each subconfiguration added by a
running change.

? 49. A new Sec. 600.510-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.510-08 Calculation of average fuel economy.

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

[[Page 77956]]

(d) The Administrator may approve alternative calculation methods
if they are part of an approved credit plan under the provisions of 15
U.S.C. 2003.
(e) For passenger categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section, the average fuel economy calculated in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section shall be adjusted using the
following equation:

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

Where:

AFE_adj = Adjusted average combined fuel economy, rounded
to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
AFE = Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph (c)
of this section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a = Sales-weight average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all
model type highway fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1
mpg) divided by the sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest
0.0001 mpg) of all model type city fuel economy values (rounded to
the nearest 0.1 mpg). The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal
places. These average fuel economies shall be determined using the
methodology of paragraph (c) of this section.
c = 0.0022 for the 1986 model year.
c = A constant value, fixed by model year. For 1987, the
Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary
laboratory humidity and test fuel data become available. For 1988
and later model years, the Administrator will specify the c value
after the necessary laboratory humidity and test fuel data become available.
IW = (9.2917 x 10 -3 x SF_3IWC x
FE_3IWC) - (3.5123 x 10 -3 xx SF_4ETW
x FE_4IWC).

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

SF_3IWC = The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales divided
by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF_4ETW = The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight category
sales divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4
decimal places.
FE_4IWC = The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy
of all 3000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE_4IWC = The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy
of all 4000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.

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

E_alt/E_pet > or = 1

Where:

E_alt = [FE_alt/(NHV_alt x
D_alt)]
x 10 6 = energy efficiency while
operating on alternative fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/
million BTU.
E_pet = [FE_pet/(NHV_pet x
D_pet)]
x 10 6 = energy efficiency while
operating on gasoline or diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the
nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
FE_alt is the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels
or miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels]
while operated
on the alternative fuel as determined in Sec. 600.113-08(a) and (b);
FE_pet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon]
while operated
on petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined in Sec.
600.113(a) and (b);
NHV_alt is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb]
of the
alternative fuel;
NHV_pet is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb]
of the
petroleum fuel;
D_alt is the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels or lb/100
standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels]
of the alternative fuel;
D_pet is the density [lb/gallon]
of the petroleum fuel.

(i) The equation must hold true for both the FTP city and HFET
highway fuel economy values for each test of each test vehicle.
(ii)(A) The net heating value for alcohol fuels shall be determined
per ASTM D 240-92 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter.'' This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be determined per ASTM D
1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) ``Standard Practice for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.'' This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies
may be inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec. 600.113(f).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Alcohol dual fuel passenger automobiles and natural gas dual
fuel passenger automobiles manufactured during model years 1993 through
2004 must meet the minimum driving range

[[Page 77957]]

requirements established by the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR
part 538) to obtain the CAFE credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v)
and (vi) of this section.
(h) For each of the model years 1993 through 2004, and for each
category of automobile identified in paragraph (a) of this section, the
maximum increase in average fuel economy determined in paragraph (c) of
this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural
gas dual fuel automobiles shall be 1.2 miles per gallon or as provided
for in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel
economy to determine if the maximum increase provided in paragraph (h)
of this section has been reached. The Administrator shall calculate the
average fuel economy for each category of automobiles specified in
paragraph (a) of this section by subtracting the average fuel economy
values calculated in accordance with this section by assuming all
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated
exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) fuel from the average fuel economy
values determined in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and (c) of
this section. The difference is limited to the maximum increase
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(i) In the event that the Secretary of Transportation lowers the
corporate average fuel economy standard applicable to passenger
automobiles below 27.5 miles per gallon for any model year during 1993
through 2004, the maximum increase of 1.2 mpg per year specified in
paragraph (h) of this section shall be reduced by the amount the
standard was lowered, but not reduced below 0.7 mpg per year.

? 50. A new Sec. 600.512-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.512-01 Model year report.

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

? 51. A new Sec. 600.513-08 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 600.513-08 Gas Guzzler Tax.

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

FE_adj = FE[((0.55 x a_g x c) + (0.45 x c) +
(0.5556 x a_g) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 x a_g) + 0.45)]
+
IW_g

Where:

FE_adj = Fuel economy value to be used for determination
of gas guzzler tax assessment rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE = Combined model type fuel economy calculated in accordance with
Sec. 600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a_g = Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in
accordance with Sec. 600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg
divided by the model type city fuel economy calculated in accordance
with Sec. 600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. The
quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
c = gas guzzler adjustment factor = 1.300 x 10-\3\ for
the 1986 and later model years.
IW_g = (9.2917 x 10-3 x SF_3IWCG
FE_3IWCG) - (3.5123 x 10-3 x SF_4ETWG
x FE_4IWCG).

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

SF_3IWCG = The 3000 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.
SF_4ETWG = The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight sales in
the model type divided by the total model type sales, the quotient
shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
FE_3IWCG = The 3000 lb. inertial weight class base
level combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel
economy rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE_4IWCG = The 4000 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. 600.208-08), calculated in accordance
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and rounded to the

[[Page 77958]]

nearest 0.1 mpg, each vehicle fuel economy label shall include a Gas
Guzzler Tax statement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax
amount stated shall be as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) For passenger automobiles with a combined general label model
type fuel economy value of:
(i) At least 22.5 mpg, no Gas Guzzler Tax statement is required.
(ii) At least 21.5 mpg, but less than 22.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,000.
(iii) At least 20.5 mpg, but less than 21.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $1,300.
(iv) At least 19.5 mpg, but less than 20.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,700.
(v) At least 18.5 mpg; but less than 19.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,100.
(vi) At least 17.5 mpg, but less than 18.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,600.
(vii) At least 16.5 mpg, but less than 17.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,000.
(viii) At least 15.5 mpg, but less than 16.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,700.
(ix) At least 14.5 mpg, but less than 15.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $4,500.
(x) At least 13.5 mpg, but less than 14.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $5,400.
(xi) At least 12.5 mpg, but less than 13.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $6,400.
(xii) Less than 12.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax statement shall show
a tax of $7,700.

? 52. Appendix II to Part 600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) as
follows:

Appendix II to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Calculations

* * * * *
(b) This sample fuel economy calculation is applicable to 1988
and later model year automobiles.
(1) Assume that a gasoline-fueled vehicle was tested by the
Federal Emission Test Procedure and the following results were calculated:

HC = .139 grams/mile.
CO = 1.59 grams/mile.
CO₂ = 317 grams/mile.

(2) Assume that the test fuel used for this test had the
following properties:

SG = 0.745.
CWF = 0.868.
NHV = 18,478 Btu/lb.
(3) According to the procedure in Sec. 600.113-08, the city
fuel economy or MPG_c, for the vehicle may be calculated
by substituting the HC, CO, and CO₂ gram/mile values and
the SG, CWF, and NHV values into the following equation:

MPG_c = (5174 x 104x CWF x SG) / [((CWF x HC) +
(0.429 x CO + (0.273 x CO₂)) ((0.6 x SG x NHV) + 5471)]

Example:

MPG_c = (5174 x 10 4 x 0.868 x 0.745) / [(0.868 x
.139 + 0.429 x 1.59 + 0.273 x 317)(0.6 x 0.745 x 18478 + 5471)]
MPG_c = 27.9

(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 MPG_h of 36.9. According to the procedure in
Sec. 600.210(c), the combined fuel economy (called
MPG_comb) for the vehicle may be calculated by
substituting the city and highway fuel economy values into the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.080
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.081
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.082

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

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

Suppose that a manufacturer called Mizer Motors has a product
line composed of eight car lines. Of these eight, four are available
with the 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, sequential multi-point fuel
injection, 4-valve per cylinder, and 3-way catalyst engine. These
four car lines are:

Ajax
Boredom III
Dodo
Castor (Station Wagon)

A. A car line is defined in subpart A (with additional guidance
provided in EPA Advisory Circular 89) as a group of vehicles within
a make or division which has a degree of commonality in
construction. Car line does not consider any level of decor or
opulence and is not generally distinguished by such characteristics
as roofline, number of doors, seats, or windows. Station wagons and
light duty trucks are, however, identified separately from the
remainder of each car line. In other words, a Castor station wagon
would be considered a different car line than the normal Castor car
line made up of sedans, coupes, etc.
B. The engine considered here is defined as a basic engine in
subpart A of this part (with additional guidance provided in EPA
Advisory Circular 83A). A basic engine is a unique combination of
manufacturer, engine displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system,
catalyst usage and other engine and emission control system
characteristics specified by the Administrator. A model type is a
unique combination of car line, basic engine, and transmission
class. Thus Ajax is a car line but Ajax 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder manual
four-speed transmission is a model type whereas Ajax 3.0 liter, 6
cylinder automatic three-speed transmission is a different model type.
C. The following calculations provide an example of the
procedures described in subpart C of this part for the calculation
of vehicle configuration and model type fuel economy values. In
order to simplify the presentation, only city fuel economy values
are included (as determined by either the derived 5-cycle method or
vehicle-specific 5-cycle based method). The procedure is identical
for highway and combined fuel economy values.
Step I. Input data as supplied by the manufacturer or as
determined from testing conducted by the Administrator.

Manufacturer--Mizer Motors

Basic Engine: (3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, sequential multi-point
fuel injection, 4-valve per cylinder, 3-way catalyst).

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

[[Page 77959]]

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

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

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,500 lb/M4 transmission.................. 16.1001 mpg.
3,500 lb/A3 transmission.................. 15.9020 mpg.
4,000 lb/A3 transmission.................. 13.8138 mpg.
4,500 lb/A3 transmission.................. 13.2203 mpg.
5,000 lb/A3 transmission.................. 10.6006 mpg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Since data from more than one vehicle configuration are
included in the 4,000-pound, manual four-speed transmission base
level, this fuel economy is harmonically averaged in proportion to
the percentage of total sales of all vehicle configurations tested
within that base level represented by each vehicle configuration
tested within that base level.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.083

Base level: M4 transmission, 4000 pounds:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.084

Therefore, the 4000 pound, M4 transmission fuel economy is
14.6840 miles per gallon.
Note that the car line of the test vehicle using a given engine
makes no difference--only the weight and transmission do.
Step IV. For each model type offered by the manufacturer with
that basic engine, determine the sales fraction represented by each
inertia weight/transmission class combination and the corresponding
fuel economy.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax..................................... M4........................ 0.4000 at 3,500 lb.......... 16.1001
0.6000 at 4,000 lb.......... 14.6840
A3........................ 0.3000 at 3,500 lb.......... 15.9020
0.7000 at 4,000 lb.......... 13.8138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodo..................................... M4........................ 0.4000 at 3,500 lb.......... 16.1001
0.6000 at 4,000 lb.......... 14.6840
A3........................ 0.3000 at 3,500 lb.......... 15.9020
0.7000 at 4,000 lb.......... 13.8138
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boredom III.............................. M4........................ 1.0000 at 4,000 lb.......... 14.6840
A3........................ 0.2500 at 4,000 lb.......... 13.8138
0.7500 at 4,500 lb.......... 13.2203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castor................................... A3........................ 0.2000 at 4,500 lb.......... 13.2203
0.8000 at 5,000 lb.......... 10.6006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 77960]]

Step V. Determine fuel economy for each model type (that is, car
line/basic engine/transmission class combination).
Ajax, 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 transmission, model type MPG is
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.085

Similarly, Ajax and Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, M4 model type
MPG is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.086

Dodo 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.087

Boredom III 3.0 liter 6 cylinder M4 model type MPG = 14.6840
mpg, which rounds to 15 mi./gal\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The model type fuel economy values rounded to the nearest
mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values listed in the EPA Fuel
Economy Guide and used on the general labels (window stickers) for
production vehicles for that model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boredom III 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.088

Castor 3.0 liter, 6 cylinder, A3 model type MPG is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.089

[[Page 77961]]

Note that even though no Dodo was actually tested, this approach
permits its fuel economy figure to be estimated, based on the
inertia weight distribution of projected Dodo sales within a
specific engine and transmission grouping.

? 54. A new Appendix IV is added to read as follows:

Appendix IV to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Labels for 2008 and Later
Model Year Vehicles

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
A. Gasoline (or diesel)-fueled vehicle label
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.090

B. Gasoline (or diesel)-fueled vehicle label (with transitional
text statement for MY 2008 and 2009 vehicles only)

[[Page 77962]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.091

C. Gasoline-fueled Gas Guzzler vehicle label
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.092

D. Dual Fuel Vehicle Label (Ethanol/Gasoline)
Option 1--without alternate fuel economy)

[[Page 77963]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.093

Option 2--with alternate fuel economy
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.094

E. Natural Gas Vehicle Label

[[Page 77964]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.095

F. Dual Fuel Natural Gas Label
Option 1--without alternate fuel economy
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.096

Option 2--With alternate fuel economy

[[Page 77965]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.097

? 55. A new Appendix V is added to read as follows:

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

A. Format Guidelines for Gasoline (or Diesel) Vehicles

[[Page 77966]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.098

B. Format Guidelines for Ethanol and Natural Gas Dual Fuel
Vehicles. Unless otherwise indicated, the format specifications in
Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.099

[[Page 77967]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.100
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.101
[[Page 77968]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.102

C. Format Guidelines showing Gas Guzzler. Unless otherwise
indicated, the format specifications in Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.103

[[Page 77969]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.104

D. Format Guidelines for Natural Vehicles. Unless otherwise
indicated, the format specifications in Appendix V. A. apply.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE06.105

[FR Doc. 06-9749 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation