[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5426-5513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-451]
[[Page 5425]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5426]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8021-8]
RIN 2060-AN14
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes
to the test methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates that
are posted on window stickers of all new cars and light trucks sold in
the United States. A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy
estimates is that the underlying test procedures do not fully represent
real-world driving conditions. Although no single test or set of tests
can ever account for the wide variety of conditions experienced by
every driver, the new fuel economy estimates would more accurately
reflect a number of important factors that drivers are likely to
experience on the road. These changes will take effect starting with
2008 model year vehicles. Under the new methods, the City MPG estimates
for most vehicles would drop 10 percent to 20 percent from today's
labels, depending on the vehicle. The Highway MPG estimates would
generally drop 5 percent to 15 percent for most vehicles. Although
today's proposed fuel economy test methods would provide more accurate
estimates for many consumers, there will always continue to be drivers
who get higher or lower fuel economy than the window sticker numbers.
Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window sticker
estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE). However, this
proposal would not alter the test procedures, driving cycles,
measurement techniques, or the calculation methods used to determine
CAFE.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2006.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before March 3,
2006. See Section VII.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
more information about written comments.
Hearings: We will hold a public hearing in Romulus, Michigan, on
March 3, 2006. See Section VII.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for more information about public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0169, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.''
Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR-2005-0169. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section VII of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be at the Crowne Plaza
Hotel, Detroit--Metro Airport, 8000 Merriman Road, Romulus, Michigan.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734)
214-4636; E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or
sell new light-duty motor vehicles. Regulated categories and entities
include:
[[Page 5427]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS codes \A\ regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 336111, 336112............................... Motor vehicle manufacturers.
Industry........................ 811112, 811198, 541514....................... Commercial Importers of
Vehicles and Vehicle
Components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To
determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the proposed regulations. You may
direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements
B. Why is Today's Action Warranted?
C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?
D. Today's Proposal Does Not Impact or Change CAFE Test
Procedures
E. When Will the New Fuel Economy Estimates Take Effect?
F. How Will EPA Communicate to the Public the Transition Between
the Old Label Values and New?
G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy Label Methodology
A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae
B. Application of the Formulae To Develop Fuel Economy Labels
for Specific Vehicles
C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-Cycle Fuel Economy Formulae
D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach
E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel Economy Label Values
F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
III. What Major Alternatives Were Considered?
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
C. ``Your mileage will vary * * *'' Range of Expected Fuel
Economy Information
D. Other Format Changes
V. Other Related Proposals
A. Comparable Class Categories
B. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy
Booklet
C. Testing Provisions
D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for Vehicles Exceeding 8500
Pounds GVWR
E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a
Metric
F. Environmental Information on Fuel Economy Labels
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements
A. Information and Reporting Burden
B. Fees
C. Aggregate Costs
VII. Public Participation
A. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
The EPA fuel economy estimates have appeared on the window stickers
of all new cars and light trucks since the late 1970's and are well-
recognized by consumers. The fuel economy estimates essentially serve
two purposes: to provide consumers with a basis on which to compare the
fuel economy of different vehicles, and to provide consumers with a
reasonable estimate of the range of fuel economy they can expect to
achieve. While the estimates historically have been a valuable tool for
comparison shopping purposes, attention has been focused recently on
how closely the EPA estimates approximate consumers' real-world fuel
economy experience.
Today, we are proposing changes to EPA's fuel economy test methods
to bring the estimates closer to the fuel economy consumers are
achieving in the real-world. We believe these estimates will provide
car buyers with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of
different vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy
varies from driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as
different driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of
accessories, loads, weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different
drivers of the same vehicle will experience different fuel economy as
these and other factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a
``perfect'' fuel economy test that will provide accurate real-world
fuel economy estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there
will always be consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy.
The EPA estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers,
particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to
another. Nevertheless, we do believe that today's new fuel economy test
methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate
estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world.
It is essential that our fuel economy estimates continue to be
derived from controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. However, the
inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual real-world
driving behavior and conditions. Because the test is controlled and
repeatable, an EPA fuel economy test result can be used for comparison
of different vehicle models and types. EPA and manufacturers test over
1,250 vehicle models annually and every test is run under identical
conditions and under a precise driver's trace, which assures that the
result will be the same for an individual vehicle model no matter when
and where the laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature,
road grade, driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the
result of the test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy
on a trip-to-trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result.
Therefore, a repeatable test provides a level playing field for all
vehicles, which is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one
vehicle to another. Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm
the values achieved by the manufacturers' testing, and this can only be
achieved with a highly repeatable test or set of tests. No other fuel
economy test program provides the level of repeatability as the EPA
program.
However, the EPA fuel economy test methods need to reflect real
world conditions as well as being a repeatable test. While some
organizations have issued their own fuel economy numbers based on on-
road driving, this approach introduces a wide number of variables--
different drivers, driving patterns, weather conditions, temperatures,
etc.--that make repeatability impossible. Our proposed fuel economy
test methods are more representative of real-world
[[Page 5428]]
conditions than the current fuel economy tests--yet we would retain our
practice of relying on controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests.
The methods used today for calculating the city and highway mpg
estimates were established in the 1970's, and were adjusted in the mid-
1980's. Since these adjustments were made, America's driving behavior
has changed. In the past 20 years, speed limits have increased and
vehicles have been designed for higher power--as a result, Americans
are driving faster and more aggressively than ever before. Vehicle
technology has changed markedly, and many more vehicles are equipped
with energy-consuming accessories like air conditioning. These and
other factors are not accounted for in the current test procedures used
to determine the city and highway mpg estimates. Our analyses indicate
that if these factors were better accounted for, the city and highway
fuel economy label estimates would be generally lower and closer to the
average real-world experience of consumers.
A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy estimates is that the
underlying test procedures do not fully represent real-world driving
conditions. Some of the key limitations are that the highway test has a
top speed of only 60 miles per hour, both the city and highway tests
are run at mild climatic conditions (75 deg. F), both tests have mild
acceleration rates, and neither test is run with the use of
accessories, such as air conditioning. However, since the time of the
last fuel economy labeling revisions in the mid-1980's, EPA has
established several additional test procedures, used for emissions
compliance purposes, which capture a much broader range of real-world
driving conditions. Specifically, these emissions test cycles capture
the effects of higher speeds, more aggressive driving (i.e., higher
acceleration rates), the use of air conditioning at higher ambient
temperatures, and colder temperature operation. Our analysis indicates
that these factors can have a significant impact on fuel economy, and
that the impacts can vary widely across different vehicles.
Today, we are proposing that three additional emission tests,
already used by manufacturers, could be utilized to derive more
accurate fuel economy estimates. These three test procedures encompass
a much broader range of real-world driving, as they incorporate the
effects of higher speeds, more rapid accelerations, air conditioning
use, and cold temperatures. Our proposed approach would utilize these
additional emission tests, together with the current two fuel economy
tests, so that our fuel economy test methods reflect a much broader
range of driving conditions.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to update
or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world
factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of the Act directs EPA to
``* * * update or revise the adjustment factors in [certain sections of
the fuel economy labeling regulations] to take into consideration
higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations in
temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test cycle lengths,
current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel depleting
features.'' \1\ Today's proposal does take into account these
conditions and would address this statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past few years, there have been several independent
studies comparing EPA's fuel economy estimates to the real-world
experience of consumers. These studies confirm that there is
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy, and provide further
evidence that EPA's mileage ratings often overestimate real-world fuel
economy. Although these studies differ in a number of variables,
including their test methods, driving conditions, and fuel economy
measurement techniques, they indicate that EPA's approach to estimating
fuel economy needs to be improved to better represent some key real-
world fuel economy impacts.
Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window
sticker estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE), although the
label estimates are adjusted downward. This proposal would not alter
the test procedures, driving cycles, measurement techniques, or the
calculation methods used to determine CAFE. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 requires that CAFE values be determined from
the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that give
comparable results), meaning that whatever action we take to improve
the window sticker estimates must leave in place the existing tests
used for CAFE determination. The proposed test methods for determining
the new fuel economy label estimates would be incorporated in sections
of the regulations that are entirely separate from the CAFE
regulations.
This section begins with a history of EPA's involvement in fuel
economy programs. Then we discuss why we are taking action, including
discussions of the limitations of the current tests, various data
sources of real-world fuel economy, the additional real-world driving
conditions captured by other emissions tests procedures, and the impact
of these factors on fuel economy. We then provide an overview of our
proposed new fuel economy test methods (which are discussed in detail
in Section II), and conclude with a discussion of the relevant Federal
statutes and how they bear on this proposal.
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information,
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on
window stickers of all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an
annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to
the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's
average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this
compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program). The responsibilities for these requirements were split
between EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department
of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods
and procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates to be
posted on the window stickers and in the annual booklet, and for the
calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT is
responsible for administering the CAFE compliance program, including
establishing standards for non-passenger automobiles and determining if
manufacturers were complying with the applicable CAFE standards, and
assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible for publishing
and distributing the annual fuel economy information booklet.
EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute
in 1976.\2\ The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977
model year, established procedures to calculate fuel economy values for
labeling and CAFE purposes that used the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or
``city'' test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway''
test) data as the basis for the calculations. At that time, the
fundamental process for determining fuel economy was the same for
labeling as for CAFE, except that the
[[Page 5429]]
CAFE calculations combined the city and highway fuel economy into a
single number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 41 FR 38685, which is promulgated at 40 CFR Part 600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates
on the window stickers of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that
drivers were disappointed that they were not often achieving these
estimates on the road and that they expected them to be as accurate as
possible. In 1978, Congress recognized the concern about differences
between EPA estimated fuel economy values and actual consumer
experience and mandated a study under section 404 of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978.\3\ In February, 1980, a set of
hearings were conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and National Resources. One of the
recommendations in the subsequent report by the Subcommittee was that
``EPA devise a new MPG system for labeling new cars and for the Gas
Mileage Guide that provides fuel economy values, or a range of values,
that most drivers can reasonably expect to experience.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, 404 (November 9, 1978).
\4\ See House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile
Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,'' Report 96-948, May 13, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel
economy labeling procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel
economy data.\5\ In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling
procedures that were applicable to 1985 and later model year
vehicles.\6\ The decision was made to retain the FTP and highway test
procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used for other
purposes--emissions certification and CAFE determination. Based on the
in-use fuel economy data, however, it was evident that the final fuel
economy values put on the labels needed to be adjusted downward in
order to more accurately reflect consumers' average fuel economy
experience. The final rule, therefore, included downward adjustment
factors for both the city and highway label fuel economy estimates. The
city values (based on the raw FTP test data) were adjusted downward by
10 percent and the highway values (likewise based on the raw highway
test data) were adjusted downward by 22 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 460/3-80-010,
September, 1980, and ``Technical Support Report for Rulemaking
Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE-81-6,
October, 1980.
\6\ See 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December
10, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA projected at the time that these adjustments would put the
average city and highway MPG values in the middle of the range of fuel
economy values experienced by consumers.\7\ During the rulemaking
process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed concern
that fuel economy estimates based on the average experience would
result in a significant number of drivers failing to achieve that fuel
economy. They requested that EPA provide a range of values on the label
that would encompass the expected fuel economy of about 75 percent of
the driving population.\8\ To address this concern, in the final rule,
EPA required the label to contain the range of city and highway fuel
economy that most drivers should expect. Based on our understanding of
the frequency distribution of in-use fuel economy data at the time, the
range was set at plus or minus 15 percent of the stated city and
highway estimates, and appears on fuel economy labels today as small
print text. Further in this section, we discuss, in the context of
today's proposal, similar issues regarding how best to communicate to
the public the level of the city and highway mpg estimates, as well as
the range of drivers' fuel economy experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 49 FR 13832, April 16, 1984.
\8\ See 49 FR 13835, April 16, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why Is Today's Action Warranted?
The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is
that the test procedures on which they are based do not reflect a broad
enough range of in-use driving conditions. The current test procedures
omit several critical factors that are prevalent in the real-world and
that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Key among these are
higher speeds, faster accelerations, the use of air conditioning, and
colder temperatures. The impact of these factors on fuel economy can
vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. However, for emissions compliance,
we have already developed additional test procedures to account for
these factors, and these test procedures are already being regularly
used by the auto companies. Today, we are proposing to use these tests,
in conjunction with the existing fuel economy tests, as an input into
the calculation of fuel economy estimates. In doing so, the fuel
economy test methods would reflect a much broader range of real-world
conditions than they do today.
There is broad-based support among automobile manufacturers and
other stakeholders proposing changes to current fuel economy estimates.
Congress recognized the need for action by including a provision in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring EPA to revise its fuel economy
estimates. EPA has worked closely with auto manufacturers, states, and
other organizations in developing this proposed rule.
Bluewater Network petitioned EPA to revise the fuel economy
labeling test procedures.\9\ EPA published a Federal Register notice
requesting comments on the petition, and received over 33,000
comments.\10\ Nearly all of these comments support the revision of
EPA's fuel economy estimates to better reflect real world driving.
Today's proposal is responsive to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Bluewater Network petition was submitted to EPA on June
7, 2002.
\10\ See 69 FR 16188, March 29, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fuel Economy Labels Could Be Improved To Better Reflect Real-World
Driving
First, it is important to stress that the EPA city and highway mpg
ratings are estimates--they are not intended to give consumers an exact
indication of the fuel economy they will achieve. The complete range of
consumer fuel economy experience can not be represented perfectly by
any one estimate. Fuel economy varies based on a wide range of factors,
which we have discussed above. There will always be consumers that
achieve real-world fuel economy both better and worse than a given
estimate.
In the past few years, there have been a number of studies,
conducted by a variety of sources, suggesting that there is often a
shortfall between the EPA estimates and real-world fuel economy.
Several organizations have provided consumers with their own fuel
economy estimates, which in some cases vary from EPA's estimates. For
example, Consumer Reports utilizes on-road driving to measure fuel
economy under a variety of conditions. They derive city, highway, and
overall fuel economy estimates, and their methods clearly demonstrate
the large degree of variation across vehicles. While their city fuel
economy estimates fall on average below the EPA label values, their
highway estimates are, on average, higher than the EPA label values.
Consumer Reports' overall fuel economy estimates range from 27 percent
below to 20 percent above the EPA overall rating. The Automobile
Association of America (AAA) likewise publishes the
[[Page 5430]]
fuel economy results they achieve in their annual auto guide for new
cars and trucks. In their 2004 auto guide, about half of their
estimates were below the EPA combined city/highway value, and about one
half were above the EPA city/highway combined value. Their estimates
ranged from 40 percent lower than EPA's to 22 percent higher, again
reflecting a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle variation. Other sources
of fuel economy data include Edmunds.com, the Department of Energy's
(DOE) ``Your MPG'' database on the fueleconomy.gov Web site, and DOE's
FreedomCar program.
Each of these studies differs in its test methods, driving cycles,
sampling of vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel economy. There are
strengths and weaknesses of each study, which we discuss further in
Section II and in the Draft Technical Support Document. Collectively,
these studies indicate there are many cases where real-world fuel
economy falls below the EPA estimates. The studies also indicate that
real-world fuel economy varies significantly depending on the
conditions under which it is evaluated. Nevertheless, taken as a whole,
these studies reflect a wide range of real-world driving conditions,
and show that fuel economy can be much lower than EPA's estimates if
more real-world conditions are considered.
The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is
that the test procedures on which they are based are missing a number
of critical factors that exist in real-world driving and have a
significant impact on fuel economy. The following section discusses the
limitations of our existing fuel economy test procedures.
2. Today's Fuel Economy Tests Do Not Represent the Full Range of
Driving Conditions
The current city and highway fuel economy tests do not represent
the full range of real-world driving conditions. The 1985 adjustment
factors were designed to ensure that the fuel economy estimates across
the vehicle fleet reflected the average impacts of a number of
conditions not represented on the tests. However, as we noted earlier,
many changes have occurred since then that make it once again a
reasonable time to reevaluate the fuel economy test methods. Given the
significant degree of variation that is apparent across vehicles, we
believe it is important to reconsider the approach of ``one-size-fits-
all'' adjustment factors and instead move to an approach that more
directly reflects the impacts of fuel economy on individual vehicle
models.
The city fuel economy estimate is based on the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), which was designed to measure a vehicle's tailpipe
emissions under urban driving conditions. The driving cycle used for
the FTP is called the LA-4, which was developed in the mid-1960's to
represent home-to-work commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of
the tests used to determine emissions compliance today. The FTP
includes a series of accelerations, decelerations, and idling (such as
at stop lights). It also includes starting the vehicle after it has
been parked for an extended period of time (called a ``cold start''),
as well as a start on a warmed-up engine (called a ``hot start''). The
total distance covered by the FTP is about 11 miles and the average
speed is about 21 mph, with a maximum speed of about 56 mph.
The highway fuel economy estimate is based on the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET), which was developed by EPA in 1974 and was
designed to represent a mix of interstate highway and rural driving. It
consists of relatively constant higher-speed driving, with no engine
starts or idling time. The HFET covers a distance of about 10 miles, at
an average speed of 49 mph and a top speed of about 60 mph.
There are several key limitations in the FTP and HFET tests that
cause them to not adequately reflect real-world driving today. First,
most consumers understandably think ``highway'' fuel economy means the
fuel economy you can expect under freeway driving conditions. In fact,
the highway test has a top speed of only 60 mph, since the test was
developed more than 20 years ago to represent more rural driving
conditions at a time when the national speed limit was 55 miles per
hour. The national speed limit since has been eliminated, states have
established speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and much driving
is at even higher speeds. Recent real-world driving studies indicate
that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at
speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This analysis is detailed in the Draft
Technical Support Document). These studies also show that 33 percent of
real-world driving VMT falls outside the FTP/HFET speed and
acceleration activity region. Thus, a substantial amount of high speed
driving is not captured at all in today's FTP or HFET tests. This is a
critical weakness in our current fuel economy test procedures. Since
higher speed driving has a negative impact on fuel economy,
incorporating these higher speed driving conditions into the fuel
economy tests would lower the fuel economy estimates.
Second, the maximum acceleration rates of both the FTP and HFET
tests are a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per second, considerably
lower than the maximum acceleration rates seen in real-world driving.
Recent real-world driving studies indicate that maximum acceleration
rates are as high as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant activity occurs
beyond 3.3 mph/sec. Even at the time these tests were first developed,
the real-world accelerations were higher than 3.3 mph/sec, but the test
cycle's acceleration rates needed to be constrained to the mechanical
limitation of the dynamometer test equipment. These constraints no
longer exist with today's dynamometers, so we now have the ability to
incorporate higher maximum acceleration rates that more closely reflect
those of actual driving. In fact, we have incorporated higher
acceleration rates into a test recently developed for emissions
compliance, which we discuss in the next section. As with high speed
driving, higher acceleration rates have a negative impact on fuel
economy; thus, if these higher accelerations were factored into our
fuel economy methods, the estimates would be lower.
The maximum deceleration rate of the FTP and HFET tests is
important to consider as well, because it relates to the regenerative
breaking effect of hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and HFET tests
include a mild maximum deceleration rate of -3.3 mph/sec; yet in recent
real-world driving rates as high as -11 to -17 mph/sec were recorded.
Under higher deceleration rates, the effects of regenerative breaking
for hybrid electric vehicles are diminished, thereby lowering fuel
economy. In this regard, today's FTP and HFET tests result in better
fuel economy, which is seldom achieved under actual driving conditions.
Third, both tests are run at mild ambient conditions (approximately
75 degrees Fahrenheit), while real-world driving occurs at a wide range
of ambient temperatures. Fuel economy is lower at temperatures colder
or warmer than the 75 degree F test temperature. Only about 20 percent
of VMT occurs between 70 and 80 degrees F--approximately 15 percent of
VMT occurs at temperatures above 80 degrees F, and 65 percent occurs
below 70 degrees F. Moreover, neither the FTP nor HFET tests are run
with accessories operating, such as air conditioners, heaters, or
defrosters. These accessories, most notably air conditioning, can have
a significant impact on a vehicle's fuel economy.
[[Page 5431]]
Finally, there are many factors that affect fuel economy that
cannot be replicated on dynamometer test cycles in a laboratory. These
include road grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g., tire pressure),
snow/ice, precipitation, fuel effects, and others. It is not possible
to develop a test cycle that captures the full range of factors
impacting fuel economy. However, it is clear that the FTP and HFET
tests alone are missing some critical elements of real-world driving.
All of these factors have a negative impact on fuel economy. This
largely explains why our current estimates often do not reflect
consumers' real-world fuel economy experience. However, since the 1985
adjustment factors were established, EPA has adopted several new test
cycles for emission compliance purposes, which collectively represent a
much broader range of in-use driving conditions than those captured by
the FTP and HFET tests. These additional emission tests, discussed
below, can be brought into the fuel economy estimate calculations.
3. Additional Emissions Tests Reflect a Broader Range of Real-World
Driving Conditions
Since 1984 when we last updated the fuel economy estimate
methodology, EPA has established several new test cycles for emissions
certification. EPA was concerned that the FTP omitted many critical
driving modes and conditions that existed in actual use, and that
emissions could be substantially higher during these driving modes
compared to the FTP. Manufacturers were frequently designing their
vehicles' emission control systems to meet the specified FTP test
conditions, and actual emission levels could be quite different under
the broader range of real-world ``off-cycle'' conditions.
The need for these actions was recognized by Congress, in the
passage of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (CAAA).\11\ Section 206(h) required EPA to study and revise as
necessary the test procedures used to measure emissions, taking into
consideration the actual current driving conditions under which motor
vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel, temperature,
acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA required EPA to
establish emission standards for carbon monoxide under cold (20 deg. F)
temperature conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 42 U.S.C. 7525(h), 42 U.S.C. 7521(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, EPA published rules implementing the 202(j) cold
temperature testing requirement, acknowledging that the ambient
temperature conditions of the FTP test (run between 68 and 86 [deg]F)
do not represent the full range of ambient temperature conditions that
exist across the United States and that cold temperature had different
emissions effects on different vehicle designs.\12\ EPA's cold
temperature emission regulations required manufacturers to conduct FTP
testing at 20 [deg]F. By promulgating this new test procedure and
associated emission standard, EPA sought to encourage manufacturers to
employ better emission control strategies that would improve ambient
air quality across a wider range of in-use conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 57 FR 31888, July 17, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA requirement, EPA published a
report in 1993 which concluded that the FTP cycle did not represent the
full range of urban driving conditions that could impact the in-use
driving emission levels.\13\ Consequently, EPA promulgated a rule in
1996 that established two new test procedures, with associated emission
standards, that addressed certain shortcomings with the current
FTP.\14\ Known as the ``Supplemental FTP,'' or ``SFTP,'' these
procedures, similar to the cold temperature FTP, encouraged the use of
the better emission controls across a wider range of in-use driving
conditions in order to improve ambient air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\14\ See 61 FR 54854 published on October 22, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the new test cycles, the US06, was designed to address high
speed, aggressive driving behavior (with more severe acceleration rates
and speeds) as well as rapid and frequent speed fluctuations. The US06
test contains both lower-speed city driving and higher-speed highway
driving modes.\15\ Its top speed is 80 mph, and average speed is 48
mph. The top acceleration rate exceeds eight mph per second. The other
new SFTP test, the SC03, was designed to address air-conditioner
operation under a full simulation of high temperature (95 [deg]F), high
sun-load, and high humidity. The SC03 drive cycle was designed to
represent driving immediately following a vehicle startup, and rapid
and frequent speed fluctuations.\16\ Its top speed is about 55 mph and
average speed is 22 mph. The top acceleration rate is about five mph
per second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (g).
\16\ Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the SFTP rulemaking was a study of real-world driving
in four cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and Los Angeles, where
driving activity was measured on instrumented vehicles as well as by
chase cars.17 18 At that time, it was found that 18 percent
of the driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the speed/
acceleration distribution of the FTP drive schedule. More recent real-
world driving activity data indicates that driving has become even more
aggressive than it was in 1992. Recent real-world activity data
collected in California and Kansas City found that about 28 percent of
driving (vehicle miles traveled) is at speeds greater than 60 mph.
Further, about 33 percent of recent real-world driving falls outside of
the FTP/HFET speed and acceleration activity
region.19 20 21 22 This is based on extensive chase car
studies in California and instrumented vehicle studies in Kansas City.
Our assessment of these recent real-world driving activity studies is
described in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Final Technical Report on Aggressive Driving Behavior for
the Revised Federal Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
1995. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\19\ Sierra Research, Inc., ``Task Order No. 2 SCF Improvement--
Field Data Collection,'' Sierra Report No. SR02-07-04, July, 2002.
\20\ U.S. EPA Draft Technical Support Document ``Fuel Economy
Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel
Economy Estimates,'' December, 2005.
\21\ Brzezinski, D., E. Nam, J. Koupal, G. Hoffman. Changes in
Real World Driving Behavior: Analysis of Recent Driving Activity
Data. Proceedings of the 15th Coordinating Research Council On Road
Vehicle Emissions Workshop, 2005.
\22\ Eastern Research Group. Late Model Vehicle Emissions and
Fuel Economy Characterization Study: Addendum to the Kansas City
Exhaust Characterization Study-Draft Report. ERG No.
0133.18.004.001, September 26, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone do not fully capture the
broad range of real-world driving conditions. In order for EPA's fuel
economy tests to be more representative of key aspects of real-world
driving, it is critical that we consider the test conditions
represented by these additional emission tests.
4. Fuel Economy on Driving Modes Represented by Additional Emissions
Tests is Lower for Many Vehicles
As discussed above, there are several key conditions missing from
the current fuel economy test procedures that are prevalent in real-
world driving. These conditions--higher speeds, faster
[[Page 5432]]
accelerations, air conditioning operation, and cold temperatures--have
already been incorporated into our test procedures for emissions
compliance, as a result of our finding in the 1990's that they have a
significant impact on emissions. Our analysis below demonstrates that
these additional driving conditions can also have a significant impact
on fuel economy--and that these impacts vary widely from vehicle to
vehicle. Thus, we believe that these factors need to be included in our
fuel economy test methods.
We analyzed fuel economy data collected by manufacturers for
emissions certification purposes in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 model
years. This analysis included data from all five tests used for
emissions compliance today, including the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and
Cold Temperature FTP. The fuel economy measured on the standard fuel
economy tests (FTP and HFET) was compared to the fuel economy on the
other emissions certification tests (US06, SC03, and Cold FTP) in order
to assess the impact of these factors on fuel economy. The analysis
includes data from more than 400 vehicles. Comparisons were made to the
unadjusted city and highway fuel economy test results, and the findings
are summarized below. Because so many other factors bear on real-world
consumer experience, it is important to point out that these
comparisons are not intended to indicate the exact impact of a given
factor on real-world fuel economy. However, comparing these different
test results is informative because we establish the relative magnitude
of the impacts and of the variation across vehicles. The entire report
of this analysis is in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, ``Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling and
The Effect of Cold Temperature, Air-Conditioning Usage and
Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,'' Draft Staff Report, August
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Cold Temperature Operation. To assess the impact of cold
temperature operation on fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy
measured over the Cold FTP test directly to that over the standard FTP
test. The driving cycles in these two tests are identical (i.e., the
LA4 cycle). Both tests include both cold and hot starts at their
respective ambient temperatures, and both tests are generally run with
accessories turned off. The difference in fuel economy should therefore
be entirely due to the difference in ambient temperature: 20 [deg]F
versus 75 [deg]F.
On average, fuel economy over the Cold FTP was about 12 percent
lower than over the standard FTP. There was wide vehicle-to-vehicle
variation, with the loss in fuel economy due to the cold conditions as
much as 40 percent. Figure I.B-1 below shows the range of cold
temperature impacts. Hybrid vehicles tended to show the greatest
sensitivity to cold temperature. Of the six vehicles showing a cold
temperature impact of greater than 30 percent, five are hybrids.
Overall, conventional gasoline vehicles averaged a cold temperature
effect of about -11 percent, while the impact on hybrid vehicles
averaged about -32 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.000
b. Air Conditioning. To assess the impact of air conditioning on
fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy measured over the SC03 test
to a comparable portion of the FTP. The SC03 test is run with the air-
conditioning turned onto its maximum setting in a test cell set at 95
[deg]F with strong sun load and moderate humidity. On average, air
conditioner operation at 95 [deg]F reduced fuel economy by about 21
percent. The impact of air conditioning ranged from -41 percent to -25
percent for more than a third of the vehicles. Similar to the cold
temperature impacts, there was a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle
variation in the impact of air conditioning on fuel economy. Figure
I.B-2 shows the distribution of the percentage differences (negative
numbers indicate lower fuel economy over SC03). As can be seen in the
figure, the vast majority of vehicles show an impact of -27.5
[[Page 5433]]
percent to -7.5 percent. Hybrid vehicles tended to show greater
sensitivity to air conditioning operation than conventional vehicles.
The effect of air conditioning operation reduced hybrid fuel economy by
31 percent, 50 percent greater than the 20 percent impact on
conventional vehicle fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.001
c. Aggressive and High-Speed Driving. The US06 test was designed to
address aggressive driving behavior, such as high acceleration rates
and high speeds. The US06 test contains both lower-speed but aggressive
urban driving and higher-speed highway driving modes. Because of the
different driving modes contained on the US06 test, for the purpose of
assessing the impacts of high speed and aggressive driving we developed
a combination of the city and highway tests which is roughly comparable
to that contained in the US06 cycle.
On average, the fuel economy over the US06 cycle was almost 30
percent lower than over the composite FTP and HFET fuel economy. The
observed impacts ranged from -44 percent to -25 percent for more than
80 percent of the vehicles. Figure I.B-3 shows the distribution of per
vehicle impacts due to the aggressive driving of the US06 cycle. Hybrid
vehicles showed a slightly greater impact of aggressive driving on fuel
economy than conventional gasoline vehicles (33 percent versus 29
percent, respectively).
[[Page 5434]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.002
d. Conclusions. Many of the vehicles whose fuel economies were most
affected by these driving conditions were hybrids and other high mile-
per-gallon vehicles. In general, high mpg vehicles will be more
sensitive to changes in driving conditions for two reasons. One,
because they use relatively little fuel in the first place, any
increase in fuel consumption will show up as a relatively larger
percentage fuel consumption increase. Two, because of the non-linearity
of fuel economy with respect to fuel consumption, an increase in fuel
consumption will lower the fuel economy of a high mpg vehicle much more
than it will lower the fuel economy of a low mpg vehicle. For example,
the fuel consumption increase associated with a 35 mpg rating that
actually achieves 30 mpg in the real-world is the same as a 15 mpg
rating that actually achieves 14 mpg.
Hybrids, most of which achieve relatively high mpg and therefore
share the issues discussed above, also face some additional challenges.
Hybrids may well be the most significant powertrain technology
innovation driven to market commercialization primarily because of its
fuel economy potential. In addition, the nature of hybrid technology
(the addition of a battery as a second source of on-board power,
sophisticated control systems, sometimes a smaller engine) suggests
that fuel economy will likely be more sensitive to certain conditions
such as high acceleration and deceleration rates, cold ambient
temperatures, etc. Finally, by industry standards, hybrids are a
relatively young technology, and there is every reason to believe that
as the technology matures, hybrid vehicle fuel economy will become much
more robust over a broader range of driver behavior and climate
conditions.
This analysis clearly shows that the driving conditions represented
by US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests can have substantial, measurable
negative impact on fuel economy. There also is a large amount of
vehicle-to-vehicle variation--that is, different vehicles are impacted
differently by these factors. These findings call into question the
appropriateness of the continued use of the current ``one-size-fits-
all'' 10 and 22 percent adjustment factors applied, respectively, to
FTP and HFET fuel economy test results. The FTP and HFET tests clearly
do not adequately reflect the broad range of conditions that exist in
today's real-world driving. The additional emission test cycles
incorporate several critical factors that are present in real-world
driving, and that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Thus,
these additional emission test cycles need to be brought into the fuel
economy test methods, so that the estimates themselves will be more
representative of the fuel economy consumers can expect to achieve in
the real-world.
C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?
We are proposing to revise and improve the methods used to
determine the city and highway fuel economy estimates by incorporating
fuel economy results over a broader range of driving conditions. An
overview of this proposal is provided below. Section II provides a
detailed explanation of the proposed new test methods, as well as the
data and analysis upon which it is based.
In addition, we are proposing minor changes to revise the format
and content of the fuel economy label to make the information more
useful to consumers. We also are proposing minor changes related to the
fuel economy information program, including revising the comparable
vehicle classes and adding a new provision for the electronic
distribution of the annual Fuel Economy Guide. An overview of each of
these proposals follows.
1. Revised Test Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy
Estimates
Today's proposal would revise the test methods by which the city
and highway fuel economy estimates are calculated. We are proposing to
replace the current method of adjusting the city (FTP) test result
downward by 10 percent and the highway (HFET) test result downward by
22 percent. Instead, we are proposing a new approach that incorporates
additional test methods that address factors that impact fuel economy,
but are missing from today's tests--specifically, higher speeds, more
aggressive driving (e.g., higher acceleration rates), the use of air
conditioning, and the effect of cold temperature. The proposed test
methods
[[Page 5435]]
would bring into the fuel economy estimates the test results from the
five emissions tests in place today: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold
FTP. Thus, we refer to this as the ``5-cycle'' method. Under our
proposal, rather than basing the city mpg estimate solely on the
adjusted FTP test result, and the highway mpg estimate solely on the
adjusted HFET test result, each estimate would be based on a
``composite'' calculation of all five tests, weighting each
appropriately to arrive at new city and highway mpg estimates. The new
city and highway estimates would each be calculated according to
separate city and highway ``5-cycle'' formulae that are based on fuel
economy results over these five tests. The conditions represented by
each test would be ``weighted'' according to how much they occur over
average real-world city or highway driving. For example, we have
derived weightings to represent driving cycle effects, trip length, air
conditioner compressor-on usage, and operation over various
temperatures. This methodology is described in detail in Section II.
We also are proposing a downward adjustment to account for effects
that are not reflected in our existing five test cycles. There are many
factors that impact fuel economy, but are difficult to account for in
the test cell on the dynamometer. These include roadway roughness, road
grade (hills), wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice,
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicle loads (e.g., trailers,
cargo, multiple passengers), and others. Current data indicates that
these impacts can lower fuel economy from 9 to 13 percent. Thus, we
need to account for these factors in our new test methods, as they will
lower a driver's fuel economy beyond those factors we are accounting
for from our existing test cycles. We are proposing an 11 percent
downward adjustment to account for these non-dynamometer effects. Our
basis for this downward adjustment factor is detailed in Section II.C.3
and the Draft Technical Support Document.
The 5-cycle approach, including this 11 percent downward adjustment
factor to account for non-dynamometer effects, will result in city and
highway estimates that reflect average fuel economy. We are proposing
to continue to set the city and highway mpg estimates at the average,
or mean, level. However, we understand that many drivers expect to
achieve or exceed the fuel economy indicated by these mpg estimates. By
continuing to set the estimates at the average level, by definition,
half of drivers will get worse fuel economy than the label values. We
seek comment on whether the city and highway estimates should be set a
level that is lower than average--for example, to ensure that 75
percent, or even more, of drivers achieve or exceed the label values.
Because the 5-cycle method is inherently vehicle-specific, the
difference between today's values and the new fuel economy estimates
could vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. Today's proposed approach
would result in city fuel economy estimates that are between 10 to 20
percent lower than today's labels for the majority of conventional
vehicles. For vehicles that achieve generally better fuel economy, such
as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new city estimates would be about
20 to 30 percent lower than today's labels. The new highway fuel
economy estimates would be 5 to 15 percent lower for the majority of
vehicles, including hybrids.
Today's proposal would greatly improve the EPA fuel economy
estimates, so that they come closer to the fuel economy that consumers
achieve in the real-world. However, as discussed previously in this
notice, these are still estimates. Even with the improved fuel economy
test methods proposed today, some consumers will continue to get fuel
economy that is higher or lower than the new estimates.
Under this new 5-cycle approach, some auto manufacturers have
expressed concern about the potential for increased test burden. The
three additional emission tests that we propose to include in the fuel
economy calculation are run today on a much more limited number of
vehicle groups than are the FTP and HFET tests. Typically, for every 3-
4 FTP and HFET tests conducted, only one US06 or SC03 test is run, and
cold FTP testing is even more limited. If we were to require full 5-
cycle testing across all vehicle types, the testing demands for the
auto industry could increase dramatically, and could trigger the need
for a major expansion of their testing facilities.
Thus, we are proposing to implement the new fuel economy test
methods in a way that gives the auto industry sufficient lead time to
plan for their increased testing needs. This enables us to implement an
improved fuel economy label methodology as soon as possible--in the
2008 model year. We also are implementing an approach that mitigates
the testing burden where warranted. We have done this in two key ways.
First, for the first three model years (2008 through 2010), we
would provide manufacturers with the option of using a scale of
adjustments based on an analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle
method. This approach, called the mpg-based approach, incorporates the
effects of higher speed/aggressive driving, air conditioning use, and
colder temperatures, but less directly than the 5-cycle vehicle-
specific method. The mpg-based adjustments were derived by applying the
5-cycle formulae to a data set of recent fuel economy test data, and
developing a regression line through the data. (See Section II for a
full description of this approach). These adjustments differ based on
the mpg a vehicle obtains over the FTP (City) or HFET (Highway) tests.
In other words, every vehicle with the same mpg on the FTP test would
receive the same adjustment for its city fuel economy label. Likewise,
every vehicle with the same mpg on the HFET test would receive the same
adjustment for its highway fuel economy label. This method of
adjustment would not require any testing beyond the FTP/HFET tests
already performed today, thus, it can be implemented sooner than the 5-
cycle approach as an interim improvement to our fuel economy test
methods. However, during this timeframe, manufacturers may choose to
run full 5-cycle testing for any of their vehicle models. This approach
would provide consumers with more accurate estimates, while allowing
the industry the necessary lead time to prepare for the necessary
testing under the 5-cycle approach.
Second, when we move to the 5-cycle vehicle-specific approach in
model years 2011 and beyond, we are proposing criteria that would
select specific vehicle groups for full 5-cycle testing, rather than
requiring complete 5-cycle data generation for every vehicle. We
believe this approach would result in fuel economy estimates that are
generally as accurate as they would be under full 5-cycle testing. In
other words, we are only requiring full 5-cycle testing where we can
predict with reasonable certainty that the fuel economy results under
the 5-cycle method would yield a significantly different result than
the mpg-based adjustments.
We propose to establish a tolerance band around the mpg-based city
and highway adjustment lines. Manufacturers would be required to
calculate a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate for each vehicle group for
which 5-cycle data exists for emissions purposes. If the 5-cycle fuel
economy estimate for this vehicle group falls below the respective
tolerance band around the mpg adjustment line, then the manufacturer
would be eligible to use the mpg-based adjustments for each
[[Page 5436]]
vehicle configuration represented by that set of 5-cycle data. That is,
the 5-cycle vehicle group may include within it several vehicle
groupings, or specific vehicle model types, for which additional FTP/
HFET data is available. The manufacturer would be able to use the MPG
line to determine the fuel economy label adjustments for each of these
model types with associated FTP/HFET test data. Fuller 5-cycle testing
would be required for all vehicles represented by a vehicle group for
which the 5-cycle fuel economy is below the tolerance bands. Section II
further describes the level of these tolerance bands and how this
concept would be implemented. A full discussion of our proposed
methodology and results is contained in Section II.
2. Revised Label Format
To make the label more easily understood by consumers, we are also
proposing changes to the fuel economy label format specified in the
regulations. The proposed changes include updating the look of the
label, simplifying its contents, and improving its graphics, among
others. The purpose of these changes is to present the fuel economy
information in a manner that is easier for the consumer to understand
and use. The proposed changes are discussed in detail in Section IV.
3. Revised Comparable Vehicle Classes
The comparable vehicle classes are currently defined in EPA's fuel
economy regulations. They are needed to fulfill the EPCA statutory
requirement to provide fuel economy information about comparable
vehicles on the label.\24\ These classes were last revised in 1984.
Since that time, there have been some significant changes to vehicle
designs which warrant changes to the defined classes. Briefly, we are
proposing to add SUV and Minivan classes, and to consolidate some
classes which have become less prevalent in the market. This is
discussed in more detail in Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Minor Changes in Certain Test Procedures
We are proposing minor procedural changes in certain test
procedures. First, the US06 drive cycle contains elements of both city
and highway types of driving, yet the exhaust sample is collected in
only one ``bag,'' yielding one overall fuel economy result. In order to
more accurately reflect the city portion of the drive cycle into the
city fuel economy estimate, and the highway portion of the US06 into
the highway fuel economy estimate, we are proposing a revised test
protocol that would require collecting the exhaust sample into two
bags, thus providing separate results from the city and highway
portions. This has the benefit of more accurately capturing how a
vehicle's fuel economy would be impacted over the various types of
driving reflected in the cycle, but with very minimal cost impact.
Second, today diesel vehicles are not required to run the cold FTP
test since they are currently exempt from the cold carbon monoxide
standard. We are proposing that diesel vehicles be required to run this
test for 5-cycle fuel economy purposes.
Finally, the current cold FTP test gives manufacturers the option,
but does not require them to, run the heater or defroster while
performing this test at 20 degrees F. We expect that in most cases in
the real world, consumers would indeed be running these accessories in
colder temperatures, which will impact their fuel economy. We also
understand that some, but not all, manufacturers today do run these
accessories during the test. Therefore, to ensure this test most
accurately reflects real-world conditions, and to ensure these
conditions are run uniformly across manufacturers, we are seeking
comment on requiring manufacturers to run the heater and defroster
while performing the cold FTP test.
5. Other Fuel Economy-Related Topics
In addition to the proposed fuel economy label calculations and
label formats, we are proposing a few other changes related to the fuel
economy labels and annual fuel economy booklet. These topics are
discussed in Section V.
D. Today's Proposal Does Not Impact or Change CAFE Test Procedures
Today's proposal does not alter the FTE and HFET driving cycles,
the measurement techniques or the calculation methods used to determine
CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE be determined from the EPA test
procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that give comparable
results), which are the city and highway tests of today, with a few
small adjustments for minor procedural changes that have occurred since
1975.\25\ Today's proposal will not adjust the CAFE calculations; the
new method for calculating fuel economy label estimates will fall under
regulations that are separate from the CAFE regulations (currently, the
regulations for calculating CAFE are in 40 CFR 600.501-85 through 513-
91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. When Will the New Fuel Economy Estimates Take Effect?
We want the public to benefit from the improved information
provided by the new fuel economy estimates as soon as possible.
Therefore, we propose that these new regulations take effect with the
2008 model year, which will be available for sale at dealers in the
fall of 2007. We believe this is the earliest possible date for
implementation, since some manufacturers typically begin certifying
model year 2008 vehicles as early as late 2006. We also encourage
manufacturers to voluntarily utilize these new methods sooner, and are
therefore proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily comply with the
new regulations as soon as the final regulations are published.
F. How Will EPA Communicate to the Public the Transition Between the
Old Label Values and New?
To ensure that the public understands the relationship between the
old estimates and the new, EPA plans to conduct extensive public
outreach concurrent with the implementation of a final rule. We will
provide information about the new estimates and how to use them via
web-based information, fact sheets, and other communication methods.
This information will be designed to explain all aspects of any new
calculation methods, including their impact on label estimates from
previous model years.
G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
1. EPCA
The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Most of the labeling
provisions applicable to vehicle labeling and information are found at
49 U.S.C. 32908. This section restricts EPA's requirements for fuel
economy labeling to automobiles rated at no more than 8,500 pounds
gross vehicle weight. It requires manufacturers of automobiles to
attach a fuel economy label to a prominent place on each automobile
manufactured in a model year and also requires the dealers to maintain
the label on the automobile.\26\
EPCA requires EPA to promulgate regulations to measure and
calculate fuel economy.\27\ To the extent practicable, EPCA requires
that fuel
[[Page 5437]]
economy tests be carried out with emissions tests performed under
section 206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525).\28\
EPA's resulting fuel economy regulations are found in 40 CFR Part
600. EPA has broad discretion in determining how to measure and
calculate fuel economy for purposes of labeling under 49 U.S.C.
32908(b).\29\ The fact that EPA's current fuel economy labeling
regulations includes the reporting of separate ``city'' and ``highway''
fuel economy is a result of a series of EPA regulations as discussed in
Section I.A. above. Thus, in developing today's proposal (discussed in
Section III below), we considered, but ultimately are not proposing,
other methodologies for reporting fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
\27\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
\28\ Id.
\29\ EPCA places testing restrictions on corporate average fuel
economy (CAFE), discussed below. Today's proposal does not impact
those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA imposed some specific requirements for the information to be
included on the fuel economy label.\30\ Today's proposal retains these
items:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. The fuel economy of the automobile.
b. The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.
c. The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all
manufacturers.
d. A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to
assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles
manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year.
e. The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the
sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064).
f. Other information required or authorized by the Administrator
that is related to the information required [within items a. through
d.]
EPCA also defines ``fuel economy'' as the average number of miles
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by EPA.\31\ Thus, today's
proposal retains the requirement to report fuel economy as miles-per-
gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requires EPA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing
information that is ``simple and readily understandable.'' \32\ It
further instructs DOE to publish and distribute the booklet. EPA is
required to ``prescribe regulations requiring dealers to make the
booklet available to prospective buyers.'' \33\ This booklet is more
commonly known as the annual ``Fuel Economy Guide.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also contains statutory provisions for average fuel economy
(known widely as ``Corporate Average Fuel Economy,'' or CAFE).\34\
Under these provisions, EPA is required to prescribe testing and
calculation procedures to measure fuel economy for each model and
calculate average fuel economy for a manufacturer, using the same
procedures that were used for 1975 model year passenger automobiles
(weighted 55 percent urban cycle and 45 percent highway cycle), or
procedures that give comparable results.\35\ This requirement does not
apply to the fuel economy information manufacturers apply to the fuel
economy label required in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 49 U.S.C. 32902-32904.
\35\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also required to consult with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), DOT and DOE in carrying out the fuel economy information
requirements in EPCA.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Energy Policy Act of 2005
Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) directs EPA to
``update or revise the adjustment factors in sections 600.209-85 and
600.209-95, of the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 (1995)
Fuel Economy Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles to
take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates,
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test
cycle lengths, current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel
depleting features.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's proposal, the 5-cycle approach changes the adjustment
factors by establishing a new method to calculate fuel economy
estimates that uses fuel economy results from additional test
procedures combined with a changed adjustment factor. The mpg-based
approach uses the same test methods as the current fuel economy program
(i.e., the FTP and HFET tests), but changes the adjustment factors
applied to those test results. These options satisfy the EPAct
provisions as follows.
First, the 5-cycle method proposed today directly includes the
effects of higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations
in temperature, and use of air conditioning by including fuel economy
measured during tests that incorporate these features. The mpg-based
approach also takes these factors into consideration, but less
directly, as it incorporates the effects of these factors by basing the
adjustment factor on an analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle
method. Under our proposal, we use the mpg-based approach as an interim
option to establish an appropriate period of lead time for
manufacturers. We also allow its continued use only where the average
effects reflected under the mpg-based adjustments (of higher speed/
acceleration, air conditioning, and cold temperature) on a specific
vehicle configuration would be representative of those measured under
actual 5-cycle testing.
Second, we interpret the statute's reference to ``shorter city test
cycle lengths'' to mean shorter than the current FTP cycle used to
determine city fuel economy. We have addressed that concern in the
proposal by weighting in updated factors for ``cold starts'' and ``hot
starts'' (where the engine is not warmed up or has been parked for a
brief amount of time and then restarted) into the equation for
determining city fuel economy. This simulates shorter city test cycle
lengths where a vehicle's engine is more frequently shut down and
restarted than in the current FTP test. Also, the US06 and SC03 test
cycles are physically shorter in length than the FTP (the FTP is about
11 miles in length, whereas the US06 is about 8 miles, and the SC03 is
about 3.6 miles.)
Third, we interpret the statutory reference to ``current reference
fuels'' to mean the laboratory fuels used to perform the fuel economy
tests, and that the underlying concern of Congress was that the high-
quality lab fuels would give higher fuel economy than the typical fuel
used by consumers. The quality of the laboratory test fuel is specified
in EPA regulations for emission compliance.\39\ The test gasoline fuel
is roughly equivalent to premium, high-octane fuel available at the
pump. It is necessary that all vehicles use the same grade of fuel to
provide a level playing field for manufacturers to compare the emission
compliance results to the federal emission standards, since certain
fuel specifications can have an impact on tailpipe emissions. The
impact of the higher-octane test fuel on fuel economy is less
significant but there are other real-world fuel differences that can
have a noticeable impact, as discussed in Section II. For instance,
ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, and
[[Page 5438]]
when blended with gasoline, with all other things being equal, will
slightly lower fuel efficiency. Other seasonal variations in fuel
composition (e.g., oxygenates in winter fuel) may also cause a slight
reduction in fuel economy. EPA is proposing an adjustment factor to
account for fuel differences and other fuel-depleting features as
described further in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 40 CFR 86.113-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Relationship of Today's Proposal With Other Statutes and Regulations
a. Automobile Disclosure Act. A provision in EPCA (at 49 U.S.C.
32908(b)(2)) allows the fuel economy information to be included on the
window sticker label of vehicle manufacturing and price information
required by the Automobile Disclosure Act at 15 U.S.C. 1232 (the so-
called ``Monroni'' label.). To that end, the Federal Trade Commission
issued a ``Fuel Guide'' concerning the fuel economy advertising for new
automobiles, published in the Federal Register at 16 CFR Part 259. This
guide refers back to EPA's fuel economy regulations and specifically to
how manufacturers are permitted to advertise the city and highway fuel
economy of their vehicles.
b. Internal Revenue Code. This code contains the provisions
governing the administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax.\40\ It contains
the table of applicable taxes and defines which vehicles are subject to
the taxes. The IRS code specifies that the fuel economy to be used to
assess the amount of tax will be the combined city and highway fuel
economy as determined by using the procedures in place in 1975, or
procedures that give comparable results (similar to EPCA's requirements
for determining CAFE). Today's proposal does not impact these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 26 U.S.C. 4064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Clean Air Act. Reference is made in EPCA to the Clean Air Act
statute. Specifically, EPCA states that fuel economy shall to the
extent practicable include the emissions tests required under Section
206 of the Clean Air Act.\41\ Today's proposal incorporates three
additional types of emissions tests required under the Clean Air Act
for fuel economy testing, as discussed in detail in Section II. We also
propose to make several changes to existing emissions tests. These
changes are being proposed under the statutory authority of Section 206
of the Clean Air Act, which permits the Administrator to define, and to
revise from time to time, the test procedures used to determine
compliance with applicable emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Additional Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
Transportation Equity Act of 2005. This action is expected to have no
impact on the alternative motor vehicle federal income tax credits the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is establishing under Section 1341 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. IRS is in the process of preparing the
final guidance for these new federal income tax credits for consumers
who purchase new hybrid, diesel, dedicated alternative fuel, or fuel
cell vehicles beginning on January 1, 2006. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 requires EPA to coordinate with and support IRS' implementation of
these new tax credits, and EPA is providing input on a number of
technical issues. EPA anticipates that the fuel economy values used to
help determine tax credit eligibility for light-duty vehicles will be
``unadjusted'' laboratory city fuel economy test values. Accordingly,
the changes being proposed today are anticipated to have no impact on
the tax credit program.
Similarly, this action is expected to have no impact on the ``HOV
Facilities'' regulations EPA is establishing under section 1121 of the
Transportation Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in the process of developing
proposed regulations to identify low emission and energy-efficient
vehicles for the purpose of assisting states administering high-
occupancy lane transportation plans. EPA anticipates that the fuel
economy values used to identify these vehicles will be the
``unadjusted'' FTP-based fuel economy test values. Accordingly, the
changes proposed today are anticipated to have no impact on the HOV
facilities program.
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy Label Methodology
The current fuel economy label values utilize measured fuel economy
over city and highway driving cycles and adjust these values downward
by 10 and 22 percent, respectively, to account for a variety of factors
not addressed in EPA's vehicle test procedures. These factors include
differences between the way vehicles are driven on the road and over
the test cycles, air conditioning use, widely varying ambient
temperature and humidity, varying trip lengths, wind, precipitation,
rough road conditions, hills, etc. The purpose of the new formulae for
city and highway fuel economy labels is to widen the base for the
labels to include actual vehicle testing over a wider range of driving
patterns and ambient conditions than is currently covered by the FTP
and HFET tests.
For example, vehicles are often driven more aggressively and at
higher speeds than is represented in the FTP and HFET tests. The
incorporation of measured fuel economy over the US06 test cycle into
the fuel economy label values would make the label values more
realistic. Drivers often use air conditioning in warm, humid
conditions, while the air conditioner is turned off during the FTP and
HFET tests. The incorporation of measured fuel economy over the SC03
test cycle into the fuel economy label values would reflect the added
fuel needed to operate the air conditioning system. Vehicles also often
are driven at temperatures below 75 degrees Fahrenheit (F), at which
the FTP and HFET tests are performed. The incorporation of measured
fuel economy over the cold temperature FTP test into the fuel economy
label values would reflect the additional fuel needed to start up a
cold engine at colder temperatures.
The proposed vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach to fuel economy
label estimation would incorporate estimates of the fuel efficiency of
each vehicle during high speed, aggressive driving, air conditioning
operation and cold temperatures into each vehicle's fuel economy label.
It would combine measured fuel economy over the two current fuel
economy tests, the FTP and HFET, as well as that over the US06, SC03
and cold FTP tests into estimates of city and highway fuel economy for
labeling purposes. The test results from each cycle (and in some cases,
portions of cycles or emission ``bags'')\42\ would be weighted to
represent the contribution of each cycle's attributes to onroad driving
and fuel consumption. The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach would
eliminate the need to account for the effect of aggressive driving, air
conditioning use and colder temperatures on fuel economy through
generic factors (as done today) which may not reflect that particular
vehicle's sensitivity to these factors. A generic adjustment would
still be necessary to
[[Page 5439]]
account for factors not addressed by any of the five dynamometer tests.
The magnitude of such an adjustment is comparable to today's 10 and 22
percent generic adjustments. Overall, under the vehicle specific 5-
cycle approach, each vehicle's label fuel economy would better reflect
the capabilities of that vehicle on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the
regulations as the ``cold start'' test and the ``hot start'' test.
Each of these parts is divided into two periods, or ``phases': A
``transient'' phase and a ``stabilized'' phase. Because the
stabilized phase of the hot start test is assumed to be identical to
the stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold start
stabilized phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called
``bags,'' terminology that results from the sample bags in which the
exhaust samples are collected. The phases are run in the following
order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2),
and hot start transient (Bag 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests are only performed on
a sub-set of new vehicle configurations. In contrast, for fuel economy
purposes, FTP and HFET tests are performed on many more vehicle
configurations. In order to minimize the number of additional US06,
SC03 and cold FTP tests resulting from this proposal, we are proposing
that manufacturers be allowed to estimate the fuel economy over these
three tests for vehicle configurations that are not normally tested for
emission compliance purposes using the fuel economy measurements that
are normally available. This is currently done on a more limited basis
for both the FTP and HFET, and is referred to as analytically derived
fuel economy (ADFE).\43\ We are also proposing that manufacturers be
allowed to use the interim approach to fuel economy label estimation,
the mpg-based approach, indefinitely when the available 5-cycle fuel
economy data indicate that a vehicle's specific 5-cycle fuel economy is
very close to that estimated by the mpg-based curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ EPA's current policy for analytically derived fuel economy
estimates for the FTP and HFET tests is contained in the EPA
memorandum entitled, ``Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,'' March 11, 2004, CCD-04-06 (LDV/
LDT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with these policies, we expect that some manufacturers would
have to perform some additional US06, SC03, or cold FTP tests to
address differences in vehicle designs which are not covered by the
analytical derivation methodology. Other manufacturers may decide to
perform additional tests simply to improve accuracy over the analytical
derivation methodology. Depending on how manufacturers choose to apply
this method, this additional testing could involve the construction of
additional test facilities. (Test burden issues are discussed further
in Section VI of this preamble.) Therefore, in order to allow
sufficient lead-time for the construction of these facilities, we are
proposing to allow manufacturers the option of using an alternative,
interim set of adjustments through the 2010 model year until the 5-
cycle approach becomes mandatory with the 2011 model year. However, a
manufacturer can still use the 5-cycle formula prior to the 2011 model
year for specific vehicle models, if it so desires.
The interim set of adjustments is termed the ``mpg-based''
adjustment. (See Figure II-1 in the following section for a graphical
depiction of these adjustments.) The mpg-based approach is a sliding
scale of adjustments which varies according to a vehicle's measured
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET tests. The mpg-based adjustment
factors were developed from applying the 5-cycle formulae to 423 recent
model year vehicles and determining the average difference between the
5-cycle and current city and highway fuel economies. Thus, because the
data used to develop the average adjustment factors were derived from
5-cycle fuel economies, the mpg-based adjustment factors include the
effect of high speeds, aggressive driving, air conditioning, and colder
temperatures. However, they do so based on the impact of these factors
on the average vehicle, not the individual vehicle, which is the case
with the 5-cycle formulae. For example, for vehicles with FTP fuel
economy of 20-30 mpg, the mpg-based approach would adjust the FTP fuel
economy downward by 22-24 percent, versus today's 10 percent downward
adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy label values under the mpg-based
approach tend to be about 13-15 percent lower than today's label
values. For vehicles with HFET fuel economy of 25-35 mpg, the mpg-based
approach would adjust the HFET fuel economy downward by 29 percent,
versus today's 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, highway fuel
economy label values under the mpg-based approach would tend to be
about 9 percent lower than today's label values.
As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations described above were
developed from the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003-2005
model year vehicles. We propose to update the mpg-based curves
periodically using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates
for the previous three or more model years. These revised mpg-based
equations would be issued through the publication of an EPA guidance
document. EPA would publish the mpg-based equations by January 1 of the
calendar year prior to the model year to which the equations first
apply (e.g., for model year 2010 fuel economy calculations the
equations would be made available before January 1, 2009). In order to
keep the mpg-based equations up-to-date and based on recent technology
vehicles, EPA would update these equations periodically, but no more
than on an annual basis. However, rather than publish the equations
applicable to 2008 model year vehicles via guidance, the proposed
regulations contain the equations that would be applicable to 2008
model year vehicles, as well as the components of the equations to be
utilized for future model year vehicles. We request comment on this
updating of the mpg-based equations.
In addition to proposing the mpg-based adjustment factors for the
2008-2010 model years, as mentioned above, we propose to allow use of
this method of label estimation to be used for 2011 and later model
years for those vehicles which meet certain criteria (discussed in
detail below) that indicate that the full 5-cycle testing would not
likely result in significantly different fuel economy label values.
Each year, a number of vehicles are tested over all five dynamometer
test cycles for emission certification purposes (i.e., emission data
vehicles). The fuel economy data for the five dynamometer test cycles
for each emission data vehicle can be inserted into the 5-cycle
formulae and the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
determined. Emission data vehicles also undergo testing over the FTP
and HFET. Thus, the mpg-based city and highway fuel economy values for
each emission data vehicle can also be determined using the available
FTP and HFET fuel economy values. The 5-cycle city and highway fuel
economy values can be compared to the mpg-based city and highway fuel
economy values, respectively, for each emission data vehicle.
The mpg-based line represents the effects of high speed, high
acceleration, air conditioning, and colder temperatures of the average
new vehicle. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable to allow
continued use of the mpg-based line when the available 5-cycle fuel
economy data (from emissions certification testing) indicates that the
particular vehicle design reflects at least these average effects. To
accomplish this, we defined the lower bound of a tolerance band around
the mpg-based line as the criteria for whether the mpg-based line could
be used or whether 5-cycle testing would be required. We chose four and
five percent as the tolerance bands for the 5-cycle city and 5-cycle
highway fuel economy values, respectively. Mathematically, the
tolerance line is defined by Y x mpg-based fuel economy, where Y is
0.96 for city fuel economy and 0.95 for highway fuel economy. In other
words, if the 5-cycle city fuel economy value is greater than 0.96
times the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations
[[Page 5440]]
represented by the emission data vehicle (i.e., all vehicles within the
vehicle test group) would be eligible to use the mpg-based approach.
Similarly, when the 5-cycle highway fuel economy is less than the mpg-
based highway fuel economy minus five percent, all vehicle
configurations represented by the emission data vehicle would be
required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach. This could be
done using ADFE estimates, when appropriate. This approach is
appropriate because those vehicles above the upper tolerance band that
used the mpg-based line would simply be reducing their fuel economy
down to the average level, even though the 5-cycle data indicated
better than average performance was likely for that vehicle group.
Because of the better-than-average performance, we expect that most
manufacturers will want to do complete 5-cycle testing for vehicles
likely to be above the upper tolerance band. However, we request
comment on whether there may be some inherent variability regarding all
outliers above and below the tolerance band that would make it
desirable to require 5-cycle testing in all of these cases.
If the 5-cycle city fuel economy fell below the mpg-based city fuel
economy by more than four percent, but the 5-cycle highway fuel economy
did not fall below the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five
percent, all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission
data vehicle would be required to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach for both city and highway fuel economy, since fuel economy
values for all five cycles are important in estimating 5-cycle city
fuel economy. However, if the 5-cycle highway fuel economy was less
than the mpg-based highway fuel economy by more than five percent, but
the 5-cycle city fuel economy was not more than four percent lower than
the mpg-based city fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations
represented by the emission data vehicle would use mpg-based approach
to estimate the city fuel economy label. For highway label estimation,
all the vehicle configurations represented by the emission data vehicle
would use an approximate 5-cycle formula for highway fuel economy which
includes vehicle-specific fuel economy measurements for the FTP, HFET
and US06 tests, but the values for the SC03 and cold FTP tests could be
estimated based on relationships developed from other vehicles. This is
appropriate because the impact of the cold FTP test on highway fuel
economy is not vehicle-specific, but modeled. Also the impact of the
SC03 test on highway fuel economy is very small, particularly compared
to that for the US06 test.
The proposed criteria for long term use of the mpg-based approach
(5-cycle city fuel economy above -4.0 percent and 5-cycle highway fuel
economy above -5.0 percent) are based on the balance of three factors.
One, we designed them to be sufficiently large so that simple test-to-
test variability would not cause an emission data vehicle to fail the
criteria. This was a greater concern for the highway fuel economy
comparison, due to the dominance of the US06 fuel economy (which
inherently has greater test-to-test variability than the other tests)
in the 5-cycle formula. Two, we desired to minimize the potential error
in the fuel economy label. Label fuel economy values are rounded to the
nearest one mpg. Thus, we desired to keep the difference between the 5-
cycle and mpg-based fuel economy values within roughly one mpg, if
possible. Three, we desired to avoid additional fuel economy testing
that had little impact on the label values.
The four percent tolerance band for city fuel economy is equivalent
to roughly 0.6-0.7 mpg on average. Due to the contribution of a number
of independent fuel economy measurements in the 5-cycle city fuel
economy formula, the effect of test-to-test variability should be much
lower than 4.0 percent. Based on the 5-cycle test results of 423 recent
model year vehicles, we estimate that 90 percent of all emission data
vehicles would meet the 4.0 percent. Thus, we believe that this
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
The five percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy is
equivalent to roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is slightly higher
than the typical error associated with rounding. However, due to the
dominant contribution of the US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula, and the fact that this test tends to have
relatively high variability, we are concerned that test-to-test
variability could be on the order of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula. We estimate that 75 percent of all emission data
vehicles would meet the 5.0 percent. Thus, again, we believe that this
criterion adequately satisfies the three factors mentioned above.
Overall, allowing the continued use of the mpg-based approach would
reduce the number of additional SC03 and cold FTP tests by about 90
percent and reduce the number of additional US06 tests by about 75
percent indefinitely. We request comment on the continued use of the
mpg-based approach beyond the 2010 model year and on the 4.0 and 5.0
percent criteria for its use.
Section II.A presents the proposed interim mpg-based formulae and
the proposed vehicle-specific 5-cycle formulae for city and highway
fuel economy label values. Section II.B describes how these formulae
would be applied to develop labels for specific grouping of vehicles.
Section II.C describes how the 5-cycle formulae were derived. Section
II.D describes how the mpg-based formulae were derived. Section II.E
describes how the current city and highway fuel economy values would
change under the proposed formulae.
A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae
Currently, manufacturers test their vehicles over two dynamometer
tests in order to develop their fuel economy label values: the FTP or
city test and the HFET or highway test. Fuel economies measured over
these two tests are multiplied by 0.90 and 0.78, respectively. These
``adjusted'' fuel economies are then sales-weighted using procedures
outlined in Subpart D of Part 600 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to develop fuel economy label values by model type.
Under today's proposal, we would replace the 0.90 and 0.78 factors
with new factors which are not simply constants. For model years 2008-
2010, a manufacturer would have the option of using two distinct
methodologies to calculate the city and highway fuel economy values for
any specific test vehicle. One approach is called the mpg-based
approach or formula, since the city and highway label values are based
on the fuel economy (or MPG) measured over the FTP and HFET,
respectively. The other approach is called the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach, since the city and highway label values are based on the test
results of five test cycles, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP.
Beginning with the 2011 model year, we propose that manufacturers would
use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method, but that the mpg-based
approach could still be used by qualifying vehicles. Below we present
the specific equations under the two approaches which would be used to
convert fuel economies measured over the dynamometer cycles into city
and highway fuel economy values prior to sales weighting. We are not
proposing any changes to the methods for combining city and highway
fuel economy values for specific vehicles into label values for a model
type.
[[Page 5441]]
The formulae for the 5-cycle approach are, as indicated by its
name, based on the fuel economy measurements over the five test cycles
(FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold FTP). Both approaches also include an
additional downward adjustment to represent effects impossible to
incorporate in laboratory dynamometer testing. However, the formulae
for the mpg-based approach are also based on fuel economy measurements
over the five test cycles. The difference is the set of 5-cycle fuel
economy measurements that are used. Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach, the fuel economy measurements over the 5 dynamometer test
cycles would all be performed on (or estimated for) a specific vehicle
in the current model year. Under the mpg-based approach, historic fuel
economy data over the 5 test cycles would have been analyzed to produce
a fleet-wide average relationship between (1) FTP fuel economy and 5-
cycle city fuel economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle highway
fuel economy. Under the mpg-based approach, a specific vehicle's city
and highway fuel economy labels are based on this fleet-wide average
relationship, as opposed to that vehicle's own results over the 5 test
cycles. In other words, every vehicle with the same measured FTP fuel
economy would receive the same city fuel economy label value. Likewise,
every vehicle with the same measured HFET fuel economy would receive
the same highway fuel economy label value. Figure II-1 shows the 5-
cycle city fuel economy for 423 recent model year vehicles and the mpg-
based city fuel curve which has been developed from these data. The
horizontal axis is the measured FTP fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.003
Application of the 5-cycle approach to these vehicles would have
produced the city fuel economy values indicated by the diamonds in the
plot. (The nine hybrid vehicles are indicated by large squares.)
Application of the mpg-based formula to these vehicles would have
produced city fuel economy values by reading a number off of the curved
line in the plot.
Figure II-2 shows the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for the same 423
recent model year vehicles and the mpg-based highway fuel economies
which have been developed from these data. The horizontal axis is the
measured HFET fuel economy.
[[Page 5442]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.004
Both Figure II-1 and II-2 include several data points which are
represented by large squares. These are vehicles which incorporate
hybrid technology. Hybrids appear to fall well below the mpg-based
curve for city fuel economy, but not for highway fuel economy. This
issue will be discussed in more detail below.
Given that both approaches utilize the 5-cycle fuel economy
formulae in some fashion, it is useful to begin this section with a
description of how the fuel economy measured over the 5 test cycles are
combined to represent onroad city and highway fuel economy. Then we
will describe how the fleet-average formulae for the mpg-based approach
were derived from these 5-cycle fuel economy estimates.
The 5-cycle formulae are derived from extensive data on real-world
driving conditions, such as driving activity, temperatures, air
conditioner operation, trip length, and other factors. In this section
and in the Draft Technical Support Document, we fully describe the
basis for developing these formulae. We seek comment on all aspects of
the formulae and the underlying data upon which they are based. We also
encourage interested parties to submit any additional data that would
be relevant in our final analysis. Further, we want to ensure the 5-
cycle approach continues in future years to reflect updated conditions
impacting real-world fuel economy. Therefore, we encourage the public
to submit any such data in the future so that EPA may assess such new
information and evaluate the need for changes to this approach over
time.
Since our goal is to develop a consistent, objective approach that
applies to all vehicles, we have assumed that all types of vehicles are
driven and maintained similarly, and we have proposed to weight the
five driving cycles and apply non-dynomometer adjustments in the same
way for all types of vehicles. However, if data showed that a specific
type of vehicle is driven or maintained very differently, and this
impacted fuel economy significantly (e.g., an unusually low incidence
of aggressive driving, A/C usage, etc.), then one might consider
different weights or adjustment factors on this basis. We seek comment
on any data that would inform whether unique weighting factors or non-
dynomometer adjustments should be considered for specific vehicle
technologies (e.g., hybrids or diesels). For example, hybrids may be
purchased preferentially by people whose driving patterns take
advantage of their performance characteristics, and hybrid owners may
be more conscious of driving techniques (such as mild braking) that
improve fuel economy. Even if this were the case today, this difference
would not necessarily persist as hybrids become more prevalent in the
fleet. Moreover, it is not clear how such vehicle technology-specific
factors can or should be reflected in EPA's fuel economy test methods
or calculations. We seek comment on the contribution of such factors to
the on-road fuel economy experience of consumers, and on the relevance
of these factors to the fuel economy label. We also seek comment on the
extent to which such unique factors might reduce the perceived
objectivity of the fuel economy estimates if they presume differences
in driving behavior.
1. MPG-Based Approach (Available in 2008-2010 Model Years)
Under the mpg-based approach, the city fuel economy value would be
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.005
where
FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel during the FTP
test conducted at an ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F.
This value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle
models included in the ``fuel economy grouping'' (e.g., model type) as
defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.
Likewise, the highway fuel economy value would be calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.006
where
[[Page 5443]]
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test.
This value is normally a sales-weighted average of the vehicle
models included in the ``fuel economy grouping'' (e.g., model type) as
defined in 40 CFR 600.002-93.
The rationale for the various constants in Equations (1) and (2) is
described in Section II.B.
2. Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Approach (Applicable to 2011 and Later
Model Years and Optional in Prior Model Years)
Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, the city fuel economy
value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.007
, where[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.008
where,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.009
or,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.010
where
Bag y FEx = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75 [deg] or 20[deg]
F. The rationale for the various constants in the equations is
described below in Section II.B. Likewise,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.011
where
US06 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test.
Vehicles tested over a 4-bag FTP would substitute the fuel economy
over Bag 4 for Bag 2 in the above equation.
Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle formula, the highway fuel
economy value would be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.012
, where[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.013
[[Page 5444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.014
where the various symbols have the same definitions as described under
the formula for the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel economy value.
B. Application of the Formulae To Develop Fuel Economy Labels for
Specific Vehicles
We are not proposing any major changes to the way that vehicle
configurations are grouped for fuel economy labeling purposes. For
model years 2008-2010, when the mpg-based formulae are applicable,
there would be no change in the procedure by which specific vehicle
labels are developed.\44\ Since the mpg-based formulae are based solely
on the current fuel economy test cycles, no additional tests would need
to be conducted. Only the effective adjustment factors would be
modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 40 CFR 600 and relevant EPA guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting with the 2011 model year, vehicle manufacturers would
first utilize their available 5-cycle fuel economy testing of emission
data vehicles to determine which test groups could utilize the mpg-
based approach and which would have to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach. The test groups for which their emission data vehicles passed
the 4.0 percent and 5.0 percent criteria described above would face no
additional testing requirements. Just as in 2008-2010, the mpg-based
formulae would be applied to fuel economy values measured over the FTP
and HFET already being performed and city and highway label values
determined.
Figure II-3 shows how the 4.0 percent criterion would work for city
fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.015
The upper line in the figure is the mpg-based formula for city fuel
economy. The lower line represents a difference of 4.0 percent from
city fuel economy based on the mpg-based formula. The points shown in
Figure II-3 represent city fuel economy of emission data vehicles
estimated by the 5-cycle fuel economy formula. The model types
represented by emission data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel economy
values fall above the lower line would be allowed to use the mpg-based
approach for that model year. The model types represented by emission
data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel economy values fall below the
lower bounding line would be required to use the 5-cycle approach for
that model year. Implicit in this proposal is that manufacturers would
be allowed to use the mpg-based approach for a particular test group if
the 5-cycle fuel economy for an emission data vehicle exceeded the mpg-
based curve by more than the 4.0 or 5.0 percent criteria on the high
side, since this would result in a lower fuel economy label value.
The test groups for which their emission data vehicles did not pass
the 4.0 percent and 5.0 percent criteria described above could face
some additional testing requirements. All the vehicle sub-
configurations contained in these test groups would require fuel
economy values over all five cycles for
[[Page 5445]]
use in the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy formulae. The city and
highway label values produced by the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae
would then be averaged and sales-weighted just as they are today.
However, the fuel economy values over the five test cycles could be
generated in either of two ways in most instances. One way would be to
test the vehicle over the US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests (the FTP and
HFET tests already being performed under current requirements). The
other way would be estimate fuel economy values over the US06, SC03 and
cold FTP tests analytically (i.e., ADFEs) from testing of a similar
vehicle over these three cycles. Specifically, we propose to allow
manufacturers to estimate the effect of differences in inertial test
weight, road load horsepower and N/V ratio (the ratio of engine
revolutions to vehicle speed when the vehicle is in its highest gear).
A procedure to estimate the effect of these three vehicle parameters on
FTP and HFET fuel economy has already been developed. We plan to work
with manufacturers to develop analogous formulae for the US06, SC03 and
cold FTP tests. We would implement these estimation procedures using
agency guidance, as is currently done for FTP and HFET fuel economy.
It is possible for the 5-cycle fuel economy values to meet the
above criteria for either city or highway fuel economy, but not the
other. If the 5-cycle fuel economy values for a specific emission data
vehicle are more than four percent below the mpg-based estimate for
city fuel economy, but no more than five percent below the mpg-based
estimate for highway fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations
represented by that emission data vehicle would be required to use the
5-cycle formulae in complying with the fuel economy label requirements
for both city and highway fuel economy. All five cycles play a
significant role in the 5-cycle city fuel economy formula. Once the
five tests have been performed for the city estimate, there is little
reason not to use the same information to derive the highway fuel
economy estimate.
We propose a different approach for the opposite situation. If the
5-cycle fuel economy values for a specific emission data vehicle are no
more than four percent below the mpg-based estimate for city fuel
economy, but more than five percent below the mpg-based estimate for
highway fuel economy, all the vehicle configurations represented by
that emission data vehicle would be allowed to use the mpg-based
formulae in deriving the city fuel economy label value. The highway
fuel economy value, however, would be based on an alternative,
simplified 5-cycle formula as opposed to the full 5-cycle highway fuel
economy formula. This alternative 5-cycle highway formula would be
based on fuel economy values over the FTP, HFET and US06 tests. The
impact of the SC03 and cold FTP tests is relatively small in the 5-
cycle highway fuel economy formula, as explained in the Draft Technical
Support Document.
This approach requires that we develop a simplified 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula which is consistent with the full 5-cycle formula.
We developed this simplified formula using estimates of the average
impact of the SC03 and cold FTP test results on 5-cycle highway fuel
economy. In both cases, we estimated this average impact by regressing
the impact of these test cycles on the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for
the 423 vehicles in our certification database against fuel economy
values which would be available from FTP, HFET and US06 testing. This
analysis (described in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document)
results in the following alternative calculation for highway fuel
economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.019
We expect that the continued use of the mpg-based approach and the
development of analytical estimation procedures for US06, SC03 and cold
FTP fuel economy would allow manufacturers to avoid the vast majority
of additional tests that would have been required if every vehicle
currently tested over the FTP and HFET tests had to be tested over the
US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests. The option to use the mpg-based approach
after 2010 should alone eliminate 90 percent of the potential need for
additional SC03 and cold FTP testing and 75 percent of the potential
need for US06 testing. At the same time, we expect that there would be
some need for additional testing when the available estimation
procedures mentioned above do not apply. For example, the current
estimation procedures for FTP and HFET fuel economy address changes in
axle ratio, tractive road load horsepower and inertia test weight.
Differences involving changes in transmission design, engine
displacement, turbo-charging, etc., require actual testing. We expect
that a similar situation would exist with the estimation of US06, SC03
and cold FTP fuel economy.
We request comment on the appropriateness of the continued use of
[[Page 5446]]
the mpg-based approach beyond the 2010 model year. We also request
comment on the appropriateness of the 4.0 and 5.0 percent tolerance
bands for city and highway fuel economy, respectively. We also seek
comment on alternative approaches that may employ concepts similar to
the tolerance band, or other ways of extrapolating fuel economy test
results to a broader group of vehicle configurations. We specifically
request comment on an approach which would employ tighter criteria
(e.g., a tolerance of 3 percent) that would allow the use of the mpg-
based approach beyond 2010 model year, but which would include other
aspects which would avoid full 5-cycle testing of all the model types
which failed to pass the criteria. For example, failing the initial
criteria might require the manufacturer to generate fuel economy data
over the US06, the least expensive of the three additional cycles. City
and highway fuel economy values could then be calculated using three
cycles (the FTP, HFET, and US06), and tested with additional criteria
(e.g., comparison to a tolerance band around the appropriately
generated mpg-based line) to assess whether the mpg-based approach
could be used or whether full 5-cycle testing would be required.
C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-cycle Fuel Economy Formulae
1. Five-Cycle Fuel Economy Estimates
The purpose of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae is to best
represent city and highway fuel economy in the U.S. using the test
results from the 5 test cycles. To the fullest extent possible, we
desire to account for the effect of seasonal and geographical
variations on automotive fuel economy, as well as the different driving
habits of individual drivers. As described in Section I., we chose to
base the fuel economy label values on 5 vehicle emission and fuel
economy tests which are already being performed. This maximizes the use
of fuel economy information that is already currently being collected,
while at the same time minimizes the costs associated with the
proposal, as described in more detail below in Section VI. The five
current emission and fuel economy tests and their key aspects are
described below in Table II-1. Actual second by second descriptions of
these driving cycles can be found in Section 86 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations.
Table II-1.--Key Features of the Five Current Emission and Fuel Economy Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Driving Ambient temperature Engine start Accessories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP............................. Low speed............................................. 75 [deg]F........... Cold and hot............ None.
HFET............................ Mid-speed............................................. 75 [deg]F........... Hot..................... None.
US06............................ Aggressive; low and high speed........................ 75 [deg]F........... Hot..................... None.
SC03............................ Low speed............................................. 95 [deg]F........... Hot..................... A/C on.
Cold FTP........................ Low speed............................................. 20 [deg]F........... Cold and hot............ None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have highlighted in bold the distinctive features of the five
current vehicle tests. The FTP, HFET and US06 are all performed at an
ambient temperature of 75 [deg]F. Each test consists of a distinctive
driving pattern. In addition, the FTP test consists of three distinct
measurements, called bags. Bags 1 and 3 consist of the exact same
driving pattern, but Bag 2 consists of a different pattern. Given that
separate emission measurements are already made for each bag, we
considered each bag of the FTP to be its own driving cycle. In
addition, as discussed in Section V, the US06 cycle includes both low
and high speed driving. We are proposing that separate emission
measurements be made for these two types of driving, again providing
separate estimates of fuel use for these two driving patterns.
Therefore, we have available fuel economy estimates for five distinct
driving patterns:
(1) Bags 1 and 3 of the FTP,
(2) Bag 2 of the FTP,
(3) HFET,
(4) the city portion of US06 and
(5) the highway portion of US06.
We propose to combine the results of these five tests to represent
typical city and highway driving patterns. (The separation of the US06
test into two distinct sections is discussed further below.)
The FTP and the cold FTP are the only tests which include a cold
start (i.e., an engine start after an overnight soak); the fuel needed
to warm up the engine at 75 [deg]F is taken from the FTP results. The
SC03 test is the only test to be performed with the air conditioning
system operational. Therefore, its results are used to augment the fuel
economy from the five driving pattern tests for the fuel needed to
operate air conditioning. The cold FTP is the only test performed at a
temperature below 75 [deg]F. Therefore, its results are used to
represent the additional fuel needed to warm up an engine after a cold
start, as well as any fuel needed to operate a warmed up engine, at
colder temperatures.
As implied above, we estimate the fuel needed to start and warm up
the engine separately from fuel used to operate the engine after start-
up, or running fuel use. This is consistent with the approach taken in
EPA emission models, such as MOBILE6.2 and MOVES. In terms of a
mathematical formulae,
Total fuel use = start fuel use + running fuel use
and,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.020
We describe the estimation of start fuel use in Section II.B.1 and
the estimation of running fuel use in Section II.B.2. In Section
II.B.3, we discuss other aspects of driving which are not addressed by
the dynamometer tests and which are addressed by applying an overall,
or off-test adjustment factor to the city and highway fuel economy
formulae. The reader is referred to Chapter II of the Draft Technical
Support Document for a more detailed discussion of each of the inputs
to the fuel economy formulae.
[[Page 5447]]
1. Start Fuel Use
For a specific vehicle, the fuel needed to warm up the engine
depends primarily on two factors:
(1) The ambient temperature at which the vehicle has been sitting,
and
(2) the length of time which the vehicle has been sitting since it
was last used (commonly referred to as soak time).
Emissions during engine start up have been studied for some time. Most
recently, estimates of start fuel use as a function of ambient
temperature were made for use in EPA's new emission inventory model,
MOVES (MOtor Vehicle Emission inventory System).\45\ The relationship
between start fuel use relative to that at 75 [deg]F at other ambient
temperatures is as follows: \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ A draft of MOVES2004 was released for public comment on
Dec. 31, 2004.
\46\ Koupal, J., and L. Landman, E. Nam, J. Warila, C. Scarbro,
E. Glover, R. Giannelli. MOVES2004 Energy and Emissions Report--
Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-P-05-
003, March 2005, pp 57-63. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf.
Start Fuel Use Relative to that at 75 [deg]F =
1 + 0.01971 x (Ambient Temperature - 75) + 0.000219 x (Ambient
Temperature - 75)\2\
As will be seen below, we do not need an absolute estimate of start
fuel use, simply an estimate of start fuel use relative to some
specified ambient condition, such as 75 [deg]F, which is the nominal
temperature of the FTP test.
MOVES does not yet include the effect of soak time on start fuel
use. Therefore, we obtained a relationship between start fuel use and
ambient temperature which was developed by the California Air Resources
Board for use in their emission inventory model, EMFAC2000.\47\ EPA
utilizes the results of this study in our current emission model,
MOBILE6.2, to estimate the effect of soak time on regulated emissions
during start-up. The equation for fuel use versus soak time (in
minutes) relative to the fuel use after a 12 hour soak is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ California Air Resources Board. Public Meeting to Consider
Approval of Revisions to the State's On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inventory--Technical Support Document. California Environmental
Protection Agency, March 2000. See Section 6.7 (Start Correction
Factors). Web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/doctable_test.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For soaks of 90 minutes or less:
Start Fuel Use = 0.00433672 x Soak Time - 0.000002393 x (Soak Time)\2\
For soaks greater than 90 minutes:
Start Fuel Use = 0.25889542+0.0014848 x Soak Time - 0.0000006364 x
(Soak Time)\2\
As is assumed in EMFAC2000 and MOBILE6.2, we assumed that these
relationships are independent of ambient temperature.
In order obtain the combined effect of ambient temperature and soak
time, we multiplied the two above equations together, as follows:
For soaks of 90 minutes or less:
Start Fuel Use = [lfloor]0.00433672 x Soak Time - 0.000002393 x (Soak
Time)\2\[rfloor]x[1+0.01971 x (Ambient Temperature - 75)+0.000219 x
(Ambient Temperature - 75)\2\]
For soaks greater than 90 minutes:
Start Fuel Use = [lfloor]0.25889542+0.0014848 x Soak Time -
0.0000006364 x (Soak Time)\2\[rfloor]x[1+0.01971 x Ambient Temperature
- 75)+0.000219 x (Ambient Temperature - 75)\2\]
The hot and cold starts contained in the standard and cold
temperature FTP tests occur after 10 minute and 12 hour soaks,
respectively. The above equations relating the effect of soak time on
start fuel use indicate that the start fuel use after a 10 minute soak
is only 4 percent of that after a 12 hour soak. The above equation
relating the effect of temperature on start fuel use indicates that
start fuel use at 20 [deg]F is 2.75 times that at 75 [deg]F. Combining
these effects, the start fuel use after a 10 minute soak at 20 [deg]F
is about 11 percent that of a 12 hour soak at 75 [deg]F. Thus, the
start fuel use after the hot starts of both standard and cold
temperature FTP tests are relatively small compared to that of a cold
start at 75 [deg]F.
In contrast to the cold start after a 12 hour soak, the hot starts
for Bag 3 of the standard and cold temperature FTP tests and the US06,
SC03 and HFET tests occur after only a 10 minute soak. The above
equation indicates that the fuel use for a hot start is only 4 percent
of that for a cold start.
In order to estimate start fuel use throughout the U.S. under
average ambient conditions, we need estimates of the soak times for
typical vehicle operation, as well as the ambient temperature at start
up. The amount of time a vehicle has sat prior to start up varies
dramatically depending on the time of day at which it is started. For
example, for vehicles started up at 6 a.m., nearly all have sat idle
overnight. However, for vehicles started at noon, most have been driven
in the past 4-5 hours. Ambient temperature varies significantly during
the day. Thus, it is more accurate to evaluate start fuel use by hour
of the day rather than simply at the daily average temperature. Ambient
temperatures also vary dramatically across the U.S., as does the
distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, we combined
estimates of vehicle starts and prior soak times by hour of the day
with estimates of ambient temperature and VMT by county in order to
reflect the effects of both soak time and ambient temperature on start
fuel use.
We obtained estimates of each of these input parameters from EPA's
MOBLE6.2 and MOVES emission models. The draft MOVES2004 model includes
estimates of ambient temperature by hour of the day for each month of
the year for each county in the U.S. These estimates were obtained from
the National Weather Service and represent 30-year averages. The draft
MOVES2004 model includes estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type for every county in the U.S. during 2002. We used these
estimates to determine the percentage of VMT by cars and light trucks
in each county. MOBILE6.2 includes estimates of the frequency
distributions of vehicle soak times by time of day, as well as the
frequency distribution of vehicle starts by hour of the day. Draft
MOVES2004 also includes estimates of VMT by month of the year for the
nation as a whole.
We first estimated the effect of soak time on start fuel use by
hour of the day. These estimates ranged from a low of 0.25 of an
overnight soak at 2 p.m. to a high of 0.68 of an overnight soak at 6
a.m. This makes sense, as most vehicles being started at 6 a.m. in the
morning have sat overnight, while most vehicles being started in the
middle of the afternoon have been used in the past few hours. These
estimates are independent of temperature, because the temperature
during any particular hour is assumed to be constant.
In order to estimate start fuel use across the nation throughout
the year, we calculated the start fuel use for each hour of the day by
month for each county in the U.S. and then weighted each estimate by
the relative number of starts occurring in each hour of the day and by
the relative amount VMT in each month and county. Finally we summed the
weighted start fuel use estimates across all hours of the days, months
and counties and found the average.
The average start fuel use resulting from this process was 0.4665
of an overnight soak at 75 [deg]F. We can simulate this average start
fuel use with a variety of combinations of hot and cold starts at 20
[deg]F and 75 [deg]F. For example, the level of start fuel use is equal
to a 0.4665 weighting of the cold start fuel use in Bag 1 of the FTP at
75 [deg]F and no weighting of the start fuel use at 20 [deg]F.
[[Page 5448]]
Or, this level of start fuel use is also equal to a lower weighting of
the cold start fuel use in Bag 1 of the FTP at 20 [deg]F and no
weighting of the start fuel use at 75 [deg]F. In order to select a
single combination which best incorporated the measured start fuel use
at both 20 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F, we evaluated start fuel use only as a
function of soak time and time of day, assuming temperature was
constant throughout the day. We found that the typical start fuel use
was 0.330 times that of a cold start (12 hour soak). We then determined
that a weighting of 0.24 for a cold start at 20 [deg]F and 0.76 for a
cold start at 75 [deg]F, combined with an overall weighting of 0.330
for cold starts produced the same level of start fuel use as 0.4665
times a cold start at 75 [deg]F, or the average level of start
emissions estimated to occur in-use.
In terms of the use of the FTP test results, Bag 3 contains the
start fuel use after a 10-minute soak, and Bag 1 contains the start
fuel use after a 12 hour soak. Other aspects of Bag 1 and Bag 3 are the
same (i.e., the vehicle is driven exactly the same, only the soak time
prior to start up differs). As indicated above, however, the start fuel
use after a 10 minute soak can be assumed to be negligible compared to
that after the 12 hour soak.\48\ This means that the difference between
fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 is the start fuel use following a 12 hour
soak. Thus, the average start fuel use in the U.S. is 0.24 times 0.330
times the difference between fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of the cold
temperature FTP plus 0.76 times 0.330 times the difference between fuel
use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of the standard FTP at 75 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The Draft MOVES2004 model also assumes that start fuel use
after a hot start is negligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrids are tested over what is commonly referred to as a 4-bag FTP
test, with Bag 4 consisting of a Bag 2 repeated after Bag 3. In this
case, the cold start fuel use would be determined exactly as described
above. However, these four bags can also be combined into two bags,
with Bag 1 consisting of a typical Bag 1 and Bag 2 and Bag 2 consisting
of a typical Bag 3 and Bag 4. In this case, cold start fuel use would
be determined from the difference in fuel use between Bags 1 and 2 of
the 2-bag FTP test.
This estimate of start fuel use is in terms of total fuel use per
start. In order to combine this with running fuel use in terms of
gallons per mile, start fuel use must be divided by the average trip
length. We based our estimate of the average trip length in the U.S. on
the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The NHTS was performed in
2001 and statistically surveyed approximately 26,000 households in the
U.S. This survey represents the sixth in a series of surveys dating
back to 1969. (The name of the survey has changed a few times and the
precise survey methods have varied to some degree.) NHTS found that the
average trip taken using a personal vehicle in the U.S. was 9.8 miles
long. This estimate excludes very long trips, such as those taken on
vacations, as well as commercial trips, such as those by taxi cabs.
Based on the survey questionnaire, we believe that the survey also
excludes brief stops (e.g., those at gas stations or convenience
stores), as well as extremely short trips (e.g., moving a vehicle out
of a driveway to allow another vehicle to exit, moving from one
shopping center to another just across the street). Using trip
information from instrumented vehicles in Baltimore and Spokane
(described in more detail below), about 27 percent of all trips fall
into one of these two categories. Thus, we believe that a more precise
estimate of trip length, and one that is more consistent with our
estimate of the fraction of cold starts described above, is 7.7 miles
(9.8 miles divided by 1.27).
This trip length of 7.7 miles includes all driving, both city and
highway oriented. NHTS does not attempt to split driving into city and
highway categories. Therefore, additional information was needed to
perform this split. As will be described in more detail below, we
estimate that 43 percent of all U.S. driving falls under our definition
of city driving, while 57 percent falls into the highway driving
category. The highway fuel economy label assumes no cold starts (i.e.,
it is based solely on the HFET, which is a hot start test), except
insofar that the effect of a cold start is included in the 22 percent
adjustment factor. Since even long trips have a beginning and often
begin with a cold start, we assumed that the average highway trip had a
length of 60 miles. This is somewhat arbitrary. However, once trip
length is over 20 miles, start fuel use has very little impact on fuel
economy. Still, the inclusion of some start fuel use in the highway
fuel economy estimate makes this estimate more realistic. Assuming an
average trip length of 60 miles for highway driving, the average length
of a city trip must be 3.5 miles for the overall average to be 7.7
miles. Using these two estimates of average trip length allows us to
convert fuel use per engine start into fuel use per mile.
The total volume of fuel used in either Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the FTP
can be determined by dividing the number of miles of driving during
these portions of the test (3.59 miles for either bag) by the fuel
economy measured during that bag. Thus, the equation for fuel use per
start at either 20 [deg]F or 75 [deg]F is as follows:
For vehicles tested over either a 3-Bag FTP or 4-Bag FTP:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.021
For vehicles tested over either a 2-Bag FTP:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.022
where x is either 20 [deg]F or 75 [deg]F.
The equation for start fuel use in terms of gallons per mile is:
For city driving:
[[Page 5449]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.023
For highway driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.024
2. Running Fuel Use
Running fuel use depends primarily on how the vehicle is driven and
the use of fuel to power accessories. Of the latter, air conditioning
is the most significant and the primary accessory addressed in the
emission and fuel economy dynamometer tests. Once the vehicle is warmed
up, ambient temperature has only a modest effect on fuel use.
The five dynamometer tests include four distinct driving cycles, or
patterns of driving. In addition, the FTP and US06 cycles (the latter
as proposed to be modified) each include two distinct driving patterns.
Two basic characteristics of these driving patterns are depicted in
Table II-2: average speed and a basic measure of the average power
required by the engine.
Table II-2.--Driving Characteristics of the Current Dynamometer Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average power
Cycle Average speed A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP (Bags 2 and 3)...................... 19.6 40.9
FTP: Bag 3.......................... 25.6 53.6
FTP: Bag 2.......................... 16.1 33.8
HFET.................................... 48.2 34.9
US06.................................... 48.0 104.3
US06: City Bag...................... 21.5 152.9
US06: Highway Bag................... 61.0 78.2
SC03 (run with air conditioning on)..... 21.4 49.2
Cold Temperature FTP (same driving cycle 19.6 40.9
as FTP)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Power defined as velocity times the change in velocity per second
during cruise or accelerations. Power is set equal to zero during
decelerations and not considered in the determination of average
power.
The FTP and the cold temperature FTP both involve the same driving
cycle, just at different ambient temperatures. Thus, their average
speeds and power are identical, both for the total cycle and for each
bag of emissions measured. The FTP and SC03 involve distinct, but
similar driving cycles. Both are low speed cycles having similar
average speeds and power levels. As the SC03 test is only run with the
air conditioning on and all the other tests are run with air
conditioning off, it is not possible to isolate the effect of the
driving cycle differences between the FTP and SC03 tests directly.
Thus, this leaves five distinct driving patterns which can be used to
represent typical U.S. driving: Bag 2 of the FTP, Bag 3 of the FTP,
HFET, City Bag of US06 and Highway Bag of US06.
As shown in Table II-2, both Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP are low speed
cycles, but their average power requirements differ by a factor of 1.7.
As will be seen below, it is useful to consider each bag separately in
simulating typical city and highway driving.
The current US06 test currently consists of 600 seconds of driving
and the emissions are collected in one bag (i.e., one single collection
of pollutants emitted during the test). Thus, the fuel economy result
is over the entire cycle. The US06 driving cycle consists of 5 hills,
or 5 driving segments which begin and end with the vehicle at idle. All
but the second and third hills consist of relatively low speed driving,
while the second hill reaches 71 mph and the third hill reaches 80 mph.
Therefore, in terms of predicting fuel economy, it is useful to
separate the low speed driving from the high speed driving. For
practical reasons, when separating the city into ``city'' and
``highway'' portions, we grouped the second hill with the four low
speed hills in the city bag and the highway bag consists of the
relatively long third hill. Overall, seconds 0-131 and 496-600 of the
cycle would comprise the city bag and seconds 132-495 would comprise
the highway bag. The description of the hills within US06 and their
designation is summarized in Table II-3 below.
Table II-3.--Split of US06 Cycle Into City and Highway Portions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum speed
Hill Portion of driving cycle (cumulative seconds) (mph) Designation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ 0-43 44.2 City.
2................................ 44-134 70.7 City.
3................................ 134-499 80.3 Highway.
4................................ 500-563 29.8 City.
5................................ 564-600 51.6 City.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5450]]
As described in the Introduction, driving at an average speed below
45 mph is defined as city driving, while that above 45 mph is defined
as highway driving. We obtained a description of average U.S. driving
from the Draft MOVES2004 motor vehicle emissions model. This
description included a distribution of vehicle speeds and levels of
vehicle specific power. Using the definition of city and highway
driving, we separated the MOVES description of driving into city and
highway categories. We then performed a linear regression to estimate
what two combinations of the five driving cycles or bags best fit
average U.S. city and highway driving patterns, respectively. The
results are two sets of cycle combinations in terms of time spent
driving. These are shown in Table II-3. We then used the average speeds
of the various cycles and bags to convert these to combinations to a
mileage basis. The combinations of cycles found to best represent
onroad driving in terms of both time spent driving and mileage driven
are shown in Table II-4.
Table II-4.--Weighting Factors for the Five Dynamometer Cycles (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City driving Highway driving
---------------------------------------------------
Cycle Time Mileage Time Mileage
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 3 FTP................................................... 32 41 0 0
Bag 2 FTP................................................... 60 48 0 0
HFET........................................................ 0 0 25 21
US06 City................................................... 8 11 0 0
US06 Hwy.................................................... 0 0 75 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the results shown in Table II-4, over 90 percent of the time
spent in city driving, and nearly 90 percent of the mileage, is best
explained by Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP cycle. Roughly 80 percent of both
driving time and mileage of highway driving is best explained by the
highway portion of the US06 cycle. These findings confirm that the FTP
(the current basis for the city fuel economy label) is still generally
representative of most low speed driving in the U.S. However, the
relatively low speed and mild accelerations of the HFET (the current
basis for the highway fuel economy label) is not representative of
higher speed driving in the U.S.
These results also confirm the separation of the two types of
driving contained in the US06 cycle. Only the city portion of US06
appears in the description of city driving and only the highway portion
of US06 appears in the description of highway driving. At the same
time, the relative weights for Bags 2 and 3 in the description of city
driving are similar to that implicit in the FTP, which is 52 percent
and 48 percent, respectively.
As mentioned above, the fuel use over the three dynamometer cycles,
when combined using these weighting factors, best matches the fuel use
which would occur during typical city and highway driving. The
weighting is performed in terms of fuel use, or fuel consumption per
mile. For example, fuel use during city driving is 0.48 times the
multiplicative inverse of the fuel economy measured over Bag 2 of the
FTP cycle plus 0.41 times the multiplicative inverse of the fuel
economy measured over Bag 3 of the FTP cycle plus 0.11 times the
multiplicative inverse of the fuel economy measured over the city bag
of the US06 cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.026
These estimates of running fuel use accounts for a wider variety of
city and highway driving patterns than the FTP and HFET cycles alone.
However, these combinations of fuel use still do not include any fuel
use related to air conditioning or cold temperature. Fuel use related
to air conditioning is estimated using the SC03 test. As shown in Table
II-2, the driving pattern contained in the SC03 test is similar to that
of the FTP, but not identical.
Using the MOVES2004 methodology for modeling fuel use, we estimated
the combination of Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP which would match the fuel
use over the SC03 cycle with the air conditioning turned off. This
combination is 0.39 times the fuel consumption over Bag 2 and 0.61
times the fuel consumption over Bag 3. Thus, we propose to estimate the
incremental fuel use due to the operation of the air conditioner as the
difference in fuel use measured over the SC03 versus this combination
of fuel use over Bags 2 and 3 of the standard FTP.
This difference in fuel use between the two tests provides a direct
estimate of the impact of air conditioning use for the conditions
present during the SC03 test. The SC03 test is performed at 95 [deg]F
and 40 percent relative humidity. The test only lasts 10 minutes and
the vehicle is pre-heated with radiant lamps for 10 minutes prior to
the test. Thus, the air conditioning compressor is generally engaged
throughout the entire test. As shown in Table II.-2., the speed of the
vehicle during the SC03 test is also relatively low, at an average
speed of 21.5 mph. Of course, onroad, vehicles operate at different
speeds and ambient temperatures and the compressor may not be engaged
100 percent of the time, particularly during longer trips. All three of
these factors can affect the impact of air conditioning on fuel
economy. We therefore adjust the estimate of the impact of air
conditioning on fuel use from the SC03
[[Page 5451]]
test in three ways to account for these three factors.
The largest factor is portion of driving time during which the
compressor is actually engaged to cool inlet air to the vehicle. The
Draft MOVES2004 model contains an algorithm which estimates the
percentage of time which the compressor is engaged as a function of
ambient temperature and humidity. This algorithm was developed from the
direct measurement of air conditioning operation of 20 vehicles in
Phoenix, Arizona during the summer and fall of 1992.\49\ The algorithm
considers both the frequency that the system is turned on by the driver
and the frequency that the compressor is engaged once the system is
turned on. We combined this algorithm with long term average
meteorological conditions for each county in the U.S. to estimate the
percentage of driving time during which the compressor was engaged
under those conditions. We considered both diurnal and seasonal
temperature variations, as well as variations in the amount of driving
performed throughout the day and across seasons. We estimate that
drivers have the air conditioning turned on 23.9 percent of the time on
average across the U.S., and the compressor is engaged 15.2 percent of
the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Koupal, J. W. Air Conditioning Activity Effects in MOBILE6
(M6.ACE.001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-01-
054, November 2001. Website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobile6/r01054.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We then adjusted this latter percentage to account for reduced
compressor loads at temperatures less than 95 [deg]F and higher loads
above 95 [deg]F.\50\ Again this was done for each county in the U.S.,
accounting for diurnal and seasonal temperature and driving
differences. From this, we estimate that the average load of the air
conditioning compressor in-use is about 87 percent of that at 95 [deg]F
(i.e., during the SC03 test). Thus, the average load of the compressor
in-use is the same as 13.3 percent (15.2 percent x 0.87) of the load
experienced during the SC03 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Nam, Edward K., ``Understanding and Modeling NOX
Emissions From Air Conditioned Automobiles,'' 2000, SAE
2000-01-0858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the impact of air conditioning on fuel economy varies with
vehicle driving pattern. Most air conditioning compressors are belt-
driven by the engine. The efficiency of both the engine and compressor
varies with engine speed and load. This variation is difficult to
model, as the speed and load of engines in various vehicles varies
dramatically based on the vehicle's drivetrain design, even over the
same driving cycle. Therefore, we assume that the efficiency of the
engine and air conditioning compressor implied in the SC03 test applies
to other types of driving, as well. However, a more basic effect
related to driving pattern is that the faster a vehicle is moving, the
shorter the amount of time that the vehicle needs to be cooled while it
travels a specific distance. Other factors being equal, this reduces
the amount of energy needed to cool the vehicle per mile of travel.
Therefore, for a specific set of ambient conditions, we assume that the
impact of air conditioning on fuel use is constant with driving time
(i.e., fuel use in terms of gallons per hour is constant). This means
that the excess fuel use due to operating the air conditioner varies
inversely proportional to vehicle speed. In other words, at low vehicle
speeds, like that of the SC03 test, excess fuel use is relatively high
on a per mile basis. At high vehicle speeds, like that of highway
driving, the excess fuel use due to operating the air conditioner is
relatively low on a per mile basis. We confirmed this assumption by
testing five vehicles over a variety of test cycles at EPA's Ann Arbor
laboratory with both the air conditioning turned on and off. The
results of this test program and an analysis of the data are described
in the Draft Technical Support Document.
The air conditioning compressor is also often engaged when the
defroster is turned on to keep the windshield from fogging up. The air
conditioning dehumidifies the air and excesses the effectiveness of the
defroster. Today's proposal does not include a specific weighting for
demisting activity. We lack a direct estimate of the frequency that the
defroster is turned on or the compressor is engaged during demisting.
Due to the fact that the defroster tends to be operated at lower
ambient temperatures than the air conditioner, the load on the engine
is generally much lower than that during summertime air conditioning.
Thus, the impact of demisting on fuel economy is likely much smaller
than that of summertime air conditioning.
Given the above, the impact of air conditioning on running fuel use
is estimated as 13.3 percent of the difference between fuel use per
mile over the SC03 and a combination of Bags 2 and Bag 3 of the FTP
times 21.5 mph and divided by the average speed of either city or
highway driving. Based on the descriptions of city and highway driving
from Draft MOVES2004, the average speeds are 19.9 mph and 57.1 mph,
respectively. Thus, the excess fuel use due to air conditioning
operation is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.027
[[Page 5452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.028
Finally, we have to add the impact of colder ambient temperatures
on running fuel use. We can obtain a direct estimate of the impact of
colder ambient temperatures on running fuel use by comparing the fuel
use over the standard and cold temperature FTP tests. By focusing on
Bag 2 of each FTP test, we exclude the impact of cold temperature on
start up fuel use, which was already addressed in Section II.B.1 above.
For hybrid vehicles, which are tested over the bag 2 driving cycle
twice (the first time as Bag 2 and the second time as Bag 4), we
propose to harmonically average the fuel economies from Bags 2 and 4.
We considered including Bag 3 in the determination of the effect of
cold temperature on running fuel use. Bag 3 includes some higher speed
driving, so its inclusion broadens the overall driving pattern included
in the estimate. This would particularly improve the representativeness
of the estimate for highway driving. However, Bag 3 begins with a hot
start, unlike Bag 2 which simply follows directly after Bag 1 with no
engine shut-off and restart in between. At 75 [deg]F, a hot start
requires a negligible volume of additional fuel use. However, at 20
[deg]F, even a hot start can require some excess fuel use. Thus,
including the difference between Bag 3 fuel use at 20 and 75 [deg]F in
the estimate of the impact of cold temperature on running fuel use
could also include some excess fuel use related to engine warm up, as
well. Available data indicate that the relative impact of operation at
20 [deg]F versus 75 [deg]F is nearly identical for the two bags (10
percent for Bag 2 and 11 percent for Bag 3). However, the fuel economy
over Bag 3 is lower than over Bag 2, so the absolute difference in fuel
use between 20 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F is actually lower in Bag 3 than Bag
2. We request comment on whether the impact of cold temperature on
running fuel use should only involve Bag 2 or should involve both Bags
2 and 3.
Neither MOBILE6.2 nor MOVES2004 include correlations of the effect
of ambient temperature on running fuel use. However, as just described,
the impact of colder ambient temperatures on running fuel use is small
(i.e., 10 percent over a drop in temperature of 55 [deg]F). We believe
that the additional fuel use is primarily due to the loss of heat to
the cooler ambient air, higher friction in the slightly cooler moving
parts, as well as slight changes in the properties of the cooler intake
air and air fuel mixture during combustion. All of these changes are
expected to be gradual and fairly linear. Therefore, we assume that the
excess fuel use increases linearly as temperatures decrease below 75
[deg]F. Above 75 [deg]F, we assumed that there was no further reduction
in running fuel use. (This latter assumption was confirmed as part of
the five vehicle test program described above.) We also assume that the
excess fuel use is independent of driving pattern. In other words, the
excess fuel use is the same for city and highway driving on an absolute
basis. We request comment on assuming that the excess running fuel use
due to colder temperatures is independent of driving pattern on a
relative basis (i.e., in percentage terms).
Using the same meteorological and VMT inputs described above
related to start fuel use, we estimate the average temperature in the
U.S. at which driving occurs is 58.7 [deg]F. This temperature is 70
percent of the way from 75 [deg]F to 20 [deg]F. Thus, any excess fuel
use associated with operation at 20 [deg]F should be weighted by 100
percent minus 70 percent, or 30 percent.
Given the fact that over 80 percent of city driving is represented
by Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP, we decided to use the fuel economy measured
during Bags 2 and 3 of the cold FTP directly to represent the fuel
economy of city driving at 20 [deg]F. We repeated the regression of the
VSP distribution of city driving from Draft MOVES2004 against the VSP
distributions of just Bags 2 and 3. The best fit produced a 50/50
weighting of the two bags. Thus, we propose to represent the fuel
economy of city driving at 20 [deg]F by a 50/50 harmonic average of the
fuel economy over Bags 2 and 3 of the cold FTP. Mathe- matically, then,
for city driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.029
Highway driving occurs at higher speeds than those typical of the
cold FTP. We conducted a detailed review of past test programs which
evaluated the impact of colder temperatures on fuel economy at highway
driving speeds. This review is described in the Draft Technical Support
Document. There, we concluded that the effect of cold temperature on
fuel economy at city driving speeds could overestimate the effect at
higher speeds. Thus, we decided not to use the fuel economy measured
over the cold FTP directly to represent the impact of cold temperature
on highway fuel economy. Instead, we believe that it is more prudent at
this time to simply assume that running fuel use at 20 [deg]F at
highway speeds is 4 percent greater than that at 75 [deg]F. Thus,
mathematically, for highway driving:
[[Page 5453]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.030
Combining the estimates of running fuel use at 75 [deg]F without
the air conditioning system running with the estimate of excess fuel
use of running the air conditioning system and the estimate of excess
fuel use due to colder ambient temperatures produces the following
formulae for running fuel use:
For city driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.031
For highway driving:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.032
3. Adjustment Factor for Non-Dynamometer Effects
Fuel economy estimated using the five current dynamometer tests can
account for many factors, including vehicle design, driving pattern,
trip length, cold temperature and air conditioning. However, there are
still a large number of factors which affect vehicle fuel economy that
cannot be addressed by dynamometers tests. These include roadway
roughness, road grade (hills), fuel quality, large vehicle loads (e.g.,
trailers, cargo, multiple passengers), wind, precipitation, to name
just a few. Even when a factor is addressed by a dynamometer test, such
as driving pattern or air conditioning, the effect can only be
approximated, as all realistic driving patterns cannot possibly be
included in a test having a reasonable length of time. Nor can all the
possible ambient conditions affecting air conditioner operation be
tested. Thus, any estimate of in-use fuel economy derived from the five
dynamometer tests is necessarily approximate, both with respect to
factors addressed directly by the tests and those which are not.
The impacts of a number of these factors on onroad fuel economy
relative to that measured on a dynamometer is possible to estimate,
while others are difficult to estimate. One factor which can be
estimated is fuel quality. EPA's certification test fuel contains no
oxygenates, while commercial gasoline contains significant volumes of
ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Both ethanol and MTBE
contain less energy per gallon, so vehicles operating on fuel
containing these oxygenates tend to achieve lower fuel economy,
generally in proportion to the reduction in the energy content of the
finished gasoline. For example, the driver of a vehicle operating on
gasoline containing ten percent ethanol by volume would experience a
3.5 percent decrease in fuel economy compared to gasoline not
containing any ethanol or other oxygenate. We expect the nation's
gasoline supply to contain roughly 5.4 billion gallons of ethanol by
2008. This is equivalent to 37 percent of the nation's gasoline supply
containing 10 percent ethanol by volume. Thus, by 2008, we expect
commercial gasoline on average to contain about 1.2 percent less energy
per gallon than EPA test fuel. Thus, this difference in energy content
means that onroad fuel economy will be about 1.2 percent less than that
estimated using the 5-cycle formulae described in the previous section.
This effect could increase beyond 2008 as more ethanol is used in the
nation's gasoline supply.
Another factor which can be estimated is tire pressure. In February
2001, NHTSA conducted a survey of the tire pressure of in-use vehicles.
Tire pressures were measured on over 11,500 vehicles at 24 locations
throughout the U.S. The results of the study and our analysis of the
data are described in the Draft Technical Support Document. We found
that the tires of the average car were under-inflated by 1.1 pounds per
square inch (psi), while those on light trucks were under-inflated by
1.9 psi. Using estimates of the effect of tire pressure on fuel economy
presented by NHTSA, we estimate that the fleet-wide effect of under-
inflation is 0.5 percent.
Another factor which can be estimated, though more approximately,
is wind. Wind affects vehicular fuel economy in two ways. First,
aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of vehicle speed (i.e.,
the higher the vehicle speed, the faster aerodynamic drag increases for
a given increase in speed). Thus, increasing wind speed by 1 mph
increases aerodynamic drag, and thus, reduces fuel economy, more than
the effect of decreasing wind speed by 1 mph. Second, both the
effective area of a vehicle and its drag coefficient increases as the
true wind direction moves to either side from head-on. Basically,
vehicles are designed to move forward through the air, not sideways.
Thus, any side wind increases drag and decreases fuel economy. Based on
a distribution of wind speeds (yielding an average wind speed in the
U.S. of 9.4 mph), we estimate that these two effects reduce onroad fuel
economy on average by 5-6 percent.
Several other factors are still relevant to a 5-cycle fuel economy
estimate, namely altitude, road grade, road surface, road curvature,
brake drag, wheel alignment, tire switching, and vehicle load. EPA
estimated the impact of these factors to be 8 percent at the time of
the 1984 label adjustment rule.
[[Page 5454]]
We have reduced the impact of road surface from 4 percent to 1-3
percent due to increased urbanization and road paving which has
occurred since that time. Thus, we estimate these other factors to
reduce onroad fuel economy by 5-7 percent. Combining this estimate with
those of fuel quality, tire pressure and wind produces an overall
downward effect of 11-15 percent.
As described further in Section II.E below, we also compared the 5-
cycle fuel economy values to fleet-wide estimates of fuel economy made
by FHWA for 2002 and 2003, after we made several adjustments to improve
the comparability of the two estimates. The 5-cycle fuel economy values
best match the FHWA-based estimates when we include a factor of 0.88-
0.91 in the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae (i.e., a reduction of 9-12
percent due to factors not addressed by the 5-cycle formulae). We
propose to average these two ranges (i.e., the 9-12 percent range based
on FHWA, and the 11-15 percent range based on the analysis of non-
dynamometer effects discussed above) and account for these factors by
including a factor of 0.89 in the 5-cycle city and highway formulae
(i.e., a reduction of 11 percent in both city and highway fuel
economy).
D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach
The mpg-based approach to fuel economy label adjustments utilizes
the results of applying the 5-cycle formulae to all vehicles for which
we were able to gather fuel economy data for all five dynamometer
cycles. We requested that all manufacturers submit to us all their
available fuel economy data for vehicles which had been tested over at
least one of the US06, SC03 or cold FTP tests. We combined this data
with our own fuel economy data to develop a database of 423 recent
model year vehicles which had been tested over all five cycles. We
applied the above 5-cycle formulae to these vehicles. We then developed
a relationship between the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economies and
the city and highway fuel economies using the current adjustment
factors, respectively.
We evaluated two options for developing this relationship. One
option plotted 5-cycle fuel economy versus fuel economy using the
current adjustment factor. The other option plotted the inverse of 5-
cycle fuel economy (i.e., fuel consumption) versus the inverse of fuel
economy using the current adjustment factor. As indicated from the
description of the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae, most of the modeling
of fuel economy is performed in terms of fuel consumption (i.e.,
gallons of fuel burned per mile versus miles traveled per gallon of
fuel burned). While both types of plots produce relationships with a
high degree of correlation, the plots in terms of fuel consumption are
linear, while those in terms of fuel economy are non-linear. Given that
the linear relationship is simpler and the degrees of correlation are
essentially the same, we are proposing to base the mpg-based
adjustments on the correlations in terms of fuel consumption. However,
the label values themselves would remain in terms of fuel economy, as
required by EPCA. We request comment on the use of the correlations
performed in terms of fuel consumption versus those performed in terms
of fuel economy. Both approaches are described in detail in the Draft
Technical Support Document.
Figures II-5 and II-6 show the relationship between the inverse of
5-cycle city (or highway) fuel economy (i.e., fuel consumption) versus
the inverse of FTP (or HFET) fuel economy. Figure II-5 shows city fuel
consumption, while Figure II-6 shows highway fuel consumption.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.033
[[Page 5455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.034
The results of regressing 5-cycle fuel consumption versus fuel
consumption over the FTP or HFET are shown in the above figures. In
terms of fuel economy:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.036
The standard deviation of the difference between the mpg-based
equations and the 5-cycle fuel economies are 2 percent for city and 5
percent for highway. These differences are roughly equivalent to 0.5
mpg for city fuel economy and 1-2 mpg for highway fuel economy. Thus,
while the mpg-based equations represent much of the difference in fuel
economy represented by the 5-cycle formulae, differences between the
fuel efficiency of individual vehicles on the order of 0.5-2 mpg are
muted by the mpg-based approach.
As mentioned above, the mpg-based equations described above were
developed from the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for 423 2003-2005
model year vehicles. We propose to update the mpg-based curves annually
using all of the available 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the
previous three model years. EPA would publish the mpg-based equations
for the upcoming model year's labels by March 1 of the previous year
(i.e., by March 1, 2007 for the 2008 model year).
E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel Economy Label Values
The impact of today's proposal on city and highway fuel economy
label values was assessed using the same database of 423 late model
year vehicles used to develop the mpg-based adjustments above. Table
II-5 presents the results of this comparison for all 423 vehicles, as
well as various sub-sets of vehicles.
Table II-5.--Effect of 5-Cycle Formulae on City and Highway Fuel Economy Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Highway Combined *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 5-cycle Percent Current 5-cycle Percent Current 5-cycle Percent
(mpg) (mpg) change (mpg) (mpg) change (mpg) (mpg) change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hybrids....................................................... 42 32 -23 41 37 -9 41 34 -16
Diesels....................................................... 26 23 -13 35 31 -11 30 27 -9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Highest FE................................................. 30 26 -15 36 33 -8 33 30 -10
[[Page 5456]]
12 Lowest FE.................................................. 11 10 -11 15 14 -8 12 12 -6
Average....................................................... 19 16 -13 25 22 -9 21 19 -8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively.
Combined fuel economy for 5-Cycle MPG is based on weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively.
As can be seen from Table II-5, use of the 5-cycle formulae would
reduce both current city and highway fuel economy label values. For
conventional vehicles, city and highway fuel economy values would be
reduced an average of 13 percent and 9 percent, respectively. The
reduction in city fuel economy label values for higher than average
fuel economy vehicles would be slightly higher, while that for lower
than average fuel economy vehicles would be slightly lower. The
reduction in highway fuel economy label values varies only slightly.
The impact on hybrid vehicles would be greater, averaging a 23
percent reduction for city fuel economy and 9 percent for highway fuel
economy. This greater impact occurs primarily because a number of the
fuel efficient aspects of hybrid vehicles produce their maximum benefit
under conditions akin to the FTP and HFET tests, and are somewhat less
beneficial during aggressive driving, colder ambient temperatures and
when the air conditioner is turned on. However, these vehicles would
still remain among the top fuel economy vehicles.
There is one diesel vehicle in our 5-cycle fuel economy database.
The impact of the 5-cycle formulae on this one diesel is very similar
to that for the average conventional, gasoline-fueled vehicle.
The impact of the mpg-based formulae would be very similar on
average to those shown in Table II-5 above for conventional vehicles.
This is not surprising, since the mpg-based formulae are based
essentially on the average results of the 5-cycle formulae. However,
the mpg-based formulae would increase the city fuel economy of hybrid
vehicles slightly, as indicated in Table II-6. This occurs because
there are only 9 hybrid vehicles in the database, compared to 413
gasoline-fueled, conventional vehicles. The mpg-based regression of
city fuel economy, therefore, represents essentially the impact of the
5-cycle formulae on conventional vehicles, which is less than that for
hybrids. The mpg-based regression of highway fuel economy is
essentially the same for conventional and hybrid vehicles.
Table II-6.--Effect of MPG-Based Formulae on Conventional and Hybrid Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Highway
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current MPG-based Percent Current MPG-based Percent
(mpg) (mpg) change (mpg) (mpg) change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional...................... 19 16 -13 25 22 -9
Hybrids........................... 42 34 -18 41 37 -10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
In the 1984 label adjustment rule, EPA was able to compare
fleetwide estimates of a variety of city and highway fuel economy label
options to a number of independent estimates of onroad fleet fuel
economy. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, EPA and several auto
manufacturers had collected onroad fuel economy estimates from tens of
thousands of drivers which could be compared to the EPA city and
highway fuel economy labels. The fleetwide combined EPA fuel economy
estimate could also be compared to onroad fuel economy based on
estimates of total VMT and total fuel consumption from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). EPA primarily used the driver-based fuel
economy estimates to develop the current 10 percent and 22 percent
adjustments to fuel economy over the FTP and HFET, respectively.
Repeating this type of comparison is more complicated today than it
was in 1984. First, 5-cycle fuel economy estimates are not available
for the current car and light truck fleet. Emission standards based on
the US06 and SC03 tests just began to be phased in with the 2001 model
year. Also, these tests are only performed on a limited number of
vehicle configurations. Second, studies of driver-based fuel economy
similar to those available in 1984 have not been performed of late. At
the same time, as mentioned in the Introduction above, a number of
consumer organizations have begun conducting their own fuel economy
tests. Several governmental organizations have been monitoring onroad
fuel economy, focused particularly on new hybrid technology. While the
findings of these various organizations were compared to the current
EPA label fuel economy values in the Introduction, here they will be
compared to the 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy estimates.
We begin with a comparison of the 5-cycle fuel economy values with
the fleetwide fuel economy estimates developed by FHWA. Because we do
not have fuel economy data for all vehicles over all 5 dynamometer
cycles, and therefore cannot develop a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate
for the current onroad fleet directly, this comparison requires a
three-step process.
The first step in this process compares fleetwide fuel economy
estimates based on EPA's current fuel economy labels to the FHWA
estimate of onroad fuel economy. The second step in this process is to
compare combined city-highway fuel economy using the 5-cycle formulae
to that using the current EPA city and highway label procedures. This
comparison is performed for vehicles for which we have 5-cycle fuel
economy data. We will assume that this relationship also applies to
those
[[Page 5457]]
vehicles for which we do not have 5-cycle data. The third step
evaluates changes in FTP and HFET test procedures which accompanied the
implementation of the US06 and SC03 testing requirements. The most
important change was the removal of a 10 percent increase in tractive
road load horsepower which was intended to represent the use of air
conditioning in the summer. This effectively increased fuel economy
label values with no accompanying change in onroad fuel economy. The
vehicles assessed by FHWA were nearly all tested with the 10 percent
adjustment in road load, while those in the 5-cycle certification
database were not. Therefore, this difference needs to be accounted for
when connecting the results of the two previous comparisons.
Overall, the difference between 5-cycle fuel economy and FHWA
onroad fuel economy is the combination of the percentage differences
from the three comparisons:
(1) Current EPA label fuel economy (with 10 percent road
adjustment) to FHWA onroad fuel economy,
(2) 5-cycle fuel economy to current EPA label fuel economy (without
10 percent road load adjustment), and
(3) the effect of the removal of the 10 percent road load
adjustment.
FHWA publishes fleet-wide estimates of onroad fuel economy for cars
and light trucks in their annual Highway Statistics publication.\51\ We
will focus on the combined estimates for cars and light trucks here,
since various states use different criteria to distinguish between the
two vehicle classes. At the same time, the criteria used to distinguish
between cars plus light trucks and other vehicles are very consistent.
The FHWA definition of light trucks (actually 4-tire, 2-wheel trucks)
includes some vehicles which EPA classifies as heavy-duty vehicles. We
have adjusted the FHWA estimates upward to provide a more direct
comparison. After this adjustment, the FHWA-based estimate of fleet-
wide onroad fuel economy for cars and light trucks is 20.3 mpg for 2002
and 20.5 mpg for 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. Highway Statistics 2003. See Table VM-1. Web site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/vm1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used the EPA MOBILE6.2 in-use emission model to calculate fleet-
wide average EPA combined fuel economy label values for these two
years. For both years, average label fuel economy was 21.1 mpg. Thus,
for 2002 and 2003, the FHWA-based onroad fuel economy was 4 percent and
3 percent lower than the current combined EPA label value,
respectively. Thus, the result of the first step in this process is an
indication that the current labeling formulae, based on FTP and HFET
testing with the 10 percent road load adjustment, could be over-
estimating onroad fuel economy by 3-4 percent.
Moving to the second step, in Table II-5 above, we presented city
and highway fuel economy label values using both current and 5-cycle
formulae for 423 2003-2005 model year vehicles. The FHWA estimates
apply to all driving, both city and highway. Therefore, we are
primarily interested in combined city-highway fuel economy values.
Also, we are using FHWA estimates for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years,
as these are the most recent available. The number of hybrid vehicles
on the road was negligible during this timeframe. Therefore, we will
only use the 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for the 414 non-hybrid
vehicles in our database. There is no need to perform this comparison
separately for the mpg-based formulae, since the average fuel economy
from the 5-cycle and mpg-based formulae are identical for non-hybrid
vehicles.
The combined fuel economy using the current label formulae is a 55/
45 harmonic weighting of the current city and highway fuel economy
labels. The average combined fuel economy using the current EPA label
values for these 414 vehicles is 20.9 mpg. However, it is important to
note that the FTP and HFET testing upon which these values are based
were performed without the 10 percent increase in road load horsepower
to account for air conditioning and other accessories. For the proposed
5-cycle formulae, combined fuel economy is a 43/57 harmonic weighting
of the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economies. This city/highway split
for the 5-cycle fuel economies is based on:
(1) The assumption that driving generally less than 45 mph is city
driving and that above 45 mph is highway driving, and
(2) the description of onroad driving patterns contained in MOVES.
We seek comment on any other data that may indicate what
constitutes city and highway driving. The mathematical formula for
converting the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values into an
estimate of average onroad fuel economy is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.037
The average combined 5-cycle fuel economy using this formula for
the 414 conventional vehicles is 19.2 mpg, which is 8 percent lower
than that based on the current label values. This is the result of the
second step in the process.
Moving to the third step, prior to the implementation of the
Supplemental FTP standards and the running of the US06 and SC03 tests,
EPA approximated the occasional load on the engine of the air
conditioner and other accessories by increasing the tractive road load
horsepower setting on the dynamometer by 10 percent of each vehicle's
normal road load. This increase was equivalent to increasing the
rolling resistance of the tires and aerodynamic drag of moving the
vehicle through the air by 10 percent. When the explicit testing of
emissions with the air conditioning system turned on during the SC03
test, EPA removed this 10 percent adjustment on the FTP and HFET tests.
This was appropriate for emissions testing, given the direct
measurement of emissions with the air conditioning on during the SC03
test. However, since the fuel economy over the SC03 test is not
included in the calculation of the fuel economy label values, the
removal of the 10 percent adjustment during FTP and HFET testing
effectively increased the city and highway label values with no
accompanying change in onroad fuel economy.
Using a detailed model of a vehicle's energy use on the road
(please see the Draft Technical Support Document for details), we
estimate that removing the 10 percent adjustment in road load increased
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET by 2 percent and 5 percent,
respectively. Decreasing the FTP and
[[Page 5458]]
HFET fuel economy values for the 414 conventional vehicles in our 5-
cycle certification database by these amounts decreased combined EPA
fuel economy on average by 3 percent. The average combined fuel economy
using the current label formulae decreased from 20.9 mpg to 20.2 mpg.
Thus, instead of decreasing the current combined label value by 8
percent, when considered in terms of test procedures effective for the
2002-2003 onroad fleet, the 5-cycle formulae only decrease label fuel
economy by an average of 5 percent. This 5 percent decrease represents
the combined effects of steps 2 and 3 in our process.
Overall, then, from step 1, the current label values over-estimate
onroad fuel economy per FHWA (with some adjustments by EPA) by 3-4
percent, while the 5-cycle formulae decrease current label values (of
the 2002-2003 fleet) by 5 percent. Thus, the proposed 5-cycle formulae
should move the combined fuel economy label values to within 1-2
percent of a comparable estimate of fleetwide fuel economy using FHWA
techniques.
Next, several governmental and non-governmental organizations
perform their own fuel economy assessments. Of these, the American
Automobile Association (AAA) and Consumer's Union (CU) have tested the
greatest number of vehicles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has
recently begun a program where drivers can submit their own fuel
economy measurements via the Internet. Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL) has also been operating an extensive hybrid demonstration project
for a few years as part of DOE's Freedom Car project.
Each of these estimates of onroad fuel economy have their relative
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the non-governmental
organization testing include the fact that the vehicles are tested on
actual roads, usually in traffic and under real environmental
conditions. The primary weaknesses of this testing include:
(1) The fact that the driving patterns involved are not typically
published, so they may or may not be representative of average U.S.
driving,
(2) Vehicles are tested throughout the year, so some vehicles are
tested in hot weather and others in cold weather and some under
moderate conditions, and
(3) In some cases, the actual test procedures used to measure the
volume of fuel consumed during the test are not described, leaving some
doubt as to their accuracy. Still, because of the public interest in
these estimates, we believed that they should be considered here.
Consumer Report recently published their fuel economy estimates for
303 2000-2005 model year vehicles. Consumer Report makes three fuel
economy measurements: one for city driving, one for highway driving and
one for a 150-mile trip. They also publish a combined fuel economy
value which is a harmonic average of the three fuel economy
measurements.
We were able to match 151 of these vehicles with those in our 5-
cycle fuel economy database. For these 151 vehicles, we compared
Consumer Report's city, highway and combined fuel economy measurements
to the analogous current EPA label, 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel economy
estimates. The results show that the Consumer Report city fuel economy
values are well below both the current label or 5-cycle label values,
though the difference for the 5-cycle values are half those of the
current label values. The reverse is true for highway fuel economy. The
current EPA combined label values average 10 percent higher than the
Consumer Report values. However, the average of the combined 5-cycle
values is only 1 percent higher than the average combined Consumer
Report fuel economy.
More specifically, the vehicles tested by Consumer Report include 6
hybrid vehicles. We have 5-cycle fuel economy estimates for five of
these vehicles. A comparison of the Consumer Report, current EPA label
and 5-cycle label fuel economy values shows that the current combined
EPA label fuel economy values average 27 percent higher than the
combined fuel economy measured by Consumer Report. The difference
between EPA and Consumer Report combined fuel economy decreases
dramatically with the 5-cycle approach. On average, the EPA 5-cycle
combined fuel economy is only 5 percent higher than that measured by
Consumer Report. This is slightly higher than the zero percent
difference found for non-hybrids. Thus, the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach appears to reflect some of the factors measured with Consumer
Report testing which are missed by the current fuel economy tests (FTP
and HFET). As expected, the differences increase with the mpg-based
approach, since the mpg-based adjustments are based essentially on non-
hybrid vehicle results. Additional discussion and analysis of the
Consumer Reports data can be found in the Draft Technical Support
Document.
As discussed above, AAA also develops its own fuel economy
estimates. In their 2004 report, AAA presented their test results and
the EPA label values for 163 models. As AAA only develops a single fuel
economy estimate for each vehicles (i.e., no separate city or highway
estimates), we compared their estimates to a combined mpg-based fuel
economy value. As discussed above, the mpg-based city fuel economy was
weighted 43 percent and the highway value was weighted 57 percent. We
did not compare the 5-cycle fuel economy values to the AAA estimates
due to the relatively low number of models which were in both the AAA
and EPA certification fuel economy database.
The average mpg-based combined fuel economy for the 163 vehicles
was 2 percent higher than the average AAA fuel economy. The combined
mpg-based fuel economy was higher than the AAA estimate for 91 models
and lower for 71 models. The two estimates matched for one model. These
comparisons are quite similar to those between the current label fuel
economy values and the AAA values. However, the mpg-based fuel economy
more closely matches those of AAA for the two hybrids in the AAA
database. For the Insight and Prius, the current combined EPA fuel
economy values exceed those of AAA by 6-8 percent. The combined mpg-
based fuel economy values straddle the AAA estimates, one being one
percent higher and the other being two percent lower.
The ORNL Your MPG data discussed in Section I are similar in nature
to the much larger databases analyzed for the 1984 label adjustment
rule. Drivers measure their own fuel economy and provide a perceived
split of their driving into city and highway categories. The strength
of this type of data is the fact that the vehicle is being operated by
the owner or regular driver in typical use. The weaknesses are the
unknown representativeness of the sample, the unknown nature of the
technique used by the owner/driver to measure fuel economy and the
short time period over which fuel economy is generally assessed (e.g.,
a couple of tanks full). In the particular case of the ORNL database,
its current size is still small (2544 estimates of fuel economy for
1794 vehicles) compared to those available in 1984, though it is
growing daily.
We compared the fuel economy estimates submitted to the ORNL
website with the mpg-based fuel economy values. We did not attempt to
estimate 5-cycle fuel economy values for these vehicles, as we lacked
5-cycle fuel economy data for most of the vehicles. However, on average
for non-hybrid vehicles, the mpg-based values match the 5-cycle values.
We combined the mpg-based city and highway values using each driver's
estimate of the
[[Page 5459]]
percentage which was city and highway. If a driver did not provide an
estimate of the breakdown of their driving pattern, we assumed that
their driving was 43 percent city and 57 percent highway. We also
conducted separate comparisons for conventional gasoline vehicles,
hybrids and diesels. The results are shown in Table II-9 below.
Table II-9.--Your MPG Versus Current EPA Label Fuel Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel economy (mpg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPG-based EPA
Number of combined label: Difference from
Vehicle type estimates Your MPG vehicle city/ MPG-based (%)
hwy weighting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Gasoline....................... 2315 23.7 23.4 1.3
Hybrid Gasoline............................. 239 46.1 47.1 -2.2
Diesel...................................... 88 41.0 38.8 5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen, diesels appear to perform the best with respect to
their mpg-based fuel economy values, outperforming the proposed mpg-
based combined label by 5.7 percent. Conventional gasoline vehicles
also appear to slightly outperform the mpg-based label values by 1.3
percent. Hybrids are the only category to fall short, but do so by a
small margin of 2.2 percent.
The Department of Energy has overseen the real world operation of a
number of electric hybrid vehicles for a period of years. The Advanced
Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA), conducted jointly by the Idaho
National Laboratory (INL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), has been benchmarking hybrid electric vehicle performance as
part of the FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program. The strength of
the FreedomCAR program testing of hybrid vehicles lies in the fact that
the vehicles are operated on the road over long term periods similar to
what consumer-purchased vehicles experience, albeit often in commercial
applications. Over a million miles of operation have been assessed and
careful fuel consumption and mileage records are kept. The weaknesses
are that some of the vehicles are in commercial use (e.g., company pool
vehicles) for accelerated mileage accumulation and that the vehicles
are operated exclusively in the Southwest, mainly Phoenix, Arizona and
surrounding areas. Nevertheless, the vehicles are operated just as any
other vehicle would be in that application and the vehicles are subject
to all of the environmental and roadway factors which affect the fuel
economy of typical vehicles, such as winds, rough roads, hills, traffic
congestion, etc. Because of the limited geographic area of the program,
the vehicles are more likely to experience hot temperatures and air
conditioning use than cold temperatures.
The vehicles' operators report mileage and fuel usage to FreedomCAR
which posts the monthly and cumulative fuel economy of each electric
hybrid fleet on a monthly schedule.\52\ Therefore, seasonal changes in
fuel economy can be observed. The results of the fleets are shown in
Table II-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ http://energy.inel.gov/x-web/other/framed.shtml?http://avt.inel.gov.
Table II-10.--FreedomCAR Hybrid Fleet Cumulative Versus EPA Combined Label Fuel Economy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel economy (mpg) Difference (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated Fleet EPA combined label \A\
Vehicle mileage size ------------------------------ MPG-
Onroad MGP- Current 5-cycle based
Current 5-cycle based
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Honda Insight...................................... 417,000 6 45.2 61.0 51.5 52.6 35 14 16
2002 Toyota Prius....................................... 458,000 6 41.0 48.6 ........ ........ 19 ........ ........
2003 Honda Civic........................................ 378,000 4 37.6 46.3 38.0 40.0 23 1 6
2004 Toyota Prius....................................... 102,000 2 44.4 54.6 45.9 46.0 23 3 4
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2wd............................ 21,000 1 18.5 18.8 ........ ........ 2 ........ ........
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 4wd............................ 28,000 1 17.7 16.9 14.9 15.3 -5 -16 -14
2005 Ford Escape 2wd.................................... 28,000 1 28.1 33.6 ........ ........ 20 ........ ........
2005 Ford Escape 4wd.................................... 29,000 1 25.5 29.9 24.1 25.9 17 -5 -2
2005 Honda Accord....................................... 62,000 2 27.6 32.3 26.3 29.1 17 -5 5
2005 Lexus RX400h....................................... 20,000 2 26.3 28.1 24.8 24.8 7 -6 -6
Average................................................. 154,000 2.6 31.2 37.0 32.2 33.4 16 -2 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ Current combined is a \55/45\ weighting of city/highway fuel economy. 5-cycle combined is a \43/57\ weighting of city/highway fuel economy, as
explained further in this section.
As can be seen, EPA's current label formulae over-estimate the
onroad fuel economy achieved by all but one of the hybrid vehicle
fleets. It should be noted that the values for current combined fuel
economy are those from EPA's certification database and are not the
official label values. The official label values are even higher due to
differences between the worse case vehicles tested over the
Supplemental FTP cycles and the average vehicle sold. The largest
shortfall was 35 percent for the Honda Insights. The Chevrolet
Silverado was the only model which
[[Page 5460]]
exceeded the current label value of the test vehicle in our
certification database. This is likely related to the fact that its
hybrid design includes limited fuel economy targeted features. Except
for the Chevrolet Silverado, the onroad fuel economy for each fleet
never exceeded either the city or highway fuel economy label. This
indicates that regardless of whether the vehicles were driven
predominantly in city or highway driving modes, other real world
factors reduced onroad fuel economy beyond that captured in the FTP and
HFET and the current 10 percent and 22 percent adjustment factors.
Table II-10 also presents combined fuel economy values using the
proposed 5-cycle and mpg-based formulae for those vehicles for which we
have 5-cycle fuel economy data. The proposed combined 5-cycle label
values exceed onroad fuel economy for three out of seven models, while
the proposed mpg-based values do so for five out of seven models. The
average of the differences is very small in both cases. On average, the
combined 5-cycle value is 2 percent lower than those measured onroad.
However, as mentioned above, the specific vehicles in our 5-cycle
database tend to be worse case. For example, the current official label
values exceed those shown in Table II-10 by 3 percent. If we increased
the combined 5-cycle values commensurately, they would exceed the
onroad values by 1 percent. Thus, while both of the proposed approaches
do a much more reasonable job at predicting the onroad fuel economy
achieved in the DOE FreedomCar program than the current label formulae,
the proposed 5-cycle formulae appear to be particularly accurate when
compared to the FreedomCar experience.
When analyzing monthly reported fuel economy, large seasonal
fluctuations in fuel economy were observed on most of the hybrid
fleets. The seasonal fluctuations are especially noticeable on the
fleets that had been in service for over one year. The fuel economy
during the hot and often humid summer weather months when heavy air
conditioning usage could be expected was as much as 15 mpg lower than
observed fuel economy during mild Phoenix area winter months. Fuel
economy over the SC03 air conditioning test for the three hybrids with
the highest rated fuel economy shown in Table II-10 (Prius, Insight and
Civic) tends to be 15-20 mpg lower than that over the FTP. No cold
weather operation similar to northern states or the Cold FTP (20
[deg]F) was reported which would likely have resulted in further
shortfalls.
The FreedomCAR program is continuing to accumulate mileage on all
of the 2004 and 2005 models listed above. While the time in service and
accumulated mileage is relatively low compared with the original fleets
that have completed service, the initial results support similar
substantial shortfall likely due to the same real world factors not
currently captured during the FTP or HFET.
III. What Major Alternatives Were Considered?
As explained in Section I, the current city and highway test
results for fuel economy are adjusted downward by 10 and 22 percent,
respectively, to derive the current fuel economy label values. One
possible approach that we evaluated would be to simply revise these
adjustment factors, presumably to further ``discount'' the test
results, to achieve results that more closely mirror real-world fuel
economy. However, this is a fundamentally flawed approach that does not
solve the problems with the current fuel economy estimates.
There is little doubt that revising the current adjustment factors
could result in city and highway fuel economy values that better
approximate real-world values on average across the U.S. vehicle fleet.
This approach might be more accurate for certain vehicle models.
However, the fundamental problem with this approach is that it ignores
the variation in how different vehicle models respond to factors that
impact fuel economy. As we discussed in Section I, there is a wide
variation in how different vehicles respond to factors such as the use
of air conditioning, cold temperature operation, and higher speeds and
accelerations. For example, in our database of about 420 vehicles,
operation on the city test cycle at 20 degrees F resulted in fuel
economy that was anywhere from 0 to 40 percent worse than fuel economy
achieved on the same test cycle at 75 degrees F. Because there are now
additional tests in place (for emissions compliance) that have the
ability to measure a vehicle's fuel economy over this wider range of
driving operation, we have an opportunity to design the new fuel
economy label methodology in a way that relies on these test results,
and is thus inherently more vehicle-specific. In this way, our fuel
economy test methods would yield results that are not only more
accurate across the fleet, but also more reflective of the fuel economy
consumers can expect to achieve from a given vehicle in the real-world.
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
In addition to our proposal to revise the methods for calculating
the ``city'' and ``highway'' mpg estimates, we are proposing revisions
to the way these estimates and the other information on the label are
presented to the consumer.
Our goal is to improve the label format and content so that
consumers more readily understand and use it. To gain a better
understanding of how consumers are using the current fuel economy
label, we conducted a series of focus groups in five cities around the
country in March 2005. The input received from the participants
confirmed some of our perceptions about weaknesses of the current
label, and also brought up some constructive suggestions for
improvements that we could address. The contractor that conducted the
focus groups issued a report to EPA of their findings, which is
included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ PRR, Inc. ``EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups--Report of
Findings,'' prepared for EPA by PRR Inc., March 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the focus groups, we clearly heard that people are very familiar
with the big, bold City and Highway estimates on the label. We tested
whether consumers preferred to see the estimates continue to be
expressed as City and Highway mpg values or replacing the City and
Highway designations with a fuel economy range. Consumers agreed that
the City and Highway distinction is useful information and wanted it to
remain intact. Consumers had a very strong negative reaction to a
range, and indicated it was not something they could easily compare to
other cars. Thus, we are proposing to retain the City and Highway mpg
estimates. As discussed in Section I, our new test methods are designed
to reflect the average fuel economy, so the City and Highway mpg
estimates on the label will reflect the fuel economy expected to be
achieved by half of drivers. We seek comment on whether the average is
the appropriate value for the large, bold, City and Highway estimates.
In other words, we invite comment on whether it would be more
appropriate to capture a greater proportion of consumers' experience by
using a lower fuel economy estimate, for example, an estimate that
would capture 75 percent, or even a greater percentage, of drivers'
experience.
Further, the consumer focus groups indicated that people are not
noticing or reading the current ``fine print'' range of fuel economy
expressed on today's label. Yet, we believe it is important to
[[Page 5461]]
continue to report an expected fuel economy range in smaller print, in
addition to the City and Highway mpg estimates, so that consumers can
better understand how much their fuel economy in actual driving can
vary from the estimate. To accompany the City and Highway mileage
estimates, we propose to express the range of expected fuel economy as
a 10th percentile to a 90th percentile fuel economy. In that way, the
range represents 80 percent of driving experience--10 percent of
drivers may get fuel economy below the lower end of the range, and 10
percent may get fuel economy greater than the higher end. We seek
comment on other approaches to expressing the expected fuel economy
range on the label. For example, we ask for comments on whether this
range should be wider to capture even more of drivers' experience, such
as a 5th percentile to a 95th percentile, which would capture 90
percent of all drivers' fuel economy experience.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Based on the assumption of a normal distribution and
available data that allows us to estimate the standard deviation,
the 10th and 90th percentiles are equal to the mean 17
percent, and the 5th and 95th percentiles are equal to the mean
21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are interested in commenters' feedback on what
additional information could be made available either in the annual
Fuel Economy Guide or the www.fueleconomy.gov Web site, administered
jointly by EPA and DOE. We recognize that some of the ideas we are
presenting here may become too much information to include on the label
itself. We would like to make additional information available to those
consumers who are most interested in more detail, and the Fuel Economy
Guide, or www.fueleconomy.gov Web site, may be good places to include
such information. Some have suggested the idea of a fuel economy
calculator on the Web site, that would enable consumers to calculate an
estimated fuel economy that is more tailored to their specific driving
conditions. A similar tool already exists on the Web site in the form
of a calculator to estimate individualized annual fuel costs, based on
specific cost and mileage data input by the user. A fuel economy
calculator could be designed that would allow the user to input their
specific driving conditions, such as the amount of time spent with air
conditioning on, what climate they live in, how much driving is done
under higher speed/aggressive driving conditions, etc. These inputs
could go into an algorithm that would estimate the fuel economy for a
specific vehicle under the conditions input by the user. For instance,
drivers in areas of climactic extremes may want to know the fuel
economy impact of driving exclusively in those conditions. EPA requests
comments on the merits of adding such a calculator to the
fueleconomy.gov Web site, and welcomes further input on how such a tool
might best be designed.
Based on input from the focus groups, as well as our own
observations from implementing the fuel economy labeling program for
the past 20 years, we are proposing to revise the fuel economy label as
discussed below. For a point of reference, a sample of the current Fuel
Economy Label is provided below, followed by four proposed label
formats on which we are requesting comment. Sample A takes a more
traditional approach by preserving some of the ``look and feel'' of the
current label. Samples B and C are graphical updates and offer
different ways of presenting the same information. Sample D has the
same look as Sample B, but presents a different option for illustrating
the comparable class information. One benefit of adopting a less
traditional look is to signal to consumers that the new label design
coincides with our new way of calculating the fuel economy estimates.
We are planning to conduct a series of focus groups after
evaluating the public comments received on these label designs, to
assure that the final design will be understood and useful for
consumers. More details about this proposal are in section VIII.B
below.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.038
[[Page 5462]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.039
[[Page 5463]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.040
[[Page 5464]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.041
[[Page 5465]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.042
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 5466]]
A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
The EPCA statute requires the label to include the estimated annual
fuel cost. EPA's current regulations specify that this information just
include the dollar amount, but gives manufacturers the option to also
include the per-gallon fuel costs and annual miles driven (i.e., to
explain how annual fuel costs were derived). However, most
manufacturers do not take that option, so most labels include only the
cost number. It was clear from the focus group research that consumers
care a lot about this information but currently do not find it
adequate. They desired more information about how this cost was
determined, including the assumed per-gallon fuel costs and miles-per-
year driven. Therefore, we are proposing to require this information on
the label in addition to the estimated annual fuel cost. The per-gallon
fuel costs and annual miles driven will be that which EPA provides to
manufacturers each year via guidance letters.\55\ Providing per-gallon
fuel costs each year through guidance ensures that the information
stays as current as possible while still providing a common basis to
allow comparisons of annual fuel cost information across all vehicles.
The fuel economy basis on which the estimated annual fuel costs are
determined would be the adjusted combined fuel economy (as determined
by the proposed weighting of 43 and 57 percent for city and highway,
respectively, as discussed in Section II). The label information is
proposed to read: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Costs = $XXXX (based on
XX,XXX miles at $X.XX per gallon).'' We also seek comment on whether
the label text should include the combined fuel economy number as part
of the derivation for Estimated Annual Fuel Cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The estimated annual fuel costs are derived from
information provided by DOE's Energy Information Administration.
Separate costs are determined for regular and premium gasoline,
diesel, CNG, LPG, ethanol (E85), electricity and hydrogen. See EPA's
Guidance Letter CCD-05-11 in the Docket for this rulemaking for an
example of how EPA transmits this information to manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
The EPCA statute requires the label to include the fuel economy of
comparable vehicles. This requirement was intended to help car shoppers
compare the fuel economy of similar vehicles. EPA's current regulations
require that the label include the following statement: ``For
comparison shopping, all [vehicles/trucks] classified as [insert
category as determined in Sec. 600.315] have been issued mileage
ratings ranging from -- to -- mpg city and -- to -- mpg highway.''
Based on the focus group research, it appears that car buyers do not
notice this statement since it appears in small print and has lengthy
text. Some perceived it as ``fine print,'' and thus less important.
There are two ways to address these concerns. The first would shorten
the statement to lessen its ``fine print'' look. The sample labels A
through C above contain a revised statement as follows: ``For
comparison shopping, the range of fuel economy for all [INSERT
COMPARABLE CLASS] is -- to -- MPG city and -- to -- MPG highway.''
After completion of the focus groups, we considered another option
for presenting the fuel economy of comparable vehicles that might aid
consumers by replacing the ``fine print'' text with a graphic
representation. This approach would use combined fuel economy as the
comparison basis (versus separate city and highway comparisons), to
simplify the fuel economy values presented. Combined fuel economy has
not previously appeared on the label, but is used as an input to
calculate the estimated annual fuel costs. The graphic presentation is
similar in concept to DOE's ``EnergyGuide'' label, which has been
effectively used for years to illustrate where an electrical appliance
falls on an energy-usage comparison scale. Therefore, we believe this
visual may be familiar to consumers. A sample label with the graphical
presentation of comparable fuel economy appears in the Sample D label
above. The graphic would replace the text regarding comparable class
fuel economy. We request comment on the merits of this graphical
concept for depicting the fuel economy of comparable class vehicles,
and whether it would enhance consumers' understanding.
In addition, we welcome comment on whether it would be useful to
include additional information, either on the label or a Web site, that
would give consumers a better understanding of how a given vehicle's
fuel economy compares with the range of fuel economy of other vehicle
classes. This may be particularly useful for those consumers shopping
for cars across vehicles classes (e.g., SUVs vs. large sedans).
However, including this much information on the label may be
problematic due to space limitations. The annual Fuel Economy Guide
already includes graphical information on the fuel economy range for
all comparable classes, so that consumers can identify where a given
vehicle fits within these ranges. We welcome input on whether
additional information on comparable class fuel economy would be
useful, and if so, how best to present that information in a user-
friendly way for consumers.
Another change that will help improve the usefulness of this
information to consumers is to revise the comparable vehicle class
categories themselves, since they have not been updated in twenty
years. A discussion of proposed changes to the comparable vehicle
classifications is in Section V below.
C. ``Your mileage will vary * * *'' Range of Expected Fuel Economy
Information
The current label has a statement explaining why actual fuel
economy will vary from the EPA estimates, and gives an expected range
of fuel economy for that vehicle, determined by 15 percent
of the city and highway estimates. While not statutorily required to be
on the label, as discussed in Section I above, EPA included it in the
1984 fuel economy rule since many drivers would not precisely achieve
the estimated fuel economy. EPA agrees that it is important to
emphasize on the label that the city and highway numbers are estimates
and do not necessarily reflect the actual fuel economy a driver can
expect at any given time. Providing the range of expected city and
highway fuel economy on the label gives the consumer a better
understanding of what fuel economy they can expect across a wider
spectrum of real-world driving conditions. The current label format
does this in a single statement that gives a few reasons why mileage
will vary, as well as the range of expected city and highway fuel
economy. Unfortunately, this information is often disregarded by car
buyers. Similar to the comparable class information, focus group
participants viewed this information as ``fine print,'' and as a sort
of disclaimer. Once they had taken the time to consider it, the focus
groups understood why actual in-use fuel economy may vary from the
estimates, and concluded that this type of information was useful.
To improve consumer comprehension, the proposed statement has been
reworded and reformatted to be more noticeable. The proposed text for
presenting the range of expected fuel economy is ``Your actual mileage
can vary significantly depending on how you drive and maintain your
vehicle and other factors.'' We propose to place the range of expected
fuel economy underneath (or on the side of, depending on the label) the
actual city and highway estimates to provide
[[Page 5467]]
consumers with a clearer understanding of the fuel economy they can
expect to achieve on the road. We request comments on the effectiveness
of this format in conveying this message, as well as on the specific
wording of this statement.
D. Other Format Changes
Based on the focus group research, the current label would benefit
from some graphic updating. In the sample labels, we have included a
more modern-looking fuel pump. Many focus group participants did not
understand that EPA was the source of the fuel economy estimates (many
thought that the auto manufacturers or dealers were responsible). Once
they did, they thought the association with the government added
credibility to the ratings. We believe that more prominent government
logos (EPA and DOE), will make it clearer to consumers that these
Agencies are responsible for the fuel economy estimates. The web link
to the EPA-DOE Fuel Economy Guide Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, has
also been added so that interested consumers may obtain additional
information related to fuel economy.
V. Other Related Proposals
A. Comparable Class Categories
The EPCA statute requires that the label contain ``the range of
fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers,'' but does
not specify what constitutes ``comparable automobiles.'' \56\
Therefore, EPA has discretion to interpret how to best define these
categories. The comparable class categories in place today are the same
as those established in 1976.\57\ Cars were split according to size
based on their interior volume (with one exception), and trucks were
split according to their utility and GVWR into the following groups:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908.
\57\ See 41 FR 49752, November 19, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars: Two-seater; mini-compact; compact sedan; medium sedan; large
sedan; station wagon.
Trucks: Small pickup truck; standard pickup truck; van; special
purpose vehicle.
Clearly, the U.S. vehicle fleet looks significantly different that
it did nearly 30 years ago. Since the time these classes were created,
there have been many vehicle design changes that are not reflected in
the above class designations. For example, the sport utility vehicle
(SUV)--one of the most popular vehicle types today--does not even have
its own class designation. The same is true for minivans. Another trend
in vehicle design is vehicles that defy classification in design and
utility. Known commonly as ``crossover'' vehicles, they do not fit
neatly into any of EPA's existing classifications. All of the above
shortcomings have limited the usefulness of the comparable vehicle fuel
economy information on the label. Having more clearly-defined classes
that reflect the current market will improve the usefulness of this
information on the label. There are several challenges with assigning
comparable class categories: we need to accommodate a dynamic market of
changing vehicle designs; the categories should be as objective as
possible and not rely upon subjective qualities that are difficult to
define (such as ``luxury'' or ``sporty''); and there should be enough
classes to allow consumers to differentiate, but not so many as to
cause confusion.
The following discussion explains the specific issues associated
with the existing comparable classes, and how we propose to address
them. It should be noted that the comparable vehicle categories are
used only for fuel economy labeling, and in no way determine if a
vehicle is a ``passenger vehicle'' or ``nonpassenger vehicle'' for the
purpose of CAFE compliance. That determination is made by DOT-NHTSA.
1. Create New Classes for SUVs and Minivans
The ``Special Purpose Vehicle'' class was created to contain
vehicles that had off-road capability and other features that weren't
covered by the pickup truck or van category. Since it was first
created, the ``special purpose vehicle'' class has come to include two
widely-popular, high-selling, but very different, vehicle types--SUVs
and minivans. EPA and DOE have recognized the evolution of these two
classes informally by including them in the annual Fuel Economy Guide
as subdivisions of the ``special purpose'' vehicle class. The
determination of these classes was left to individual manufacturer's
discretion.\58\ However, these subdivisions are not used on the fuel
economy label because EPA's current regulations have clear instructions
that manufacturers must use the comparable classes as defined by those
regulations. This means a consumer looking at the label on an SUV will
see the range of fuel economy for all ``special purpose vehicles.'' We
believe it is appropriate to update the comparable class regulations by
creating separate classes for SUVs and minivans. We are also proposing
to revise the ``special purpose vehicle'' class to capture vehicles
that do not fit into any other category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ EPA Guidance Letter VPCD-99-08, June 23, 1999, provides
guidance to manufacturers on using SUV and minivan designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minivan: Minivans have not neatly fit into EPA's ``Van'' class due
to the way vans are defined in the regulations: ``* * * any light truck
having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and
load carrying device, and having no body sections protruding more than
30 inches ahead of the leading edge of the windshield.'' \59\ Minivans
generally do not meet the last criterion, thus they have been placed in
the ``Special Purpose Vehicle'' class. In general, minivans are smaller
than full-size vans, and have rear seats that are designed to be easily
removable or stowable. Taking those distinguishing characteristics into
account, we are proposing that minivans be defined as vehicles which
are designed primarily to carry no more than eight passengers having an
integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver, passenger, and load-
carrying compartments, with a total interior volume at or below 180
cubic feet and rear seats readily removed or folded to floor level to
facilitate cargo carrying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See 40 CFR 600.002-93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUV: Sport Utility Vehicles likewise do not fit into the ``van''
class because of the 30 inch protuberance criterion. The class of
vehicles which may be closest in design to the SUV is a station wagon,
defined in the regulations as ``* * * a passenger automobile with an
extended roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo
compartment open to the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or
more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo
carrying.'' The most significant difference is that SUVs are
``nonpassenger automobiles.'' \60\ The proposed definition of SUVs is a
nonpassenger automobile with an extended roof line to increase cargo or
passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger
compartment, and
[[Page 5468]]
one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo
carrying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Nonpassenger automobile'' is a term used in EPCA and by
EPA's current comparable class definitions. It includes vehicles
which do not fall under the EPCA definition of passenger automobiles
and that are ``capable of off-highway operation that the Secretary
decides by regulation (A) has a significant feature (except 4-wheel
drive) designed for off-highway operation; and (B) is a 4-wheel
drive automobile or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight.'' The DOT regulations that further define the distinguishing
features of these vehicles are found at 49 CFR 523.5(a). It should
be noted that the methods of classification of ``nonpassenger
automobiles'' or ``light trucks'' for the purpose of creating
comparable vehicle classes for fuel economy labeling are not related
to those used to administer the federal emission compliance
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Redefine ``Small Pickup Truck'' Class
Pickups are currently divided into ``small'' and ``standard''
categories, with ``small'' pickups distinguished from ``standard pickup
truck'' by GVWR (greater than 4500 lbs is ``standard''). For the past
several years, no vehicles certified have been classified as ``small
pickup trucks.'' To provide better comparable classes for pickup
trucks, we are proposing to increase the weight limit distinguishing
small and standard standard pickups to 6000 pounds GVWR. Pickups less
than 6000 pounds GVWR would be considered ``small'' and those at or
above would be considered ``standard.''
3. ``Crossover'' Vehicles
These are vehicles that may not fit neatly into one classification.
Examples are SUVs or station wagons that may have characteristics of
both classes. Our policy in that regard has been to work with the
manufacturer to determine which of the prescribed comparable classes
the vehicle is most appropriate. We are concerned that by defining
specific parameters for crossover classes, we will be building
obsolescence into our regulation. Our preference is to retain our
current policy in which manufacturers propose to EPA which of the
existing comparable classes their ``crossover'' vehicles best fit, with
the caveat that if they advertise within-class fuel economy it must be
with the selected class. We request comments on whether we should
continue this policy for crossover vehicles or whether we should create
a new class.
EPA requests general comments on the proposed modifications to
comparable classes, and also welcomes comments on other possible ways
to classify vehicles for comparison purposes. Comments should address
how the classifications will be useful for the consumer who is
comparison shopping.
B. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet
A statutory provision in EPCA requires car dealers to provide to
consumers a copy of the annual fuel economy booklet (Fuel Economy
Guide).\61\ Historically, DOE has printed and sent copies of the Guide
to dealers at government expense, although this is not an EPCA
requirement. At the time that these EPA regulations were written, the
internet was non-existent, and personal computers were not readily
available. Today's proposal modifies the ways in which the Fuel Economy
Guide can be distributed by giving dealers the option to provide it
electronically. There are a number of ways that this can happen.
Dealers can present the Guide on an on-site computer that customers can
view, or they can provide them with a diskette or CD containing the
Guide, or they can print paper copies directly from the government Web
site that has the Guide (www.fueleconomy.gov). These methods are
superior to the current hard-copy method for a number of reasons.
First, it spares the government the large expense of printing many
thousands of copies and mailing them to dealers. Second, it allows
consumers to have more up-to-date information. The deadline for
manufacturers to provide fuel economy data for inclusion in the annual
printed Guide is generally October of the calendar year prior to the
model year (e.g. the deadline for the 2005 Guide was October, 2004). In
reality, some manufacturers are not able to meet this deadline, due to
late introduction of models or other timing issues, so those vehicles
will not appear in the printed Guide, which is printed only once per
year. However, the electronic version on the Guide posted on the
internet is updated regularly to include new models. Thus consumers can
get more accurate information from the internet than from the printed
Guide. This method has been used on a trial basis for the 2004 and 2005
model years with much success, and EPA is today proposing to codify the
electronic dissemination of the Guide. This change would be effective
with the 2008 model year. EPA has consulted with DOE on this topic and
DOE concurs it would be an effective means of providing information to
car buyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Testing Provisions
1. Testing Requirements for Vehicles Currently Exempt From Certain
Emission Tests
Certain vehicles are currently exempt from some of the emission
tests that we are including in the 5-cycle method. In order to use the
5-cycle method for these vehicles, additional fuel economy testing
provisions are necessary.
a. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles. There are two types of alternative-
fueled vehicles: (1) Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs; also known as dual-
fueled or bi-fueled vehicles) that can operate on gasoline or diesel
and/or some alternative fuel (i.e., ethanol, methanol, etc.), and (2)
dedicated alternative fueled vehicles that operate only on some
alternative fuel.
FFVs are subject to the SFTP and Cold CO emission standards and
test requirements, but only when operating on gasoline. Therefore, we
propose that the fuel economy label values of FFVs when operating on
gasoline be determined using the same mpg-based or 5-cycle approaches
applicable to dedicated gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles and, thus,
additional testing for US06, SC03 and Cold FTP while operating on
alternative fuel would not be required. In addition, although the fuel
economy values when operating on an alternative fuel are not required
to be reported on the label, they are included in the annual Fuel
Economy Guide. Accordingly, we propose that the city and highway fuel
economy label values must reflect the same adjustment factors relative
to FTP and HFET fuel economy, respectively, developed using the
applicable mpg-based or 5-cycle approach for gasoline. In other words,
if the city FTP fuel economy is 24 mpg for operation on gasoline and
the calculated label value using the mpg-based or 5-cycle approach is
20 mpg, then the city label value for operation on alternative fuel
would be the FTP fuel economy measured when the vehicle is operated on
alternative fuel multiplied by the ratio of 20 over 24.
Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles are exempt from the SFTP and
Cold CO emission standards according to 40 CFR 86.1810(i)(4) and 40 CFR
86.1811-04(g). As a result, these vehicles will not have the SFTP and
Cold CO fuel economy data needed to determine 5-cycle fuel economy
values. We propose that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-fueled
vehicles be able to use the mpg-based approach in 2011 and beyond, as
well during 2008-2010 in order to avoid conducting additional tests for
fuel economy reasons only. Since the mpg-based approach uses fuel
economy values measured in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline or
diesel fuel, the fuel economy of dedicated alternative fuel vehicles
must be expressed in terms of its gasoline equivalent prior to using
the mpg-based formula. Currently, all dedicated alternative-fueled
vehicle fuel economy values are expressed in terms of gasoline
equivalent. In this case, the fuel economy values for a dedicated
alternative vehicle expressed in gasoline equivalents can be directly
determined using the mpg-based approach. However, if the fuel economy
values for a dedicated alternative vehicle is expressed in alternative
fuel equivalents, then, the fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon
of the alternative fuel would be adjusted by
[[Page 5469]]
the ratio of the mpg-based value to the FTP or HFET value, as
applicable, just as described above for FFVs.
We are also proposing that manufacturers of dedicated alternative-
fueled vehicles may optionally use the 5-cycle approach at their
discretion. In this case, all the fuel economy values used in the
formulae would be expressed in terms of operation on the alternative
fuel. If this option is used, the manufacturer would be required to
conduct all applicable 5-cycle test procedures and use both the 5-cycle
city and highway calculation methods to determine fuel economy label
values.
b. Diesel Vehicles. Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently subject
to Cold CO emission standards and, thus, do not have a 20 degree
Fahrenheit (F) FTP fuel economy result to use in the 5-cycle based
approach. Therefore, beginning with the 2008 model year for
certification diesel vehicles, we are proposing that a 20 degree F FTP
be performed for the purpose of collecting fuel economy data.
Accordingly, for a 20 degree FTP only, the manufacturer must use a
1-D (winter-grade) diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' \62\ and that complies
with 40 CFR Part 80,\63\ where the level of kerosene added shall not
exceed 20 percent. Alternatively, manufacturers may use, with EPA
approval, a manufacturer-specified diesel fuel in lieu of conventional
diesel fuel under alternate test procedure provisions in 40 CFR Sec.
86.113-94, where the level of kerosene added shall not exceed 20
percent. We request comment on these proposed winter-grade diesel fuel
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ASTM International Specification D975-04C ``Standard
Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels'' (November 1, 2005) describes
the seven grades of diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of
diesel engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM
Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is the direct
responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-
Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.
\63\ 40 CFR Part 80--Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle Standards and Highway
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation
of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway
Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect that the impact of extending the cold FTP test
requirement to light-duty diesel vehicles will be very small, given
that there are so few diesel vehicles currently certified. In model
year 2006, for example, only five diesel light-duty vehicles were
certified for sale in the U.S. Further discussion of how we evaluated
this requirement in our estimated cost impacts is contained in Section
VI.
2. Modifications to Existing Test Procedures
To ensure that the 5-cycle method is reflective of real-world
operating conditions, there are a few minor procedural changes that
need to be made to certain existing emission tests procedures. First,
we are proposing minor procedural changes in the US06 tests, as
described below. Second, we are seeking comment on the issue of
requiring manufacturers to run the heater and/or defroster during the
cold FTP test. Third, we are proposing to codify the existing practice,
which has been done through special test procedure provisions, of
requiring four-bag FTP measurements for gasoline-electric hybrid
vehicles.
a. Revisions to US06 Bag Measurements. The US06 drive cycle
contains elements of both city and highway driving, yet the exhaust
sample is collected in only one sample, or ``bag.'' In order to more
accurately reflect the city portion of the drive cycle into the city
fuel economy estimate, and the highway portion of the cycle into the
highway fuel economy estimate, we are proposing a revised test protocol
that would require collecting the exhaust sample into two bags. This
has the benefit of more accurately capturing how a vehicle's fuel
economy would be impacted over the various types of driving reflected
in the cycle, but with very minimal cost impact.
In assessing the split of US06 into two bags, we undertook a test
program to determine that it was technically feasible to do so, and
that it would not have a significant impact on emission results for
compliance purposes. To do this, we evaluated the effects of conducting
a US06 split-phase emissions test versus the current US06 single-phase
emission test on ten vehicles at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. Based on this evaluation,
the US06 split-phase sampling methodology was shown to be feasible for
fuel economy purposes and required only initial software reprogramming
for the revised sampling periods and minimal hardware changes to enable
the emissions analyzers to perform US06 split-phase emission testing.
In addition, creating a US06 split-phase sampling period did not result
in any significant difference in criteria pollutant emissions results.
The full report on this US06 split phase evaluation program is
available in the docket.\64\ Our proposed changes to the US06 test
procedure to incorporate the split-phase sampling are found in the
proposed regulations at 40 CFR 86.159-08. We have also accounted for
any additional costs to manufacturers in making the necessary changes
to their testing equipment and data collection software in our cost
analysis discussed in Section VI. We estimate these costs to be
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Mitcham, A. & Fernandez, A., ``Feasibility of Revising the
US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase Sampling Test Procedure'' U.S.
EPA, Office of Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold FTP. The current Cold FTP
conducted at 20 degrees F includes the option to use the heater and/or
defroster.\65\ While we understand that some manufacturers today are
using the heater and/or the defroster during the Cold FTP, it is not
mandatory and therefore subject to inconsistent usage across
manufacturers and vehicle lines. We expect that, in the real-world, it
would be highly unusual for drivers not to use the heater/defroster
when the temperature is cold, including at 20 degrees F experienced
during the Cold FTP. In order to more closely reflect real world
operation, and to ensure a level playing field across manufacturers and
vehicle lines when performing this test, we are seeking comment on
requiring that manufacturers operate the heater and/or defroster during
the Cold FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 40 CFR 86.230-94(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better understand the potential impact of heater and/or
defroster usage on fuel economy at cold temperatures, we attempted to
determine the fuel economy impacts of heater and defroster usage at 20
degrees F. In order to quantify the impact of heater and/or defroster
usage on fuel economy, we conducted testing through the Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI). This program measured the impacts of heater
and defroster operation on fuel economy for three vehicles during a 20
degree Cold FTP. We compared the fuel economy results with heater/
defroster operational with the results of the heater/defroster non-
operational on each vehicle. The Cold FTP fuel economy with the heater/
defroster on was significantly lower than that with the heater/
defroster off, ranging from -6.0 percent (~1 mile per gallon lower on a
non-hybrid vehicle) to -17.9 percent (~8 miles per gallon lower on a
hybrid vehicle). We did not observe a significant impact on CO or other
measured emissions as a result of the use of the heater/defroster on
the Cold FTP. The results of this test program indicated that different
vehicles were impacted more than others, suggesting that it would be
important to capture the impact on fuel economy of heater
[[Page 5470]]
and defroster use during cold conditions. The full report of this test
program is contained in the docket.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Fernandez, A. & Mitcham, A., ``Fuel Economy Impacts of
Interior Heater/Defroster Usage on Conventional and Hybrid Gasoline
powered Vehicles'', U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation & Air
Quality, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since heater and defroster operation can have an additional impact
on fuel economy beyond cold temperature operation, and since these
accessories are used in the real-world at cold temperatures including
20 degrees F, we are seeking comment on how this condition should be
captured in the fuel economy label estimates. Specifically, we are
seeking comment on requiring the use of heater/defroster during the
Cold FTP, rather than to continue to allow it as an option only.
There are many approaches for how the heater and defroster usage
could be incorporated into the Cold FTP test procedures, including
specifying appropriate fan speed settings, timing of turning on the
heater/defroster during the test, and accounting for various vehicle
climate control designs. One concept that we have considered is as
follows. This concept would involve starting the test with the airflow
directed to the windshield for optimal defrosting, the airflow source
set to outside air (not recirculation), and the air temperature set to
high. Approximately two minutes into the test, the fan speed could be
turned to maximum and left there for the duration of the test. This
would mimic typical driver behavior in that we expect many drivers
typically would not turn the fan to maximum until the engine is
producing some level of heat, which most vehicles will do within a
couple minutes of driving. Automatic climate control systems could be
set to achieve an inside air temperature of 72 degrees F, and the fan
speed, if independently selectable, would be operated as described
above. Vehicles with multiple zones (either driver and passenger, or
front and rear) could be required to operate the controls for all zones
as described above. We anticipate that some climate control systems
might not be compatible with these instructions, and to address these
we could allow a manufacturer to request the use of special test
procedures, subject to EPA approval. We seek comment on this possible
concept for how heater/defroster usage could be specified in the cold
FTP procedure, as well as comments on alternative approaches.
c. Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicle Testing Provisions. The FTP
consists of two parts, referred to in the regulations as the ``cold
start'' test and the ``hot start'' test. Each of these parts is divided
into two periods, or ``phases'': a ``transient'' phase and a
``stabilized'' phase. Because the stabilized phase of the hot start
test is assumed to be identical to the stabilized phase of the cold
start test for conventional vehicles, only the cold start stabilized
phase is typically run. These ``phases'' are often called ``bags,''
terminology that results from the sample bags in which the exhaust
samples are collected. The phases are run in the following order: cold
start transient (Bag 1), cold start stabilized (Bag 2), and hot start
transient (Bag 3). The virtual hot start stabilized phase (Bag 4) is
accounted for in the emission and fuel economy results mathematically
by including Bag 2 twice in the calculation.
Because gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles have two energy sources
that can be combined in many ways, EPA and manufacturers recognized
that the assumption regarding the equivalence of the stabilized phases
of the hot and cold start tests may not be valid for hybrid vehicles.
Consequently, we have been requiring vehicles with gasoline-electric
hybrid systems to perform the complete set of four phases of the FTP,
under existing provisions in the regulations that allow special test
procedures. However, rather than continue to do this under the special
test procedures, we believe it is appropriate to codify this practice
in the testing regulations. Additionally, the 5-cycle formula for
gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles requires the four phases of the FTP
as inputs for these vehicles. Therefore, we are proposing to require
that gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles conduct all four phases of the
FTP for both emissions and fuel economy testing. We propose that four
bags be required for all tests using the FTP, including the cold
temperature FTP, for those vehicles defined as hybrid electric
vehicles. We request comment on this proposal, and on whether use of
the phrase ``hybrid electric vehicle'' is sufficient to describe and
identify vehicles for which the four-bag FTP would be required.
D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for Vehicles Exceeding 8500 Pounds
GVWR
The EPCA statute explicitly excludes automobiles weighing over 8500
pounds GVWR from fuel economy labeling requirements.\67\ However, over
the past several years there has been a growing market for these
heavier vehicles, which fall into a number of utility classes, such as
SUVs, pickups, and vans (including heavier versions of such models as
Hummer, Ford Excursion, Chevy Silverado and Dodge Ram). We believe that
consumers would be interested in using fuel economy estimates for these
vehicles when comparison shopping. The rising fuel prices of recent
times certainly have increased consumer awareness of the costs
associated with owning a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We encourage auto manufacturers of vehicles weighing over 8,500
pounds to voluntarily provide fuel economy information for these
vehicles, and we request comments on the value of such a voluntary
program and how it could be implemented.
E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a Metric
EPCA defines fuel economy as ``* * * the average number of miles
traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent
amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator under
section 32904(c) of this title.'' Thus, EPA's fuel economy information
program has always expressed fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. It is
a metric that Americans have come to know and understand.
Notwithstanding this requirement, a few auto manufacturers have
suggested that it may be more meaningful to express fuel efficiency in
terms of consumption (e.g., gallons per 100 miles) rather than in terms
of economy (miles per gallon). A fuel consumption metric is currently
used in Canada and in Europe. Fuel consumption numbers speak directly
to the amount of fuel used, to which a consumer can relate in terms of
cost when filling up.
A fuel consumption metric also directly reflects the impacts of
fuel economy variations in very fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers that
are disappointed that their highly-rated vehicle may have fuel economy
that is 5 mpg lower than expected may have fewer concerns if they saw
that a 5 mpg difference for that vehicle really amounts to very little
difference in actual fuel consumption (and, therefore, cost at the
pump) compared with a 5 mpg difference in a vehicle with a lower mpg
rating. For example, a very fuel-efficient vehicle at 60 miles per
gallon will burn 1.67 gallons per 100 miles, whereas a vehicle
achieving 5 mpg less, at 55 miles per gallon, will burn 1.82 gallons
per 100 miles, an increase in consumption of only 0.15 gallons every
100 miles. On the other hand, a less fuel-efficient vehicle at 25 miles
per gallon will burn 4 gallons every 100 miles, whereas a vehicle
achieving 5 mpg less, at 20 mpg, will burn 5 gallons per 100 miles, an
increase of consumption of 1 gallon every 100 miles.
[[Page 5471]]
The ``estimated annual fuel cost'' information on the label is
actually based on a fuel consumption metric: the cost of X number of
gallons consumed over 15,000 miles. Thus we believe the inclusion of
the estimated annual fuel cost on the label is already a valuable
metric for consumers, which relates directly to fuel consumption. Given
that we are obligated statutorily to report fuel economy in terms of
miles per gallon, we cannot change the metric on the fuel economy
label. Moreover, we believe it would be a long-term educational process
for consumers to begin to relate to the fuel consumption metric of
gallons per mile. There may be an option to also provide additional
fuel consumption information in the annual Fuel Economy Guide.
Our experience is that consumers are very comfortable with the
miles-per-gallon estimates given on the label. We are concerned that
consumers would not understand a different fuel efficiency metric and,
without a long-term, comprehensive public awareness campaign, it would
be very confusing to the public. We also understand that some
manufacturers plan to pursue some public outreach and education in
regard to using the fuel consumption metric. At this time we view
presenting fuel consumption information on the vehicle label as a
future, long-term effort. We request comments on the gallons-per-mile
fuel consumption metric, and how it could be best used and presented
publicly, including comments on whether it should be included in the
Fuel Economy Guide.
F. Environmental Information on Fuel Economy Labels
For a number of years, EPA has presented fuel economy and emissions
information about vehicles in the form of a 0-10 rating system on the
Green Vehicle Guide Web site (www.epa.gov/greenvehicles). This
information has been well-received (over 50 million ``hits'' to date)
and apparently well-understood by consumers, judging from feedback
about this site and third-party market research comparing interest in
and comprehension of such information. Some have suggested that adding
similar information to the fuel economy label would provide the
consumer with a more complete picture of the overall environmental
performance of that vehicle and provide a more graphical way to make
vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons. It would also complete the information
loop by allowing consumers to identify the vehicles on the dealer lot
that match those on the Web site with the environmental criteria they
are seeking. This would be useful because many vehicle models are
available in multiple versions that receive different Air Pollution and
Greenhouse Gas scores, and it is often difficult for the consumer to
identify these variations when buying a vehicle. When conducting the
focus group research discussed in Section IV above, participants were
shown examples of fuel economy labels that included environmental
ratings (for Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas) and asked for their
impressions. Although there was some confusion due to the newness of
the information, there was general agreement that it could be useful in
the future. At this time, we are not proposing to require environmental
ratings on fuel economy labels. However, we are considering
implementing a voluntary environmental labeling program and request
comments on this subject. An example of how the environmental scores
could look is below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.043
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements
A. Information and Reporting Burden
The information and reporting burden associated with this rule
occurs within the context of EPA's motor vehicle certification program.
Current regulations require manufacturers to submit fuel economy
information to EPA in conjunction with this program. Manufacturers must
submit an application for emission certification prior to production.
The application describes the major aspects of the proposed product
line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the
results of tests to indicate compliance with the emissions limitations.
The application and supporting test results are reviewed and, if
appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued.
Some of the product information used to verify emission compliance
is also used, in conjunction with additional tests and projected sales,
to establish fuel economy ratings. Currently, the pertinent emissions
tests for fuel economy purposes are the FTP and the HFET. The vehicles
that are tested for emissions purposes and for fuel economy purposes
are overlapping but not identical classes: because fuel economy ratings
are based on the sales-weighted fuel economy ratings, different
vehicles may sometimes be tested to determine an appropriate average so
that its ratings accurately reflect the entire fleet.
The fuel economy ratings used to comply with the labeling
requirements for new vehicles (40 CFR Part 600, Subpart D) are listed
by model type. These ratings are computed as the sales weighted
harmonic mean of the ``base levels'' within each model type, which in
turn are calculated as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the
configurations/sub-configurations within each base level. The criteria
for determining a configuration, sub-configuration, and base level are
set forth in the regulations. This procedure is intended to ensure that
the most representative fuel economy values are posted on new vehicles.
New vehicles are sold and therefore labeled and rated by the
manufacturer's model designation rather than the categories that
correspond to the test groups and fuel economy vehicles that are used
for generating fuel economy data.
No changes are contemplated by this rulemaking in the methodology
for the sales-weighted calculations based on configurations of vehicles
summarized in the preceding paragraph. That methodology would simply be
extended to the additional test cycles that would be included in
calculating the label values under the five-cycle proposal. For
example, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP data would be grouped and sales
[[Page 5472]]
weighted in the same way that FTP and HFET data are now. The system for
reporting and calculating the resultant fuel economy label values would
be the same as that currently in use. Likewise, the requirement for
manufacturers to publish the fuel economy information on the labels of
new vehicles would be the same as the current requirements.
Consequently, the purely reporting burdens are those associated with
updating information formats and databases to comply with the new fuel
economy computations.
To the extent that information costs are taken to include new
capital costs associated with gathering the information under the rule,
as is the case for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, these costs
must also be considered. These information burdens corresponding to the
various parts of the proposal are discussed below. Additional details
are given in the Draft Technical Support Document.
1. Incorporation of Other Driving Conditions Into the City and Highway
Fuel Economy Label Calculations
The proposal would require calculation of fuel economy values based
on the five-cycle formulae beginning with model year 2011 for some
engine families. As discussed in detail elsewhere in this preamble, for
model years 2008 through 2010, manufacturers may use the mpg-based
calculation for the five-cycle fuel economy values or they may conduct
voluntary testing. For model year 2011 and after, if the five-cycle
city and highway fuel economy values for an emission data vehicle group
are within 4 percent and 5 percent of the mpg-based regression line,
respectively, then all the vehicle configurations represented by the
emission data vehicle (e.g., all vehicles within the vehicle test
group) would use the mpg-based approach. Vehicles within a test group
falling outside the 5 percent tolerance band for highway fuel economy
values would be required to conduct US06 tests; those falling outside
the city fuel economy band would be required to conduct SC03, US06, and
Cold FTP tests. In addition, we expect that some of these vehicles
falling outside the tolerance level may be eligible to estimate fuel
economy for a given test through the application of analytically
derived fuel economy (ADFE) values. Some data is currently available
for vehicles that have conducted all five tests; based on this data,
EPA has estimated the number of vehicles for which additional testing
would be required because they fall outside the 4 and 5 percent bands,
as discussed below.
We have prepared a range of burden estimates for this analysis and
the discussion will mention minimum and maximum burden scenarios. These
low and high estimates are intended to provide EPA's estimate of the
outer boundaries of the likely testing and information costs, and EPA
solicits comments on the basis of these estimates, including the number
of additional tests and costs for performing those tests and additional
tests that will be likely under the proposal.
a. Testing Burden for 2008 through 2010 Model Years. EPA estimates
no additional tests during MY 2008 through MY 2010 based on the fact
that the mpg-based fuel economy estimates will be available for all
manufacturers. No additional testing would be required because
manufacturers simply apply the mpg-based scale of adjustments to the
same FTP and HFET test results that they otherwise would conduct for
the fuel economy labeling program. While manufacturers have the option
of conducting and reporting full five-cycle test results, such tests
are not required, and most manufacturers have indicated it is unlikely
they will do so. This cost analysis is limited to burdens that are
mandated by the proposal.
b. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later Model Years. Based on MY 2004
data, 1250 fuel economy vehicles were tested with the FTP and highway
fuel economy tests. (The figure is approximate because the city FTP
test may be used and recorded primarily as a fuel economy test, an
emissions test, or both.) Data show that 330 Supplemental FTP (US06 and
SC03) tests were conducted and 220 Cold CO tests. Consequently, if all
fuel economy vehicles were required to conduct full five-cycle tests,
approximately 920 additional Supplemental FTP tests and 1,030 Cold CO
tests would be required. EPA estimates, based on an analysis of our 423
vehicle dataset, that 8 percent of the test groups will fall outside a
band of [lang][equiv]~ 4 percent of the regression for the city test
and 23 percent outside a band of [lang][equiv]~ 5 percent of the
highway regression. Taking the 2004 numbers above as a baseline, 92
percent of the additional SC03 and Cold CO tests otherwise required
would be avoided for city fuel economy; 77 percent of the additional
USO6 tests would be avoided. Thus, for example, the initial estimate of
increased testing burden for SC03 would be 8 percent of the difference
between 1250 and 330.
The estimated cost impact of requiring cold FTP testing for light-
duty diesel vehicles (as discussed in Section V.C.1.b) is small. As an
example, in model year 2006, only five light-duty diesel vehicles were
certified for sale in the U.S. A total of eight city/highway tests were
performed on those vehicles to determine fuel economy estimates. As
applied to the 2006 model year, our proposal would require that an
additional eight cold FTP tests be performed in addition to the city/
highway tests. Our cost analysis has accounted for additional cold FTP
testing across the entire automotive industry, including diesel
vehicles.
Finally, the high and low estimates under these assumptions are
generated by differing estimates of the effect of another feature that
will be available for MY 2011 and after: an expanded use of
analytically derived fuel economy (ADFE) as an alternative to
conducting vehicle tests. Current guidance (CCD-04-06) limits ADFE to
20 percent of the values that would otherwise be derived from tests;
the 1250 test baseline already excludes such analytically derived
results. Expanded ADFE guidance will be prepared in time for MY 2011 to
allow for derivation of fuel economy values for some of the additional
test cycles that otherwise would be required as described above. The
low and high burden estimates assumes that 20 percent and 0 percent of
the additional tests would thereby be avoided, respectively.
c. Cost Analysis. The information and paperwork burden, consistent
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, is considered to consist of labor
hours and costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and costs
associated with gathering, reporting, and storing the information newly
mandated by this rule. These costs include the costs associated with
gathering the information that has to be reported to EPA, such as test
results, and the capital costs needed to construct and maintain
facilities to conduct the tests. It does not include other burdens
associated with compliance with the fuel economy requirements of
federal law and regulations. The analysis below follows this
conceptualization and considers capital, labor and O&M associated with
testing, and one-time startup costs primarily for information
technology and paperwork, in turn.
i. Capital Costs. For capital costs, the largest component of the
information burden estimate, we have used an FTP facility cost of $4
million per facility able to perform 750 US06 tests per year, a cost of
$9 million for an environmental test facility able to conduct 300 to
428 SC03 tests per year, and $10 million for an environmental facility
able to conduct 300 to 428 Cold
[[Page 5473]]
FTP tests per year. The new tests were deemed to require these
facilities in proportion to the number of tests needed, and the costs
were then annualized over ten years with a seven percent depreciation.
This is likely a very conservative assumption since it does not attempt
to account for the current excess capacity that exists in
manufacturers' current test facilities. We assume that there is no
excess capacity in our analysis. Furthermore, consistent with other
information burden analyses for the emissions and fuel economy
programs, we have considered these as ongoing rather than startup costs
(i.e., as the facilities depreciate they are continually being
replaced). Annualized and depreciated over ten years at seven percent,
these capital costs per year under the above analysis are $0 for each
of model years 2008, 2009 and 2010, and range from $524,000 to $866,000
per year for model years 2011 and after.
ii. Labor and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs. For the labor
and O&M costs of conducting tests, costs and hours for the differing
categories are derived from prior Information Collection Requests
submitted for EPA's light duty certification program. Those estimates
are based on the number of tests and the hours of labor used at EPA's
testing facility combined with industry data supplied in response to
questionnaires; these have been somewhat adjusted to reflect current
information. These costs are estimated to range from $1,860 to $2,441
per test. These costs per test are applied to the numbers of tests
estimated under the minimum and maximum scenarios above, and amount to
$606,000 to $757,000 and 8,800 to 11,000 hours per year for MY 2011 and
after.
iii. Startup Costs. The incremental startup costs and hours, in
contrast, are considered to be one-time costs beginning with model year
2008. These startup burdens are primarily information technology and
paperwork costs involving familiarization with the new data reporting
requirements and reformatting management information systems to carry
out and report the necessary data and calculations. All these burdens
are add-ons to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers
already submit data to EPA on all five test cycles, have the option of
applying analytically derived fuel economy numbers, and report vehicle
class determinations and supporting information. These costs also
include one-time costs for implementing US06 split phase sampling, as
described in Section V of this preamble, which entails software and
instrumentation reprogramming and a limited number of US06 validation
tests. EPA estimates all startup costs, depreciated at 7 percent and
annualized over ten years, as $526,100 to $614,900 and 3,800 to 4,700
hours.
2. Revised Label Format and New Information Included
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the
fuel economy label are set forth in 40 CFR sections 600.312 to 600.314.
These sections require that manufacturers supply EPA with the label
values and the data used to derive them, and provide schedules for the
updating of this information. Under the proposed rule, these values
will be recalculated and new data will be submitted. The costs for
these efforts are very minimal and are addressed above. There will be a
one-time set-up charge associated with the new label format based on
the effort required for each manufacturer to apply the new EPA
templates to the labels they must print. This cost item has been
included in the paperwork startup costs portion of the cost analysis.
3. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for SC03, US06 and Cold CO Tests
Current regulations do not require manufacturers to measure and
report fuel economy values for vehicles undergoing the SC03, US06, and
Cold FTP. The proposed rule would require fuel economy values to be
reported, along with the existing reporting requirements, under these
tests whenever they are conducted. Providing this additional
information is not expected to involve any additional capital or
operating costs for manufacturers because the fuel economy data can be
obtained without any modification of these test procedures and without
the need for any new testing equipment. The only burden associated with
this new requirement would be an initial startup paperwork burden of
modifying information and reporting systems to report and store the
fuel economy results for these tests. These burdens are included within
the paperwork and information burden estimate in Section VI.A.1 above.
4. Impact on Confirmatory Testing
Confirmatory testing is additional testing performed either by EPA
or by the manufacturer to confirm the results of the initial vehicle
tests. EPA regulations describe confirmatory testing of fuel economy
vehicles in 40 CFR 600.008-01 and of emission certification vehicles in
40 CFR 86.1835-01. We are not proposing to change those regulations in
today's proposal, but we need to consider the potential burden impact
of today's proposal based on these existing regulations. There are two
primary considerations.
First, the regulations permit EPA to perform confirmatory testing
of any vehicle. EPA's policy is to randomly test a small percentage of
vehicles and other targeted vehicles (such as new-technology vehicles
or previously uncertified models). EPA performs confirmatory testing on
roughly ten percent of the vehicles that the manufacturers test. The
cost to manufacturers associated with EPA confirmatory testing includes
the cost of preparing and transporting vehicles to EPA testing
facilities. (EPA bears the burden of testing). EPA is not proposing to
increase the number of vehicles it targets for confirmatory testing;
thus no additional burden is anticipated.
Second, manufacturers are required to perform their own
confirmatory testing using criteria specified in the regulations,
including failed or high emission levels, unexpectedly high fuel
economy, fuel economy leader within class, and fuel economy near the
Gas Guzzler tax threshold. The only criterion that could potentially
cause an increase in the number of manufacturer-performed confirmatory
tests under the proposal is failed or high emission levels. This is
because more US06, SC03 and Cold CO tests will be needed to determine
the label estimates, thus increasing the possibility for failed or high
emission levels. This possibility is slight, however, and very
difficult to quantify. Thus we do not anticipate any additional burden.
In the event that confirmatory testing is increased as a result of
today's proposed rule, this will be reflected in the next renewal
request for EPA information collection authorization.
B. Fees
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA collects fees to cover its costs of
issuing certificates of conformity for the classes of vehicles and
engines covered by this proposal. On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees
based upon a study of the costs associated with its motor vehicle and
engine compliance program (69 FR 51402). At the time that cost study
was conducted the current rulemaking was not considered.
The proposed rule does not place additional burden upon the EPA.
There may be a slight increase in compliance testing when the rule is
initially implemented, but it is expected to be minimal. Because EPA
does not expect an increase in the costs of the motor
[[Page 5474]]
vehicle and compliance program at this time, there will be no increase
in the fees collected as a result of this proposal. We may need to add
additional testing capacity at our laboratory facilities in the future.
EPA will monitor its compliance testing and associated costs and, if
necessary, in the future may change fees by rulemaking to include these
new costs.
C. Aggregate Costs
Aggregate annual costs, as discussed above and summarized in Table
VI-1 below, are estimated to be between $526,000 and $2.2 million.
Table VI-1.--Aggregate Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2008 through MY 2010 MY 2011 and after
Cost element ---------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Volume................................................. $0 $0 $605,672 $757,090
Facilities.................................................. 0 0 524,112 866,111
Startup..................................................... 526,128 614,928 526,128 614,928
--------------
Total................................................... 526,128 614,928 1,655,122 2,238,129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
This rule is being proposed under the authority of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),\68\ and Section 774 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.\69\ We request comment on all aspects of this
proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See 49 U.S.C. 32908.
\69\ See Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document.
We will accept comments for the period indicated under DATES above. If
you have an interest in the program described in this document, we
encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with
parts of the proposal, we encourage you to suggest and analyze
alternate approaches to meeting the goals described in this proposal.
You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary
information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end of the
comment period.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the body of your comment.
Submit your comments within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions in Section VI.B below. Do not use EPA
Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, we
recommend that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD-ROM
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment
and allows us to contact you if we cannot read your comment or if we
need further information on the substance of your comment. Our policy
is that we will not edit your comment; any identifying or contact
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If we cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment.
a. EPA Dockets. To submit comments to EPA's electronic public
docket, go directly to the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.
The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means we will not
know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment.
b. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM that
you send to the mailing address identified in Section VI.A.2 below.
Avoid the use of special software, characters, and any form of
encryption.
2. By Mail
Send your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential
business information (CBI) electronically through EPA's electronic
public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169. You may
claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or
all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of
[[Page 5475]]
the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must
be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic
public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk
or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
We will hold a public hearing on this proposal on March 3, 2006 in
Ann Arbor, Michigan. The hearing will start at 10 a.m. and continue
until testimony is complete. See ADDRESSES above for location and phone
information.
If you would like to present testimony at a public hearing, we ask
that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days
before the hearing. You should estimate the time you need for your
presentation and identify any needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest
that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA
panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy
of your statement or other materials before the hearing.
We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based
on the notification we receive. This schedule will be available on the
morning of each hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time
for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of
evidence won't apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to
allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of this
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule
that may:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
A Draft Technical Support Document has been prepared and is
available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address
listed under ADDRESSES above. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order
12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a ``significant
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents prepared by EPA have
been assigned EPA ICRs number 0783.48 (OMB control number 2060-0104)
and 2211.01.
1. ICR 0783.48
The information collection burden associated with this rule
(testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) is estimated to
total between 3,703 and 15,634 hours yearly, and between $1,639,965 and
$2,222,183 yearly ($510,181 to $598,982 for each of calendar years 2008
and 2009). This includes $10,290,300 in one-time startup and ongoing
capital costs for test facilities annualized over ten years and
depreciated at 7 percent for the highest estimate. The annual costs and
hours for information collection activities by a given manufacturer
under any of the options in this proposed rule depend upon
manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of different test
groups and the number of vehicles tested for fuel economy
determinations. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers
is 35. The responses will be submitted annually as a part of the
existing EPA certification and fuel economy process. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
2. ICR 2211.01
EPA is planning to conduct a series of focus groups as a result of
comments received on the proposed label design formats. The specific
questions to be asked of the groups will depend upon the comments
received, but will generally fall into the areas described in the
following two sections.
a. Fuel Economy Background Questions. These questions will be
designed to assess the respondents' familiarity with the current fuel
economy label and to lay the groundwork for the discussion about the
revised labels. Examples of possible questions are: Have they seen the
city and highway numbers anywhere else besides the label? If so, where?
What do the various pieces of information on the label mean? Is this
information useful? What is their overall opinion of the label? What
improvements would they make?
b. Questions About New Label Designs. These questions could be
either about those designs proposed by EPA or variations thereof, if
indicated by the comments received on the proposal. Examples of
possible questions are: What is their first impression of the label? Do
they think the new label(s) looks better than the old label? Is it more
easy to understand and, if so, why? Is any of the information presented
in a better way or a more confusing way? Is any one of the alternatives
better/worse than the others?
The information from the focus groups would be used as additional
information to guide EPA in
[[Page 5476]]
determining the final fuel economy label format. The burden associated
with conducting the focus groups can be roughly estimated, based on the
assumption that there would be 10 groups total with 9 participants in
each group. The groups would be situated at about 5 different
geographical locations. Each group would take about 2 hours, with an
additional 2 hours allotted for traveling and screening. The
participants would be chosen based on some very nominal screening
criteria, such as having a valid driver's license and owning or leasing
a vehicle. The screening would be done via telephone, and take no
longer than 30 minutes. Thus the burden associated with the focus
groups would be approximately 4.5 hours per participant, for a total of
about 405 burden-hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes these ICRs, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.
Submit any comments related to the ICRs for this proposed rule to EPA
and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after February 1, 2006, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 3, 2006.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of business
using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A small
business that manufactures automobiles has a NAIC code of 336111. Based
on Small Business Administration size standards, a small business for
this NAIC code is defined as a manufacturer having less than 1000
employees. Out of a total of approximately 80 automotive manufacturers
subject to today's proposal, EPA estimates that approximately 10 of
these could be classified as small entities based on SBA size
standards. Unlike large manufacturers with complex and diverse product
lines, we expect that the small entities (generally these are vehicle
importers and vehicle converters) will be able use the results of tests
they are already conducting for emissions compliance to satisfy the
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements. Therefore, we expect that
these small entities will face minimal additional burden due to the
proposed fuel economy labeling requirements.
Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) have averaged about 50
imported engine families per year for the last three model years. There
are approximately 10 ICIs subject to today's proposal. If we assume
that the ICIs and other small entities account for five percent of the
vehicle models for which fuel economy labels are needed (a proportion
that is certainly an overestimate, but useful for placing an upper
bound on the estimated cost impacts for small entities), then these
entities must generate about 65 different fuel economy labels. Using
the total estimated costs from Section VI of this preamble, the average
annual cost per labeled vehicle configuration is about $1280-$1760, and
the total annual cost for 20 small entities can be estimated to be
$85,000-$114,000. The total average annual cost for an individual
importer or small manufacturer can therefore be estimated to be a
maximum of $4,250-$5,700. We have recently collected data on the
currently operating small entities in the ICI and vehicle conversion
categories; this data indicates that the average annual revenue for
these companies is approximately $4.8 million. Therefore, the projected
cost increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent of the average revenue for
small importers or manufacturers. Because of the limited range of
vehicle configurations typically offered by these small entities, we
believe that the maximum cost for these entities will be even lower
than the low end of the ranges shown above. Our methodology for
estimating costs in Section VI assumes that manufacturers have diverse
product lines, and thus ultimately will need to perform some level of
additional testing in 2011 and later model years. Using costs based on
such an assumption will tend to overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle
converters, who typically produce or import a single model or
configuration.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.
Additionally, there are numerous existing regulatory relief provisions
in the emissions compliance regulations for such small entities. Those
provisions remain in effect and would not be impacted by today's
proposed rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
[[Page 5477]]
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to
the private sector in any single year. We believe that this proposed
rule represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to
achieve the goals of the proposed rule. The costs are discussed in
Section VI and in the Draft Technical Support Document.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
expressed or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials
regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal
level and impose compliance costs only on engine manufacturers and ship
builders. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they
purchase and use equipment with regulated engines. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Risks Health and Safety
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As specifically stated
in section I.D, the proposed regulations do not affect the CAFE
program. The proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to
improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their vehicles. The
purpose of this proposal is to provide consumers with better
information on which to base their vehicle purchasing decisions.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
[[Page 5478]]
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for the fuel economy labeling program proposed
today can be found in 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 10, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend
parts 86 and 600 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart B--[Amended]
2. A new Sec. 86.158-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.158-08 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.
The procedures described in Sec. Sec. 86.158-08, 86.159-08,
86.160-00, and 86.162-00 discuss the aggressive driving (US06) and air
conditioning (SC03) elements of the Supplemental Federal Test
Procedures (SFTP). These test procedures consist of two separable test
elements: A sequence of vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions
with a driving schedule (US06) that tests exhaust emissions under high
speeds and accelerations (aggressive driving); and a sequence of
vehicle operation that tests exhaust emissions with a driving schedule
(SC03) which includes the impacts of actual air conditioning operation.
These test procedures (and the associated standards set forth in
subpart S of this part) are applicable to light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks.
(a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust emissions of THC, CO,
NOX, CH4, and CO2. For diesel-cycle
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.110.
(b) Each test procedure follows the vehicle preconditioning
specified in Sec. 86.132-00.
(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test procedure for emissions on the US06
driving schedule (see Sec. 86.159-00) is designed to determine gaseous
exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks while
simulating high speed and acceleration on a chassis dynamometer
(aggressive driving). The full test consists of preconditioning the
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as specified in Sec. 86.132-00,
and an engine idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after which the vehicle is
accelerated into the US06 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted
exhaust is collected continuously in two bag samples, one representing
US06 city driving and the other representing US06 highway driving, for
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler. For petroleum-fueled diesel-
cycle vehicles for which THC is sampled and analyzed continuously
according to the provisions of Sec. 86.110, the analytical system
shall be configured to calculate THC for the US06 City phase and the
US06 Highway phase as described in Sec. 86.159-08.
(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test procedure for determining exhaust
emissions with the air conditioner operating (see Sec. 86.160-00) is
designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions from light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks while simulating an urban trip during
ambient conditions of 95 [deg]F, 100 grains of water/pound of dry air
(approximately 40 percent relative humidity), and a solar heat load
intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test consists of vehicle
preconditioning (see Sec. 86.132-00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)), an
engine key-off 10 minute soak, an engine start, and operation over the
SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust is collected
continuously during the engine start and the SC03 driving cycle for
subsequent analysis, using a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler.
(e) The emission results from the aggressive driving test (Sec.
86.159-08), air conditioning test (Sec. 86.160-00), and a FTP test
(Sec. 86.130-00 (a) through (d) and (f)) (conducted on a large single
roll or equivalent dynamometer) are analyzed according to the
calculation methodology in Sec. 86.164-08 and compared to the
applicable SFTP emission standards in subpart A of this part
(Sec. Sec. 86.108-00 and 86.109-00).
(f) These test procedures may be run in any sequence that maintains
the applicable preconditioning elements specified in Sec. 86.132-00.
3. A new Sec. 86.159-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.159-08 Exhaust emission test procedures for US06 emissions.
(a) Overview. The dynamometer operation consists of a single, 600
second test on the US06 driving schedule, as described in appendix I,
paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle is preconditioned in
accordance with Sec. 86.132-00, to bring it to a warmed-up stabilized
condition. This preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2 minute idle
period that proceeds directly into the US06 driving schedule during
which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are
collected for analysis. The US06 test is divided into three periods
collected in two bag samples. The first period, representing the first
portion of city driving, terminates at the end of the deceleration
which is scheduled to occur at 128 seconds of the driving schedule. The
second period, representing highway driving, starts at the conclusion
of the first phase of city driving and terminates at the end of the
deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 493 seconds of the driving
schedule. The third period, representing the second portion of city
driving, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule including
engine shutdown. The first period and the third period are collected in
one bag sample, representing ``US06 city'' driving, and the second
period is collected in a second bag sample, representing ``US06
highway'' driving. If engine stalling should occur during cycle
operation, follow the provisions of Sec. 86.136-90 (engine starting
and restarting). For gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite
samples collected in bags are analyzed for THC, CO, CO2,
CH4, and NOX. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed continuously according to the
provisions of Sec. 86.110. Parallel bag samples of dilution air are
analyzed for
[[Page 5479]]
THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles for which THC is sampled and
analyzed continuously according to the provisions of Sec. 86.110, the
analytical system shall be configured to calculate THC for the US06
City phase and the US06 Highway phase as described in Sec. 86.159-08.
(b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All official US06 tests shall be
run on a large single roll electric dynamometer, or an approved
equivalent dynamometer configuration, that satisfies the requirements
of Sec. 86.108-00.
(2) Position (vehicle can be driven) the test vehicle on the
dynamometer and restrain.
(3) Required US06 schedule test dynamometer inertia weight class
selections are determined by the test vehicles test weight basis and
corresponding equivalent weight as listed in the tabular information of
Sec. 86.129-94(a) and discussed in Sec. 86.129-00(e) and (f).
(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia weight and roadload horsepower
requirements for the test vehicle (see Sec. 86.129-00(e) and (f)). The
dynamometer's horsepower adjustment settings shall be set to match the
force imposed during dynamometer operation with actual road load force
at all speeds.
(5) The vehicle speed as measured from the dynamometer rolls shall
be used. A speed vs. time recording, as evidence of dynamometer test
validity, shall be supplied on request of the Administrator.
(6) The drive wheel tires may be inflated up to a gauge pressure of
45 psi (310 kPa), or the manufacturer's recommended pressure if higher
than 45 psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The drive wheel tire
pressure shall be reported with the test results.
(7) The driving distance, as measured by counting the number of
dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, shall be determined for the
test.
(8) Four-wheel drive vehicles will be tested in a two-wheel drive
mode of operation. Full-time four-wheel drive vehicles will have one
set of drive wheels temporarily disengaged by the vehicle manufacturer.
Four-wheel drive vehicles which can be manually shifted to a two-wheel
mode will be tested in the normal on-highway two-wheel drive mode of
operation.
(9) During dynamometer operation, a fixed speed cooling fan with a
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000 cfm will be positioned so as to
direct cooling air to the vehicle in an appropriate manner with the
engine compartment cover open. In the case of vehicles with front
engine compartments, the fan shall be positioned within 24 inches (61
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case of vehicles with rear engine
compartments (or if special designs make the above impractical), the
cooling fan(s) shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air
to maintain vehicle cooling. The Administrator may approve modified
cooling configurations or additional cooling if necessary to
satisfactorily perform the test. In approving requests for additional
or modified cooling, the Administrator will consider such items as
actual road cooling data and whether such additional cooling is needed
to provide a representative test.
(c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall be large enough to virtually
eliminate water condensation in the system.
(d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system
adjustment.
(e) Perform the test bench sampling sequence outlined in Sec.
86.140-94 prior to or in conjunction with each series of exhaust
emission measurements.
(f) Test activities. (1) The US06 consists of a single test which
is directly preceded by a vehicle preconditioning in accordance with
Sec. 86.132-00. Following the vehicle preconditioning, the vehicle is
idled for not less than one minute and not more than two minutes. The
equivalent dynamometer mileage of the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).
(2) The following steps shall be taken for each test:
(i) Immediately after completion of the preconditioning, idle the
vehicle. The idle period is not to be less than one minute or not
greater than two minutes.
(ii) With the sample selector valves in the ``standby'' position,
connect evacuated sample collection bags to the dilute exhaust and
dilution air sample collection systems.
(iii) Start the CVS (if not already on), the sample pumps, the
temperature recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and the heated THC
analysis recorder (diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger of the
constant volume sampler, if used, petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC
analyzer continuous sample line should be preheated to their respective
operating temperatures before the test begins.
(iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired flow rate and set
the gas flow measuring devices to zero.
(A) For gaseous bag samples (except THC samples), the minimum flow
rate is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).
(B) For THC samples, the minimum FID (or HFID in the case of
diesel-cycle vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031 liters/sec).
(C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by the venturi design.
(v) Attach the exhaust tube to the vehicle tailpipe(s).
(vi) Start the gas flow measuring device, position the sample
selector valves to direct the sample flow into the exhaust sample bag,
the dilution air sample bag, turn on the petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
THC analyzer system integrator, mark the recorder chart, and record
both gas meter or flow measurement instrument readings, (if
applicable).
(vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting the gas flow measuring
device, but prior to the first acceleration. Begin the first
acceleration 5 seconds after starting the measuring device.
(viii) Operate the vehicle according to the US06 driving schedule,
as described in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part. Manual
transmission vehicles shall be shifted according to the manufacturer
recommended shift schedule, subject to review and approval by the
Administrator. For further guidance on transmissions see Sec. 86.128-
00.
(ix) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at
128 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06
city'' bags and samples to the ``US06 highway'' bags and samples,
switch gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) to ``standby'' mode, and
start gas flow measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before the acceleration
which is scheduled to occur at 136 seconds, record the measured roll or
shaft revolutions.
(x) At the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at
493 seconds, simultaneously switch the sample flows from the ``US06
highway'' bags and samples to the ``US06 city'' bags and samples,
switch off gas flow measuring device No. 2 (and the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 2 and mark the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable), and start gas flow
measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 1 if applicable). Before the acceleration which is
scheduled to occur at 501
[[Page 5480]]
seconds, record the measured roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 2
gas meter reading or flow measurement instrument. As soon as possible
transfer the ``US06 highway'' exhaust and dilution air bag samples to
the analytical system and process the samples according to Sec.
86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample on
all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample collection
phase of the test.
(xi) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last
deceleration (i.e., engine off at 596 seconds).
(xii) Five seconds after the engine stops running, simultaneously
turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark the petroleum-fueled
diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart if applicable) and position the
sample selector valves to the ``standby'' position. Record the measured
roll or shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow
measurement instrument.
(xiii) As soon as possible, transfer the ``US06 city'' exhaust and
dilution air bag samples to the analytical system and process the
samples according to Sec. 86.140-94 obtaining a stabilized reading of
the bag exhaust sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end of
the sample collection phase of the test.
(xiv) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the
cooling fan, close the engine compartment cover, disconnect the exhaust
tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle from
dynamometer.
(xv) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
4. A new Sec. 86.164-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.164-08 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations.
(a) The provisions of Sec. 86.144-94(b) and (c) are applicable to
this section except that the NOX humidity correction factor
of Sec. 86.144-94(c)(7)(iv) must be modified when adjusting SC03
environmental test cell NOX results to 100 grains of water
(see paragraph (d) of this section). These provisions provide the
procedures for calculating mass emission results of each regulated
exhaust pollutant for the test schedules of FTP, US06, and SC03.
(b) The provisions of Sec. 86.144-94(a) are applicable to this
section. These provisions provide the procedures for determining the
weighted mass emissions for the FTP test schedule (Ywm).
(c)(1) When the test vehicle is equipped with air conditioning, the
final reported test results for the SFTP composite
(NMHC+NOX) and optional composite CO standards shall be
computed by the following formulas.
(i) YWSFTP=0.35(YFTP) +
0.37(YSC03)+0.28(YUS06)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a particular
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP, SC03,
and US06 schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for each
of the exhaust emissions of NMHC, NOX, and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm)
based on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C) YSC03=Calculated mass emissions per mile based on the
measured driving distance of the SC03 test schedule.
(D) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 city'' phase (sampled during
seconds 1-128 and seconds 494-600 of the US06 driving schedule) and the
``US06 highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 129-493 of the US06
driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of the US06
test schedule.
(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX)
=YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of
this section for NOX.
(2) When the test vehicle is not equipped with air conditioning,
the relationship of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section is:
(i) YWSFTP=0.72(YFTP)+0.28(YUS06)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a particular
pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP and US06
schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for each of the
exhaust emissions of NMHC, NOX. and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per mile (Ywm)
based on the measured driving distance of the FTP test schedule.
(C) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per mile, using the
summed mass emissions of the ``US06 city'' phase (sampled during
seconds 1-128 and seconds 494-600 of the US06 driving schedule) and the
``US06 highway'' phase (sampled during seconds 129-493 of the US06
driving schedule), based on the measured driving distance of the US06
test schedule.
(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX)=
YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section for NOX.
(d) The NOX humidity correction factor for adjusting
NOX test results to the environmental test cell air
conditioning ambient condition of 100 grains of water/pound of dry air
is:
KH (100)=0.8825/[1-0.0047(H-75)]
Where:
H=measured test humidity in grains of water/pound of dry air.
PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES
5. The authority citation for part 600 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q.
Subpart A--[Amended]
6. A new Sec. 600.001-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.001-08 General applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later
model year automobiles.
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric
vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
7. A new Sec. 600.002-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.002-08 Definitions.
3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in 40 CFR Part
86, with three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start transient
(``Bag 1''), stabilized (``Bag 2''), and hot-start transient phases
(``Bag 3'').
4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with the addition of a sampling
portion for the hot-start stabilized phase (``Bag 4'').
5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP
tests as described in subpart B of this part.
Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
[[Page 5481]]
Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume
methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate
exclusively on alcohol.
Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
(1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or
diesel fuel;
(2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated
in accordance with Sec. 600.510(g)(1) while operating on alcohol as it
does while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel;
(3) Which, for model years 1993 through 1995, provides equal or
superior energy efficiency, as determined in Sec. 600.510(g)(2) while
operating on a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or diesel fuel
containing 50 percent gasoline or diesel fuel as it does while
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
(4) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds
the minimum driving range established by the Department of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
Automobile means:
(1) Any four-wheel vehicle propelled by a combustion engine using
onboard fuel, or by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable
storage batteries or other portable energy storage devices
(rechargeable using energy from a source off the vehicle such as
residential electric service);
(2) Which is manufactured primarily for use on public streets,
roads, or highways (except any vehicle operated on a rail or rails);
(3) Which is rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight, which has a curb weight of not more than 6,000 pounds, and
which has a basic vehicle frontal area of not more than 45 square feet;
or
(4) Is a type of vehicle which the Secretary of Transportation
determines is substantially used for the same purposes.
Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design
as defined in part 86 of this chapter.
Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as
computed under Sec. 600.510 for a specific class of automobiles
produced by a manufacturer that is subject to average fuel economy
standards.
Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the
differential (or equivalent) turns for each turn of the drive wheels.
Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia
weight class and transmission class.
Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style
that makes up a car line.
Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (as distinguished by
number of carburetor barrels or use of fuel injection), catalyst usage,
and other engine and emission control system characteristics specified
by the Administrator. For electric vehicles, basic engine means a
unique combination of manufacturer and electric traction motor, motor
controller, battery configuration, electrical charging system, energy
storage device, and other components as specified by the Administrator.
Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage,
capacity (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics
of the battery used as the tractive energy device.
Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as
defined by number of doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan,
convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of seats (i.e., front,
second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part
571. Station wagons and light trucks are identified as car lines.
Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances,
unique to a particular design, version of application of a component,
or component assembly capable of functionally describing its operation
over its working range.
Car line means a name denoting a group of vehicles within a make or
car division which has a degree of commonality in construction (e.g.,
body, chassis). Car line does not consider any level of decor or
opulence and is not generally distinguished by characteristics as roof
line, number of doors, seats, or windows, except for station wagons or
light-duty trucks. Station wagons and light-duty trucks are considered
to be different car lines than passenger cars.
Certification vehicle means a vehicle which is selected under Sec.
86.084-24(b)(1) of this chapter and used to determine compliance under
Sec. 86.084-30 of this chapter for issuance of an original certificate
of conformity.
City fuel economy means the fuel economy determined by operating a
vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal emission
test procedure.
Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions
of Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 86.
Combined fuel economy means:
(1) For the purpose of determining manufacturer's average fuel
economy under Supart F of this part, the term means fuel economy value
determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the
city and highway fuel economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45
respectively.
(2) For the purpose of determining estimated annual fuel costs
under Sec. 86.600-307(f)) the term means the fuel economy value for a
vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the city and highway
fuel economy values, weighted at .43 and .57 respectively.
(3) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-
based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation procedure
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.
Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United
States, any territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia
and who is engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to
the ultimate purchaser.
Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived
from the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of
the equation provided in Sec. 600.115-08 of this part.
Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive
axles (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and
any other feature of the drive system if the Administrator determines
that such other features may result in a fuel economy difference.
Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60Hz
alternating electric current, as commonly available in residential
electric service in the United States, to a proper form for recharging
the energy storage device.
Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which
provides tractive energy to the wheels of a vehicle.
Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing
tractive energy on board a vehicle such as storage batteries or a
flywheel.
Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system
combination (as defined in part 86 of this chapter), of displacement,
carburetor (or fuel injection) calibration, distributor calibration,
choke calibration, auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine
and emission control system components specified by the Administrator.
For electric vehicles, engine code means a unique combination of
manufacturer, electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor
controller, and energy storage device.
[[Page 5482]]
Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer
driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical
procedures described in part 86 for the respective model year, which
are used to derive city fuel economy data.
FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in
Sec. 600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of FTP testing.
Fuel means:
(1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered
automobiles; or
(2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or
(4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles.
Fuel economy means:
(1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as computed in Sec. 600.113
or Sec. 600.207; or
(2) The equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy for an electrically
powered automobile as determined by the Secretary of Energy.
Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight
rating for the individual vehicle.
Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear
door which encompasses the rear window.
Highway fuel economy means the fuel economy determined by operating
a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the Federal
highway fuel economy test procedure.
Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the
dynamometer driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and
analytical procedures described in subpart B of this part and which are
used to derive highway fuel economy data.
HFET-based fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in Sec.
600.113-08 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is
affixed to new automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part.
Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile,
as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This
term is interchangeable with ``non-passenger automobile''.
Minivan means an automobile which is designed primarily to carry no
more than eight passengers having an integral enclosure fully enclosing
the driver, passenger, and load-carrying compartments, with a total
interior volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and rear seats readily
removed or folded to floor level to facilitate cargo carrying.
Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine,
and transmission class.
Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period (as
determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of such
calendar year. If a manufacturer has no annual production period, the
term ``model year'' means the calendar year.
Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device
to convert energy stored in an energy storage device into a form
suitable to power the traction motor.
Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to
operate exclusively on natural gas.
Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
(1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or
diesel fuel;
(2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated
in Sec. 600.510(g)(1) while operating on natural gas as it does while
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
(3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds
the minimum driving range established by the Department of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
Nonpassenger automobile means a light truck.
Passenger automobile means any automobile which the Secretary of
Transportation determines is manufactured primarily for use in the
transportation of no more than 10 individuals.
Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger
compartment and an open cargo bed.
Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of
vehicle units domestically produced in a particular model year but not
exported, and for a foreign manufacturer, means the number of vehicle
units of a particular model imported into the United States.
Rounded means a number shortened to the specific number of decimal
places in accordance with the ``Round Off Method'' specified in ASTM E
29 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
SC03 means the test procedure specified in 40 CFR 86.160-00.
Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation
or his authorized representative.
Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized
representative.
Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended
roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment
open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily
removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof
line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to
the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats
readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle
configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any
other operational characteristics or parameters which the Administrator
determines may significantly affect fuel economy within a vehicle
configuration.
Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the
following common features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic,
or semi-automatic); number of forward gears used in fuel economy
testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed automatic, two-speed
semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel
drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter
type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, variable ratio); and
other transmission characteristics that may be determined to be
significant by the Administrator.
Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further
subdivide within a transmission class if the Administrator determines
that sufficient fuel economy differences exist. Features such as gear
ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift
calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish
characteristics within a transmission class.
Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which
is used in the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on
its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86
of this chapter.
[[Page 5483]]
Ultimate consumer means the first person who purchases an
automobile for purposes other than resale or leases an automobile.
US06 means the test procedure as described in 40 CFR 86.159-08.
Van means any light truck having an integral enclosure fully
enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying device, and having
no body sections protruding more than 30 inches ahead of the leading
edge of the windshield.
Vehicle configuration means a unique combination of basic engine,
engine code, inertia weight class, transmission configuration, and axle
ratio within a base level.
Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy means the fuel economy
calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 600.114-08 of this
part.
8. A new Sec. 600.006-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.006-08 Data and information requirements for fuel economy
vehicles.
(a) For certification vehicles with less than 10,000 miles, the
requirements of this section are considered to have been met except as
noted in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit the following information for
each fuel economy data vehicle:
(i) A description of the vehicle, exhaust emission test results,
applicable deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust emission levels, and
test fuel property values as specified in Sec. 600.113-93 except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(ii) A statement of the origin of the vehicle including total
mileage accumulation, and modification (if any) form the vehicle
configuration in which the mileage was accumulated. (For modifications
requiring advance approval by the Administrator, the name of the
Administrator's representative approving the modification and date of
approval are required.) If the vehicle was previously used for testing
for compliance with part 86 of this chapter or previously accepted by
the Administrator as a fuel economy data vehicle in a different
configuration, the requirements of this paragraph may be satisfied by
reference to the vehicle number and previous configuration.
(iii) A statement that the fuel economy data vehicle, with respect
to which data are submitted:
(A) Has been tested in accordance with applicable test procedures,
(B) Is, to the best of the manufacturer's knowledge, representative
of the vehicle configuration listed, and
(C) Is in compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards.
(2) The manufacturer shall retain the following information for
each fuel economy data vehicle, and make it available to the
Administrator upon request:
(i) A description of all maintenance to engine, emission control
system, or fuel system, or fuel system components performed within
2,000 miles prior to fuel economy testing.
(ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a description of all
maintenance to electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration,
or other components performed within 2,000 miles prior to fuel economy
testing.
(iii) A copy of calibrations for engine, fuel system, and emission
control devices, showing the calibration of the actual components on
the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
(iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a copy of calibrations for
the electric motor, motor controller, battery configuration, or other
components on the test vehicle as well as the design tolerances.
(v) If calibrations for components specified in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section were submitted previously as part
of the description of another vehicle or configuration, the original
submittal may be referenced.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the following fuel economy data:
(1) For vehicles tested to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 86
(other than those chosen in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1829-01(a) or 40
CFR 86.1845, the FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel
economy results, as applicable, from all tests on that vehicle, and the
test results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) For each fuel economy data vehicle, all individual test results
(excluding results of invalid and zero mile tests) and these test
results adjusted in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
part 86, data from a cold temperature FTP, performed in accordance with
600.111-08(e), using the fuel specified in 600.107-08(c).
(d) The manufacturer shall submit an indication of the intended
purpose of the data (e.g., data required by the general labeling
program or voluntarily submitted for specific labeling).
(e) In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a
manufacturer may provide fuel economy values derived from an analytical
expression, e.g., regression analysis. In order for fuel economy values
derived from analytical methods to be accepted, the expression (form
and coefficients) must have been approved by the Administrator.
(f) If, in conducting tests required or authorized by this part,
the manufacturer utilizes procedures, equipment, or facilities not
described in the Application for Certification required in 40 CFR
86.087-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable, the manufacturer shall
submit to the Administrator a description of such procedures,
equipment, and facilities.
(g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data used for fuel
economy label calculations in subpart D and average fuel economy
calculations in subpart F for the classes of automobiles within the
categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of Sec.
600.510. The test data shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(g)(3) or (4) as applicable.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) The manufacturer shall adjust all test data generated by
vehicles with engine-drive system combinations with more than 6,200
miles by using the following equation:
FE4,000mi=FE
T[0.979+5.25x10-6(mi)]-1
Where:
FE4,000mi=Fuel economy data adjusted to 4,000-mile test
point rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FET=Tested fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.1
mpg.
mi=System miles accumulated at the start of the test rounded to the
nearest whole mile.
(4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or less accumulated, the
manufacturer is not required to adjust the data.
9. A new Sec. 600.007-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.007-08 Vehicle acceptability.
(a) All certification vehicles and other vehicles tested to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR part 86 (other than those chosen per 40 CFR
86.080-24(c) or 40 CFR 86.1829-01(a) as applicable, are considered to
have met the requirements of this section.
(b) Any vehicle not meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section must be judged acceptable by the Administrator under this
section in order for the test results to be reviewed for use in subpart
C or F of this part. The Administrator will judge the acceptability of
a fuel economy data vehicle on the basis of the information supplied by
the manufacturer under Sec. 600.006(b). The criteria to be met are:
(1) A fuel economy data vehicle may have accumulated not more than
10,000 miles. A vehicle will be considered to have met this requirement
if the engine
[[Page 5484]]
and drivetrain have accumulated 10,000 or fewer miles. The components
installed for a fuel economy test are not required to be the ones with
which the mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles, transmission types, and
tire sizes may be changed. The Administrator will determine if vehicle/
engine component changes are acceptable.
(2) A vehicle may be tested in different vehicle configurations by
change of vehicle components, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, or by testing in different inertia weight classes. Also, a
single vehicle may be tested under different test conditions, i.e.,
test weight and/or road load horsepower, to generate fuel economy data
representing various situations within a vehicle configuration. For
purposes of this part, data generated by a single vehicle tested in
various test conditions will be treated as if the data were generated
by the testing of multiple vehicles.
(3) The mileage on a fuel economy data vehicle must be, to the
extent possible, accumulated according to 40 CFR 86.1831.
(4) Each fuel economy data vehicle must meet the same exhaust
emission standards as certification vehicles of the respective engine-
system combination during the test in which the city fuel economy test
results are generated. The deterioration factors established for the
respective engine-system combination per Sec. 86.1841-01 as applicable
will be used.
(5) The calibration information submitted under Sec. 600.006(b)
must be representative of the vehicle configuration for which the fuel
economy data were submitted.
(6) Any vehicle tested for fuel economy purposes must be
representative of a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to produce
under the provisions of a certificate of conformity.
(7) For vehicles imported under Sec. 85.1509 or Sec.
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4), or (e)(2) (when applicable) only
the following requirements must be met:
(i) For vehicles imported under Sec. 85.1509, a highway fuel
economy value must be generated contemporaneously with the emission
tests used for purposes of demonstrating compliance with Sec. 85.1509.
No modifications or adjustments should be made to the vehicles between
the highway fuel economy, FTP, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP
tests.
(ii) For vehicles imported under Sec. 85.1509 or Sec.
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable) with
over 10,000 miles, the equation in Sec. 600.006-86(g)(1) shall be used
as though only 10,000 miles had been accumulated.
(iii) Any required fuel economy testing must take place after any
safety modifications are completed for each vehicle as required by
regulations of the Department of Transportation.
(iv) Every vehicle imported under Sec. 85.1509 or Sec.
85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable) shall
be considered a separate type for the purposes of calculating a fuel
economy label for a manufacturer's average fuel economy.
(c) If, based on review of the information submitted under Sec.
600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle meets the requirements of this section, the fuel economy data
vehicle will be judged to be acceptable and fuel economy data from that
fuel economy data vehicle will be reviewed pursuant to Sec. 600.008.
(d) If, based on the review of the information submitted under
Sec. 600.006(b), the Administrator determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle does not meet the requirements of this section, the
Administrator will reject that fuel economy data vehicle and inform the
manufacturer of the rejection in writing.
(e) If, based on a review of the emission data for a fuel economy
data vehicle, submitted under Sec. 600.006(b), or emission data
generated by a vehicle tested under Sec. 600.008(e), the Administrator
finds an indication of non-compliance with section 202 of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of the regulation thereunder, he may take
such investigative actions as are appropriate to determine to what
extent emission non-compliance actually exists.
(1) The Administrator may, under the provisions of 40 CFR 86.079-
37(a) or 40 CFR 86.1830-01 as applicable, request the manufacturer to
submit production vehicles of the configuration(s) specified by the
Administrator for testing to determine to what extent emission
noncompliance of a production vehicle configuration or of a group of
production vehicle configurations may actually exist.
(2) If the Administrator determines, as a result of his
investigation, that substantial emission non-compliance is exhibited by
a production vehicle configuration or group of production vehicle
configurations, he may proceed with respect to the vehicle
configuration(s) as provided under section 206(b)(2) or section
207(c)(1), as applicable of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
(f) All vehicles used to generate fuel economy data, and for which
emission standards apply, must be covered by a certificate of
conformity under part 86 of this chapter before:
(1) The data may be used in the calculation of any approved general
or specific label value, or
(2) The data will be used in any calculations under subpart F,
except that vehicles imported under Sec. Sec. 85.1509 and 85.1511 need
not be covered by a certificate of conformity.
10. A new Sec. 600.008-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.008-08 Review of fuel economy data, testing by the
Administrator.
(a) Testing by the Administrator. (1) The Administrator may require
that any one or more of the test vehicles be submitted to the Agency,
at such place or places as the Agency may designate, for the purposes
of conducting fuel economy tests. The Administrator may specify that
such testing be conducted at the manufacturer's facility, in which case
instrumentation and equipment specified by the Administrator shall be
made available by the manufacturer for test operations. The tests to be
performed may comprise the FTP, highway fuel economy test, US06, SC03,
or Cold temperature FTP or any combination of those tests. Any testing
conducted at a manufacturer's facility pursuant to this paragraph shall
be scheduled by the manufacturer as promptly as possible.
(2) Retesting and official data determination. For any vehicles
selected for confirmatory testing under the provisions of paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, the Administrator will follow this procedure:
(i) The manufacturer's data (or harmonically averaged data if more
than one test was conducted) will be compared with the results of the
Administrator's test.
(ii) If, in the Administrator's judgment, the comparison in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section indicates a disparity in the data,
the Administrator will repeat the test or tests as applicable.
(A) The manufacturer's average test results and the results of the
Administrator's first test will be compared with the results of the
Administrator's second test as in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(B) If, in the Administrator's judgment, both comparisons in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, indicate a disparity in the
data, the Administrator will repeat the applicable test or tests until:
(i) In the Administrator's judgment no disparity in the data is
indicated by
[[Page 5485]]
comparison of two tests by the Administrator or by comparison of the
manufacturer's average test results and a test by the Administrator; or
(ii) Four tests of a single test type are conducted by the
Administrator in which a disparity in the data is indicated when
compared as in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iii) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity
indicated by comparison of manufacturer's average test results with a
test by the Administrator, the test values generated by the
Administrator will be used to represent the vehicle.
(iv) If there is, in the Administrator's judgment, no disparity
indicated by comparison of two tests by the Administrator, the harmonic
averages of the fuel economy results from those tests will be used to
represent the vehicle.
(v) If the situation in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B)(ii) of this section
occurs, the Administrator will notify the manufacturer, in writing,
that the Administrator rejects that fuel economy data vehicle.
(b) Manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing. (1) If the
Administrator determines not to conduct a confirmatory test under the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, manufacturers will conduct
a confirmatory test at their facility after submitting the original
test data to the Administrator whenever any of the following conditions
exist:
(i) The vehicle configuration has previously failed an emission
standard;
(ii) The test exhibits high emission levels determined by exceeding
a percentage of the standards specified by the Administrator for that
model year;
(iii) The fuel economy value of the FTP or HFET test is higher than
expected based on procedures approved by the Administrator;
(iv) The fuel economy for the FTP or HFET test is close to a Gas
Guzzler Tax threshold value based on tolerances established by the
Administrator; or
(v) The fuel economy value for the FTP or highway is a potential
fuel economy leader for a class of vehicles based on cut points
provided by the Administrator.
(2) If the Administrator selects the vehicle for confirmatory
testing based on the manufacturer's original test results, the testing
shall be conducted as ordered by the Administrator. In this case, the
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing specified under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section would not be required.
(3) The manufacturer shall conduct a retest of the FTP or highway
test if the difference between the fuel economy of the confirmatory
test and the original manufacturer's test equals or exceeds three
percent (or such lower percentage to be applied consistently to all
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory testing as requested by the
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator).
(i) The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a retest, accept
the lower of the original and confirmatory test fuel economy results
for use in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) The manufacturer shall conduct a second retest of the FTP or
highway test if the fuel economy difference between the second
confirmatory test and the original manufacturer test equals or exceeds
three percent (or such lower percentage as requested by the
manufacturer and approved by the Administrator) and the fuel economy
difference between the second confirmatory test and the first
confirmatory test equals or exceeds three percent (or such lower
percentage as requested by the manufacturer and approved by the
Administrator). The manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting a second
retest, accept the lowest of the original test, the first confirmatory
test, and the second confirmatory test fuel economy results for use in
subpart C or F of this part.
(4) The Administrator may request the manufacturer to conduct a
retest of the US06, SC03 or Cold Temperature FTP on the basis of fuel
economy that is higher than expected as specified in criteria provided
by the Administrator. Such retests shall not be required before the
2011 model year.
(c) Review of fuel economy data. (1) Fuel economy data must be
judged reasonable and representative by the Administrator in order for
the test results to be used for the purposes of subpart C or F of this
part. In making this determination, the Administrator will, when
possible, compare the results of a test vehicle to those of other
similar test vehicles.
(2) If testing was conducted by the Administrator under the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel economy data
determined by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this section,
together with all other fuel economy data submitted for that vehicle
under Sec. 600.006(c) or (e) will be evaluated for reasonableness and
representativeness per paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use
in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section.
(3) If confirmatory testing was not conducted by the Administrator
but confirmatory testing was conducted by the manufacturer under the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the fuel economy data
determined by the Administrator under paragraph (b) of this section,
will be evaluated for reasonableness and representativeness per
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are determined to best meet the
criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be accepted for use
in subpart C or F of this part.
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the harmonic average of selected
test results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section.
(4) If no confirmatory testing was conducted by either the
Administrator or the manufacturer under the provisions of paragraph (a)
and (b) of this section, respectively, then the data submitted under
the provisions of Sec. 600.006(c) or (e) shall be accepted for use in
subpart C or F of this part.
(i) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP test data will
be considered separately.
(ii) If more than one test was conducted, the harmonic average of
the test results shall be accepted for use in subpart C or F of this
part.
(d) If, based on a review of the fuel economy data generated by
testing under paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator
determines that an unacceptable level of correlation exists between
fuel economy data generated by a manufacturer and fuel economy data
generated by the Administrator, he/she may reject all fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer until the cause of the discrepancy is
determined and the validity of the data is established by the
manufacturer.
(e)(1) If, based on the results of an inspection conducted under
Sec. 600.005(b) or any other information, the Administrator has reason
to believe that the manufacturer has not followed proper testing
procedures or that the testing equipment is faulty or improperly
calibrated, or if records do
[[Page 5486]]
not exist that will enable him to make a finding of proper testing, the
Administrator may notify the manufacturer in writing of his finding and
require the manufacturer to:
(i) Submit the test vehicle(s) upon which the data are based or
additional test vehicle(s) at a place he may designate for the purpose
of fuel economy testing.
(ii) Conduct such additional fuel economy testing as may be
required to demonstrate that prior fuel economy test data are
reasonable and representative.
(2) Previous acceptance by the Administrator of any fuel economy
test data submitted by the manufacturer shall not limit the
Administrator's right to require additional testing under paragraph
(h)(1) of this section.
(3) If, based on tests required under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the Administrator determines that any fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer and used to calculate the manufacturer's
fuel economy average was unrepresentative, the Administrator may
recalculate the manufacturer's fuel economy average based on fuel
economy data that he/she deems representative.
(4) A manufacturer may request a hearing as provided in Sec.
600.009 if the Administrator decides to recalculate the manufacturer's
average pursuant to determinations made relative to this section.
11. A new Sec. 600.010-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.010-08 Vehicle test requirements and minimum data
requirements.
(a) For each certification vehicle defined in this part, and for
each vehicle tested according to the emission test procedures in 40 CFR
part 86 for addition of a model after certification or approval of a
running change (40 CFR 86.079-32, 86.079-33 and 86.082-34 or 40 CFR
86.1842-01 as applicable):
(1) The manufacturer shall generate FTP fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures.
(2) The manufacturer shall generate highway fuel economy data by:
(i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
(ii) Using an analytical technique, as described in Sec.
600.006(e).
(3) The manufacturer shall generate US06 fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternative fueled
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternative fuel may
optionally generate this data using the alternative fuel.
(4) The manufacturer shall generate SC03 fuel economy data by
testing according to the applicable procedures. Alternative fueled
vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on alternative fuel may
optionally generate this data using the alternative fuel.
(5) The manufacturer shall generate Cold temperature FTP fuel
economy data by testing according to the applicable procedures.
Alternative fueled vehicles or dual fueled vehicles operating on
alternative fuel may optionally generate this data using the
alternative fuel.
(6) The data generated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section, shall be submitted to the Administrator in combination with
other data for the vehicle required to be submitted in part 86.
(b) For each fuel economy data vehicle:
(1) The manufacturer shall generate city and FTP fuel economy data
by:
(i) Testing according to applicable procedures, or
(ii) Use of an analytical technique as described in Sec.
600.006(e), in addition to testing (e.g., city fuel economy data by
testing, highway fuel economy data by analytical technique).
(2) The data generated shall be submitted to the Administrator
according to the procedures in Sec. 600.006.
(c) Minimum data requirements for labeling. (1) In order to
establish fuel economy label values under Sec. 600.306, the
manufacturer shall use only test data accepted in accordance with Sec.
600.008(b) and (f) and meeting the minimum coverage of:
(i) Data required for emission certification under 40 CFR 86.084-
24, 86.079-32, 86.079-33, and 86.082-34 or 40 CFR 86.1828-01 and
86.1842-01 as applicable.
(ii)(A) FTP and HFET data from the highest projected model year
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales
configuration for each base level, and
(B) If required under Sec. 600.116-08, US06, SC03 and cold
temperature FTP data from the highest projected model year sales
subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales
configuration for each base level.
(C) Optionally, the manufacturer may generate US06, SC03 and cold
temperature FTP fuel economy data for the highest projected model year
sales subconfiguration within the highest projected model year sales
configuration for each base level.
(iii) For additional model types established under Sec.
600.208(a)(2) or 600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and if required
under Sec. 600.116-08, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data from
each subconfiguration included within the model type.
(2) For the purpose of recalculating fuel economy label values as
required under Sec. 600.314(b), the manufacturer shall submit data
required under Sec. 600.507.
(d) Minimum data requirements for the manufacturer's average fuel
economy. For the purpose of calculating the manufacturer's average fuel
economy under Sec. 600.510, the manufacturer shall submit data
representing at least 90 percent of the manufacturer's actual model
year production, by configuration, for each category identified for
calculation under Sec. 600.510(a).
12. A new Sec. 600.011-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.011-08 Reference materials.
(a) Incorporation by reference. The documents in paragraph (b) of
this section have been incorporated by reference. The incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
inspected at USEPA, OAR, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) The following paragraphs and tables set forth the material that
has been incorporated by reference in this part.
(1) ASTM material. The following table sets forth material from the
American Society for Testing and Materials which has been incorporated
by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the
material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part, other
than Sec. 600.011, in which the matter is referenced. Copies of these
materials may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
[[Page 5487]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document number and name 40 CFR part 600 reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM E 29-67 (Reapproved 1973) Standard 600.002-08.
Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
Places of Figures Are To Be Considered
Significant in Specified Limiting Values..
ASTM D 1298-85 (Reapproved 1990) Standard 600.113-08(f)(1)(i),
Practice for Density, Relative Density (f)(2)(i)(A),
(Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of (f)(2)(i)(B), (f)(2)(ii);
Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum 600.510-08(g)(1)(ii)(B),
Products by Hydrometer Method. (g)(2)(ii)(B).
ASTM D 3343-90 Standard Test Method for 600.113-08(f)(1)(ii),
Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii).
Fuels.
ASTM D 3338-92 Standard Test Method for 600.113-08(f)(1)(iii).
Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of
Aviation Fuels.
ASTM D 240-92 Standard Test Method for Heat 600.113-08(f)(2)(iii);
of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels 600.510-93(g)(1)(ii)(A),
by Bomb Calorimeter. (g)(2)(ii)(A).
ASTM D975-04c ``Standard Specification for 600.107-08(b), 600.113-
Diesel Fuel Oils''. 08(c)(1).
ASTM D 1945-91 Standard Test Method for 600.113-08(f)(3), (k).
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas
Chromatography.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart B--[Amended]
13. A new Sec. 600.106-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.106-08 Equipment requirements.
The requirements for test equipment to be used for all fuel economy
testing are given in Subparts B and C of part 86 of this chapter.
14. A new Sec. 600.107-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.107-08 Fuel specifications.
(a) The test fuel specifications for gasoline, diesel, methanol,
and methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are given in Sec. 86.113 of this
chapter, except for cold temperature FTP fuel requirements for diesel
vehicles, which are given in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Diesel test fuel used for cold temperature FTP testing must
comprise a winter-grade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975-04c
``Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils'' and that complies with
40 CFR part 80. Alternatively, EPA may approve the use of a different
diesel fuel, provided that the level of kerosene added shall not exceed
20 percent.
15. A new Sec. 600.109-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.109-08 EPA driving cycles.
(a) The FTP driving cycle is prescribed in Sec. 86.115 of this
chapter.
(b) The highway fuel economy driving cycle is specified in this
paragraph.
(1) The Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is set forth in
appendix I to this part. The driving schedule is defined by a smooth
trace drawn through the specified speed versus time relationships.
(2) The speed tolerance at any given time on the dynamometer
driving schedule specified in appendix I, or as printed on a driver's
aid chart approved by the Administrator, when conducted to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of Sec. 600.111 is defined by upper and
lower limits. The upper limit is 2 mph higher than the highest point on
trace within 1 second of the given time. The lower limit is 2 mph lower
than the lowest point on the trace within 1 second of the given time.
Speed variations greater than the tolerances (such as may occur during
gear changes) are acceptable provided they occur for less than 2
seconds on any occasion. Speeds lower than those prescribed are
acceptable provided the vehicle is operated at maximum available power
during such occurrences.
(3) A graphic representation of the range of acceptable speed
tolerances is found in Sec. 86.115 (c) of this chapter.
(4) The US06 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of
this chapter.
(5) The SC03 driving cycle is set forth in Appendix I of part 86 of
this chapter.
16. A new Sec. 600.110-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.110-08 Equipment calibration.
The equipment used for fuel economy testing must be calibrated
according to the provisions of Sec. 86.116 and 86.216 of this chapter.
17. A new Sec. 600.111-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.111-08 Test procedures.
(a) FTP testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for
conducting the FTP test are those prescribed in Sec. Sec. 86.127
through 86.138 of this chapter, as applicable, except as provided for
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (The evaporative loss portion of
the test procedure may be omitted unless specifically required by the
Administrator.)
(b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel
Economy Dynamometer Procedure (HFET) consists of preconditioning
highway driving sequence and a measured highway driving sequence.
(2) The HFET is designated to simulate non-metropolitan driving
with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph. The
cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop per mile and consists of warmed-
up vehicle operation on a chassis dynamometer through a specified
driving cycle. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is
collected continuously for subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide using a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is continuously analyzed for
hydrocarbons using a heated sample line and analyzer. Methanol and
formaldehyde samples are collected and individually analyzed for
methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and formaldehyde may
be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-fueled vehicles
provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for measuring HC plus
methanol).
(3) Except in cases of component malfunction or failure, all
emission control systems installed on or incorporated in a new motor
vehicle must be functioning during all procedures in this subpart. The
Administrator may authorize maintenance to correct component
malfunction or failure.
(4) Transmission. The provisions of Sec. 86.128 of this chapter
apply for vehicle transmission operation during highway fuel economy
testing under this subpart.
(5) Road load power and test weight determination. Section 86.129
of this chapter applies for determination of road load power and test
weight for highway fuel economy testing. The test weight for the
testing of a certification vehicle will be that test weight specified
by the Administrator under the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
The test weight for a fuel economy data vehicle will be that test
weight specified by the Administrator from the test weights covered by
that vehicle configuration. The Administrator will base his selection
of a test weight on the relative projected sales volumes of the various
test weights within the vehicle configuration.
[[Page 5488]]
(6) Vehicle preconditioning. The HFET is designed to be performed
immediately following the Federal Emission Test Procedure, Sec. Sec.
86.127 through 86.138 of this chapter. When conditions allow, the tests
should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be
scheduled within three hours of the Federal Emission Test Procedure
(including one hour hot soak evaporative loss test, if applicable) the
vehicle should be preconditioned as in paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of
this section, as applicable.
(i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak
(68 [deg]F-86 [deg]F) since the completion of the Federal Emission Test
Procedure, or has experienced periods of storage outdoors, or in
environments where soak temperature is not controlled to 68 [deg]F-86
[deg]F, the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a
dynamometer through one cycle of the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, Sec. 86.115 of this chapter.
(ii) In unusual circumstances where additional preconditioning is
desired by the manufacturer, the provisions of Sec. 86.132(a)(3) of
this chapter apply.
(7) Highway fuel economy dynamometer procedure. (1) The dynamometer
procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (Sec. 600.109(b)) separated by 15 seconds of idle. The first
cycle of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule is driven to
precondition the test vehicle and the second is driven for the fuel
economy measurement.
(8) The provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of
Sec. 86.135 Dynamometer procedure of this chapter, apply for highway
fuel economy testing.
(9) Only one exhaust sample and one background sample are collected
and analyzed for hydrocarbons (except diesel hydrocarbons which are
analyzed continuously), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Methanol
and formaldehyde samples (exhaust and dilution air) are collected and
analyzed for methanol-fueled vehicles (measurement of methanol and
formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993 through 1994 model year methanol-
fueled vehicles provided a HFID calibrated on methanol is used for
measuring HC plus methanol).
(10) The fuel economy measurement cycle of the test includes two
seconds of idle indexed at the beginning of the second cycle and two
seconds of idle indexed at the end of the second cycle.
(11) Engine starting and restarting. (i) If the engine is not
running at the initiation of the highway fuel economy test
(preconditioning cycle), the start-up procedure must be according to
the manufacturer's recommended procedures.
(ii) False starts and stalls during the preconditioning cycle must
be treated as in 40 CFR 86.136(d) and (e). If the vehicle stalls during
the measurement cycle of the highway fuel economy test, the test is
voided, corrective action may be taken according to 40 CFR 86.1834-01
as applicable, and the vehicle may be rescheduled for test. The person
taking the corrective action shall report the action so that the test
records for the vehicle contain a record of the action.
(12) Dynamometer test run. The following steps must be taken for
each test:
(i) Place the drive wheels of the vehicle on the dynamometer. The
vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer.
(ii) Open the vehicle engine compartment cover and position the
cooling fan(s) required. Manufacturers may request the use of
additional cooling fans for additional engine compartment or under-
vehicle cooling and for controlling high tire or brake temperatures
during dynamometer operation.
(iii) Preparation of the CVS must be performed before the
measurement highway driving cycle.
(iv) Equipment preparation. The provisions of Sec. 86.137(b)(3)
through (6) of this chapter apply for highway fuel economy test except
that only one exhaust sample collection bag and one dilution air sample
collection bag need be connected to the sample collection systems.
(v) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified
in Sec. 600.109(b).
(vi) When the vehicle reaches zero speed at the end of the
preconditioning cycle, the driver has 17 seconds to prepare for the
emission measurement cycle of the test.
(vii) Operate the vehicle over one Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the dynamometer driving schedule specified
in Sec. 600.109(b) while sampling the exhaust gas.
(viii) Sampling must begin two seconds before beginning the first
acceleration of the fuel economy measurement cycle and must end two
seconds after the end of the deceleration to zero. At the end of the
deceleration to zero speed, the roll or shaft revolutions must be
recorded.
(ix) For methanol dual fuel automobiles, the procedures of Sec.
600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed for each of the required test
fuels:
(A) Gasoline or diesel fuel as specified in Sec. 600.107(a) and
(b); and
(B) Methanol fuel as specified in Sec. 600.107(c) and (d); and
(C) [Reserved.]
(D) In lieu of testing using the mixture containing 50% gasoline or
diesel and 50% methanol by volume, the manufacturer must provide a
written statement attesting that the equal or superior energy
efficiency is attained while using the 50% gasoline or diesel and 50%
methanol mixture compared to using gasoline.
(c) US06 testing procedures. The test procedure to be followed for
conducting the US06 test are prescribed in Sec. Sec. 86.158 through
86.159 of this chapter, as applicable.
(d) SC03 testing procedures. The test procedures to be followed for
conducting the SC03 test are prescribed in Sec. Sec. 86.158 and 86.160
through 164 of this chapter, as applicable.
(e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. The test procedures to be
followed for conducting the cold temperature FTP test are prescribed in
Sec. Sec. 86.227 through 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
18. A new Sec. 600.112-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.112-08 Exhaust sample analysis.
The exhaust sample analysis must be performed according to Sec.
86.140, or Sec. 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
19. A new Sec. 600.113-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.113-08 Fuel economy calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03
and Cold Temperature FTP tests.
The Administrator will use the calculation procedure set forth in
this paragraph for all official EPA testing of vehicles fueled with
gasoline, diesel, methanol or natural gas fuel. The calculations of the
weighted fuel economy values require input of the weighted grams/mile
values for total hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon
dioxide (CO2); and, additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, methanol (CH3 OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO); and
additionally for natural gas-fueled vehicles non-methane hydrocarbons
(NMHC) and methane (CH4) for the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and
Cold temperature FTP tests. Additionally, the specific gravity, carbon
weight fraction and net heating value of the test fuel must be
determined. The FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel
economy values shall be calculated as specified in this section. An
example appears in appendix II to this part.
[[Page 5489]]
(a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for
HC, CO and CO2; and, additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural
gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH4 as specified in Sec.
86.144 of this chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the FTP
test. For vehicles with more than one source of propulsion energy, one
of which is a rechargeable energy storage system, or vehicles with
special features that the Administrator determines may have a
reachargeable energy source, whose charge can vary during the test,
calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold transient
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient phase and hot stabilized phase
of the FTP test.
(b)(1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test
for HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable CH3 OH,
HCHO, NMHC and CH4 as specified in Sec. 86.144(b) of this
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy
test for HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable CH3
OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH4 by dividing the mass values obtained
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the actual distance traveled,
measured in miles, as specified in Sec. 86.135(h) of this chapter.
(c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold
temperature FTP test for HC, CO and CO2; and, additionally
for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and
additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and CH4
as specified in Sec. 86.244 of this chapter. Measure and record the
test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the cold
temperature FTP test in Sec. 40 CFR 86.244. For vehicles with more
than one source of propulsion energy, one of which is a rechargeable
energy storage system, or vehicles with special features that the
Administrator determines may have a reachargeable energy source, whose
charge can vary during the test, calculate separately the grams/mile
values for the cold transient phase, stabilized phase, hot transient
phase and hot stabilized phase of the cold temperature FTP test.
(3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) Calculate separately the first and second phase grams/mile
values for the US06 test for HC, CO and CO2; and
additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH3 OH and
HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC and
CH4 as specified in 86.144 of this chapter. Measure and
record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(e) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO
and CO2; and additionally for methanol-fueled automobiles,
CH3 OH and HCHO; and additionally for natural gas-fueled
automobiles NMHC and CH4 as specified in 86.144 of this
chapter. Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)(1) Gasoline test fuel properties shall be determined by
analysis of a fuel sample taken from the fuel supply. A sample shall be
taken after each addition of fresh fuel to the fuel supply.
Additionally, the fuel shall be resampled once a month to account for
any fuel property changes during storage. Less frequent resampling may
be permitted if EPA concludes, on the basis of manufacturer-supplied
data, that the properties of test fuel in the manufacturer's storage
facility will remain stable for a period longer than one month. The
fuel samples shall be analyzed to determine the following fuel
properties:
(i) Specific gravity per ASTM D 1298 (Incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(ii) Carbon weight fraction per ASTM D 3343 (Incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) per ASTM D 3338 (Incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(2) Methanol test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the following
fuel properties:
(i) Specific gravity using either:
(A) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.
600.011-93) for the blend; or
(B) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.
600.011-93) for the gasoline fuel component and also for the methanol
fuel component and combining as follows:
SG=SGg x volume fraction gasoline+SGm x volume
fraction methanol.
(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using the following equation:
CWF=CWFg x MFg+0.375 x MFm
Where:
CWFg=Carbon weight fraction of gasoline portion of blend per
ASTM D 3343 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-
93).
MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(GxSGg)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)
MFm=Mass fraction methanol=(MxSGm)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)
Where:
G=Volume fraction gasoline
M=Volume fraction methanol
SGg=Specific gravity of gasoline as measured by ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
SGm=Specific gravity of methanol as measured by ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(B) Upon the approval of the Administrator, other procedures to
measure the carbon weight fraction of the fuel blend may be used if the
manufacturer can show that the procedures are superior to or equally as
accurate as those specified in this paragraph (f)(2)(ii).
(iii) Net heating value (BTU/lb) per ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by
reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(3) Natural gas test fuel shall be analyzed to determine the
following fuel properties:
(i) Fuel composition per ASTM D 1945-91, Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Constitution Avenue and 14th
Street, NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(ii) Specific gravity (based on fuel composition per ASTM D 1945).
(iii) Carbon weight fraction based on the carbon contained only in
the HC constituents of the fuel=weight of carbon in HC constituents
divided by the total weight of fuel.
(iv) Carbon weight fraction of fuel=total weight of carbon in the
fuel
[[Page 5490]]
(i.e., includes carbon contained in HC and in CO2 divided by
total weight of fuel.
(g) Calculate separate FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP fuel economy from the grams/mile values for total HC,
CO, CO2 and, where applicable, CH3, OH, HCHO,
NMHC and CH4 and, the test fuel's specific gravity, carbon
weight fraction, net heating value, and additionally for natural gas,
the test fuel's composition. The emission values (obtained per
paragraph (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable) used in each
calculation of this section shall be rounded in accordance with 40 CFR
86.084-26(a)(6)(iii) or 40 CFR 86.1837-01 as applicable. The
CO2 values (obtained per this section, as applicable) used
in each calculation of this section shall be rounded to the nearest
gram/mile. The specific gravity and the carbon weight fraction
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded using
three places to the right of the decimal point. The net heating value
(obtained per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be recorded to the
nearest whole Btu/lb.
(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled automobiles, the fuel economy in miles
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:
mpg=(5174x10\4\xCxCWFxSG) / [((CWFxHC) + (0.429xCO) +
(0.273xCO2)) x ((0.6xSGxNHV)+5471)]
Where:
HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph (g)
of this section.
CWF=Carbon weight fraction of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section.
NHV=Net heating value by mass of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g)
of this section.
SG=Specific gravity of test fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(2) Round the calculated result to the nearest 0.1 miles per
gallon.
(i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles, calculate the fuel economy in
miles per gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by the sum of three
terms:
(i) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/miles as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section);
(ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/mile as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section); and
(iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO2 (in grams/mile as obtained
in paragraph (g) of this section).
(2) Round the quotient to the nearest 0.1 mile per gallon.
(j) For methanol-fueled automobiles and automobiles designed to
operate on mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the fuel economy in miles
per gallon is to be calculated using the following equation:
mpg=(CWFxSGx3781.8) / ((CWFexHCxHC) + (0.429xCO) +
(0.273xCO2) + (0.375xCH3OH) + (0.400xHCHO))
Where:
CWF=Carbon weight fraction of the fuel as determined in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section.
SG=Specific gravity of the fuel as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
this section.
CWFexHC=Carbon weight fraction of exhaust hydrocarbons=
CWFg as determined in (c)(2)(ii) of this section (for
M100 fuel, CWFexHC=0.866).
HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section.
CH3OH=Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as obtained
in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO=Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section.
(k) For automobiles fueled with natural gas, the fuel economy in
miles per gallon of natural gas is to be calculated using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.044
Where:
mpge=miles per equivalent gallon of natural gas.
CWFHC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on the hydrocarbon
constituents in the natural gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section.
DNG=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/ft3
at 68 [deg]F (20[deg] C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3 kPa)] pressure as
obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
CH4, NMHC, CO, and CO2=weighted mass exhaust
emissions [grams/mile] for methane, non-methane HC, carbon monoxide,
and carbon dioxide as calculated in Sec. 600.113.
CWFNMHC=carbon weight fraction of the non-methane HC
constituents in the fuel as determined from the speciated fuel
composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
CO2NG=grams of carbon dioxide in the natural gas fuel
consumed per mile of travel.
CO2NG=FCNG DNG WFCO2
where:
FCNG=cubic feet of natural gas fuel consumed per mile
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.045
where:
CWFNG=the carbon weight fraction of the natural gas fuel
as calculated in paragraph (f) of this section.
WFCO2=weight fraction carbon dioxide of the natural gas
fuel calculated using the mole fractions and molecular weights of
the natural gas fuel constituents per ASTM D 1945.
20. A new Sec. 600.114-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.114-08 Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy calculations.
This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under
subpart D of this part.
(a) For each vehicle tested under sec. 600.010-08(c)(i) and (ii),
determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy using the following equation:
[[Page 5491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.047
where,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.048
or,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.049
where
Bag y FEx=the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75[deg] or 20 [deg]F.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.050
where:
US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the ``city''
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the SC03 test.
(b) For each vehicle tested under sec. 600.010-08(a) and
(c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.054
[[Page 5492]]
Bag y FEx=the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75[deg] or 20 [deg]F.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.055
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the highway
portion of the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test.
21. A new Sec. 600.115-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.115-08 Calculations for derived 5-cycle fuel economy.
This section applies to data used for fuel economy labeling under
subpart D of this part.
(a) For each vehicle tested under 600.010 (a) and (b), determine
the derived 5-cycle city fuel economy using the equation in this
paragraph (a) and coefficients determined by the Administrator.
Paragraph (c) of this section provides coefficients applicable to 2008
model year vehicles. In the case of dual fuel vehicles, determine
separate fuel economy values for each fuel type. To determine the
intercept and slope coefficients, the Administrator will compile the 5-
cycle data collected under Sec. 600.010-08(a) for three or more model
years prior to the model year for which the coefficients are
applicable. The Administrator will perform a least squares regression
in which the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel consumption (gallons
per mile) is the dependent variable and the FTP fuel consumption
(gallons per mile) is the independent variable. The resulting equation
will define the slope and intercept coefficients. The Administrator
will provide the coefficients to manufacturers by guidance letter
issued no later than January 1 of the calendar year prior to the model
year to which the coefficients are first applicable.
The equation is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.056
, where:
City Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator
City Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator
FTP FE = the city fuel economy determined under sec. 600.113-08(a),
rounded to the nearest tenth.
(b) For each vehicle tested under Sec. 600.010 (a) and (b),
determine the derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy using the equation
in this paragraph (b) and coefficients determined by the Administrator.
Paragraph (c) of this section provides coefficients applicable to 2008
model year vehicles. In the case of dual fuel vehicles, determine
separate fuel economy values for each fuel type. To determine the
intercept and slope coefficients, the Administrator will compile the 5-
cycle data collected under Sec. 600.010-08(a) for three or more model
years prior to the model year for which the coefficients are
applicable. The Administrator will perform a least squares regression
in which the vehicle-specific 5-cycle highway fuel consumption (gallons
per mile) is the dependent variable and the HFET fuel consumption
(gallons per mile) is the independent variable. The resulting equation
will define the slope and intercept coefficients. The Administrator
will provide the coefficients for a given model year by guidance letter
issued no later than January 1 of the calendar year prior to the model
year to which the coefficients are first applicable.
The equation is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.057
where:
Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by the Administrator based
on historic 5-cycle highway fuel economy data
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the Administrator based on
historic 5-cycle highway fuel economy data
HFET FE = the highway fuel economy determined under Sec. 600.113-
08(b), rounded to the nearest tenth.
(c) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, unless superseded by
written guidance from the Administrator, the following values shall be
used in the equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
City Intercept = 0.002549
City Slope = 1.2259
Highway Intercept = 0.000308
Highway Slope = 1.4030
22. A new Sec. 600.116-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.116-08 Criteria for additional US06, SC03 and cold
temperature FTP testing.
This section applies to 2011 and later model year vehicles. This
section defines which 2011 and later model year vehicles must use the
vehicle-
[[Page 5493]]
specific 5-cycle fuel economy method specified in Sec. 600.114-08.
(a) City fuel economy testing. (1) For each vehicle tested under
Sec. 600.010-08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5-cycle city fuel economy for
that vehicle determined according to the provisions of Sec. 600.114-
08(b) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon shall
be compared to the following value calculated for that vehicle:
(i) The Derived 5-Cycle City Fuel Economy calculated under Sec.
600.115-08(a) multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to the nearest one tenth
of a mile per gallon.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) If the 5-cycle city fuel economy determined in Sec. 600.010-
08(a) is less than the value determined in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section, then the manufacturer must conduct additional fuel economy
testing according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types that are
represented by the certification test group of the emission data
vehicle tested under Sec. 600.010-08(a). For each of these model
types, the manufacturer shall:
(i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold temperature FTP tests in addition
to the FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy for each model type
according to the provisions of Sec. 600.114-08;
(iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for each model
type according to the provisions of Sec. 600.114-08;
(b) Highway fuel economy testing. (1) For each vehicle tested under
Sec. 600.010-08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5-cycle highway fuel economy
for that vehicle determined according to the provisions of Sec.
600.114-08(c) and rounded to the nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon
shall be compared to the following value calculated for that vehicle:
(i) The Derived 5-Cycle Highway Fuel Economy calculated under Sec.
600.115-08(b) multiplied by 0.95 and rounded to the nearest one tenth
of a mile per gallon.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) If the 5-cycle highway fuel economy determined in Sec.
600.010-08(a) is less than the value determined in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
of this section, then the manufacturer must conduct additional fuel
economy testing according to the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) and
(b)(2) of this section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types
that are represented by the certification test group of the emission
data vehicle tested under Sec. 600.010-08(a). For each of these model
types, the manufacturer shall:
(i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold temperature FTP tests in addition
to the FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel economy for each model type
according to the provisions of Sec. 600.114-08;
(iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy for each model
type according to the provisions of Sec. 600.114-08;
(4) For vehicles meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, but not meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the manufacturer shall identify all model types that are
represented by the certification test group of the emission data
vehicle tested under Sec. 600.010-08(a). For each of these model
types, the manufacturer shall:
(i) Perform a US06 test in addition to the FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway fuel economy according to the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.060
where,
Bag y FE75 = the fuel economy in miles per gallon of fuel
during the specified bag of the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75[deg].
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.061
where,
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the highway
portion of the US06 test, and
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon over the HFET test.
Subpart C--[Amended]
23. A new Sec. 600.201-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.201-08 General applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later
model year gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, natural gas-
fueled, alcohol dual fuel, and natural gas dual fuel automobiles.
* * * * *
24. A new Sec. 600.206-08 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 5494]]
Sec. 600.206-08 Calculation and use of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel
economy values for vehicle configurations.
(a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle under Sec.
600.113(a) and (b) and as approved in Sec. 600.008-08(c), are used to
determine FTP-based city, HFET-based highway, and combined FTP/Highway-
based fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which data
are available.
(1) If only one set of FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel
economy values is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values,
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city
and highway fuel economy values for that configuration.
(2) If more than one FTP-based city or highway fuel economy value
is accepted for a vehicle configuration:
(i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in
accordance with Sec. 600.208(a)(3).
(ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in
order to determine FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy
values for each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was
tested.
(iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy values and all HFET-based
highway fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section are (separately for city and highway) averaged in proportion to
the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle
configuration (as provided to the Administrator by the manufacturer) of
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded
to the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values for the vehicle configuration.
(3) For the purpose of determining average fuel economy under Sec.
600.510-93, the combined fuel economy value for a vehicle configuration
is calculated by harmonically averaging the FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec. 600.206(a)(1)
or (2), weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and rounded to the nearest
0.0001 mile per gallon. A sample of this calculation appears in
Appendix II to this part.
(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of FTP-based city,
HFET-based highway, and combined fuel economy values for each
configuration.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
(b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will compose the petroleum-based
fuel economy for that configuration.
(c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value
exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values for that
vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.
25. A new Sec. 600.207-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.207-08 Calculation and use of 5-cycle-based fuel economy
values for vehicle configurations.
(a) Fuel economy values determined for each vehicle, under 600.114-
08, 600.115-08, or 600.116-08 as applicable, and as approved in Sec.
600.008-08(c), are used to determine 5-cycle city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values for each vehicle configuration for which
data are available.
(1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
is accepted for a vehicle configuration, these values, rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the city and highway fuel
economy values for that configuration.
(2) If more than one 5-cycle city or highway fuel economy value is
accepted for a vehicle configuration:
(i) All data shall be grouped according to the subconfiguration for
which the data were generated using sales projections supplied in
accordance with Sec. 600.209(a)(3).
(ii) Within each group of data, all values are harmonically
averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile per gallon in
order to determine 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values for
each subconfiguration at which the vehicle configuration was tested.
(iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy values and all 5-cycle highway
fuel economy values calculated in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section
are (separately for FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP)
averaged in proportion to the sales fraction (rounded to the nearest
0.0001) within the vehicle configuration (as provided to the
Administrator by the manufacturer) of vehicles of each tested
subconfiguration. The resultant values, rounded to the nearest 0.0001
mile per gallon, are the 5-cycle city and highway fuel economy values
for the vehicle configuration.
(3) The 5-cycle combined fuel economy value for a vehicle
configuration is calculated by harmonically averaging the 5-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values, as determined in Sec. 600.207(a)(1)
or (2), weighted 0.43 and 0.57 respectively, and rounded to the nearest
0.0001 mile per gallon. An example of this calculation appears in
Appendix II to this part.
(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of 5-cycle city,
highway, and combined fuel economy values for each configuration.
(i) Calculate the 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel economy
values from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel
economy values from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas
test fuel, if testing was performed; or
(B) Calculate the derived 5-cycle city, highway, and combined fuel
economy according to Sec. 600.115-08, expressed in terms of gasoline
equivalent.
(b) If only one equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy value
exists for an electric configuration, that value, rounded to the
nearest tenth of a mile per gallon, will compose the petroleum-based 5-
cycle fuel economy for that configuration.
(c) If more than one equivalent petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel
economy value exists for an electric vehicle configuration, all values
for that vehicle configuration are harmonically averaged and rounded to
the nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon for that configuration.
26. A new Sec. 600.208-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.208-08 Calculation of FTP-based and HFET-based fuel economy
values for a model type.
(a) Fuel economy values for a base level are calculated from
vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in Sec.
600.206-08(a), (b), or (c) as applicable, for low-altitude tests.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for
[[Page 5495]]
each base level for vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the
states.
(2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new
basic engines and base level(s) if:
(i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
(ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine
(i.e., they are not included in the calculation of the original base
level fuel economy values); and
(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are
represented by test data in accordance with Sec. 600.010-08(c)(1)(ii).
(3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
(i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any
model type value is calculated for a label value.
(iii) The requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 40
CFR 86.084-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable.
(4) Vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as determined in
Sec. 600.206-08(a), (b) or (c), as applicable, are grouped according
to base level.
(i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
(ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per
gallon.
(5) The procedure specified in Sec. 600.208-08(a) will be repeated
for each base level, thus establishing city, highway, and combined fuel
economy values for each base level.
(6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude,
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel
economy for the base level.
(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
(b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a
city, highway, and combined fuel economy value will be calculated by
using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base level
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in
Sec. 600.206-08(a), (b) or (c), as applicable.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.0001.
(3) The FTP-based city fuel economy values of the model type
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which
is a fraction determined by dividing:
(i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
(ii) The FTP-based city fuel economy value for the respective base
level.
(4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined
fuel economy values for the model type.
(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values for each model type.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
27. A new Sec. 600.209-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.209-08 Calculation of 5-cycle fuel economy values for a
model type.
(a) 5-cycle fuel economy values for a base level are calculated
from vehicle configuration 5-cycle fuel economy values as determined in
Sec. 600.207-08 for low-altitude tests.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each base level for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each base level for
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) In order to highlight the fuel efficiency of certain designs
otherwise included within a model type, a manufacturer may wish to
subdivide a model type into one or more additional model types. This is
accomplished by separating subconfigurations from an existing base
level and placing them into a new base level. The new base level is
identical to the existing base level except that it shall be
considered, for the purposes of this paragraph, as containing a new
basic engine. The manufacturer will be permitted to designate such new
basic engines and base level(s) if:
(i) Each additional model type resulting from division of another
model type has a unique car line name and that name appears on the
label and on the vehicle bearing that label;
(ii) The subconfigurations included in the new base levels are not
included in any other base level which differs only by basic engine
(i.e., they are not
[[Page 5496]]
included in the calculation of the original base level fuel economy
values); and
(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are
represented by test data in accordance with Sec. 600.010-08(c)(ii).
(3) The manufacturer shall supply total model year sales
projections for each car line/vehicle subconfiguration combination.
(i) Sales projections must be supplied separately for each car
line-vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in California and each
car line/vehicle subconfiguration intended for sale in the rest of the
states if required by the Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales projections at the time any
model type value is calculated for a label value.
(iii) The requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by
providing an amended application for certification, as described in 40
CFR 86.084-21 or 40 CFR 86.1844-01 as applicable.
(4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel economy values, as
determined in Sec. 600.207-08 are grouped according to base level.
(i) If only one vehicle configuration within a base level has been
tested, the fuel economy value from that vehicle configuration
constitutes the fuel economy for that base level.
(ii) If more than one vehicle configuration within a base level has
been tested, the vehicle configuration fuel economy values are
harmonically averaged in proportion to the respective sales fraction
(rounded to the nearest 0.0001) of each vehicle configuration and the
resultant fuel economy value rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per
gallon.
(5) The procedure specified in Sec. 600.209-08(a) will be repeated
for each base level, thus establishing city, highway, and combined fuel
economy values for each base level.
(6) For the purposes of calculating a base level fuel economy
value, if the only vehicle configuration(s) within the base level are
vehicle configuration(s) which are intended for sale at high altitude,
the Administrator may use fuel economy data from tests conducted on
these vehicle configuration(s) at high altitude to calculate the fuel
economy for the base level.
(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values for each base level.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
(b) For each model type, as determined by the Administrator, a
city, highway, and combined fuel economy value will be calculated by
using the projected sales and fuel economy values for each base level
within the model type. Separate model type calculations will be done
based on the vehicle configuration fuel economy values as determined in
Sec. 600.207-08, as applicable.
(1) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in the State of California are likely to exhibit significant
differences in fuel economy from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy values for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in California and for each model type for
vehicles intended for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) The sales fraction for each base level is calculated by
dividing the projected sales of the base level within the model type by
the projected sales of the model type and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.0001.
(3) The 5-cycle city fuel economy values of the model type
(calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined by dividing one
by a sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a base level and which
is a fraction determined by dividing:
(i) The sales fraction of a base level; by
(ii) The 5-cycle city fuel economy value for the respective base
level.
(4) The procedure specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section is
repeated in an analogous manner to determine the highway and combined
fuel economy values for the model type.
(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section shall be used to calculate two separate sets of city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values for each model type.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using alcohol or natural gas test fuel.
28. A new Sec. 600.210-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.210-08 Calculation of 5-cycle-based fuel economy values for
labeling.
(a) General Labels. The city and highway model type fuel economy
determined in Sec. 600.209-08 (b), rounded to the nearest mpg,
comprise the fuel economy values for general fuel economy labels. If
the manufacturer determines that the resulting label values are not
representative of the fuel economy for that model type, they may
voluntarily lower these values.
(b) Specific Labels. (1) The 5-cycle city model type fuel economy
value determined in Sec. 600.207-08(a), rounded to the nearest mpg,
comprises the city fuel economy value for specific fuel economy labels.
If the manufacturer determines that the resulting city label value is
not representative of the fuel economy for that specific vehicle, they
may voluntarily lower this value.
(2) The 5-cycle highway model type fuel economy value determined in
Sec. 600.207-08(a) rounded to the nearest mpg, comprises the highway
fuel economy value for specific fuel economy labels. If the
manufacturer determines that the resulting highway label value is not
representative of the fuel economy for that specific vehicle, they may
voluntarily lower this value.
(c) If the city value exceeds the highway value for a model type
under (a) or (b) of this section, the city value will be set equal to
the highway value. In cases where special vehicle design features may
result in city values that exceed highway values, the manufacturer may
request Administrator approval to waive this requirement. Such a
request must be accompanied by on-road fuel economy data which
demonstrates that the fuel economy during city-type driving is higher
than fuel economy during highway-type driving.
(d) For the purposes of calculating the combined fuel economy for a
model type, to be used in determining annual fuel costs under Sec.
600.307-08, the manufacturer shall (except as provided for in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section):
(1)(i) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and
natural gas-fueled automobiles, harmonically average the unrounded city
and highway values, determined in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i),
or (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of this section weighted 0.43 and 0.57
respectively, and round to the nearest whole mpg. (An example of this
calculation procedure appears in appendix II of this part); or
(ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles,
harmonically average the unrounded city and highway values from the
tests
[[Page 5497]]
performed using gasoline or diesel test fuel as determined in
paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(A), or (a)(2)(ii)(A) and
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
(2) If the resulting city value determined in paragraph (a) of this
section exceeds the resulting highway value determined in paragraph (b)
of this section, the combined fuel economy will be set equal to the
highway value, rounded to the nearest whole mpg, unless as otherwise
approved by the Administrator under paragraph (c) of this section.
Subpart D--[Amended]
29. A new Sec. 600.301-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.301-08 General applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to 2008 and later
model year gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, natural gas-
fueled, alcohol dual fuel, and natural gas dual fuel automobiles.
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt
from the requirement of this subpart, except with regard to the
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric
vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
* * * * *
30. A new Sec. 600.306-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.306-08 Labeling requirements.
(a) Prior to being offered for sale, each manufacturer shall affix
or cause to be affixed and each dealer shall maintain or cause to be
maintained on each automobile:
(1) A general fuel economy label (initial, or updated as required
in Sec. 600.314) as described in Sec. 600.307(c) or:
(2) A specific label, as described in Sec. 600.307(d), for those
automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that occurs 15
days after general labels have been determined by the manufacturer.
(i) If the manufacturer elects to use a specific label within a
model type (as defined in Sec. 600.002-08, he shall also affix
specific labels on all automobiles within this model type, except on
those automobiles manufactured or imported before the date that labels
are required to bear range values as required by paragraph (b) of this
section, or determined by the Administrator, or as permitted under
Sec. 600.310-08.
(ii) If a manufacturer elects to change from general to specific
labels or vice versa within a model type, the manufacturer shall,
within five calendar days, initiate or discontinue as applicable, the
use of specific labels on all vehicles within a model type at all
facilities where labels are affixed.
(3) For any vehicle for which a specific label is requested which
has a combined FTP/HFET-based fuel economy value, as determined in
Sec. 600.206-08(a)(3), at or below the minimum tax-free value, the
following statement must appear on the specific label:
``[Manufacturer's name] may have to pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on
this vehicle because of the low fuel economy.'' (4)(i) At the time a
general fuel economy value is determined for a model type, a
manufacturer shall, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this
section, relabel, or cause to be relabeled, vehicles which:
(A) Have not been delivered to the ultimate purchaser, and
(B) Have a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value
(as determined in Sec. 600.208-08(b) of 0.1 mpg or more below the
lowest fuel economy value at which a Gas Guzzler Tax of $0 is to be
assessed.
(ii) The manufacturer has the option of relabeling vehicles during
the first five working days after the general label value is known.
(iii) For those vehicle model types which have been issued a
specific label and are subsequently found to have tax liability, the
manufacturer is responsible for the tax liability regardless of whether
the vehicle has been sold or not or whether the vehicle has been
relabeled or not.
(b) FE range of comparable vehicles. The manufacturer shall include
the current range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles (as
described in Sec. Sec. 600.311 and 600.314) in the label of each
vehicle manufactured or imported more than 15 calendar days after the
current range is made available by the Administrator.
(1) Automobiles manufactured before a date 16 or more calendar days
after the initial label range is made available under Sec. 600.311-
08(c) may be labeled without a range of fuel economy of comparable
automobiles. In place of the range of fuel economy of comparable
automobiles, the label must contain the statement ``Fuel economy for
comparable vehicles not available at this time. See www.fueleconomy.gov
for comparisons.''
(2) Automobiles manufactured more than 15 calendar days after the
initial or updated label range is made available under Sec. 600.311-
08(c) or (d) will be labeled with the current range of fuel economy of
comparable automobiles as approved for that label.
(c) The fuel economy label must be readily visible from the
exterior of the automobile and remain affixed until the time the
automobile is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
(1) It is preferable that the fuel economy label information be
included with the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label, provided
that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy label is
maintained. For this purpose, all fuel economy label information must
be placed on a separate section in the label and may not be intermixed
with the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label information,
except for vehicle descriptions as noted in Sec. 600.307-08(c).
(2) The fuel economy label must be located on a side window. If the
window is not large enough to contain both the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label and the fuel economy label, the manufacturer shall
have the fuel economy label affixed on another window and as close as
possible to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act label.
(3) The manufacturer shall have the fuel economy label affixed in
such a manner that appearance and legibility are maintained until after
the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer.
31. A new Sec. 600.307-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.307-08 Fuel economy label format requirements.
[Note:
Proposed rule offers 4 label formats. One will be selected based
on comments received. Precise font sizes and locations are to be
determined based on the final format chosen].
(a)(1) Fuel economy labels must be:
(i) Rectangular in shape with a minimum height of 4.5 inches (114
mm) and a minimum length of 7.0 inches (178 mm) as depicted in Appendix
VIII.
(ii) Printed in a color which contrasts with the paper color.
(iii) The label shall have a contrasting border. The top border
shall be at least [TBD] inches wide and the bottom border shall be at
least [TBD] wide. The side borders shall be no more than [TBD] wide.
(2) The top [TBD] percent of the fuel economy label area shall
contain only the following information and in the same format depicted
in the label format in Appendix VIII:
[[Page 5498]]
(i) The titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', centered over the
applicable fuel economy estimates, in bold caps [TBD] points in size,
(ii)(A) For gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcohol-fueled, and
natural gas-fueled automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy
estimates calculated in accordance with Sec. 600.209(a) and (b),
(B) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the city and highway fuel economy estimates for operation
on gasoline or diesel fuel as calculated in Sec. 600.210-08(a) and
(b),
(iii) The fuel pump logo,
(iv) The following phrase is centered, full justification,
underneath the fuel pump logo, in bold print: ``Your actual mileage can
vary significantly according to how you drive and maintain your vehicle
and other factors.
(v) The statement: ``Expected range for most drivers:-- to --
mpg'', placed underneath both the city and highway estimates, centered
to the estimate numbers. The range values for this statement are to be
calculated in accordance with the following:
(A) The lower range values shall be determined by multiplying the
city and highway estimates by 0.83, then rounding to the next lower
integer value.
(B) The upper range values shall be determined by multiplying the
city and highway estimates by 1.17 and rounding to the next higher
integer value.
(vi) The top border shall contain a ``dropped out'' centered title
``EPA FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES'' in bold caps [TBD] points in size. At
the far left of the top border, the official EPA logo shall appear and
at the far right of the top border, the official DOE logo shall appear.
The logos shall be [TBD] inches in diameter.
(vii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled automobiles, the title
A(insert appropriate fuel (example ``METHANOL ``(M85))'')''. The title
shall be positioned [TBD] and shall be in upper case in a bold
condensed type and no smaller than [TBD] points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the title
``NATURAL GAS*''. The title shall be positioned [TBD] and shall be in
uppercase in a bold condensed type and no smaller than [TBD] points in
size.
(C) For dedicated alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas
dual fuel automobiles, the title ``DUAL FUEL*''. The title shall be
positioned [TBD] and shall be in upper case in a bold condensed type
and no smaller than [TBD] points in size.
(viii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled automobiles, the title
``(insert appropriate fuel (example ``M85''))'' centered above the
title ``CITY MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps
[TBD] points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobile, the title
AGASOLINE EQUIVALENT'' centered above the title ``CITY MPG'' and above
the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps [TBD] points in size.
(C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the title ``GASOLINE'' centered above the title ``CITY
MPG'' and above the title ``HIGHWAY MPG'' in bold caps [TBD] in size.
(3) The bottom [TBD] percent of the label shall contain the
following information: (i) The bottom border shall contain the
following ``dropped out'' centered text in [TBD] font print: ``For more
information see the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE available at dealers or on
line at www.fueleconomy.gov''.
(ii) If the label is separate from the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label, the [vehicle/truck] description, as described in
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, when applicable.
(iii)(A) A statement: ``For comparison shopping, the range of fuel
economy for all [VEHICLE CLASS]s is -- to -- mpg city and-- to --mpg
highway.'' (The range values are those determined in accordance with
Sec. 600.311.) Or, when applicable, [Alternative: (A) A graphic
representation of combined FE range as shown in Appendix IV. Format
TBD.]
(B) A statement: ``A range of fuel economy values for other
[VEHICLE CLASS]s is not available at this time.''
(iv) The statement: ``Estimated Annual Fuel Cost:'' followed by the
appropriate value calculated in accordance with paragraph (f) or (g) of
this section and the statement ``based on ---- miles at [the EPA-
provided cost per gallon of the required fuel for that vehicle.'' The
estimated annual fuel cost value for alcohol dual fuel automobiles and
natural gas dual fuel vehicles to appear on the fuel economy label
shall be that calculated based on operating the vehicle on gasoline or
diesel fuel as determined in Sec. 600.307(g) and (h) [check cites]. At
the manufacturer's option, the label may also contain the estimated
annual fuel cost value based on operating the vehicle on the
alternative fuel.
(v)(A) The Gas Guzzler statement, when applicable (see paragraph
(e) of this section), must be centered on a separate line between the
bottom border and the Estimated Annual Fuel Cost statements. The words
``Gas Guzzler'' shall be highlighted.
(B) The type size shall be at least as large as the largest type
size in the bottom [TBD] percent of the label.
(vi)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled, and natural gas-fueled
automobiles, the statement: ``*This vehicle operates on [insert
appropriate fuel(s)] only.'' shall appear [TBD]. The phrase shall be in
lower case in a medium condensed type except for the fuels listed which
shall be capitalized in a bold condensed type no smaller than [TBD]
points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled automobiles, the statements:
``All fuel economy values on this label pertain to gasoline equivalent
fuel economy. To convert these values into units of miles per 100 cubic
feet of natural gas, multiply by 0.823.'' At the manufacturers option,
the statement ``To convert these values into units of miles per 100
cubic feet of natural gas, multiply by 0.823.'' may be replaced by the
statement ``The fuel economy in units of miles per (insert units used
in retail) is estimated to be (insert city fuel economy value) in the
city, and (insert highway fuel economy value) on the highway.''
(C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the statement: ``This vehicle operates on [insert gasoline
or diesel as appropriate] and [insert other fuel(s) as appropriate].''
shall appear above the bottom border. The phrase shall be in lower case
in a medium condensed type except for the words ``gasoline'' or
``diesel'' (as appropriate) and the other fuels listed, which shall be
capitalized in a bold condensed type no smaller than [TBD] points in
size.
(vii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the statement: ``All fuel economy values on this label
pertain to [insert gasoline or diesel as appropriate] fuel usage.
[insert other fuel(s) as appropriate] fuel(s) usage will yield
different values. See the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE for information on
[insert other fuel(s)].'' At the manufacturers option, the above
statements may be replaced by the statement ``The fuel economy while
using [insert appropriate fuel (example ``M85)] is estimated to be
[insert city fuel economy value and appropriate units] in the city and
[insert highway fuel economy value and appropriate units] on the
highway. See the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE for other information on
[insert appropriate fuel].''
(4) The maximum type size for the statements located in the lower
[TBD] percent of the label shall not exceed [TBD] points in size.
[[Page 5499]]
(b) The city mpg number shall be displayed on the [TBD] and the
highway mpg number displayed on the [TBD].
(1) Except for the digit ``one,'' each mpg digit shall measure at
least [TBD] inches by [TBD inches ([TBD x TBD] mm) in width and height
respectively.
(2) The digit ``one,'' shall measure at least [TBD] mm by [TBD] mm
width and height respectively.
(3)(i) MPG digits not printed as a single character shall be made
of a matrix of smaller characters. This matrix shall be at least four
characters wide by five characters high (with the exception of three
characters wide for the numerical character denoting ``one''.)
(ii) The small characters shall be made of successive overstrikes
to form a reasonably dark and continuous line that approximates a
single large character.
(4)(i) If manufacturer chooses to enlarge the label from that
depicted in Appendix IV, the logo and the fuel economy label values,
including the titles ``CITY MPG'' and ``HIGHWAY MPG'', must be
increased in the same proportion.
(ii) The area bounded by the bottom of the fuel pump logo to the
top of the border must continue to represent at least [TBD] percent of
the available label area.
(c) Vehicle description information for general and specific
labels. (1) Where the fuel economy label is physically incorporated
with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the
applicable vehicle description, as set forth in this paragraph, does
not have to be repeated if the information is readily found on this
label.
(2) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle
description on general labels will be as follows:
(i) Model year;
(ii) Vehicle car line;
(iii) Engine displacement, in cubic inches, cubic centimeters, or
liters whichever is consistent with the customary description of that
engine;
(iv) Number of engine cylinders or rotors;
(v) Additional engine description, if necessary to distinguish
otherwise identical model types, as approved by the Administrator; and
(vi) Transmission class.
(3) For fuel economy labels which are physically separate from the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act label, the vehicle
description on specific labels will be as follows:
(i) The descriptions of paragraph (c) of this section, and
(ii) Inertia weight class;
(iii) Axle ratio; and
(iv) Other engine or vehicle parameters, if approved by the
Administrator.
(d) [Reserved]
(e)(1) For fuel economy labels of passenger automobile model types
requiring a tax statement under Sec. 600.513, the phrase ``* * * Gas
Guzzler Tax: $---- * * *''.
(2) The tax value required by this paragraph shall be based on the
combined fuel economy value for the model type calculated in accordance
with Sec. 600.208-08 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(f) Estimated annual fuel cost--general labels. The annual fuel
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a model type
shall be computed by using values for the fuel cost per gallon of the
required fuel as specified in the owner's manual and average annual
mileage, predetermined by the Administrator, and the combined fuel
economy determined in Sec. 600.210(d).
(1) The annual fuel cost estimate for a model type is computed by
multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons)
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The average, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallons equivalent per mile
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the combined fuel economy
value determined in Sec. 600.210(d) for a model type.
(2) The product computed in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel
cost estimate that appears on general labels for the model type.
(g) Estimated annual fuel cost--specific labels. The annual fuel
cost estimate for operating an automobile included in a vehicle
configuration will be computed by using the values for the fuel cost
per volume (gallon for liquid fuels, cubic feet for gaseous fuels) and
average mileage and the fuel economy determined in paragraph
(h)(1)(iii) of this section.
(1) The annual fuel cost estimate for vehicle configuration is
computed by multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas must be expressed in units of
cost per equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons)
expressed in dollars to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage, expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The inverse, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile
(natural gas must be expressed in units of gallon equivalent per mile,
where 100 SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the fuel economy value
determined in Sec. 600.207-08(a)(2)(iii) for a vehicle configuration.
(2) The product computed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year will comprise the annual fuel
cost estimate that appears on specific labels for that vehicle
configuration.
* * * * *
32. A new Sec. 600.311-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.311-08 Range of fuel economy for comparable automobiles.
(a) The Administrator will determine the range of city and the
range of highway fuel economy values for each class of comparable
automobiles.
[Alternative proposal for graphic depiction of comparable fuel
economy] (a) The Administrator will determine the range of combined
fuel economy values for each class of comparable automobiles. The range
of combined fuel economy values within a class is the maximum and
minimum combined fuel economy values for all general labels as
determined in Sec. 600.210-08(d).
(b) The range of city fuel economy values within a class is the
maximum city and the minimum city fuel economy value for all general
labels as determined in Sec. 600.210-08(a) regardless of manufacturer.
The range of highway values is determined in the same manner.
(c) The initial range will be made available on a date specified by
the Administrator that closely coincides to the date of the general
model introduction for the industry.
(d) The ranges of comparable fuel economy values for a class of
automobiles will be updated periodically and will be derived from the
latest available label values reported to the Administrator for that
class of automobiles.
(e) If the Administrator determines that automobiles intended for
sale in California are likely to exhibit significant differences in
fuel economy from those intended for sale in other states, he/she will
compute separate ranges of fuel economy values for each class of
automobiles for California and for the other states.
[[Page 5500]]
(f) For high altitude vehicles determined under Sec. 600.310, both
general and specific labels will contain the range of comparable fuel
economy computed in this section.
(g) The manufacturer shall include the appropriate range of fuel
economy determined by the Administrator in paragraph (c) or (d) of this
section, on each label affixed to an automobile within the class,
except as provided in Sec. 600.306(b)(1).
33. A new Sec. 600.314-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.314-01 Updating label values, annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler
Tax, and range of fuel economies for comparable automobiles.
(a) The label values established in Sec. 600.312 shall remain in
effect for the model year unless updated in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer shall recalculate the model type fuel
economy values for any model type containing base levels affected by
running changes specified in Sec. 600.507(a).
(2) For separate model types created in Sec. 600.209-08(a)(2), the
manufacturer shall recalculate the model type values for any additions
or deletions of subconfigurations to the model type. Minimum data
requirements specified in Sec. 600.010(c) shall be met prior to
recalculation.
(3) Label value recalculations shall be performed to read as
follows:
(i) The manufacturer shall use updated total model year projected
sales for label value recalculations.
(ii) All model year data approved by the Administrator at the time
of the recalculation for that model type shall be included in the
recalculation.
(iii) Using the additional data under paragraph (b) of this
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new 5-cycle model type city
and highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec. 600.209-08 and
600.210-08 except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1
mpg.
(iv) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 600.209-08 and 600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg.
(4)(i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0 mpg or
more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with the recalculated 5-cycle
model type values (rounded to whole mpg'') to all new vehicles of that
model type beginning on the day of implementation of the running
change.
(ii) If the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is higher than the respective
city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0
mpg or more, then the manufacturer has the option to use the
recalculated values for labeling the entire model type beginning on the
day of implementation of the running change.
(c) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy
values determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the
manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax as needed).
(d) The Administrator shall periodically update the range of fuel
economies of comparable automobiles based upon all label data supplied
to the Administrator.
(e) The manufacturer may request permission from the Administrator
to calculate and use label values based on test data from vehicles
which have not completed the Administrator ordered confirmatory testing
required under the provisions of Sec. 600.008-08(c). If the
Administrator approves such a calculation the following procedures
shall be used to determine if relabeling is required after the
confirmatory testing is completed.
(1) The Administrator-ordered confirmatory testing shall be
completed as quickly as possible.
(2) Using the additional data under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the manufacturer shall calculate new model type city and
highway values in accordance with Sec. Sec. 600.207-08 and 600.210-08
except that the values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(3) The existing label values, calculated in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 600.209-08 and 600.210-08, shall be rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg.
(4) Relabeling. (i) If the recalculated city or highway fuel
economy value in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the
respective city or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this
section by 0.5 mpg or more, the manufacturer shall affix labels with
the recalculated 5-cycle model type values (rounded to whole mpg) to
all new vehicles of that model type beginning 15 days after the
completion of the confirmatory test.
(ii) If both the recalculated city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is less than the respective city
or highway value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 0.1 mpg or
more and the recalculated gas guzzler tax rate determined under the
provisions of Sec. 600.513-91 is larger, the manufacturer shall affix
labels with the recalculated model type values (rounded to whole mpg)
and gas guzzler tax statement and rates to all new vehicles of that
model type beginning 15 days after the completion of the confirmatory
test.
(5) For fuel economy labels updated using recalculated fuel economy
values determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this section,
the manufacturer shall concurrently update all other label information
(e.g., the annual fuel cost, range of comparable vehicles and the
applicability of the Gas Guzzler Tax if required by Department of
Treasury regulations).
34. A new Sec. 600.315-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.315-08 Classes of comparable automobiles.
(a) The Secretary will classify automobiles as passenger
automobiles or light trucks (nonpassenger automobiles) in accordance
with 49 CFR part 523.
(1) The Administrator will classify passenger automobiles by car
line into one of the following classes based on interior volume index
or seating capacity except for those passenger automobiles which the
Administrator determines are most appropriately placed in a different
classification or classed as special purpose vehicles as provided in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(i) Two seaters. A car line shall be classed as ``Two Seater'' if
the majority of the vehicles in that car line have no more than two
designated seating positions as such term is defined in the regulations
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 571.3.
(ii) Minicompact cars. Interior volume index less than 85 cubic
feet.
(iii) Subcompact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal
to 85 cubic feet but less than 100 cubic feet.
(iv) Compact cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to
100 cubic feet but less than 110 cubic feet.
(v) Midsize cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to
110 cubic feet but less than 120 cubic feet.
(vi) Large cars. Interior volume index greater than or equal to 120
cubic feet.
(vii) Small station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index less than 130 cubic feet.
(viii) Midsize station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index greater than or equal to 130 cubic feet but less than 160 cubic
feet.
[[Page 5501]]
(ix) Large station wagons. Station wagons with interior volume
index greater than or equal to 160 cubic feet.
(2) The Administrator will classify nonpassenger automobiles into
the following categories: Small pickup trucks, standard pickup trucks,
vans, minivans, SUVS and special purpose vehicles. Pickup trucks will
be separated by car line on the basis of gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR). For pickup truck car lines with more than one GVWR, the GVWR of
the pickup truck car line is the arithmetic average of all distinct
GVWR's less than or equal to 8,500 pounds available for that car line.
(i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR less than 6000
pounds.
(ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup trucks with a GVWR of 6000
pounds up to and including 8,500 pounds.
(iii) Vans.
(iv) Minivans.
(v) Sport utility vehicles.
(3)(i) Special purpose vehicles. All automobiles with GVWR less
than or equal to 8,500 pounds which possess special features and which
the Administrator determines are more appropriately classified
separately from typical automobiles or which do not meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section will be
classified as special purpose vehicles.
(ii) All automobiles with GVWR less than or equal to 8,500 pounds
which possess features that could apply to two classes will be
classified by the Administrator based on the Administrator's judgment
on which class of vehicles consumers are more likely to make
comparisons.
(4) Once a certain car line is classified by the Administrator, the
classification will remain in effect for the model year.
(b) Interior volume index-passenger automobiles. (1) The interior
volume index shall be calculated for each car line which is not a ``two
seater'' car line, in cubic feet rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic foot.
For car lines with more than one body style, the interior volume index
for the car line is the arithmetic average of the interior volume
indexes of each body style in the car line.
(2) For all body styles except station wagons, minivans and
hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat)
equipped with seatbelts as required by DOT safety regulations, interior
volume index is the sum, rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the
front seat volume, the rear seat volume, if applicable, and the luggage
capacity.
(3) For all station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks with more than
one seat (e.g., with a second or third seat) equipped with seatbelts as
required by DOT safety regulations, interior volume index is the sum,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the front seat volume, the
rear seat volume, and the cargo volume index.
(c) All interior and cargo dimensions are measured in inches to the
nearest 0.1 inch. All dimensions and volumes shall be determined from
the base vehicles of each body style in each car line, and do not
include optional equipment. The dimensions H61, W3, W5, L34, H63, W4,
W6, L51, H201, L205, L210, L211, H198, and volume V1 are to be
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in Motor Vehicle
Dimensions SAE J1100a (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee,
Society of Automotive Engineers, approved September 1973 and last
revised September 1975) except as noted herein:
(1) SAE J1100a(2.3).--Cargo dimensions. All dimensions measured
with the front seat positioned the same as for the interior dimensions
and the second seat, for the station wagons, minivans and hatchbacks,
in the upright position. All head restraints shall be in the stowed
position and considered part of the seat.
(2) SAE J1100a(8)--Luggage capacity. Total of columns of individual
pieces of standard luggage set plus H boxes stowed in the luggage
compartment in accordance with the procedure described in 8.2. For
passenger automobiles with no rear seat or with two rear seats with no
rear seatbelts, the luggage compartment shall include the area to the
rear of the front seat, with the rear seat (if applicable) folded, to
the height of a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the front
seatback.
(3) SAE J1100a(7)--Cargo dimensions. (i) L210--Cargo length at
second seatback height-hatchback. The minimum horizontal dimension from
the ``X'' plane tangent to the rearmost surface of the second seatback
to the inside limiting interference of the hatchback door on the zero
``Y'' plane.
(ii) L211--Cargo length at floor--second-hatchback. The minimum
horizontal dimensions at floor level from the rear of the second
seatback to the normal limiting interference of the hatchback door on
the vehicle zero ``Y'' plane.
(iii) H198--Second seatback to load floor height. The dimension
measured vertically from the horizontal tangent to the top of the
second seatback to the undepressed floor covering.
(d) The front seat volume is calculated in cubic feet by dividing
1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and rounding the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H61--Effective head room--front. (In inches, obtained according
to paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W3+W5+5)/2--Average of shoulder and hip room--front, if hip
room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 and
W5 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
(ii) W3--Shoulder room--front, if hip room is not more than 5
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section), and
(3) L34--Maximum effective leg room--accelerator. (In inches,
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(e) The rear seat volume is calculated in cubic feet, for vehicles
within a rear seat equipped with rear seat belts (as required by DOT),
by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms listed below and
rounding the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H63--Effective head room--second. (Inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W4+W6+5)/2--Average of shoulder and hip room--second, if
hip room is more than 5 inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W4
and W6 are obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section), or
(ii) W4--Shoulder room--second, if hip room is not more than 5
inches less than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section), and
(3) L51--Minimum effective leg room--second. (In inches obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this section.)
(f) The luggage capacity is V1, the usable luggage capacity
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section. For passenger
automobiles with no rear seat or with a rear seat but no rear seat
belts, the area to the rear of the front seat shall be included in the
determination of V1, usable luggage capacity, as outlined in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(g) Cargo volume index. (1) For station wagons and minivans the
cargo volume index V2 is calculated, in cubic feet, by dividing 1,728
into the product of three terms and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(i) W4--Shoulder room--second. (In inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section.)
(ii) H201--Cargo height. (In inches obtained according to paragraph
(c) of this section.)
[[Page 5502]]
(iii) L205--Cargo length at belt--second. (In inches obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this section.)
(2) For hatchbacks, the cargo volume index V3 is calculated, in
cubic feet, by dividing 1,728 into the product of three terms:
(i) Average cargo length, which is the arithmetic average of:
(A) L210--Cargo length at second seatback height--hatchback. (In
inches obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section);
(B) L211--Cargo length at floor--second-hatchback. (In inches
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section);
(ii) W4--Shoulder room--second. (In inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section);
(iii) H198--Second seatback to load floor height. (In inches
obtained according to paragraph (c) of this section.) Round the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic foot.
(h) The following data must be submitted to the Administrator no
later than the time of a general label request. Data shall be included
for each body style in the car line covered by that general label.
(1) For all passenger automobiles:
(i) Dimensions H61, W3, L34 determined in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section.
(ii) Front seat volume determined in accordance with paragraph (d)
of this section.
(iii) Dimensions H63, W4, L51 (if applicable) determined in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(iv) Rear seat volume (if applicable) determined in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section.
(v) The interior volume index determined in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section for:
(A) Each body style, and
(B) The car line.
(vi) The class of the car line as determined in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) For all passenger automobiles except station wagons, minivans
and hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or third
seat) equipped with seat belts as required by DOT safety regulations:
(i) The quantity and letter designation of the pieces of the
standard luggage set installed in the vehicle in the determination of
usable luggage capacity V1, and
(ii) The usable luggage capacity V1, determined in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) For station wagons and minivans with more than one seat (e.g.,
with a second or third seat) equipped with seat belts as required by
DOT safety regulations:
(i) The dimensions H201 and L205 determined in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, and
(ii) The cargo volume index V2 determined in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(4) For hatchbacks with more than one seat (e.g., with a second or
third seat) equipped with seat belts as required by DOT safety
regulations:
(i) The dimensions L210, L211, and H198 determined in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) The cargo volume index V3 determined in accordance with
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(5) For pickup trucks:
(i) All GVWR's of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds available in
the car line.
(ii) The arithmetic average GVWR for the car line.
* * * * *
Subpart E--[Amended]
* * * * *
35. A new Sec. 600.405-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.405-08 Dealer requirements.
(a) Each dealer shall prominently display at each location where
new automobiles are offered for sale a copy of the annual Fuel Economy
Guide containing the information specified in Sec. 600.407. The Fuel
Economy Guide may be made available either in hard copy or
electronically via an on-site computer available for prospective
purchasers to view and print as desired. The dealer shall provide this
information without charge. The dealer will be expected to make this
information available as soon as it is received by the dealer, but in
no case later than 15 working days after notification is given of its
availability. The Department of Energy will annually notify dealers of
the availability of the information with instructions on how to obtain
it either electronically or in hard copy.
(b) The dealer shall display the Fuel Economy Guide, or a notice of
where the customer can electronically access the Fuel Economy Guide, in
the same manner and in each location used to display brochures
describing the automobiles offered for sale by the dealer. The notice
shall include a link to the official Web site where this information is
contained (www.fueleconomy.gov.)
(c) The dealer shall display the booklet applicable to each model
year automobile offered for sale at the location.
* * * * *
36. A new Sec. 600.407-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.407-08 Booklets displayed by dealers.
(a) Booklets displayed by dealers in order to fulfill the
obligations of Sec. 600.405 may be either
(1) The printed copy of the annual Fuel Economy Guide published by
the Department of Energy, or;
(2) Optionally, dealers may display the Fuel Economy Guide on a
computer that is linked to the electronic version of the Fuel Economy
Guide (available at www.fueleconomy.gov.), or;
(3) A booklet approved by the Administrator of EPA containing the
same information, format, and order as the Fuel Economy Guide published
by the Department of Energy. Such a booklet may highlight the dealer's
product line by contrasting color of ink or boldface type and may
include other supplemental information regarding the dealer's product
line subject to approval by the Administrator.
(b) A manufacturer's name and logo or a dealer's name and address
or both may appear on the back cover of the hard copies of the Fuel
Economy Guide.
Subpart F--[Amended]
* * * * *
37. A new Sec. 600.507-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.507-08 Running change data requirements.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the
manufacturer shall submit additional running change fuel economy data
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section for any running change
approved or implemented under 40 CFR 86.079-32, 86.079-33, or 86.082-34
or 40 CFR 86.1842-01 as applicable, which:
(1) Creates a new base level or,
(2) Affects an existing base level by:
(i) Adding an axle ratio which is at least 10 percent larger (or,
optionally, 10 percent smaller) than the largest axle ratio tested.
(ii) Increasing (or, optionally, decreasing) the road-load
horsepower for a subconfiguration by 10 percent or more for the
individual running change or, when considered cumulatively, since
original certification (for each cumulative 10 percent increase using
the originally certified road-load horsepower as a base).
(iii) Adding a new subconfiguration by increasing (or, optionally,
decreasing) the equivalent test weight
[[Page 5503]]
for any previously tested subconfiguration in the base level.
(b)(1) The additional running change fuel economy data requirement
in paragraph (a) of this section will be determined based on the sales
of the vehicle configurations in the created or affected base level(s)
as updated at the time of running change approval.
(2) Within each newly created base level as specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, the manufacturer shall submit data from the
highest projected total model year sales subconfiguration within the
highest projected total model year sales configuration in the base
level.
(3) Within each base level affected by a running change as
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, fuel economy data shall
be submitted for the vehicle configuration created or affected by the
running change which has the highest total model year sales. The test
vehicle shall be of the subconfiguration created by the running change
which has the highest projected total model year sales within the
applicable vehicle configuration.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the fuel economy data required by
this section to the Administrator in accordance with Sec. 600.314(b).
(d) For those model types created under Sec. 600.208-08(a)(2), the
manufacturer shall submit data for each subconfiguration added by a
running change.
* * * * *
38. A new Sec. 600.510-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.510-08 Calculation of average fuel economy.
(a) Average fuel economy will be calculated to the nearest 0.1 mpg
for the classes of automobiles identified in this section, and the
results of such calculations will be reported to the Secretary of
Transportation for use in determining compliance with the applicable
fuel economy standards.
(1) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the
category of passenger automobiles that is domestically manufactured as
defined in Sec. 600.511(d)(1).
(2) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the
category of passenger automobiles that is not domestically manufactured
as defined in Sec. 600.511(d)(2).
(3) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the
category of light trucks that is domestically manufactured as defined
in Sec. 600.511(e)(1).
(4) An average fuel economy calculation will be made for the
category of light trucks that is not domestically manufactured as
defined in Sec. 600.511(e)(2).
(b) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy under
paragraph (c), of this section:
(1) All fuel economy data submitted in accordance with Sec.
600.006(e) or Sec. 600.512(c) shall be used.
(2) The combined city/highway fuel economy will be calculated for
each model type in accordance with Sec. 600.208-08 of this section
except that:
(i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for model types
and base levels associated with car lines that are:
(A) Domestically produced; and
(B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
(ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart,
will be used instead of sales projections;
(iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to correct gallons of diesel fuel to
equivalent gallons of gasoline;
(iv) The fuel economy value will be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg;
and
(v) At the manufacturer's option, those vehicle configurations that
are self-compensating to altitude changes may be separated by sales
into high-altitude sales categories and low-altitude sales categories.
These separate sales categories may then be treated (only for the
purpose of this section) as separate configurations in accordance with
the procedure of Sec. 600.208-08(a)(4)(ii).
(3) The fuel economy value for each vehicle configuration is the
combined fuel economy calculated according to Sec. 600.206-08(a)(3)
except that:
(i) Separate fuel economy values will be calculated for vehicle
configurations associated with car lines that are:
(A) Domestically produced; and
(B) Nondomestically produced and imported;
(ii) Total model year production data, as required by this subpart
will be used instead of sales projections; and
(iii) The fuel economy value of diesel-powered model types will be
multiplied by the factor 1.0 to convert gallons of diesel fuel to
equivalent gallons of gasoline.
(c) Except as permitted in paragraph (d) of this section, the
average fuel economy will be calculated individually for each category
identified in paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
(1) Divide the total production volume of that category of
automobiles; by
(2) A sum of terms, each of which corresponds to a model type
within that category of automobiles and is a fraction determined by
dividing:
(i) The number of automobiles of that model type produced by the
manufacturer in the model year; by
(ii) For gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled model types, the fuel
economy calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) of this section; or
(iii) For alcohol-fueled model types, the fuel economy value
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
(iv) For natural gas-fueled model types, the fuel economy value
calculated for that model type in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section divided by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
(v) For alcohol dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 through
2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the result
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
(A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on
gasoline or diesel fuel as determined in Sec. 600.208(b)(5)(i); and
(B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on
alcohol fuel as determined in Sec. 600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15
provided the requirements of Sec. 600.510 (g) are met; or
(vi) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 1993
through 2004, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the
result rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
(A) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on
gasoline or diesel as determined in Sec. 600.208(b)(5)(i); and
(B) The combined model type fuel economy value for operation on
natural gas as determined in Sec. 600.208(b)(5)(ii) divided by 0.15
provided the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are met.
(d) The Administrator may approve alternative calculation methods
if they are part of an approved credit plan under the provisions of 15
U.S.C. 2003.
(e) For passenger categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section, the average fuel economy calculated in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section shall be adjusted using the
following equation:
AFEadj=AFE[((0.55 x a x c) + (0.45 x c) + (0.5556 x a) +
0.4487) / ((0.55 x a) + 0.45)] + IW
Where:
AFEadj=Adjusted average combined fuel economy, rounded to
the nearest 0.1 mpg.
AFE=Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph (c) of
this
[[Page 5504]]
section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
a=Sales-weight average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all model
type highway fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg)
divided by the sales-weighted average (rounded to the nearest 0.0001
mpg) of all model type city fuel economy values (rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg). The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places. These
average fuel economies shall be determined using the methodology of
paragraph (c) of this section.
c=0.0022 for the 1986 model year.
c=A constant value, fixed by model year. For 1987, the Administrator
will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory humidity and
test fuel data become available. For 1988 and later model years, the
Administrator will specify the c value after the necessary laboratory
humidity and test fuel data become available.
IW=(9.2917 x 10-3 x SF3IWC x FE3IWC) -
(3.5123 x 10-3 x H SF4ETW x FE4IWC)
Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set
equal to zero.
SF3IWC=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales divided by
total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal places.
SF4ETW=The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight category sales
divided by total sales. The quotient shall be rounded to 4 decimal
places.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of
all 3000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average combined fuel economy of
all 4000 lb. inertia weight class base levels in the compliance
category. Round the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
(f) The Administrator shall calculate and apply additional average
fuel economy adjustments if, after notice and opportunity for comment,
the Administrator determines that, as a result of test procedure
changes not previously considered, such correction is necessary to
yield fuel economy test results that are comparable to those obtained
under the 1975 test procedures. In making such determinations, the
Administrator must find that:
(1) A directional change in measured fuel economy of an average
vehicle can be predicted from a revision to the test procedures;
(2) The magnitude of the change in measured fuel economy for any
vehicle or fleet of vehicles caused by a revision to the test
procedures is quantifiable from theoretical calculations or best
available test data;
(3) The impact of a change on average fuel economy is not due to
eliminating the ability of manufacturers to take advantage of
flexibility within the existing test procedures to gain measured
improvements in fuel economy which are not the result of actual
improvements in the fuel economy of production vehicles;
(4) The impact of a change on average fuel economy is not solely
due to a greater ability of manufacturers to reflect in average fuel
economy those design changes expected to have comparable effects on in-
use fuel economy;
(5) The test procedure change is required by EPA or is a change
initiated by EPA in its laboratory and is not a change implemented
solely by a manufacturer in its own laboratory.
(g)(1) Alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles must provide equal or greater energy efficiency while
operating on alcohol or natural gas as while operating on gasoline or
diesel fuel to obtain the CAFE credit determined in paragraphs
(c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section. The following equation must hold
true:
Ealt/Epet> or = 1
Where:
Ealt=[FEalt/(NHValt x Dalt)] x
106=energy efficiency while operating on alternative fuel
rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Epet=[FEpet/(NHVpet x
Dpet)] x 106 = energy efficiency while operating
on gasoline or diesel (petroleum) fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01
miles/million BTU.
FEalt is the fuel economy [miles/gallon for liquid fuels or
miles/100 standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] while operated on the
alternative fuel as determined in Sec. 600.113-08(a) and (b);
FEpet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on
petroleum fuel (gasoline or diesel) as determined in Sec. 600.113(a)
and (b);
NHValt is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the
alternative fuel;
NHVpet is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the
petroleum fuel;
Dalt is the density [lb/gallon for liquid fuels or lb/100
standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels] of the alternative fuel;
Dpet is the density [lb/gallon] of the petroleum fuel.
(i) The equation must hold true for both the FTP city and HFET
highway fuel economy values for each test of each test vehicle.
(ii)(A) The net heating value for alcohol fuels shall be determined
per ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.
600.011-93).
(B) The density for alcohol fuels shall be determined per ASTM D
1298 (Incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
(iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec. 600.113(f).
(2) For model years 1993 through 1995, alcohol dual fuel
automobiles designed to operate on mixtures of alcohol and gasoline
must, in addition to paragraph (g)(1) of this section, to obtain the
CAFE credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this
section, provide equal or superior energy efficiency while operating on
a mixture of 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline by volume, as while operating on
gasoline fuel. The following equation must hold true:
E50/Eg> or = 1
Where:
E50=[FE50/(NHV50 x D50)] x
106 = energy efficiency while operating on 50% alcohol, 50%
gasoline rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Eg=[FEg/(NHVg x Dg)] x
106 = energy efficiency while operating on gasoline fuel
rounded to the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
FE50 is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on
50% alcohol, 50% gasoline as determined in Sec. 600.113(a) and (b);
FEg is the fuel economy [miles/gallon] while operated on
gasoline as determined in Sec. 600.113(a) and (b);
NHV5. is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of the 50/50 blend;
NHVg is the net (lower) heating value [BTU/lb] of gasoline;
D50 is the density [lb/gallon] of the 50/50 blend;
Dg is the density [lb/gallon] of the gasoline.
(i) To demonstrate that the equation holds true for each engine
family, the manufacturer will:
(A) Test one test vehicle in each engine family on both the FTP
city and HFET highway cycles; or
(B) In lieu of testing, provide a written statement attesting that
equal or superior energy efficiency is attained while using a 50%
alcohol, 50% gasoline mixture compared to using 100% gasoline.
(ii)(A) The net heating value for the 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline
mixture shall be determined by ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 600.011-93).
[[Page 5505]]
(B) The density for the 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline mixture shall be
determined per ASTM D 1298 (Incorporated by reference as specified in
Sec. 600.011-93).
(iii) The net heating value and density of gasoline are to be
determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec. 600.113(f).
(3) Alcohol dual fuel passenger automobiles and natural gas dual
fuel passenger automobiles manufactured during model years 1993 through
2004 must meet the minimum driving range requirements established by
the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR part 538) to obtain the CAFE
credit determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section.
(h) For each of the model years 1993 through 2004, and for each
category of automobile identified in paragraph (a) of this section, the
maximum increase in average fuel economy determined in paragraph (c) of
this section attributable to alcohol dual fuel automobiles and natural
gas dual fuel automobiles shall be 1.2 miles per gallon or as provided
for in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel
economy to determine if the maximum increase provided in paragraph (h)
of this section has been reached. The Administrator shall calculate the
average fuel economy for each category of automobiles specified in
paragraph (a) of this section by subtracting the average fuel economy
values calculated in accordance with this section by assuming all
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles are operated
exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) fuel from the average fuel economy
values determined in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and (c) of
this section. The difference is limited to the maximum increase
specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(i) In the event that the Secretary of Transportation lowers the
corporate average fuel economy standard applicable to passenger
automobiles below 27.5 miles per gallon for any model year during 1993
through 2004, the maximum increase of 1.2 mpg per year specified in
paragraph (h) of this section shall be reduced by the amount the
standard was lowered, but not reduced below 0.7 mpg per year.
39. A new Sec. 600.510-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.510-08 Model year report.
(a) For each model year, the manufacturer shall submit to the
Administrator a report, known as the model year report, containing all
information necessary for the calculation of the manufacturer's average
fuel economy. The results of the manufacturer calculations and summary
information of model type fuel economy values which are contained in
the average calculation shall be submitted to the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation, National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration. (b)(1) The model year report shall be in writing,
signed by the authorized representative of the manufacturer and shall
be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the model year.
(2) The Administrator may waive the requirement that the model year
report be submitted no later than 90 days after the end of the model
year. Based upon a request by the manufacturer, if the Administrator
determines that 90 days is insufficient time for the manufacturer to
provide all additional data required as determined in Sec. 600.507,
the Administrator shall establish a date by which the model year report
must be submitted.
(3) Separate reports shall be submitted for passenger automobiles
and light trucks (as identified in Sec. 600.510).
(c) The model year report must include the following information:
(1) All fuel economy data used in the FTP/HFET-based model type
calculations under Sec. 600.208-08, and subsequently required by the
Administrator in accordance with Sec. 600.507;
(2) All fuel economy data for certification vehicles and for
vehicles tested for running changes approved under 40 CFR 86.1842-01;
(3) Any additional fuel economy data submitted by the manufacturer
under Sec. 600.509;
(4) A fuel economy value for each model type of the manufacturer's
product line calculated according to Sec. 600.510(b)(2);
(5) The manufacturer's average fuel economy value calculated
according to Sec. 600.510(c);
(6) A listing of both domestically and nondomestically produced car
lines as determined in Sec. 600.511 and the cost information upon
which the determination was made; and
(7) The authenticity and accuracy of production data must be
attested to by the corporation, and shall bear the signature of an
officer (a corporate executive of at least the rank of vice-president)
designated by the corporation. Such attestation shall constitute a
representation by the manufacturer that the manufacturer has
established reasonable, prudent procedures to ascertain and provide
production data that are accurate and authentic in all material
respects and that these procedures have been followed by employees of
the manufacturer involved in the reporting process. The signature of
the designated officer shall constitute a representation by the
required attestation.
40. A new Sec. 600.513-08 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 600.513-08 Gas Guzzler Tax.
(a) This section applies only to passenger automobiles sold after
December 27, 1991, regardless of the model year of those vehicles. For
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel automobiles, the fuel
economy while such automobiles are operated on gasoline will be used
for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments.
(1) The provisions of this section do not apply to passenger
automobiles exempted for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments by applicable
federal law and regulations. However, the manufacturer of an exempted
passenger automobile may, in its discretion, label such vehicles in
accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) For 1991 and later model year passenger automobiles, the
combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value determined in
Sec. 600.208-08 used for Gas Guzzler Tax assessments shall be
calculated in accordance with the following equation, rounded to the
nearest 0.1 mpg:
FEadj=FE[((0.55 x ag x c) + (0.45 x c) + (0.5556
x ag) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 x ag) + 0.45)] +
IWg
Where:
FEadj=Fuel economy value to be used for determination of gas
guzzler tax assessment rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
FE=Combined model type fuel economy calculated in accordance with Sec.
600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
ag=Model type highway fuel economy, calculated in accordance
with Sec. 600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg divided by the
model type city fuel economy calculated in accordance with Sec.
600.208-08, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg. The quotient shall be
rounded to 4 decimal places.
c=gas guzzler adjustment factor=1.300 x 10-3 for the 1986
and later model years.
IWg=(9.2917 x 10-3 x SF3IWCG x
FE3IWCG) - (3.5123 x 10-3 x SF4ETWG x
FE4IWCG)
Note: Any calculated value of IW less than zero shall be set
equal to zero.
SF3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class sales in the model
type
[[Page 5506]]
divided by the total model type sales; the quotient shall be rounded to
4 decimal places.
SF4ETWG=The 4000 lb. equivalent test weight sales in the
model type divided by the total model type sales, the quotient shall be
rounded to 4 decimal places.
FE3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertial weight class base level
combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel economy
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWCG=The 4000 lb. inertial weight class base level
combined fuel economy used to calculate the model type fuel economy f/
rounded to the nearest 0.001 mpg.
(b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold after December 31, 1990, with
a combined FTP/HFET-based model type fuel economy value of less than
22.5 mpg (as determined in sec. 600.208-08), calculated in accordance
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section and rounded to the nearest 0.1
mpg, each vehicle fuel economy label shall include a Gas Guzzler Tax
statement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax amount stated
shall be as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) For passenger automobiles with a combined general label model
type fuel economy value of:
(i) At least 22.5 mpg, no Gas Guzzler Tax statement is required.
(ii) At least 21.5 mpg, but less than 22.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,000.
(iii) At least 20.5 mpg, but less than 21.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $1,300.
(iv) At least 19.5 mpg, but less than 20.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,700.
(v) At least 18.5 mpg; but less than 19.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,100.
(vi) At least 17.5 mpg, but less than 18.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,600.
(vii) At least 16.5 mpg, but less than 17.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,000.
(viii) At least 15.5 mpg, but less than 16.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler
Tax statement shall show a tax of $3,700.
(ix) At least 14.5 mpg, but less than 15.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $4,500.
(x) At least 13.5 mpg, but less than 14.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $5,400.
(xi) At least 12.5 mpg, but less than 13.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $6,400.
(xii) Less than 12.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax statement shall show
a tax of $7,700.
41. Appendix II to Part 600 is amended by revising paragraph (b)
and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Appendix II to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Calculations
* * * * *
(b) This sample fuel economy calculation is applicable to 1988
and later model year automobiles.
(1) Assume that a gasoline-fueled vehicle was tested by the
Federal Emission Test Procedure and the following results were
calculated:
HC = .139 grams/mile
CO = 1.59 grams/mile
CO2 = 317 grams/mile
(2) Assume that the test fuel used for this test had the
following properties:
SG=0.745
CWF=0.868
NHV=18,478 Btu/lb.
(3) According to the procedure in Sec. 600.113-88, the city
fuel economy or MPGc, for the vehicle may be calculated
by substituting the HC, CO, and CO2 gram/mile values and
the SG, CWF, and NHV values into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.064
(4) Assume that the same vehicle was tested by the Federal
Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure and a calculation similar to
that shown in (b)(3) resulted in a highway fuel economy of
MPGh of 36.9. According to the procedure in Sec.
600.113, the combined fuel economy (called MPGc/h) for
the vehicle may be calculated by substituting the city and highway
fuel economy values into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.067
(c) For 2008 and later model year vehicles, the combined fuel
economy for the purpose of determining annual fuel costs under Sec.
600.307-08(g) is determined by substituting the city and highway
fuel economy into the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.070
42. Appendix III to Part 600 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix III to Part 600--Sample Fuel Economy Label Calculation
Suppose that a manufacturer called Mizer Motors has a product
line composed of eight car lines. Of these eight, four are available
with the 3 liter, 6 cylinder and 3-way catalyst engine. These four
car lines are:
Ajax
Boredom III
Dodo
Castor (Station Wagon)
A car line is defined in subpart A as a group of vehicles within
a make or division which has a degree of commonality in
construction. Car line does not consider any level of decor or
opulence and is not generally distinguished by such characteristics
as roofline, number of doors, seats, or windows. Station wagons and
light duty trucks are, however, identified separately from the
remainder of each car line. In other words, a Castor station wagon
would be considered a different car line than the normal Castor car
line made up of sedans, coupes, etc.
The engine considered here is defined as a basic engine in
subpart A of this part. A basic engine is a unique combination of
fuel
[[Page 5507]]
system, number of cylinders, catalyst usage and engine displacement.
A model type is a unique combination of car line, basic engine, and
transmission class. Thus Ajax is a car line but Ajax 3 liter, 6
cylinder manual transmission is a model type whereas Ajax 3 liter, 6
cylinder automatic transmission is a different model type.
The following calculations provide an example of the procedures
described in subpart C of this part for the calculation of vehicle
configuration and model type fuel economy values. In order to
simplify the presentation, only city fuel economy values are
included. The procedure is identical for highway and combined fuel
economy values.
Step I. Input data as supplied by the manufacturer or as
determined from testing conducted by the Administrator.
Manufacturer--Mizer Motors.
Basic Engine: (3 liter, 6 cylinder, 3-way catalyst).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veh config.
Test vehicle carline Engine code Transmission Inertia weight Axle ratio Avg. MPG Label MPG \1\ sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax............................. 1 M-3 3500 2.73 16.1001 16 15,000
Ajax............................. 2 A-3 3500 2.56 15.9020 16 35,000
Boredom III...................... 4 M-3 4000 3.08 14.2343 14 10,000
Ajax............................. 3 M-4 4000 3.36 15.0000 15 15,000
Boredom III...................... 8 A-3 4000 2.56 13.8138 14 25,000
Boredom III...................... 5 A-3 4500 3.08 13.2203 13 20,000
Castor........................... 5 A-3 5000 3.08 10.6006 11 40,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The vehicle 5-cycle configuration fuel economy values, rounded to the nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values that would be used on
specific labels for that vehicle configuration.
Step II. Group vehicle fuel economy and sales data according to
base level combinations within this basic engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles per Projected veh.
Base level Transmission Inertia weight gallon config. sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................... Manual--3.............. 3,500 16.1001 15,000
B................................... Automatic.............. 3,500 15.9020 35,000
C................................... Manual--3.............. 4,000 14.2343 10,000
C................................... Manual--4.............. 4,000 15.0000 15,000
D................................... Automatic.............. 4,000 13.8138 25,000
E................................... Automatic.............. 4,500 13.2203 20,000
F................................... Automatic.............. 5,000 10.6006 40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step III. Determine base level fuel economy values.
A. For all the base levels except the base level which includes
4,000 pound, manual transmission data, the base level fuel economy
is as noted in Step II since only one vehicle configuration was
tested within each of these base levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,500 lb/manual transmission................... 16.1001 mpg.
3,500 lb/automatic transmission................ 15.9020 mpg.
4,000 lb/automatic transmission................ 13.8138 mpg.
4,500 lb/automatic transmission................ 13.2203 mpg.
5,000 lb/automatic transmission................ 10.6006 mpg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Since data from more than one vehicle configuration are
included in the 4,000-pound, manual transmission base level, this
fuel economy is harmonically averaged in proportion to the
percentage of total sales of all vehicle configurations tested
within that base level represented by each vehicle configuration
tested within that base level.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.071
[[Page 5508]]
Base level: Manual transmission, 4000 pounds:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.072
Therefore, the 4000 pound, manual transmission fuel economy is
14.6840 miles per gallon.
Note that the car line of the test vehicle using a given engine
makes no difference--only the weight and transmission do.
Step IV. For each model type offered by the manufacturer with
that basic engine, determine the sales fraction represented by each
inertia weight/transmission class combination and the corresponding
fuel economy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax................. Manual............... 1.0000 at 3,500 16.1001
lb.
Automatic............ 0.3000 at 3,500 15.9020
lb.
0.7000 at 4,000 13.8138
lb.
Dodo................. Manual............... 0.4000 at 3,500 16.1001
lb.
0.6000 at 4,000 14.6840
lb.
Automatic............ 0.3000 at 3,500 15.9020
lb.
0.7000 at 4,000 13.8138
lb.
Boredom III.......... Manual............... 1.0000 at 4,000 14.6840
lb.
Automatic............ 0.2500 at 4,000 13.8138
lb.
0.7500 at 4,500 13.2203
lb.
Castor............... Automatic............ 0.2000 at 4,500 13.2203
lb.
0.8000 at 5,000 10.6006
lb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step V. Determine fuel economy for each model type (that is, car
line/basic engine/transmission class combination).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.073
Similarly,
Ajax 3 liter, 6 cylinder, manual MPG = 16.16 MPG \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 5-cycle model type fuel economy values, rounded to the
nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values as used on
general labels for that model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.074
[[Page 5509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.075
Boredom III 6 liter 6 cylinder manual MPG=14.6840=15 mi./gal.7 \1\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.077
Note that even though no Dodo was actually tested, this approach
permits its fuel economy figure to be estimated, based on the inertia
weight distribution of projected Dodo sales within a specific engine
and transmission grouping.
43. A new Appendix IV is added to read as follows:
Appendix IV to Part 600--Fuel Economy Label Formats for 2008 and Later
Model Year Vehicles
Gasoline-fueled vehicle label
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 5510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.078
[[Page 5511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.079
[[Page 5512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.080
[[Page 5513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.081
[FR Doc. 06-451 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C