Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 99

Wednesday,

December 27, 2006

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; Final Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION most vehicles will drop on average by of the Federal Register as of January 26,
AGENCY about 8 percent, with some estimates 2007.
dropping by as much as 25 percent ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600 relative to today’s estimates. These docket for this action under Docket ID
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0169; FRL–8257–5] changes will take effect starting with No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0169. All
2008 model year vehicles, available at documents in the docket are listed on
RIN 2060–AN14 dealers in 2007. We also are adopting a the www.regulations.gov Web site.
new fuel economy label design with a Although listed in the index, some
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor new look and updated information that
Vehicles: Revisions To Improve information is not publicly available,
should be more useful to prospective car e.g., Confidential Business Information
Calculation of Fuel Economy buyers. The new label features more
Estimates or other information whose disclosure is
prominent fuel cost information, an restricted by statute. Certain other
AGENCY: Environmental Protection easy-to-use graphic for comparing the material, such as copyrighted material,
Agency (EPA). fuel economy of different vehicles, is not placed on the Internet and will be
ACTION: Final rule.
clearer text, and a Web site address for publicly available only in hard copy
more information. Manufacturers will form. Publicly available docket
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection be phasing in the new design during the materials are available either
Agency (EPA) is finalizing changes to 2008 model year. Finally, for the first electronically through
the methods used to calculate the fuel time we are requiring fuel economy www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
economy estimates that are posted on labeling of certain passenger vehicles the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
window stickers of all new cars and between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs gross EPA West, Room B102, 1301
light trucks sold in the United States. vehicle weight rating. Because of the Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
This final rule will greatly improve the Department of Transportation’s recent DC. The Public Reading Room is open
EPA fuel economy estimates to more regulation that brings medium-duty from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
accurately inform consumers about the passenger vehicles into the Corporate through Friday, excluding legal
fuel economy they can expect to achieve Average Fuel Economy program starting holidays. The telephone number for the
in the real world. The new test methods in 2011, EPA is now statutorily Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
take into account several important obligated to include these vehicles in and the telephone number for the Air
factors that affect fuel economy in the the fuel economy labeling program. and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
real world, but are missing from the Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a
subset of vehicles between 8,500 and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
existing fuel economy tests. Key among
these factors are high speeds, aggressive 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight that French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734) 214–
accelerations and decelerations, the use includes large sport utility vehicles and 4636; E-mail: french.roberts@epa.gov.
of air conditioning, and operation in vans, but not pickup trucks. Vehicle SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cold temperatures. Under the new manufacturers are required to post fuel
economy labels on medium-duty Does This Action Apply to Me?
methods, the city miles per gallon (mpg)
estimates for the manufacturers of most passenger vehicles beginning with the This action affects companies that
vehicles will drop by about 12 percent 2011 model year. manufacture or sell new light-duty
on average relative to today’s estimates, DATES: This final rule is effective on vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
and city mpg estimates for some January 26, 2007. The incorporation by medium-duty passenger vehicles.1
vehicles will drop by as much as 30 reference of certain publications listed Regulated categories and entities
percent. The highway mpg estimates for in the rule is approved by the Director include:

Category NAICS Codes a Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry .............. 336111, 336112 ...................................... Motor vehicle manufacturers.


Industry .............. 81112, 811198, 54154 ............................ Commercial importers of vehicles and vehicle components.
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

This list is not intended to be B. What Requirements Are We Adopting? D. When Will the New Requirements Take
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 1. Revised Methods for Calculating City Effect?
and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates 1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy
regarding entities likely to be regulated
2. New Labeling Requirement for Medium- Estimates
by this action. To determine whether 2. Implementation of New Label Design
Duty Passenger Vehicles
particular activities may be regulated by 3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-Duty
3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design
this action, you should carefully 4. New Vehicle Class Categories and
Passenger Vehicles
examine the regulations. You may direct E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy
Definitions Labeling Methods
questions regarding the applicability of 5. Test Procedure Modifications F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact CAFE
this action to the person listed in FOR C. Why is EPA Taking This Action? Standards or Test Procedures
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 1. Energy Policy Act of 2005 G. Public Participation
2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual II. New Test Methods and Calculation
Table of Contents
Driving Experience Procedures for Fuel Economy Labels
I. Introduction 3. Representing Real-World Conditions on A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific 5-
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

A. Background the Fuel Economy Tests Cycle Methodology

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77873

1. Overview of Public Comments on the 5- G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer- a wide variety of stakeholders,
Cycle Methodology Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet including the automobile manufacturing
2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations industry, environmental groups,
From Proposal A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
consumer organizations, state
B. Derivation of the MPG-Based B. Energy Policy Act of 2005
Methodology C. Other Statutes and Regulations governments, and the general public.
C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel 1. Automobile Disclosure Act These comments are available for public
Economy Label Values 2. Internal Revenue Code viewing in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel 3. Clean Air Act 2005–0169. Docket content can be
Economy Estimates 4. Additional Provisions in the Energy viewed and/or downloaded at http://
E. Implementation of the New Fuel Policy Act of 2005 and Transportation www.regulations.gov.3 Our responses to
Economy Methods Equity Act of 2005 these comments are detailed in the
1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for 5. Federal Trade Commission Guide
Response to Comments document,
2011 and Later Model Years Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising
2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Label for New Vehicles which is available in the public docket
Estimates VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews and on our Web site.4 In this section of
3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory the final rule we describe some
III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Planning and Review background information and provide a
Format and Content B. Paperwork Reduction Act brief description of the content, timing,
A. Background C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and rationale for the final program. For
B. Label Size and Orientation D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act additional background and details
C. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
regarding the proposal, readers should
D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
E. ‘‘Your Mileage Will Vary’’ Statement and Coordination With Indian Tribal consult the NPRM and related
F. Environmental Information Statement Governments documents.
G. Government Logos and Web site Link G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of A. Background
H. Temporary Transitional Statement Children from Environmental Health and
I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis Safety Risks With this final rule, EPA is helping
J. Labeling Requirements for Dual Fueled H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That car buyers make more informed
Vehicles Significantly Affect Energy Supply, decisions when considering a vehicle’s
K. Addition of Final Regulatory Distribution or Use fuel economy. Fuel economy, or gas
Specifications for Label Content and I. National Technology Transfer mileage, continues to be a major area of
Design Advancement Act
IV. Testing Provisions
public interest for several reasons.
J. Congressional Review Act
A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority Passenger vehicles account for
Currently Exempt From Certain Emission approximately 40 percent of all U.S. oil
Tests I. Introduction consumption. Finally, the more miles a
1. Diesel Vehicles This final rule has three key elements. car gets per gallon of gasoline, the more
2. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles First, we are finalizing changes to the money the owner saves on fuel costs.
B. Modifications to Existing Test With consumers’ renewed interest in
Procedures
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) fuel economy testing and fuel savings due to higher gasoline
1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and
calculation procedures so that the miles prices, providing mileage estimates that
Highway Segments
2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the Cold per gallon (mpg) estimates for passenger more closely reflect real-world driving
FTP cars and light-duty trucks will better has once again become important for
3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing reflect what consumers achieve in the consumers who comparison-shop.
Provisions real-world. Second, we are updating the The EPA fuel economy estimates have
V. Projected Cost Impacts fuel economy window sticker that appeared on the window stickers of all
A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles Into
appears on all new cars and light trucks new cars and light trucks since the late
Fuel Economy Label Calculations 1970’s and are well-recognized by
1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through 2010 sold in the U.S., which will make the
window sticker more useful and consumers. The window sticker
Model Years (MY) displays two fuel economy estimates:
2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later understandable to consumers. Third, for
Model Years the first time we are requiring fuel One for city driving and one for
3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden economy labeling of certain passenger highway driving. These estimates, in
B. Revised Label Format and New units of miles per gallon, essentially
vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs
Information Included serve two purposes: (1) To provide
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR),
C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for consumers with a basis on which to
such as the largest sport-utility vehicles
SC03, US06, and Cold FTP Tests compare the fuel economy of different
D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing (SUVs) and passenger vans.
This final rule follows a Notice of vehicles, and (2) to provide consumers
E. Fees with a reasonable estimate of the fuel
F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on February 1, 2006.2 In the economy they can expect to achieve.
VI. Implementation and Other Provisions
A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable NPRM, we proposed changes to the While the EPA fuel economy estimates
Vehicles have generally been a useful tool for
testing and calculation procedures used
B. Fuel Economy Ranges for Comparable comparing the relative fuel economy of
to calculate the fuel economy estimates
Fuel Economy Graphic different vehicles, they have been less
that appear on window stickers that are
C. Temporary Option To Add ‘‘Old useful for predicting the fuel economy
posted on all new cars and light trucks
Method’’ City and Highway Estimates on that consumers can reasonably expect to
Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle sold in the United States. The NPRM
achieve in the real world. Consumers
Labels also proposed changes to the fuel
need to be provided with accurate,
D. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. economy label design and content. We
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Fuel Economy as a Metric received comments on the NPRM from 3 Enter the docket i.d. number (EPA–HQ–OAR–
E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel 2005–0169) in the Keyword field and choose ‘‘All
Economy Calculator 2 See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006), Available in the Documents (Open and Closed for Comment).’’
F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel public docket and on our Web site at http:// 4 See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

Costs www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm. regulations.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

easily understandable, and relevant The methods used today for estimates. City estimates for some of the
information regarding the fuel economy calculating the city and highway mpg most fuel-efficient vehicles, including
of new vehicles. This final rule estimates have been in place since the gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, will
improves the information provided to 1970’s, and the results of these methods decrease by 20 to 30 percent. The
consumers regarding the fuel economy were adjusted only once in the mid- highway mpg estimates for most
of new vehicles. 1980’s to bring them closer to vehicles will drop on average by about
The city fuel economy estimate is consumer’s expectations.5 Since that 8 percent, with some estimates dropping
currently based on the Federal Test time, there have been many changes by as much as 25 percent relative to
Procedure (FTP), which was designed to affecting the way Americans drive— today’s estimates.
measure a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions speed limits are higher, road congestion While the inputs to our estimates are
under urban driving conditions. The has increased, vehicle performance has based on data from actual real-world
driving cycle used for the FTP was increased, vehicle technologies have driving behavior and conditions, it is
developed in the mid-1960’s to changed markedly, and more vehicles essential that our fuel economy
represent home-to-work commuting in are equipped with energy-consuming estimates continue to be derived
Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of the accessories like air conditioning. Our primarily from controlled, repeatable,
tests used to determine emissions analysis shows that these changes, along laboratory tests. Because the test is
compliance today. The FTP includes a with several other factors, again indicate controlled and repeatable, an EPA fuel
series of accelerations, decelerations, a need to revise the testing and economy estimate can be used for
and idling (such as at stop lights). It also calculation procedures underlying the comparison of different vehicle models
includes starting the vehicle after it has fuel economy window sticker and types. In other words, when
been parked for an extended period of estimates.6 consumers are shopping for a car, they
time (called a ‘‘cold start’’), as well as We believe the new fuel economy can be sure that the fuel economy
a start on a warmed-up engine (called a estimates will provide car buyers with estimates were measured using a
‘‘hot start’’). The total distance covered useful information when comparing the ‘‘common yardstick’’—that is the same
by the FTP is about 11 miles and the fuel economy of different vehicles. It is test run under the exact same set of
average speed is about 21 mph, with a important to emphasize that fuel conditions, making the fuel economy
maximum speed of about 56 mph. economy varies from driver to driver for estimates a fair comparison from
a wide variety of reasons, such as vehicle-to-vehicle. While some
The highway fuel economy estimate is
different driving styles, climates, traffic organizations have issued their own fuel
currently based on the Highway Fuel
patterns, use of accessories, loads, economy estimates based on real-world
Economy Test (HFET), which was
weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even driving, such an approach introduces a
developed by EPA in 1974 and was
different drivers of the same vehicle will wide number of often uncontrollable
designed to represent a mix of interstate
experience different fuel economy as variables—different drivers, driving
highway and rural driving. It consists of
these and other factors vary. Therefore, patterns, weather conditions,
relatively constant higher-speed driving,
it is impossible to design a ‘‘perfect’’ temperatures, etc.—that make repeatable
with no engine starts or idling time. The fuel economy test that will provide tests impossible. Our new fuel economy
HFET covers a distance of about 10 accurate real-world fuel economy test methods are more representative of
miles, at an average speed of 49 mph estimates for every consumer. With any real-world conditions than the current
and a top speed of about 60 mph. estimate, there will always be fuel economy tests—yet we retain our
A fundamental issue with today’s fuel consumers that get better or worse practice of relying on controlled,
economy estimates is that the actual fuel economy. The EPA estimates repeatable, laboratory tests. EPA and
underlying test and calculation are meant to be a general guideline for manufacturers test over 1,250 vehicle
procedures do not fully represent consumers, particularly to compare the models annually and every test is run
current real-world driving conditions. relative fuel economy of one vehicle to under an identical range of conditions
Some of the key limitations are that the another. Nevertheless, we do believe and under a precise driver’s trace,
highway test has a top speed of only 60 that the new fuel economy test methods which assures that the result will be the
miles per hour, both the city and will do a better job of giving consumers same for an individual vehicle model no
highway tests are run at mild climatic a more accurate estimate of the fuel matter when and where the laboratory
conditions (75 °F), both tests have mild economy they can achieve in the real- test is performed. Variations in
acceleration rates, and neither test is run world. Under the new methods, the city temperature, road grade, driving
with the use of fuel-consuming mpg estimates for the manufacturers of patterns, and other variables do not
accessories, such as air conditioning. most vehicles will drop by about 12 impact the result of the test. While such
Over the past few years, there have been percent on average relative to today’s external conditions impact fuel
several independent studies comparing economy on a trip-to-trip basis, they do
EPA’s fuel economy estimates to the 5 In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy not change the laboratory test result.
real-world experience of consumers. labeling procedures that were applicable to 1985 Therefore, a repeatable test provides a
These studies confirm that there is and alter model year vehicles. Based on in-use fuel level playing field for all vehicles,
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy data collected at the time, it was evident
that the fuel economy estimates needed to be which is essential for comparing the
economy, and provide substantial adjusted downward in order to more accurately fuel economy of one vehicle to another.
evidence that EPA’s mileage ratings reflect consumers’ average fuel economy Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to
often overestimate real-world fuel experience. The city values (based on the raw FTP confirm the values achieved by the
economy. Although these studies differ test data) were adjusted downward by 10 percent
and the highway values (likewise based on the raw
manufacturers’ testing, and this can
in a number of variables, including their highway test data) were adjusted downward by 22 only be achieved with a highly
test methods, driving conditions, and percent. See 49 FR 13832 (April 6, 1984). repeatable test or set of tests.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

fuel economy measurement techniques, 6 See the Technical Support Document and In the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
they indicate that EPA’s approach to ‘‘Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling and the Effect of Congress required EPA to revise the fuel
Cold Temperature, Air-Conditioning Usage and
estimating fuel economy needs to be Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,’’ by Eldert
economy labeling methods to better
improved to better represent some key Bontekoe and Richard A. Rykowski, 2005. These are reflect a variety of real-world factors
real-world fuel economy impacts. available in the public docket for review. that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77875

the 2005 Energy Policy Act directs EPA EPA has established several new test a rule in 1996 that established two new
to ‘‘* * * update or revise the cycles for emissions certification. EPA test procedures, with associated
adjustment factors in [certain sections of had become concerned that the FTP emission standards, that addressed
the fuel economy labeling regulations] omitted many critical driving modes certain shortcomings with the current
to take into consideration higher speed and conditions that existed in actual FTP. Known as the ‘‘Supplemental
limits, faster acceleration rates, use, and that emissions could be FTP,’’ or ‘‘SFTP,’’ these procedures,
variations in temperature, use of air substantially higher during these similar to the cold temperature FTP,
conditioning, shorter city test cycle driving modes compared to the FTP.7 encouraged the use of the better
lengths, current reference fuels, and the Manufacturers frequently designed their emission controls across a wider range
use of other fuel depleting features.’’ vehicles’ emission control systems to of in-use driving conditions in order to
This final rule fully addresses this meet the specified FTP test conditions, improve ambient air quality.10
statutory requirement. Section VII often neglecting emissions control over One of the SFTP test cycles, the US06,
contains a detailed analysis of the other driving conditions, resulting in was designed to address high speed,
statute and regulations. higher real-world emissions. aggressive driving behavior (with more
The need for action to address off- severe acceleration rates) and rapid and
B. What Requirements Are We frequent speed fluctuations. The US06
Adopting? cycle emissions was recognized by
Congress in the passage of Sections test contains both lower-speed city
This final rule establishes new 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean Air Act driving and higher-speed highway
methods for determining the city and Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Section driving modes. Its top speed is 80 mph,
highway fuel economy estimates for the 206(h) required EPA to study and revise and average speed is 48 mph. The top
sole purpose of fuel economy labeling as necessary the test procedures used to acceleration rate exceeds 8 mph per
by incorporating fuel economy results measure emissions, taking into second. The other SFTP test, the SC03,
over a broader range of driving consideration the actual current driving was designed to address air-conditioner
conditions. The new methodology will conditions under which motor vehicles operation under a full simulation of
result in EPA fuel economy estimates are used, including conditions relating high temperature (95 °F), high sun-load,
that better approximate the miles per to fuel, temperature, acceleration, and and high humidity. The SC03 drive
gallon that consumers achieve in real- altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA cycle was designed to represent driving
world driving. These changes include required EPA to establish emission immediately following a vehicle startup,
some revisions to existing test standards for carbon monoxide under and rapid and frequent speed
procedures. In addition, we are revising cold (20°F) temperature conditions. fluctuations. Its top speed is about 55
the format and content of the fuel In 1992, EPA published rules mph and average speed is 22 mph. The
economy label to make the information implementing the 202(j) cold top acceleration rate is about 5 mph per
more useful and easily understandable temperature testing requirement, second.
to consumers. The new rule also acknowledging that the ambient The basis for the SFTP rulemaking
requires that medium-duty passenger temperature conditions of the FTP test was a study of real-world driving in four
vehicles (a subset of vehicles 8,500 to (run between 68 and 86 °F) did not cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and
10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight) have represent the full range of ambient Los Angeles, where driving activity was
fuel economy labels. We also are temperature conditions that exist across measured on instrumented vehicles as
finalizing minor changes related to the the United States and that cold well as by chase cars.11 At that time, it
fuel economy information program, temperature had different emissions was found that 18 percent of the driving
including revising the comparable effects on different vehicle designs.8 (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the
vehicle classes and adding a new EPA’s cold temperature emission speed/acceleration distribution of the
provision for the electronic distribution regulations required manufacturers to FTP drive schedule. More recent real-
of the annual Fuel Economy Guide. An conduct FTP testing at 20 °F. By world driving activity data indicates
overview of each of these requirements promulgating this new test procedure that driving has become even more
follows, with additional detail provided and associated carbon monoxide aggressive than it was in 1992. Recent
in subsequent sections of this final rule. emission standard, EPA sought to real-world activity data collected in
encourage manufacturers to employ California and Kansas City found that
1. Revised Methods for Calculating City
better emission control strategies that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle
and Highway Fuel Economy Estimates
would improve ambient air quality miles traveled) is at speeds greater than
This final rule revises the test 60 mph. Further, about 33 percent of
methods by which the city and highway across a wider range of in-use
temperature conditions. recent real-world driving falls outside of
fuel economy estimates are calculated. the FTP/HFET speed and acceleration
We are replacing the current method, In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA
requirement, EPA published a report in activity region. This is based on
established in 1984, of adjusting the city extensive chase car studies in California
(FTP) test result downward by 10 1993 which concluded that the FTP
cycle did not represent the full range of and instrumented vehicle studies in
percent and the highway (HFET) test Kansas City.12 Our assessment of these
result downward by 22 percent. Instead, urban driving conditions that could
we are finalizing the proposed approach impact the in-use driving emission 10 See 61 FR 54852 (October 22, 1996).
that incorporates additional test levels.9 Consequently, EPA promulgated 11 These studies were not designed to produce
methods that address factors that impact results that would be representative of driving
7 Emissions from driving modes not reflected on
behaviors throughout the U.S. Nonetheless, they
fuel economy but that are missing from EPA test procedures became known as ‘‘off-cycle’’ were the best and most current data upon which to
today’s tests—specifically, higher emissions, meaning that they occurred during base design of the new test cycles.
speeds, more aggressive driving (e.g., driving conditions not typically encountered over 12 A ‘‘chase car’’ study is a study in which driving
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

higher acceleration rates), the use of air EPA’s emission test cycle. behavior is recorded by an instrumented vehicle
8 See 57 FR 31888 (July 17, 1992).
conditioning, and the effect of cold that follows vehicles on the road to record the
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal behavior of the followed vehicle. In some cases the
temperature and other factors. Test Procedure Review Project: Preliminary chase car is equipped with a laser rangefinder to
Since 1984 when we last updated the Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection enable the data collection systems to accurately
fuel economy estimate methodology, Agency, No. EPA420–R–93–007, May 1993. Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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

TABLE I–1.—CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FUEL ECONOMY AND EMISSION TESTS OF THE 5-CYCLE METHODOLOGY
Avg speed Max speed Max accel
Test Designed to represent Ambient conditions Primary use
(mph) (mph) (mph/sec)

Federal Test Procedure Urban stop-and-go driv- 21 58 3.3 75 °F ............................. Emissions & fuel econ-
(FTP). ing from 1970’s. omy testing.
Highway Fuel Economy Rural driving ................. 48 60 3.3 75 °F ............................. Fuel economy testing.
Test (HFET).
US06 ............................. High speeds and ag- 48 80 8.5 75 °F ............................. Emissions testing.
gressive driving.
SC03 ............................. Air conditioner oper- 22 55 5.1 95 °F & 40% relative Emissions testing.
ation. humidity.
Cold FTP ...................... Cold temperature oper- 21 58 3.3 20 °F ............................. Emissions testing.
ation.

Under the new requirements, rather multiple passengers), and others. We manufacturers of most vehicles will
than basing the city mpg estimate solely need to account for these factors in our drop on average by about 8 percent,
on the adjusted FTP test result, and the new fuel economy calculation methods, with estimates for most hybrid vehicles
highway mpg estimate solely on the as they will lower a driver’s fuel dropping by 10 to 20 percent relative to
adjusted HFET test result, each estimate economy beyond those factors today’s estimates.
will be based on a ‘‘composite’’ represented by our existing test cycles. This final rule will greatly improve
calculation of all five tests, weighting We are finalizing a 9.5 percent the EPA fuel economy estimates, so that
each appropriately to arrive at new city downward adjustment to account for they come closer to the fuel economy
and highway mpg estimates. The new these non-dynamometer effects, based that consumers achieve in the real
city and highway estimates will each be on detailed analyses of the impacts of world. However, these are still
calculated according to separate city each of these factors using the most estimates, and even with the improved
and highway ‘‘5-cycle’’ formulae that recent technical information and studies fuel economy test methods we are
are based on fuel economy results over available. Additional detail regarding finalizing today, some consumers will
these five tests. The conditions this factor can be found in Section II continue to get fuel economy that is
represented by each test will be and in the Technical Support higher or lower than the new estimates.
‘‘weighted’’ according to how frequently Document. No single test or set of tests can ever
those conditions occur over average Because the 5-cycle method is account for the wide variety of
real-world city or highway driving. For inherently vehicle-specific, the conditions experienced by every driver.
example, we have derived weightings to difference between today’s label values
2. New Labeling Requirement for
represent driving cycle effects, trip and the new fuel economy estimates
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
length, air conditioner compressor-on may vary significantly from vehicle to
usage (it is the activity of the vehicle. In general, however, the new Based on the public comments and on
compressor that most significantly approach will result in city fuel specific events that have transpired
affects emissions and fuel economy), economy estimates that are about 8 to 15 since the NPRM was published, we are
and operation over various percent lower than today’s labels for the finalizing in this rule a fuel economy
temperatures. This methodology is majority of conventional vehicles. The labeling program for Medium-Duty
described in detail in Section II and in city mpg estimates for the Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), a subset of
the Technical Support Document. manufacturers of most vehicles will vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs
We also are finalizing a downward drop by about 12 percent on average GVWR.
adjustment to account for effects that are relative to today’s estimates. For MDPVs were first defined in the
not reflected in our existing five test vehicles that achieve generally better regulation that put in place the ‘‘Tier 2’’
cycles. There are many factors that fuel economy, such as gasoline-electric emission standards and gasoline sulfur
impact fuel economy, but are difficult to hybrid vehicles, new city estimates will controls.13 This newly-defined class of
account for in the test cell on the be about 20 to 30 percent lower than vehicles includes SUVs and passenger
dynamometer. These include roadway today’s labels. The new highway fuel vans between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs
roughness, road grade (hills), wind, low economy estimates will be about 5 to 15 GVWR, but excludes large pick-up
tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ percent lower for the majority of trucks. The specific regulatory
ice, effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicles, including most hybrids. The definition was designed to capture in
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

vehicle loads (e.g., trailers, cargo, highway mpg estimates for the the light-duty vehicle emissions

determine the speed of the chased vehicle relative vehicles where the customer has agreed to allow 13 See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000).
to the chase car. An instrumented vehicle study is their vehicle to be equipped with data collection
a study in which data is collected from customer instrumentation.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77877

program some of the heavy-duty 10,000 lbs GVWR, or vehicles between and highway mpg estimates, the new
vehicles that are designed and used 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that are not label features the following items:
predominantly for passenger use. included by DOT in the CAFE program. • A new layout featuring an updated
Under the Energy Policy and Since the time of EPA’s proposal, fuel pump graphic, a prominent
Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is DOT has included some vehicles above heading, and prominent government
required to establish regulations that 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs logos;
require a manufacturer to attach a label in its CAFE program, beginning in • More prominent estimated annual
to each ‘‘automobile’’ manufactured in a model year 2011.17 Since these vehicles fuel cost information, including the
model year.14 ‘‘Automobile’’ is defined now meet the definition of automobile, addition of the basis for the estimated
as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs EPA is authorized to include these annual fuel cost (dollars per gallon and
GVWR, and those vehicles between vehicles in labeling program. This final miles driven per year);
6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT rule requires fuel economy labels on • An easy-to-use graphic that allows
determines are appropriate for inclusion these MDPVs beginning in model year quick comparison of the labeled vehicle
in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy 2011. with other vehicles in its class;
(CAFE) program.15 ‘‘Automobile’’ for • A simplified statement noting that
3. Improved Fuel Economy Label Design ‘‘Your mileage will vary’’;
the purposes of labeling also includes
vehicles at no more than 8,500 lbs We are adopting a new fuel economy • A link to the EPA/DOE Web site
GVWR whether or not the Department label format that is easier to read, has www.fueleconomy.gov; and,
of Transportation (DOT) has included improved graphic design, and contains • A transition statement noting that
those vehicles in the CAFE program.16 information that should be more useful the mpg estimates are the result of new
EPA has no authority to require labels to prospective car buyers. The final EPA methods beginning with the 2008
on vehicles that are not automobiles, label design reflects input from the models (for inclusion on labels of model
therefore EPA has no authority to public comments received and from year 2008 and 2009 vehicles only).
require labeling of either vehicles above market testing of prototype label designs Details about the label design and
conducted via a series of focus groups. content are found in Section III. An
14 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b). In addition to displaying revised city example label is shown below (actual
15 See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). size of the label is required by statute to
16 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a). 17 See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006). be 4.5 inches tall by 7 inches wide).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77878 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

4. New Vehicle Class Categories and 5. Test Procedure Modifications C. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
Definitions
We are finalizing several changes to 1. Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPCA requires that the label contain existing test procedures to allow the In the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
‘‘the range of fuel economy of collection of appropriate fuel economy Congress required EPA to update or
comparable automobiles of all data and to ensure that existing test revise adjustment factors to better reflect
manufacturers.’’ 18 EPA regulations procedures better represent real-world a variety of real-world factors that affect
define what constitutes ‘‘comparable conditions. Specifically, we are fuel economy. Section 774 of the Energy
automobiles.’’ We proposed and are finalizing the following test procedure Policy Act directs EPA to ‘‘ * * *
finalizing changes to the vehicle class changes: update or revise the adjustment factors
categories to better reflect the current • A revised US06 test protocol that in [certain sections of the fuel economy
vehicle market and to allow consumers will collect the US06 exhaust emissions labeling regulations] to take into
to make more appropriate fuel economy in two emissions samples (bags) in order consideration higher speed limits, faster
comparisons. Specifically, we are to separately assess city and highway acceleration rates, variations in
finalizing our proposal to add the fuel economy over this test, with several temperature, use of air conditioning,
vehicle class categories of ‘‘Sport Utility alternative methods of determining a shorter city test cycle lengths, current
Vehicle’’ and ‘‘Minivan,’’ with two-bag result allowed); reference fuels, and the use of other fuel
appropriate definitions, to the list of • Mandatory operation of the heater/ depleting features.’’ This final rule does
categories used to classify vehicles for defroster during the cold temperature take into account these conditions and
fuel economy comparison purposes. We FTP for emissions and fuel economy will address this statutory requirement.
are also redefining the ‘‘Small Pickup testing; The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and other
Truck’’ class by increasing the weight • Testing diesel vehicles on the cold relevant statutes are discussed in greater
limit criteria. Section VI contains temperature FTP; and detail in Section VII.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

additional detail on these changes. • Requiring hybrid vehicles to 2. Comparing EPA Estimates to Actual
perform all four phases/bags of the FTP. Driving Experience
Details regarding these changes are First, it is important to stress that the
ER27DE06.017</GPH>

18 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). described in Section IV. EPA city and highway mpg numbers are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77879

estimates—they cannot give consumers conditions. In fact, the highway test has Under higher deceleration rates, the
an exact indication of the fuel economy a top speed of 60 mph, since the test effects of regenerative breaking for
they will achieve. The complete range of was developed more than 20 years ago hybrid electric vehicles are diminished,
consumer fuel economy experience can to represent rural driving conditions at thereby lowering fuel economy. In this
not be represented perfectly by any one a time when the national speed limit regard, today’s FTP and HFET tests
number. Fuel economy varies based on was 55 miles per hour. The national result in a higher fuel economy for
a wide range of factors, some of which speed limit has since been eliminated, hybrid vehicles than is achieved under
we have discussed above. There will many states have established speed typical driving conditions.
always be consumers that achieve real- limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and Third, both the FTP and HFET tests
world fuel economy both better and much driving is at even higher speeds. are run at mild ambient conditions
worse than a given estimate. Recent real-world driving studies (approximately 75 °F), while real-world
In recent years, there have been a indicate that about 28 percent of driving driving occurs at a wide range of
number of studies, conducted by a (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at ambient temperatures. Moderate
variety of sources, suggesting that there speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This conditions tend to be optimal for
is often a shortfall between the EPA analysis is detailed in the Technical achieving good fuel economy, and fuel
estimates and real-world fuel economy. Support Document.) These studies also economy is lower at temperatures colder
Several organizations have provided show that 33 percent of real-world or warmer than the 75 °F test
consumers with their own fuel economy driving VMT falls outside the FTP/ temperature. Only about 20 percent of
estimates, which in some cases vary HFET speed and acceleration activity VMT occurs between 70 and 80 °F,
significantly from EPA’s estimates. Each region. Thus, a substantial amount of approximately 15 percent of VMT
of these studies differs in its test high speed driving behavior is not occurs at temperatures above 80 °F, and
methods, driving cycles, sampling of captured in today’s FTP or HFET tests. 65 percent occurs below 70 °F. (This
vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel This is a weakness in our current fuel analysis is detailed in the Technical
economy. There are strengths and economy test procedures. Since higher Support Document.) Moreover, neither
weaknesses of each study, which we speed driving has a negative impact on the FTP nor HFET tests are run with
discuss further in the Technical Support fuel economy, incorporating these accessories operating, such as air
Document. Collectively, these studies higher speed driving conditions into the conditioners, heaters, or defrosters.
indicate there are many cases where fuel economy tests would lower the fuel These accessories, most notably air
real-world fuel economy falls below the economy estimates. conditioning, can have a significant
EPA estimates. The studies also indicate Second, the maximum acceleration impact on a vehicle’s fuel economy.
that real-world fuel economy varies rates of both the FTP and HFET tests are Finally, there are many factors that
significantly depending on the a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per affect fuel economy that cannot be
conditions under which it is evaluated. second (mph/sec), considerably lower replicated on dynamometer test cycles
Nevertheless, taken as a whole, these than the maximum acceleration rates in a laboratory. These include road
studies reflect a wide range of real- seen in real-world driving. Recent real- grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g.,
world driving conditions, and show that world driving studies indicate that tire pressure), snow/ice, precipitation,
typical fuel economy can be much lower maximum acceleration rates are as high fuel effects, and others. It is not possible
than EPA’s current estimates. as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant to develop a test cycle that captures the
activity occurs beyond 3.3 mph/sec. full range of factors impacting fuel
3. Representing Real-World Conditions
(This analysis is detailed in the economy. However, it is clear that the
on the Fuel Economy Tests
Technical Support Document.) At the FTP and HFET tests alone are missing
The current city and highway fuel time these tests were first developed, some important elements of real-world
economy tests do not represent the full the real-world accelerations were higher driving. All of these factors can reduce
range of real-world driving conditions. than 3.3 mph/sec, but the test cycle’s fuel economy. This largely explains why
The 1985 adjustment factors were acceleration rates were limited to our current estimates often do not
designed to ensure that the fuel accommodate the mechanical limitation
economy estimates across the vehicle reflect consumers’ real-world fuel
of the dynamometer test equipment. economy experience.
fleet reflected the average impacts of a These constraints no longer exist with
number of conditions not represented today’s dynamometers, so we now have D. When Will the New Requirements
on the tests. However, as we noted the ability to incorporate higher Take Effect?
earlier, many changes have occurred maximum acceleration rates that more
since then that make it once again 1. New City and Highway Fuel Economy
closely reflect those of actual driving. Estimates
desirable to reevaluate the fuel economy As with high speed driving, higher
test methods and adjustment factors. acceleration rates have a negative We want the public to benefit from
Given the significant degree of variation impact on fuel economy; thus, if these the improved information provided by
that is apparent across vehicles, we higher accelerations were factored into the new fuel economy estimates as soon
believe it is important to reconsider the our fuel economy methods, the as possible. Therefore, these new
approach of ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ estimates would be lower. regulations take effect with the 2008
adjustment factors and instead move to The maximum deceleration rate of the model year vehicles, which will be
an approach that more directly reflects FTP and HFET tests is important to available for sale at dealers in 2007. We
the impacts of fuel economy on consider as well, because it relates to believe this is the earliest possible date
individual vehicle models. the regenerative breaking effect of for implementation. Manufacturers can
There are several key limitations in hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and legally begin selling 2008 models as
the FTP and HFET tests that cause them HFET tests include a mild maximum early as January 2, 2007. However, we
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

to not adequately reflect real-world deceleration rate of ¥3.3 mph/sec; yet are phasing in the new test methods in
driving today. First, most consumers in recent real-world driving rates as order to provide manufacturers with
understandably think ‘‘highway’’ fuel high as ¥11 to ¥17 mph/sec were sufficient lead time to plan for increased
economy means the fuel economy you recorded. (This analysis is detailed in fuel economy testing necessitated by the
can expect under freeway driving the Technical Support Document.) 5-cycle approach.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

For the first three model years (2008 2011 and later model years are and any new data collected on in-use
through 2010), we provide described in detail in Section II. fuel economy. We also remain open to
manufacturers with the option of reviewing any valid test data indicating
2. Implementation of New Label Design
deriving the 5-cycle fuel economy using that any of our assumptions were
a scale of adjustments based on an In order to allow manufacturers to inappropriate for a specific vehicle and
analysis of data developed from the 5- transition to the new label format, we considering modifications to the 5-cycle
cycle method. This approach, called the are allowing use of the new label format formulae overall to account for these
‘‘mpg-based’’ method, incorporates the to be optional until September 1, 2007. differences. In the public comments,
effects of higher speed/aggressive This date aligns with the date some stakeholders expressed an interest
driving, air conditioning use, and colder manufacturers must place National in conducting studies of in-use fuel
temperatures, but less directly than the Highway Traffic Safety Administration economy. We welcome stakeholders to
5-cycle vehicle-specific method.19 The (NHTSA) crash test ratings on the submit any such future data for use in
mpg-based adjustments were derived by vehicle pricing labels of all vehicles our periodic evaluation of the fuel
applying the 5-cycle formulae to a data manufactured as of that date. The economy test methods.
set of recent fuel economy test data, and September 1, 2007 date allows We are also committed to offering
developing a regression line through the manufacturers to redesign their vehicle technical guidance to any stakeholder
data. (See Section II for a full pricing labels only once to incorporate interested in undertaking an in-use
description of this approach). These two new federal labeling requirements. testing and data-collection program. By
adjustments differ based on the mpg a However, we encourage manufacturers seeking our technical input up front,
vehicle obtains over the FTP (City) or to implement the new label format as stakeholders can better ensure that the
HFET (Highway) tests. In other words, quickly as possible such that the data is collected in a way that is
every vehicle with the same mpg on the majority of 2008 vehicles on dealer lots ultimately best-suited to evaluate
FTP test receives the same adjustment exhibit the new label format. All 2008 potential changes to the methodology.
for its city fuel economy label. Likewise, model year vehicles must use the new However, we note that collecting in-use
every vehicle with the same mpg on the methods to calculate fuel economy fuel economy data alone can only
HFET test will receive the same estimates. Labels on all 2008 models indicate whether or not the 5-cycle
adjustment for its highway fuel will have a statement indicating that the estimates are accurate; it would not
economy label. This method of fuel economy estimates are based on provide the information needed to
adjustment would not require any new methods. actually improve the 5-cycle equations.
testing beyond the FTP/HFET tests The 5-cycle approach is based on
already performed today, thus, it can be 3. Fuel Economy Labeling of Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles emission test results over the five test
implemented sooner than the 5-cycle cycles and on the weighting of a number
approach as an interim improvement to The requirement for MDPVs to be of factors based on their average impact
our fuel economy test methods. labeled with city and highway fuel across all U.S. driving. Data on in-use
However, during this time frame, economy estimates begins with the 2011 fuel economy alone, without
manufacturers may optionally choose to model year. EPA does not have the complementary driving behavior and
run full 5-cycle testing for any of their authority to require labeling of MDPVs activity data representative of the fleet,
vehicle models.20 The phase-in will sooner because of our authority is is insufficient to initiate changes that
provide consumers with more accurate linked to NHTSA’s determination of may be appropriate to the 5-cycle
estimates as soon as possible, while CAFE standards for vehicles over 8,500 weighting factors.
allowing the industry the necessary lead lbs GVWR.21 However, we encourage Finally, several commenters suggested
time to prepare for the necessary testing manufacturers to voluntarily label these that EPA conduct an evaluation of the
under the 5-cycle approach. vehicles sooner, if at all possible. Many
Starting with the 2011 model year, the 5-cycle method prior to model year
vehicles in the MDPV category have 2011, when the 5-cycle method becomes
5-cycle approach will be required. counterpart models below 8,500 lbs
Under this approach, the manufacturers required. If appropriate data is
GVWR, and these vehicles receive fuel submitted prior to the end of 2008, we
will be required to implement vehicle- economy labels today.
specific 5-cycle testing across some would plan to review it in a timely
portion of their fleet. The manufacturers E. Periodic Evaluation of Fuel Economy manner. If such data suggests that
will use the emission certification test Labeling Methods changes to the 5-cycle approach are
results over the five test procedures to necessary, we would plan to issue a
In the proposal, we expressed an separate rulemaking to address changes
calculate 5-cycle city and highway fuel interest in ensuring that the new
economy values. However, we are to the methodology, providing adequate
methods continue to reflect real-world lead time to the industry to comply.
finalizing criteria as proposed that will fuel economy into the future, and we
allow continued use of the mpg-based encouraged stakeholders to submit data F. This Final Rule Does Not Impact
adjustments in cases where we can that would inform future analysis and CAFE Standards or Test Procedures
predict with reasonable certainty that potential changes to the methodology.
the fuel economy results under the mpg- This final rule does not alter the FTP
We believe it is critical to ensure that and HFET driving cycles, the
based approach will not differ the fuel economy methods are
significantly from the results achieved measurement techniques, or the
periodically evaluated. We are calculation methods used to determine
by the 5-cycle method. These criteria committed to evaluating the 5-cycle
and the methodology by which vehicles CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE for
method every several years (e.g., five passenger automobiles be determined
are selected for 5-cycle testing in the years) to ensure that it appropriately from the EPA test procedures in place
accounts for advancements in vehicle
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

19 The ‘‘mpg-based’’ method is termed the as of 1975 (or procedures that give
‘‘derived 5-cycle’’ approach in the regulatory text. technology, changes in driving patterns, comparable results), which are the city
20 Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally
21 See 49 U.S.C. 32908, 32901(a)(3)(B), and
and highway tests of today, with a few
use the 5-cycle approach prior to the 2011 model
year must use that approach to determine both city Section VII for a detailed explanation of EPA’s legal
small adjustments for minor procedural
and highway label estimates. authority. changes that have occurred since

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77881

1975.22 This final rule will not impact Drivers often use air conditioning in only for emissions compliance
the CAFE calculations. warm, humid conditions, while the air purposes. In contrast, for fuel economy
conditioner is turned off during the FTP purposes, FTP and HFET tests are
G. Public Participation
and HFET tests. The incorporation of performed on many more vehicle
A wide variety of interested parties measured fuel economy over the SC03 configurations. In order to minimize the
participated in the rulemaking process test cycle into the fuel economy label number of additional US06, SC03 and
that culminates with this final rule. This values will reflect the added fuel cold FTP tests resulting from the new
process provided opportunity for public needed to operate the air conditioning testing and calculation procedures, we
comment following the proposal system. Vehicles also often are driven at are allowing manufacturers to estimate
published on February 1, 2006.23 We temperatures below 75°F, at which the the fuel economy over these three tests
held a public hearing on the proposal in FTP and HFET tests are performed. The for vehicle configurations that are not
Romulus, Michigan on March 3, 2006. incorporation of measured fuel economy normally tested for emissions
At that hearing, oral comments on the over the cold temperature FTP test into compliance purposes, using the fuel
proposal were received and recorded. A the fuel economy label values will economy measurements that are
written comment period remained open reflect the additional fuel needed to normally available. This is currently
until April 3, 2006. Comments and start up a cold engine at colder done on a more limited basis for both
hearing testimony have been placed in temperatures. the FTP and HFET, and is referred to as
the docket for this rule. We considered The new vehicle-specific, 5-cycle analytically derived fuel economy
these comments in developing the final approach to calculating fuel economy (ADFE).26 This method uses test data to
rule. labels will incorporate estimates of the determine the sensitivity of fuel
We have prepared a detailed fuel efficiency of each vehicle during economy to various vehicle parameters,
Response to Comments document, high speed, aggressive driving, air and once these relationships are well
which describes the comments we conditioning operation and cold established, we will issue guidance that
received on the proposal and our temperatures into each vehicle’s fuel provides manufacturers with the
response to each of these comments. economy label. It will combine appropriate equations to use. We believe
The Response to Comments is available measured fuel economy over the two that these provisions are designed to
in the docket for this rule and on the current fuel economy tests, the FTP and represent a reasonable balance between
EPA Web site.24 HFET, as well as that over the US06, the need for accurate fuel economy data
II. New Test Methods and Calculation SC03 and cold FTP tests into estimates and the need to contain the cost of
Procedures for Fuel Economy Labels of city and highway fuel economy for testing for both industry and EPA,
labeling purposes. The test results from where we reasonably believe that actual
The current fuel economy label values each cycle (and in some cases, portions testing would not produce a
are based on measured fuel economy of cycles or emission ‘‘bags’’)25 will be significantly different result. We always
over city and highway driving cycles, weighted to represent the contribution retain the right to order actual
which are then adjusted downward by of each cycle’s attributes to onroad confirmatory testing where appropriate.
10 and 22 percent, respectively, to driving and fuel consumption. The We also are finalizing the proposed
account for a variety of factors not vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach will provisions that allow manufacturers to
addressed in EPA’s vehicle test eliminate the need to account for the use the interim approach to fuel
procedures. These adjustments are effect of aggressive driving, air economy label estimation, the ‘‘mpg-
intended to account for differences conditioning use and colder based’’ approach described below, when
between the way vehicles are driven on temperatures on fuel economy through the available 5-cycle fuel economy data
the road and over the test cycles. Such generic factors (as done today) which indicate that a vehicle test group’s 5-
differences include air conditioning use, may not appropriately reflect that cycle fuel economy is very close to that
higher speeds, more aggressive particular vehicle’s sensitivity to these estimated by the mpg-based curve. The
accelerations and decelerations, widely factors. A generic adjustment is still mpg-based method will also be used to
varying ambient temperature and necessary to account for factors not determine label values for MDPVs that
humidity, varying trip lengths, wind, addressed by any of the five become mandatory with the 2011 model
precipitation, rough road conditions, dynamometer tests (e.g., road grade, year, as discussed further in Section
hills, etc. The purpose of the new wind, low tire pressure, gasoline II.E.2.
methods is to expand the basis for the quality, etc.). The derivation of this Even with these provisions, we expect
fuel economy labels to include actual adjustment factor is discussed further that some manufacturers will have to
vehicle testing over a wider range of below and in Chapter III of the perform some additional US06, SC03, or
driving patterns and ambient conditions Technical Support Document. cold FTP tests to address differences in
than is currently covered by the city Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold vehicle designs which are not covered
(FTP) and highway (HFET) fuel FTP tests are only performed on a sub- by the analytical derivation
economy tests. set of new vehicle configurations, and methodology. Other manufacturers may
For example, vehicles in the real voluntarily choose to perform additional
world are often driven more 25 The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the
tests voluntarily to improve accuracy
aggressively and at higher speeds than regulations as the ‘‘cold start’’ test and the ‘‘hot over the analytical derivation
is represented in the FTP and HFET start’’ test. Each of these parts is divided into two
periods, or ‘‘phases’’: a ‘‘transient’’ phase and a methodology, especially in cases where
tests. The incorporation of measured ‘‘stabilized’’ phase. Because the stabilized phase of
fuel economy over the US06 test cycle the hot start test is assumed to be identical to the 26 EPA’s current policy for analytically derived

into the fuel economy label values will stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold fuel economy estimates for the FTP and HFET tests
make the label values more realistic. start stabilized phase is typically run. These is contained in the EPA memorandum entitled,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

‘‘phases’’ are often called ‘‘bags,’’ terminology that ‘‘Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
results from the sample bags in which the exhaust (ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,’’ March 11,
22 See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). samples are collected. The phases are run in the 2004, CCD–04–06 (LDV/LDT). This memorandum is
23 See 71 FR 5426 (Feb. 1, 2006). following order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold issued under 40 CFR 600.006–89(e), which allows
24 See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ or http: start stabilized (Bag 2), and hot start transient (Bag manufacturers to use analytical methods to
//www.regulations.gov. 3). determine fuel economy.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturers have worked to improve FTP (i.e., city) test, the mpg-based historic fuel economy data over the 5
fuel efficiency over the new test cycle approach would adjust the city fuel test cycles to estimate a fleet-wide
conditions (e.g., during cold economy downward by 20–22 percent average relationship between (1) FTP
temperatures or with air conditioning (or 4 to 7 mpg), versus today’s single 10 fuel economy and 5-cycle city fuel
on). Depending on how manufacturers percent downward adjustment. Thus, economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy
choose to apply this method, this city fuel economy label values under the and 5-cycle highway fuel economy.
additional testing could prompt the mpg-based approach tend to be about 11 Under the mpg-based approach, a
construction or modification of test percent lower on average than today’s specific vehicle’s city and highway fuel
facilities. (Test burden and cost issues label values. For vehicles with fuel economy labels are based on this fleet-
are discussed further in Section V of economy of 25–35 mpg over the HFET wide average relationship, as opposed to
this preamble.) Therefore, in order to (i.e., highway) test, the mpg-based that vehicle’s own results over the 5 test
allow sufficient lead-time for the approach would adjust the highway fuel cycles. In other words, under the mpg-
construction of these facilities, we are economy downward by about 28 based approach every vehicle with the
finalizing the proposed provisions that percent (or 7 to 10 mpg), versus today’s same fuel economy over the FTP test
allow manufacturers the option of using 22 percent downward adjustment. Thus, will receive the same city fuel economy
an interim set of adjustments through highway fuel economy label values label value. Likewise, every vehicle
the 2010 model year. These interim under the mpg-based approach would with the same fuel economy over the
adjustments are not vehicle-specific, but tend to be about 8 percent lower than HFET test will receive the same
instead reflect the effects of high speeds, today’s label values. highway fuel economy label value. This
hard accelerations, air conditioning use, Given that both approaches utilize the is illustrated further in Section II.B
and cold temperatures, etc., on the 5-cycle fuel economy formulae in some below. Below we present the specific
average vehicle. The vehicle-specific 5- fashion, it is useful to begin this section equations under the two approaches
cycle approach becomes mandatory with a description of how the fuel which would be used to convert fuel
with the 2011 model year. However, a economy measured over the 5 test economies measured over the
manufacturer can voluntarily use the 5- cycles are combined to represent city dynamometer cycles into city and
cycle method prior to the 2011 model and highway fuel economy. Then we highway fuel economy values.
year for any vehicle model.27 will describe how the fleet-average
The interim set of adjustments is formulae for the mpg-based approach A. Derivation of the Vehicle-Specific
termed the ‘‘mpg-based’’ approach. (See were derived from these 5-cycle fuel 5-Cycle Methodology
Figure II–1 for a graphical depiction of economy estimates. Finally, we compare The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach
these adjustments.) The mpg-based fuel economy label results from both the bases a vehicle’s fuel economy label
approach is a sliding scale of 5-cycle and mpg-based methods to values on fuel economy measurements
adjustments which varies according to a onroad fuel economy data from a variety over five test cycles: FTP, HFET, US06,
vehicle’s measured fuel economy over of sources. SC03 and cold FTP. These
the FTP and HFET tests. The mpg-based Under the new methods, we are
measurements are combined based on
adjustments were developed from replacing the 0.90 and 0.78 adjustment
detailed estimates, or ‘‘weightings,’’ of
applying the 5-cycle formulae to 615 factors for city and highway fuel
how and when vehicles are driven, as
recent model year vehicles and economy, respectively, with new factors
which are not simply constants. For well as under what ambient conditions.
determining the average difference
model years 2008–2010, a manufacturer The 5-cycle formulae are derived from
between the 5-cycle and current city
has the option of using two distinct extensive data on real-world driving
and highway fuel economies.28 Thus,
methodologies to calculate the city and conditions, such as driving activity,
because the data used to develop the
highway fuel economy values for any temperatures, air conditioner operation,
mpg-based adjustments were derived
specific vehicle. One approach is called trip length, and other factors. We refer
from 5-cycle fuel economies, the mpg-
the mpg-based method, since the city readers to the Technical Support
based adjustments include the effects of
and highway label values are based on Document for a detailed description of
high speeds, aggressive driving, air
the fuel economy (or mpg) measured the development of the 5-cycle fuel
conditioning, and colder temperatures.
over the FTP and HFET, respectively. economy formulae.
However, they do so based on the
impact of these factors on the average The other approach is called the 1. Overview of Public Comments on the
vehicle, not the individual vehicle, vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, since 5-Cycle Methodology
which is the case with the 5-cycle the city and highway label values are
based on the test results of five test Of those commenters addressing the
formulae. For example, for vehicles with
cycles, the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and 5-cycle formulae, most commented on
fuel economy of 20–30 mpg over the
cold FTP. Both approaches also include the thoroughness of the analyses which
27 Any manufacturer that chooses to optionally an additional downward adjustment to supported the various cycle weighting
use the 5-cycle approach prior to the 2011 model represent effects not reflected in our factors (also called coefficients)
year must use that approach to determine both city existing laboratory dynamometer included in the formulae. However,
and highway label estimates. Honda, and to some extent
28 Our database consists of 615 vehicles spanning
testing. Beginning with the 2011 model
year, manufacturers are required to use Environmental Defense, criticized
the 2003 to 2006 model years. For these vehicles
we have emission and/or fuel economy test data on the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method, but several aspects of the 5-cycle formulae.
all five test procedures. Additionally, may still use the mpg-based approach These comments are addressed in detail
manufacturers assisted with the development of on vehicles most sensitive to the new in the Response to Comments
this database by submitting detailed fuel economy document. Overall, the key criticisms
data for the three phases (or ‘‘bags’’) of the FTP and
test conditions. Under the vehicle-
the Cold FTP (EPA requires that they submit only specific 5-cycle approach, the fuel included:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

the composite emissions and fuel economy data for economy measurements over the 5 (1) The 5-cycle formulae had not been
certification or fuel economy labeling). The dynamometer test cycles will all be validated for individual vehicles. In
database includes data from 14 hybrid vehicles and
one diesel vehicle, and represents all types of
performed on (or estimated for) a particular, these commenters claimed
vehicles from all major manufacturers and most specific vehicle in the current model that the 5-cycle coefficients assume that
smaller manufacturers. year. The mpg-based approach uses all vehicles respond the same to various

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77883

changes in driving pattern and ambient organizations (see Section II of the developing the 5-cycle formulae, we
conditions; Technical Support Document). It is true reevaluated our assumption regarding
(2) The three new test cycles represent that the 5-cycle formulae decrease the the effect of ambient temperature on
extreme conditions, and; fuel economy of some hybrid vehicles running fuel use. This was the one area
(3) The 5-cycle method could penalize more than conventional vehicles, where the relationship in the proposed
advanced fuel efficient technologies. compared to the current label approach. 5-cycle formula was based on a simple
We present a summary of our responses However, this is easily explained by the assumption of linearity and not on the
to these three concerns below. way that current hybrid technology results of actual vehicle testing. We
Additional detail can be found in the works under various operational and performed an analysis of running fuel
Response to Comments Document. ambient conditions. For example, many use of several vehicles tested at 20 °F,
First, all of the approaches to current hybrid engine shut-off strategies 50 °F, and 75 °F and determined that the
calculating label values involve cease to operate when the heater is effect was non-linear. Using the new
relationships between driving activity or turned on at cold temperatures. The relationship reduced the city and
ambient conditions and fuel current label approach assumes that any highway formulae’s weighting of
consumption. These relationships are engine shut-off strategies operating over running fuel use at 20 °F from 0.30 to
never exact for each and every vehicle. the FTP and HFET tests always operate 0.18.
The 5-cycle formulae utilize more in in-use. This is clearly not correct.
Thus, some additional adjustment to Since the time of the proposal, we
vehicle-specific fuel consumption data
current hybrid vehicle fuel economy is also obtained vehicle trip data from
than the mpg-based and current label
approaches. Therefore, the 5-cycle to be expected. Available data on hybrid extensive vehicle monitoring which is
approach is based on fewer assumptions fuel economy outside of the conditions ongoing in Atlanta. Across a total of
regarding how individual vehicles react addressed by the FTP and HFET 668,000 vehicle trips, the average trip
to temperature, soak time, low and high confirm the impact of the 5-cycle length was found to be 7.25 miles. This
speed driving, aggressive driving, idling, formulae. We expect that future hybrid is 20 percent longer than found in
air conditioning, etc. The 5-cycle technology will significantly improve Atlanta in the early 1990’s. When we
method, by incorporating additional fuel economy over real-world extrapolate this increase to the results of
data from the three newer test cycles, conditions outside the FTP and HFET other studies performed in the early
improves our ability to estimate fuel tests. Such improvements in real-world 1990’s, we determined that a more
economy outside of the conditions fuel economy will be reflected under the reasonable estimate of trip length during
evaluated by the FTP and HFET tests. new 5-cycle estimates. city driving would be 4.1 miles, as
We provide examples and a detailed opposed to the 3.5 mile estimate
2. Changes to the 5-Cycle Methodology proposed in the 5-cycle city fuel
description of this analysis in the From Proposal
Technical Support Document. economy formulae. This effectively
Second, Honda states that the three We received very few comments that reduces the contribution of start fuel use
new tests address vehicle conditions provided new data with which to in the estimation of city fuel economy.
that are so extreme that their use in the modify the proposed methodology. Also, since the proposal, the Federal
above types of interpolations is actually However, based on a few comments and
Highway Administration published
worse than simply assuming that all new data we obtained, the methodology
onroad fuel economy estimates for 2004,
vehicles have the same response to the we are finalizing differs from the
as well as a revised onroad fuel
conditions being addressed by the three proposed methodology in three ways.
economy estimate for 2003. These
tests. However, none of the available First, we reevaluated an assumption
estimates are roughly 3% lower than
data indicates that this is the case, and with respect to the effect of ambient
those contained in their 2003 report,
Honda did not provide data to support temperature on running fuel use. This
which was the basis of our proposal. At
their claim. All of the driving conditions reduced the weighting factor for cold
the same time, Honda correctly pointed
addressed by the three tests clearly temperature running fuel use. Second,
out that we had inappropriately
occur in-use. Our detailed analysis of we obtained new vehicle trip length
assumed that the changes in FTP and
recent real-world driving activity data from extensive vehicle monitoring
ongoing in Atlanta. This increased our HFET test procedures implemented
studies is contained in the Technical
estimate of trip length during city with the Supplemental FTP rule
Support Document and Response to
driving, which then reduced the increased measured fuel economy by
Comments document. In particular, use
contribution of start fuel use to average 3%. These changes, plus other minor
of fuel economy data over the cold FTP
at 20 °F improves our ability to estimate fuel consumption during city driving. adjustments, led us to revise the factor
fuel economy at 50 °F, compared to Third, we updated our analyses based for non-dynamometer effects from 0.89
projecting fuel economy at 50 °F solely on the Federal Highway to 0.905 (meaning that this factor further
using the FTP test data at 75 °F. This Administration’s release of 2004 fuel reduces both city and highway estimates
analysis is detailed in the Technical economy estimates and revised 2003 by 9.5 percent). Detailed discussion and
Support Document as well. fuel economy estimates. This analysis, analyses of the non-dynamometer factor
Third, Honda states that these aspects along with addressing public comments, can be found in Section 5.0 of the
of the 5-cycle formulae might actually decreased the non-dynamometer Response to Comments document and
penalize advanced fuel-efficient adjustment factor slightly. Readers are Chapter III of the Technical Support
technology relative to conventional referred to the Technical Support Document.
technology vehicles. Our comparisons Document for detailed discussions of With these revisions, under the
of 5-cycle fuel economy for hybrids fall the analyses noted briefly below. vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach, the
in the range of onroad fuel economy In response to Honda’s comments city fuel economy value will be
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

estimates developed by various regarding the assumptions involved in calculated as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77884 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

1
City FE = 0.905 ×
(Start FC + Running FC)

Where:

 (0.76 × Start Fuel75 + 0.24 × Start Fuel20 ) 


Start FC (gallons per mile) = 0.330 ×  
 4.1 

Where:

 1 1 
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a 3-bag FTP = 3.6 ×  − 
 Bag 1 FE x Bag 3 FE x 

Where: the FTP test conducted at an ambient for start fuel consumption is somewhat
Bag y FEx = the fuel economy in miles per temperature of 75 ° or 20 °F. different:
gallon of fuel during the specified bag of For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles
tested over a 4-bag FTP the calculation

 (0.76 × Start Fuel75 + 0.24 × Start Fuel20 ) 


Start FC (gallons per mile) = 0.33 ×  
 4.1 

Where:

 1 1   1 1 
Start Fuel75 = 3.6 ×  −  + 3.9 ×  − 
 Bag 1 FE 75 Bag 3 FE 75   Bag 2 FE 75 Bag 4 FE 75 

ER27DE06.006</MATH>
and

 1 1 
Start Fuel20 = 3.6 ×  −

ER27DE06.005</MATH>

 Bag 1 FE 20 Bag 3 FE 20 

Likewise,

ER27DE06.004</MATH>
 0.48 0.41 0.11   0.5 0.5 
Running FC = 0.82 ×  + +  + 0.18 ×  + 
 Bag 275 FE Bag 375 FE US06 City FE   Bag 220 FE Bag 320 FE 
ER27DE06.003</MATH>
 1  0.61 0.39 
+ 0.133 × 1.083 ×  −  + 
 SC03 FE  Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE  
ER27DE06.002</MATH>

Where: SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon in the appropriate places in the above
US06 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon over the SC03 test. equation (except in the case of the cold
over the US06 test, FTP, where hybrids, like conventional
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon
Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles tested vehicles, will run a 3-bag test). The
over a 4-bag 75 °F FTP will substitute resulting equation for hybrid vehicles
ER27DE06.001</MATH>

over the HFET test,


the fuel economy over Bag 4 for Bag 2 thus becomes:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.000</MATH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77885

 0.48 0.41 0.11   0.5 0.5 


0.82 ×  + +  + 0.18 ×  + 
 Bag 475 FE Bag 375 FE US06 City FE   Bag 220 FE Bag 320 FE 
 1  0.61 0.39 
+ 0.133 × 1.083 ×  −  + 
 SC03 FE  Bag 375 FE Bag 475 FE  

Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle


formula, the highway fuel economy
value would be calculated as follows:

1
Highway FE = 0.905 ×
Start FC + Running FC

Where:

 ( 0.76 × Start Fuel75 + 0.24 × Start Fuel20 ) 


Start FC ( gallons per mile ) = 0.330 ×  
 60 

and,

 0.79 0.21   1  0.61 0.39  


Running FC = (1.007 ) ×  +  + 0.133 × 0.377 ×  − + 
 US06 Highway FE HFET FE   SC03 FE  Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE  

ER27DE06.014</MATH>
where the various symbols have the same For hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles highway fuel economy is calculated
definitions as described under the formula tested over a 4-bag 75 °F FTP the using the following equations:
for the vehicle-specific 5-cycle city fuel
economy value.

ER27DE06.013</MATH>
1
Highway FE = 0.905 ×
(Start FC + Running FC)

ER27DE06.012</MATH>
Where:

 ( 0.76 × Start Fuel75 + 0.24 × Start Fuel20 ) 

ER27DE06.011</MATH>
Start FC = 0.33 ×  
 60 

Where:
ER27DE06.010</MATH>

 1 1   1 1 
Start Fuel75 = 3.6 ×  −  + 3.9 ×  − 
 Bag 1 FE 75 Bag 3 FE 75   Bag 2 FE 75 Bag 4 FE 75 
ER27DE06.009</MATH>

and,
ER27DE06.008</MATH>

 1 1 
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Start Fuel20 = 3.6 ×  − 


 Bag 1 FE 20 Bag 3 FE 20 
ER27DE06.007</MATH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77886 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

and,

 0.79 0.21   1  0.61 0.39 


Running FC = 1.007 ×  +  + 0.133 × 0.377 ×  − + 
 US06 Highway FE HFET FE   SC0 3 FE  Bag 375 FE Bag 475 FE  

Where: between the 5-cycle city and highway mpg), versus today’s 22 percent
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in miles fuel economy values and FTP and HFET downward adjustment. Thus, highway
per gallon over the Highway portion of fuel economy values. Thus, because the fuel economy label values under the
the US06 test, data used to develop the average mpg-based approach will tend to be
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon adjustments were derived from 5-cycle about 8 percent lower than today’s label
over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per gallon fuel economies, the mpg-based values.
over the SC03 test. adjustments include the effect of high The characteristics of the mpg-based
speeds, aggressive driving, air equations can be seen in Figures II–1
Additional equations are necessary in conditioning, and colder temperatures.
the unusual cases where a manufacturer and II–2 below. The 5-cycle fuel
However, they do so based on the economies for 615 recent model year
test a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle impact of these factors on the average
using a 2-bag FTP; these equations are vehicles are represented by the
vehicle and do not reflect the fuel individual data points on the charts.
detailed in the Technical Support
economy actually achieved during these Hybrid vehicles are represented by large
Document.
types of driving by individual vehicles, squares on the charts. The mpg-based
B. Derivation of the MPG-Based which is the case with the 5-cycle fuel economy curve, represented by the
Methodology formulae. As indicated by a comparison regression line on the chart, was
Although the 5-cycle vehicle-specific of the fuel economy label values developed from these data. The
method will be optionally available to developed using the mpg-based and 5- horizontal axis is the measured FTP fuel
manufacturers starting with the 2008 cycle approaches (see Figures II–1 and economy.
model year, it is the mpg-based II–2), these ‘‘fleet-average’’ adjustments Under the mpg-based approach, the
approach that will be more widely are reasonably accurate for most city fuel economy value will be
utilized for the 2008 through 2010 vehicles. calculated as follows:
model years. Starting with the 2011 For example, for vehicles with FTP
model year the mpg-based approach fuel economy ranging from 20 to 30 Equation 1:
may continue to be used where test data mpg, the mpg-based approach will
1
demonstrates that the 5-cycle method is adjust the FTP fuel economy result City MPG =
unlikely to produce significantly downward by 20–22 percent (i.e., by 4  1.1805 
to 7 mpg), versus today’s 10 percent  0.003259 + 
different results. The mpg-based method  FTP FE 
applies an adjustment to a vehicle’s FTP downward adjustment. Thus, city fuel
economy label values under the mpg- Where:
or HFET test result based on that
vehicle’s measured fuel economy on the based approach will tend to be about FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per
10–12 percent lower than today’s label gallon of fuel during the FTP test
FTP or HFET. conducted at an ambient temperature of
The mpg-based adjustments were values. For vehicles with HFET fuel 75°F. This value is normally a sales-
developed from applying the 5-cycle economy in the range of 25 to 35 mpg weighted average of the vehicle models
formulae to fuel economy data from 615 the mpg-based approach on average will included in the ‘‘model type’’ vehicle
recent model year vehicles and adjust the HFET fuel economy grouping as defined in 40 CFR 600.002–
determining the average relationship downward by 28 percent (i.e., by 7 to 10 93.

ER27DE06.016</GPH>
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.015</MATH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77887

Likewise, the highway fuel economy Where:


value will be calculated as follows: HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon
over the HFET test. This value is
Equation 2: normally a sales-weighted average of the
1 vehicle models included in the ‘‘model
Highway MPG = type’’ vehicle grouping as defined in 40
 1.3466 
 0.001376 +  CFR 600.002–93.
 HFET FE 

ER27DE06.019</MATH>
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.018</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77888 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

These equations differ from those that would significantly change the label issuing guidance applicable to a given
we proposed in two ways. First, as results, using all of the available 5-cycle model year potentially mere days or
described above, we have modified the fuel economy estimates for the previous weeks from the start of that model year
5-cycle fuel economy formulae slightly three or more model years. These for some vehicle lines did not provide
based on additional information revised mpg-based equations will be adequate lead time. We agree, and we
received since the proposal. Second, we issued through the publication of an are finalizing regulations that require
have added 192 additional vehicles to EPA guidance document. The final EPA to issue guidance regarding
our 5-cycle fuel economy database. The regulations contain the equations that revisions to the equations by no later
mpg-based equations developed for the are applicable to 2008 model year than July 1 of the calendar year prior to
proposal were based on 5-cycle fuel vehicles, as well as the components of the earliest start of the model year that
economy estimates for 423 2003 to 2005 the equations to be utilized for future starts in the following calendar year. In
model year vehicles, whereas the mpg- model year vehicles. other words, for new equations to be
based equations shown above were applicable to the 2010 model year
We plan to update the mpg-based (which can begin as early as January 2,
based on 5-cycle fuel economy estimates curves periodically using all of the
for 615 2003 to 2006 model year 2009), EPA must issue guidance prior to
available 5-cycle fuel economy July 1, 2008.
vehicles. The net effect of these two estimates for the previous three or more
changes is that the city and highway model years. We proposed that these C. Effect of the New Methods on Fuel
fuel economy adjustments to the FTP revised mpg-based equations would be Economy Label Values
and HFET fuel economy values are a issued through the publication of an The impact of the new methodology
few percent smaller than those based on EPA guidance document which would on city and highway fuel economy label
the proposed mpg-based equations. be released by January 1 of the calendar values was assessed using the same
As mentioned above, the mpg-based year prior to the model year to which database of 615 recent model year
equations were developed from the 5- the equations first apply. We suggested vehicles used to develop the mpg-based
cycle fuel economy estimates for 615 in the proposal that this meant, for adjustments discussed above. It is
2003–2006 model year vehicles. In order example, that mpg equations for the important to realize that these are
to keep the mpg-based equations up-to- 2012 year would be published prior to projections based on historical data, and
date and reflecting changes in vehicle January 1 of 2011. However, we now that the actual impacts on fuel economy
technology, EPA will update these recognize that the model year for many label values will be dependent upon
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

equations periodically using the same manufacturers can begin almost a full how a given vehicle performs over the
methodology, but no more frequently year before the start of the identically- specific tests. Figures II–3 and II–4
than on an annual basis. We will update named calendar year (i.e., the 2012 show, for city and highway fuel
the mpg-based equations periodically, model year can begin on January 2, economy, respectively, how the label
ER27DE06.020</GPH>

especially if we determine that doing so 2011). Manufacturers commented that values would change under the 5-cycle

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77889

method for each vehicle in the 615- new city label values for most hybrid receive the same adjustment to account
vehicle database. Figures II–5 and II–6 vehicles will be between 20 and 30 for the variety of factors now accounted
show, for city and highway fuel percent lower than today’s city label for by the new methodology. Under the
economy, respectively, the distributions values. Figure II–4 shows that about 90 5-cycle method vehicles receive
of the percent change in label values percent of the vehicles in the database, differing ‘‘adjustments’’ relative to the
relative to the current labels. More than including most hybrids, would have current label values based on each
90 percent of the vehicles would have new highway label estimates that are vehicle’s response to the five tests.
new city label values that are from 8 to from 5 to 15 percent lower than today’s Table II–1 presents the average results of
15 percent lower than their current label current highway estimates. Under the this comparison for all 615 vehicles, as
values. Figure II–3 also shows that the current method all vehicles would well as various sub-sets of vehicles.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.021</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77890 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ER27DE06.023</GPH>
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.022</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77891

TABLE II–1.—EFFECT OF 5-CYCLE FORMULAE ON CITY AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY LABELS
City Highway Combined*

Percent Percent Percent


Current 5-Cycle Current 5-Cycle Current 5-Cycle
change change change
(mpg) (mpg) (mpg) (mpg) (mpg) (mpg)
(percent) (percent) (percent)

Hybrids ......................................... 42.7 33.0 ¥22.3 42.8 36.9 ¥12.9 42.6 35.0 ¥17.1
Diesel (1 vehicle) ......................... 26.2 23.4 ¥10.7 35.3 32.0 ¥9.3 29.6 27.6 ¥6.7

Conventional Vehicles

12 Highest FE .............................. 30.9 26.9 ¥12.9 36.6 34.0 ¥6.9 33.2 30.5 ¥8.0
12 Lowest FE ............................... 10.2 9.5 ¥6.9 14.8 14.8 ¥0.2 11.9 11.9 0.4
Average ........................................ 18.6 16.5 ¥10.8 24.6 22.8 ¥7.4 20.9 19.6 ¥6.0
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively. Combined fuel economy for 5-cycle
MPG is based on weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively (discussed further in Chapter II.C of the Technical Support Document).

As can be seen from Table II–1, use will typically experience a reduction in economy.29 This greater impact occurs
of the 5-cycle formulae will reduce both the highway label value similar to all primarily because a number of the fuel
current city and highway fuel economy conventional vehicles, while vehicles efficient aspects of hybrid vehicles
label values. For conventional vehicles, with lower than average fuel economy at produce their maximum benefit under
city and highway fuel economy values the other end of the spectrum will, on conditions akin to the FTP and HFET
will be reduced an average of 10.8 average, see little to no change in their tests, and are somewhat less beneficial
percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. highway label value (or possibly a during aggressive driving, colder
The reduction in city fuel economy modest increase in some cases). Again, ambient temperatures and when the air
label values for conventional vehicles this is explained by each vehicle’s fuel conditioner is turned on. However,
with higher than average fuel economy economy response to the new test these vehicles will still remain among
will be slightly higher than average cycles, and some vehicles are more the top fuel economy vehicles.
(¥12.9%), while the reduction for sensitive to the new test conditions than There is one diesel vehicle in our 5-
conventional vehicles with lower than others. cycle fuel economy database. The
average fuel economy will typically be
slightly lower than average (¥6.9%). The impact on hybrid vehicles will be 29 The database of 615 vehicles includes 14
greater, averaging a 22.3 percent
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

The reduction in highway fuel economy hybrid vehicles. All the hybrid models available as
for conventional vehicles varies less reduction for city fuel economy and of the 2006 model year are represented in the
12.9 percent for highway fuel database: Honda Insight, Honda Civic, Honda
around the average in the same way that Accord, Toyota Prius, Toyota Highlander/Lexus
it does for city fuel economy. Vehicles RX400h, Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner, and
ER27DE06.024</GPH>

with higher than average fuel economy Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup truck.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77892 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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

TABLE II–2.—EFFECT OF MPG-BASED FORMULAE ON CONVENTIONAL AND HYBRID FUEL ECONOMY


City Highway

Percent Percent
Current MPG-based Current MPG-based
change change
(mpg) (mpg) (mpg) (mpg)
(percent) (percent)

Conventional .................................................................... 18.6 16.5 ¥10.9 24.6 22.7 ¥7.8


Hybrids ............................................................................. 42.7 35.1 ¥16.7 42.8 38.4 ¥9.8

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

TABLE II–3.—EFFECT OF NEW METHODS ON FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES


City fuel economy estimate Highway fuel economy estimate

MPG- MPG-
Current 5-Cycle Current 5-Cycle
based based

Conventional Vehicles:
MPG .......................................................................... 18.6 16.5 16.5 24.6 22.8 22.7
Percent Change ........................................................ ¥10.8% ¥10.9% ¥7.4% ¥7.8%
Hybrid Vehicles:
MPG .......................................................................... 42.7 32.4 35.1 42.8 36.7 38.4
Percent Change ........................................................ ¥23.6% ¥16.7% ¥13.2% ¥9.8%

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

TABLE II.–4.—EFFECT OF NEW METHODS ON FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR MANUFACTURERS
Average
Average change in
2005 U.S. change in city highway fuel
Manufacturer market share fuel economy economy esti-
(percent)* estimate mate
(percent) (percent)

General Motors ............................................................................................................................ 25.9 ¥10 ¥11


Ford Motor Co. ............................................................................................................................ 17.9 ¥12 ¥10
DaimlerChrysler ........................................................................................................................... 14.9 ¥10 ¥11
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Toyota .......................................................................................................................................... 13.7 ¥11 ¥7


Honda .......................................................................................................................................... 8.9 ¥13 ¥7

30 The database spreadsheet is available in the

public docket for review.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77893

TABLE II.–4.—EFFECT OF NEW METHODS ON FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR MANUFACTURERS—Continued
Average
Average change in
2005 U.S. change in city highway fuel
Manufacturer market share fuel economy economy esti-
(percent)* estimate mate
(percent) (percent)

Nissan .......................................................................................................................................... 6.1 ¥11 ¥7


Hyundai ........................................................................................................................................ 2.9 ¥13 ¥8
Average ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥12 ¥8
* Source: Autodata Corp., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.

D. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Since the NPRM, FHWA has conditions. The primary weaknesses of
Economy Estimates published onroad fuel economy this testing are:
In the proposal, we compared fuel estimates for the 2004 vehicle fleet and (1) The driving patterns involved are
economy label values based on the updated their estimates for 2003. not typically published, so they may or
current, mpg-based, and 5-cycle FHWA’s estimates of light truck fuel may not be representative of average
formulae to estimates of onroad fuel economy onroad are almost 20 percent U.S. driving,
economy developed by a number of lower than their previous estimate for (2) Vehicles are tested throughout the
organizations. In the short time since the 2002–2003 fleets. After adjusting for year, so some vehicles are tested in hot
the proposal, little new data has become the difference in light truck categories, weather and others in cold weather, and
available. Also, as described above, we FHWA data indicate that combined car some under moderate conditions, thus
are finalizing only minor changes to the and light truck fuel economy averaged leading to results that are not
proposed mpg-based and 5-cycle 19.7–19.9 mpg during 2003 and 2004. comparable across vehicles and that
formulae. Thus, overall, the relative Extrapolating the fuel economy label may not reflect average U.S. driving,
comparisons described in the proposal estimates from the 615 vehicles in our and
remain largely unchanged. We describe certification database to the entire fleet
(3) In some cases, the actual test
these generally below, and refer the produces an average combined fuel
procedures used to measure the volume
reader to Chapter II of the Technical economy of 19.9 mpg. This close match-
of fuel consumed during the test are not
Support Document for a detailed up is not surprising, given that the value
described, leaving some doubt as to
description of these comparisons. of the factor representing effects not
We begin with a comparison of 5- their accuracy. Still, because of the
simulated during the dynamometer tests
cycle fuel economy values with the public interest in these estimates, we
(e.g., wind, road grade, etc.) was set have compared them to our mpg-based
fleetwide fuel economy estimates using the FHWA estimates of onroad
developed by the Federal Highway and 5-cycle label estimates.
fuel economy.
Administration (FHWA). There are We updated our comparison of mpg-
Next, several governmental and non- based and 5-cycle fuel economy
several differences in these two
governmental organizations perform estimates to Consumer Report’s fuel
estimates. First, we do not have fuel
their own fuel economy assessments. Of economy estimates for 2000–2005
economy data for all vehicles sold over
these, the American Automobile model year vehicles which were also in
the past 20–30 years over all five test
procedures. Therefore, we cannot Association (AAA) and Consumer our 5-cycle database. We were also able
develop a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate Report have tested the greatest number to match 70 of these vehicles with those
for the current onroad fleet directly. of vehicles. Oak Ridge National in our 5-cycle fuel economy database.31
Instead, we compare 5-cycle fuel Laboratory (ORNL) has recently begun a As in the NPRM, we focused on
economy values to the current label program where drivers can submit their Consumer Report’s combined fuel
values for the vehicles for which we own fuel economy measurements via economy, which is a harmonic average
have 5-cycle fuel economy data, and the Internet. Argonne National of its fuel economy measurements for
then extrapolate this relationship to the Laboratory (ANL) has also been city driving, highway driving, and a
rest of the vehicle fleet. Also, the FHWA operating an extensive hybrid 150-mile trip. On average, the mpg-
light truck class includes vehicles above demonstration project for a few years as based combined fuel economy values
8,500 pound GVWR. The fuel economy part of DOE’s Freedom Car project. are 3 percent higher than those of
estimated for this class therefore Each of these estimates of onroad fuel Consumer Report, while the 5-cycle fuel
requires adjustment to be comparable to economy has their relative strengths and economy values are 2% higher than
EPA’s light-duty truck class. We also weaknesses. The strengths of the non- those of Consumer Report. Thus, there
make this comparison for cars and light governmental organization testing is an excellent match between the
trucks combined, in order to avoid include the fact that the vehicles are composite mpg-based fuel economy and
differences in the ways that FHWA tested on actual roads, usually in traffic the Consumer Report combined fuel
categorizes vehicles. and under real environmental economy.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77894 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II–5.—CONSUMER REPORTS AND CURRENT EPA AND MPG-BASED FUEL ECONOMY: 303 VEHICLES
Consumer Current EPA label MPG-based
reports
Difference* Difference
MPG MPG
MPG (percent) (percent)

City ........................................................................................................... 14.2 20.4 ¥30 18.0 ¥21


Highway ................................................................................................... 29.3 26.9 9 24.7 19
Combined ................................................................................................. 20.7 22.9 ¥9 21.2 ¥3

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

TABLE II–6.—CR AND CURRENT EPA, 5-CYCLE AND MPG-BASED FUEL ECONOMY: 70 VEHICLES
Consumer Current EPA label 5-cycle MPG-based
reports
Difference* Difference Difference
MPG MPG MPG
MPG (percent) (percent) (percent)

City ........................................................... 14.3 20.4 ¥30 18.0 ¥21 17.8 ¥20


Highway ................................................... 29.3 26.4 11 24.3 21 24.1 22
Combined ................................................. 20.6 22.7 ¥9 21.0 ¥2 20.9 ¥2

We also updated our comparison to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s vehicles to those in our 5-cycle
onroad fuel economy as estimated by ‘‘Your MPG’’ database. Unlike database. Thus, we limit our
AAA.32 We were able to match 61 out Consumer Report and AAA, drivers comparison to the mpg-based method.
of the 163 vehicles from their 2004 submit their own estimates of onroad We combined the mpg-based city and
report to vehicles in our 5-cycle fuel economy and city/highway driving highway label values using each driver’s
certification database. This is lower than split to the YourMPG Web site. The estimate of the percentage of their
the 98 models which we matched in the strength of this type of data is the fact driving that was in city or highway
analysis described in the NPRM due to that the vehicle is being operated by the conditions. If a driver did not provide
the use of a more stringent criterion that owner or regular driver in typical use. an estimate of the breakdown of their
the vehicles match in terms of model driving pattern, we assumed that their
The weaknesses are the unknown
year. As AAA only develops a single driving was 43 percent city and 57
representativeness of the sample, the
fuel economy estimate for each vehicle percent highway in terms of miles
(i.e., no separate city or highway unknown nature of the technique used
by the owner/driver to measure fuel driven (not time driven).
estimates), we compared their estimates
to combined fuel economy values using economy and the unknown time period Diesels appear to perform better
the mpg-based and 5-cycle formulae. On over which fuel economy is generally onroad than gasoline vehicles compared
average, the mpg-based combined fuel assessed (e.g., a couple of tanks full or to their current or mpg-based label
economy values exceeded those of AAA the past year). The database now values. Onroad fuel economy by diesels
by 6.7%, while the 5-cycle fuel contains 8180 estimates of fuel economy in the YourMPG database exceeded the
economy values exceeded those of AAA for 4192 vehicles, compared to 2544 current label combined label values by
by 6.1%. estimates of fuel economy for 1794 4.3 percent. In contrast, conventional
We obtained a recent compilation of vehicles at the time of the NPRM. The gasoline vehicles fell short of their
consumer’s onroad fuel economy database does not provide sufficiently current combined label values by 1.4
estimates which have been submitted to precise vehicle descriptions to match percent.

TABLE II–7. —YOURMPG VERSUS CURRENT AND MPG-BASED LABEL FUEL ECONOMY
Number of Current Difference MPG-based Difference
Vehicle type YourMPG
estimates label (percent) label (percent)

Conventional gasoline ...................................................... 7330 23.8 24.1 ¥1.4 21.7 9.1


High MPG Conventional Gasoline* ................................. 680 35.1 35.8 ¥1.7 31.6 11.2
Hybrid Gasoline ............................................................... 520 43.2 47.1 ¥8.2 40.5 6.3
Diesel ............................................................................... 221 41.8 40.1 4.3 35.3 18.3
* Combined EPA Label fuel economy value of 32 mpg or greater, representing about the top 10% fuel economy conventional vehicles.

We also performed similar economy conventional vehicles. In the vehicles specifically was misleading.
comparisons of EPA label and various NPRM, we did this analysis for hybrids. The reason given was that, if hybrids
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

onroad fuel economy estimates focusing However, we received some comments performed differently on the road
specifically on hybrids and high fuel that highlighting the impact on hybrid compared to their label values, it was

32 AAA Auto Guide: 2004 New Cars and Trucks.

AAA Publishing, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77895

due to their relatively high fuel values would not be significantly The manufacturer will not need to
economy and not because of their different under the 5-cycle method. conduct 5-cycle testing for fuel economy
hybrid technology. However, we found Each year, manufacturers must labeling for these model types.
that the relationship between mpg-based demonstrate compliance with federal To accomplish this, we defined the
and 5-cycle label values and the onroad emission standards by performing tests lower bound of a tolerance band around
fuel economy estimates for conventional over all five test procedures. The the mpg-based line as the criteria for
vehicles with relatively high fuel vehicles on which these tests are whether the mpg-based line could be
economy is consistently more similar to performed are known as ‘‘emission data used or whether 5-cycle testing would
that of lower fuel economy conventional vehicles’’, which are selected to be required for further vehicle models
vehicles than to hybrids. represent the ‘‘worst-case’’ emitting within a test group. As proposed, we are
There is a significant degree of scatter vehicle in a group of vehicles, known as finalizing four and five percent as the
in the various estimates of onroad a ‘‘test group’’, which share common tolerance bands for the city and
hybrid fuel economy. Those from DOE’s engine and emission control designs.34 highway mpg lines, respectively.
FreedomCar program, Consumer Report EPA issues certificates of emission Mathematically, the tolerance line is
and Edmunds 33 tend to be much lower conformity for each test group of defined by Y x mpg-based fuel
than those from YourMPG and AAA. vehicles in each model year. Thus, for economy, where Y is 0.96 for city fuel
EPA’s Kansas City data, although not each test group, there exists a set of economy and 0.95 for highway fuel
representative of the entire country, official certification test data from all economy. In other words, if the 5-cycle
tends to fall in between these other two five test cycles—FTP, HFET, US06, city fuel economy value is greater than
sets of onroad hybrid estimates. The 5- SC03 and Cold FTP. The fuel economy or equal to 0.96 times the mpg-based
cycle combined label values tend to be measured from these official city fuel economy, all the vehicle model
in line with the lower set of estimates. certification tests can be inserted into types covered under the certificate of
The mpg-based label values tend to be the 5-cycle city and highway formulae conformity for that test group are
somewhat higher than the lower set of to determine city and highway fuel eligible to use the mpg-based method to
estimates, but well below those of economy values. Since FTP and HFET determine both city and highway fuel
YourMPG and AAA. As described in the testing is included in the official economy label estimates. Similarly,
NPRM, the fuel economy of hybrids is certification data, the mpg-based city when the 5-cycle highway fuel economy
more sensitive to driving patterns and and highway fuel economy values can is greater than or equal to 0.95 times the
ambient conditions than conventional also be determined. Thus, for each mpg-based highway fuel economy, all
vehicles. The scatter in the various emission data vehicle, the 5-cycle city vehicle model types covered under the
onroad fuel economy estimates for and highway fuel economy values then certificate of conformity in that test
hybrids likely reflects this fact, as each can be compared to the mpg-based city group are required to use the vehicle-
estimate is based on a unique set of and highway fuel economy values. We specific 5-cycle approach. This can be
driving activity and ambient conditions. believe that it is reasonable to allow done using analytically derived fuel
Overall, the mpg-based and 5-cycle continued use of the mpg-based line economy estimates, when appropriate.
fuel economy label values compare when the available 5-cycle fuel This approach is appropriate because
favorably with estimates of onroad fuel economy data (from emissions those vehicles with a 5-cycle value
economy made by other organizations. certification) indicates that the mpg- above the mpg-based line that used the
However, lack of detailed knowledge of based fuel economy determined from mpg-based line would simply be
the driving conditions and test the official FTP and HFET tests reducing their fuel economy down to
procedures behind many of the latter performed for the test group are similar the average level, even though the 5-
estimates prevents systematic enough to the 5-cycle fuel economy cycle data indicated better than average
comparisons, especially involving determined from the official FTP, HFET, performance was likely for that vehicle
individual weighting factors in the 5- US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests for that group. Because of the better-than-
cycle formulae. same test group. In that case, the average performance, we expect that
manufacturer can use the mpg-based most manufacturers will want to do
E. Implementation of the New Fuel method for all model types covered complete 5-cycle testing for vehicles
Economy Methods under the EPA certificate of conformity likely to be significantly above the mpg-
1. 5-Cycle Vehicle Selection Criteria for that is represented by the 5-cycle data based line.
submitted to represent those vehicles. This approach is illustrated in the
2011 and Later Model Years
Figures II–7 and II–8, below. The black
In addition to finalizing the mpg- 34 The ‘‘emission data vehicle’’ is the test vehicle squares in these figures represent
based adjustments for the 2008–2010 chosen to represent a ‘‘test group’’ for emission situations where the mpg line does not
model years, as mentioned above, we certification purposes. A ‘‘test group’’ is made up do a good job (based on the tolerance
of vehicles that share common combustion cycle,
are finalizing as proposed selection engine type, fuel type, fuel metering system, criteria as shown by the dashed line) of
criteria for the continued use of this catalyst construction and precious metal content, predicting the 5-cycle fuel economy.
method for 2011 and later model years. engine displacement, number and arrangement of Those vehicles with black squares in the
These criteria will indicate for a given cylinders, and emission standards. The emission two charts below may not use the mpg-
data vehicle is required to be the vehicle within the
vehicle test group whether the full 5- test group that is expected to be worst-case for based approach, but instead must
cycle testing would result in exhaust emissions. In general the criteria that cause perform additional testing to achieve
significantly different fuel economy the emission data vehicle to be worst-case for better fuel economy estimates. Note that
label values than the mpg-based emissions will also cause it to be worst-case for fuel these charts do not show the entire
economy (e.g., it will be the heaviest vehicle in the
approach. If not, then those vehicles test group, with an automatic transmission, four-
range of FTP and HFET fuel economy
could use the mpg-based method rather wheel drive, etc.). In general, the FTP, HFET, US06 on the x-axis, and thus do not show all
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

than the 5-cycle method. This approach and SC03 are performed on the emission data those vehicles ‘‘passing’’ or ‘‘failing’’ the
is designed to avoid additional test vehicle to demonstrate that the test group complies city or highway criteria. For the purpose
with the federal emission standards. The Cold FTP
burden where the fuel economy label is performed on the worst-case vehicle within a
of illustrating this concept it helps to
durability group, which represents a larger group of isolate the FTP range from 20 to 30 mpg
33 See www.edmunds.com. vehicles, including those covered in the test group. and the HFET range from 30 to 40 mpg.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77896 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

If the 5-cycle city fuel economy falls emission data vehicle are required to five percent (i.e., below the tolerance
below the mpg-based city fuel economy use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle line), but the 5-cycle city fuel economy
by more than four percent (i.e., below approach for both city and highway fuel is not more than four percent lower than
the tolerance line), but the 5-cycle economy, since fuel economy values for the mpg-based city fuel economy (i.e.,
ER27DE06.026</GPH>
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

highway fuel economy does not fall all five cycles are important in above the tolerance line), all the vehicle
below the mpg-based highway fuel estimating 5-cycle city fuel economy. configurations represented by the
economy by more than five percent (i.e., However, if the 5-cycle highway fuel emission data vehicle will use the mpg-
above the tolerance line), all the vehicle economy is less than the mpg-based based approach to estimate the city fuel
ER27DE06.025</GPH>

configurations represented by the highway fuel economy by more than economy label. For the highway label in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77897

this case, all the vehicle configurations The five percent tolerance band for require a manufacturer to attach a label
represented by the emission data highway fuel economy is equivalent to to each ‘‘automobile’’ manufactured in a
vehicle may use an approximate 5-cycle roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is model year.37 ‘‘Automobile’’ is defined
formula. This formula includes vehicle- slightly higher than the typical error as a vehicle not more than 6,000 lbs
specific fuel economy measurements for associated with rounding. However, due GVWR, and those vehicles between
the FTP, HFET and US06 tests, but the to the dominant contribution of the 6,000 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT
SC03 and cold FTP test values may be US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle determines are appropriate for inclusion
estimated based on relationships highway formula, and the fact that this in the CAFE program.38 ‘‘Automobile’’
developed from other vehicles. This is test tends to have relatively high for the purposes of labeling also
appropriate because the impact of the variability, we are concerned that test- includes vehicles at no more than 8,500
cold FTP test on highway fuel economy to-test variability could be on the order lbs GVWR whether or not DOT has
in the 5-cycle formula is not vehicle- of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle highway included those vehicles in the CAFE
specific, but estimated (or modeled) formula. We estimate that about 87 program.39 EPA has no authority to
based on known relationships. Also the percent of test groups would fall above require labels on vehicles that are not
impact of the SC03 test on highway fuel the five percent tolerance line. Thus, automobiles, therefore EPA has no
economy is very small, particularly again, we believe that this criterion authority to require labeling of either
compared to that for the US06 test. adequately satisfies the three factors vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or
The criteria for use of the mpg-based mentioned above. vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs
approach in model year 2011 and later Overall, allowing the continued use of GVWR that are not included by DOT in
(5-cycle city fuel economy above four the mpg-based approach in this way the CAFE program.
percent and 5-cycle highway fuel will reduce the number of additional Since the time of EPA’s proposal,
economy above five percent) are based SC03 and cold FTP tests by about 96 DOT has included some vehicles above
on the balance of three factors. First, we percent and reduce the number of 8,500 lbs GVWR and below 10,000 lbs
designed them to be sufficiently large so additional US06 tests by about 87 in its CAFE program, beginning in
that typical test-to-test variability would percent. Moreover, this significant model year 2011.40 Since these vehicles
not cause a test group to fail the criteria. reduction in test burden is achieved now meet the definition of automobile,
This may be a greater concern for the with no significant impact on the fuel EPA is authorized to include these
highway fuel economy comparison, due economy estimate. vehicles in the labeling program. EPA is
to the dominance of the US06 fuel now requiring fuel economy labels on
2. Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle MDPVs (as defined in the CAFE
economy (which inherently has greater Label Estimates program), beginning with model year
test-to-test variability than the other
As noted in Section I, we are 2011.
tests) in the 5-cycle formula. Second, we
finalizing in this rule a fuel economy MDPVs are currently subject to
want to minimize the potential error in
labeling program for Medium-Duty emission standards that apply on the
the fuel economy label. Label fuel
Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), a subset of existing Federal Test Procedure, and
economy values are rounded to the
vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs many also undergo emission testing on
nearest whole mpg. Thus, we felt it
GVWR. MDPVs were first defined in the the current Highway Fuel Economy Test
important to keep the difference
regulation that put in place the ‘‘Tier 2’’ due to requirements in California.
between the 5-cycle and mpg-based fuel
emission standards.35 This newly- Beginning with the 2011 model year,
economy values within roughly one
defined class of vehicles includes SUVs manufacturers will be routinely testing
mpg, if possible. In other words, if the
and passenger vans between 8,500 and MDPVs over the FTP and the HFET tests
difference between the two methods is
10,000 lbs GVWR, but excludes large in order to comply with the CAFE
less than 1 mpg, then the two methods
pick-up trucks. The specific regulatory program. However, MDPVs are not
would produce the same label value. If
definition was designed to capture in today subject to all of the additional
the difference is more than 1 mpg then
the Tier 2 vehicle emissions program emission tests we are utilizing for the 5-
we would expect the 5-cycle method to
those vehicles that are designed cycle method.41 Specifically, MDPVs
result in a different label value, and thus
predominantly for passenger use.36 are not subject to the 1996 SFTP
it is more important to trigger the
Under the Energy Policy and regulations.42 The SFTP regulations
requirement for additional testing.
Conservation Act (EPCA), EPA is include the US06 and SC03 test
Third, we want to avoid requiring
required to establish regulations that procedures, both of which are necessary
additional fuel economy testing that
elements of the 5-cycle fuel economy
will have little to no impact on the label 35 See 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000). methodology. These two test cycles
values. 36 This is the regulatory definition of Medium- represent high speed and aggressive
The four percent tolerance band for Duty Passenger Vehicle, found in 40 CFR 86.1803– driving (US06), and impacts of air
city fuel economy is equivalent to 01: Medium-duty passenger vehicle (MDPV) means
conditioner operation (SC03). We do not
roughly 0.6–0.7 mpg on average. Due to any heavy-duty vehicle (as defined in this subpart)
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less believe it is appropriate to require SFTP
the contribution of a number of than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily for testing for MDPVs for fuel economy
independent fuel economy the transportation of persons. The MDPV definition purposes alone, but we are not prepared
measurements in the 5-cycle city does not include any vehicle which:
at this time to establish SFTP standards
formula, the effect of test to test (1) Is an ‘‘incomplete truck’’ as defined in this
variability should be much lower than subpart; or
37 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
(2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12
four percent. Based on the 5-cycle test persons; or
38 See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
results of 615 recent model year (3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating
39 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(a).

vehicles, we estimate that about 96 rearward of the driver’s seat; or 40 See 71 FR 17565 (April 6, 2006).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

percent of test groups would fall above (4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for 41 MDPVs are currently required under the Tier 2

the four percent tolerance line. Thus, we example, a pick-up truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches program to meet a carbon monoxide standard on the
in interior length or more. A covered box not cold FTP test; compliance with this standard is
believe that this criterion adequately readily accessible from the passenger compartment being phased in over the 2008 and 2009 model
satisfies the three factors mentioned will be considered an open cargo area for purposes years.
above. of this definition. 42 See 61 FR 54852 (Oct. 22, 1996).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77898 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

for MDPVs. In the Tier 2 regulations, we economy over the three new fuel B. Label Size and Orientation
acknowledged that MDPVs were not economy test cycles. A procedure to Although we proposed to maintain
covered by SFTP requirements, and we estimate the effect of these three vehicle the label’s size at 7 inches by 4.5 inches,
specifically noted that SFTP emission parameters on FTP and HFET fuel we experimented with its orientation.
standards would be addressed in a economy has already been developed.44 Two of the four alternative labels
future regulation.43 We believe that the We plan to work with manufacturers to proposed were positioned vertically
appropriate time to consider 5-cycle fuel appropriately analytically derive fuel (portrait), and two horizontally
economy testing for MDPVs is during or economy for the US06, SC03 and cold (landscape) as today’s label. Public
after development of appropriate SFTP FTP tests, or otherwise utilize data for comments highly supported one of the
emission standards for MDPVs. We plan these tests already available from vertically oriented versions (identified
to address SFTP emission standards for certification vehicles. We will in the proposed rule as ‘‘Alternative
MDPVs in the near future. At that time, implement these estimation procedures 4.’’ 45 The commenters that provided
we will also assess the appropriateness using agency guidance, as is currently reasons for this preference indicated
of 5-cycle fuel economy testing for done for FTP and HFET fuel economy. that the new look, along with the
MDPVs. However, we are finalizing a graphically presented comparison
program that requires MDPVs to use the III. Revisions to the Fuel Economy
Label Format and Content information, helped convey the fuel
mpg-based adjustments to calculate fuel economy information desired by the
economy estimates. The database of 615 A. Background customer, discussed further in Section
vehicles used to generate the mpg-based III.C below.
adjustments includes vehicles similar in We proposed to update the design of
the fuel economy label to better convey Some automakers expressed concerns
many respects to existing MDPVs, with with the vertical label orientation. Their
similar FTP and HFET fuel economy as its information to the public. We took
comment on four alternative label primary apprehension was that the new
measured today. For example, the Department of Transportation—National
database includes models of the designs. We received overwhelming
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Chevrolet Suburban below 8,500 lbs public support for revamping the label
safety rating label, required on price
GVWR, which are very similar to the and numerous constructive comments
stickers (‘‘Monroney’’ label) of all cars
versions of the same vehicle that is for enhancing the final label content.
produced on or after September 1,
above 8,500 lbs GVWR and classified as Based on these public comments, we
2007,46 competes for space with the fuel
an MDPV. Additionally, because the developed additional alternatives for
economy label. Some manufacturers had
mpg-based adjustment is essentially the how information might be presented on
already redesigned their price stickers to
average relationship between FTP and the label. We gauged consumer reaction
accommodate the safety rating label
HFET fuel economy and 5-cycle fuel to these alternatives by conducting a
beside a horizontally positioned fuel
economy results, we believe that the series of focus groups in five cities
economy label. These companies stated
resulting label values for MDPVs will be across the country. These groups
that because the price sticker contains a
an adequate representation. The mpg- provided valuable feedback which we
great deal of information, changing the
based approach does not require testing used to establish the final label. The
fuel economy label orientation would be
beyond what will be required to meet docket to this rule includes the final
difficult from a graphic design
the CAFE program in model year 2011. report entitled ‘‘Fuel Economy Focus
standpoint. One manufacturer
Manufacturers will simply take their Groups—Phase Two Findings’’ that
commented that it had already printed
FTP and HFET test results (conducted contains details about the focus groups.
stock price stickers containing
for the CAFE program) and apply them The label format and content we are horizontally oriented fuel economy
to the mpg-based equation to determine finalizing today reflects input from the labels and would bear an added cost of
their fuel economy label values. public comments and focus group redesigning and reprinting the stickers if
research. The modern design of this EPA required the vertical label.
3. Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
label more effectively communicates To consider further the above
When a vehicle is required to generate fuel economy estimates and related
data from all five test cycles, there are comment, we tested both horizontal and
information to the customer. Section I of vertical versions of the label (Figure III–
multiple ways for the manufacturer to this preamble provides a graphic of the
accomplish this. One way would be to 1) with the focus groups. While the
new fuel economy label and key focus groups expressed a slight
perform the three additional tests—the considerations that went into
US06, SC03, and cold FTP tests (the preference for the vertical orientation,
developing its final design. This section this preference was not strongly held.
FTP and HFET would be performed presents the specific elements on the
under current and future requirements). Some participants remarked that the
final label. vertical label was easier to read ‘‘top to
The other way is to estimate fuel We plan to conduct public outreach
economy values over the US06, SC03 bottom’’; however, a contrasting
and education to increase consumer observation made in many of the focus
and cold FTP tests analytically (i.e., awareness of the new label’s design and
analytically derived fuel economy, or groups was that on the vertical label the
content. We believe that we can increase text within the gray area of the fuel
ADFE) from testing of a similar vehicle consumer comprehension by jointly-
over these three cycles. Under this pump was more difficult to read. [Insert
sponsoring an outreach campaign with photo Figure III–1: Preliminary vertical
method, manufacturers will be allowed car dealers and other interested
to estimate the effect of differences in stakeholders that could include 45 Note that the NPRM contained four label
inertia test weight, road load explanatory materials, such as a alternatives, printed in the Appendix to the
horsepower, and N/V ratio (the ratio of brochure that dealers could distribute to proposed regulations on pages 5510–5513, labeled
engine revolutions to vehicle speed customers. Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4. These same labels were
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

when the vehicle is in its highest gear) posted on EPA’s Web site, but in a slightly different
order and with different nomenclature (Label A, B,
on fuel economy, and use these 44 U.S. EPA Memorandum ‘‘Updated Analytically C, and D). In the following discussion we refer to
estimates to calculate predicted fuel Derived Fuel Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY the labels printed in the NPRM and use that
and Later,’’ CCD–04–06 (LDVLDT), March 11, 2004. nomenclature.
43 See 65 FR 6789 (Feb. 10, 2000). Available in the public docket for review. 46 See 71 FR 53572 (Sept. 12, 2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77899

and horizontal designs for focus group


review.]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C ‘‘window’’ and the bar graphic showing elements supported by public comments
Although public comments indicated comparable fuel economy) rather than and its appearance is oriented
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

a preference for the vertical orientation,


the label orientation itself. Therefore, in horizontally. The label size remains
the primary reasons given were more
order to address both the consumers’ unchanged from the current label, at 7″
relevant to the design elements
(particularly the gray ‘‘watermark’’ fuel needs and the automakers’ concerns, wide by 4.5″ high, and the final layout
our final label contains the new design incorporates several important changes
ER27DE06.027</GPH>

pump design with information it its

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77900 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

to improve legibility and consumers’ vehicle’s fuel economy to that of all label in a text statement, similar to the
understanding of the label information. other vehicles in its class: a text current label. On one of the vertically
statement and a graphic depiction oriented labels (Alternative 4) we
C. Fuel Economy of Comparable
(Figure III–2). On three of the proposed proposed a graphical bar scale that
Vehicles
labels, we specified separate city and indicated where the vehicle’s combined
We proposed two contrasting highway comparable fuel economy fuel economy would fall compared to all
depictions comparing a particular information on the bottom half of the other vehicles in its class.

Public commenters strongly favored EPA and through additional focus One commenter stated that the
the graphical version, many noting that groups to develop a design that within-class graphic did not provide
it was similar to the Federal Trade addresses their competitive concerns. enough context for consumers because
Commission’s EnergyGuide ratings Although their concerns were directed many people do not shop within a
placed on new appliances. at the graphic, the underlying issue is single class, but instead may be
One industry comment suggested that EPA’s comparable class designations. A simultaneously considering a variety of
the graphical way of presenting separate discussion of comparable types of vehicles (for example, SUVs or
comparable fuel economy highlighted a classes is in Section VI.F. minivans). The commenter suggested an
weakness in the comparable vehicle We also tested these representations
alternate version of this graphic
class designations. Automakers of comparable fuel economy with the
containing a bar scale that represents
expressed concern that ‘‘the graphic focus groups and they responded
representation may portray a significant positively to the graphic version of the fuel economy range of all vehicles,
volume of sales as having low fuel combined fuel economy. Participants with the range of the specific vehicle
economy, even though many consumers indicated that they were more likely to class embedded in the overall range. We
would be shopping in only subgroups of use this information, since it was much tested this alternative with the focus
EPA’s classes.’’ They recommended that more clearly displayed in the graphical groups, along with an enhanced graphic,
EPA retain its current text portrayal of version. Many participants commented similar to the one proposed in the
comparable fuel economy, but if further that the range of combined fuel Alternative 4 label. These alternatives
significant comments were to favor the economy was more useful than the city/ are shown in Figure III–3.
graphic design, they asked to work with highway ranges of the verbal text.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.028</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77901

The focus groups slightly preferred given how briefly most viewers look at fuel per gallon. (This information is
Option 1 because of its simplicity, many the labels on dealer lots. We recognize currently optional on the label, but
participants noting that they already that the added information provided by manufacturers typically do not include
knew which class of vehicles they revealing the fuel economy range of all it). Public commenters and focus group
would be considering. Others preferring vehicles may be valuable to some, but participants responded favorably to
Option 2 mentioned that it could because of clarity and ease of these changes.
influence some people to reconsider comprehension, we are finalizing the One commenter suggested that a
vehicles with higher fuel economy. simpler within-class graphic. Those single cost estimate would not match
Although some participants thought the desiring more detailed information most drivers’ experiences, and that a
added fuel economy range in Option 2 about comparable fuel economy can cost range would be more valuable for
was useful, many thought it was too find it on the Fuel Economy Guide and those who drove more exclusively
much information or were confused by at http://www.fueleconomy.gov, under city or highway conditions. To
what it represents. referenced at the bottom of the label. explore this comment, we developed an
Because public comment and focus D. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost option that showed three separate fuel
group reaction has been positive, we are cost estimates (Figure III–4, Option 2):
We proposed to elevate the visibility
finalizing a comparable fuel economy of the estimated annual fuel cost (1) Combined estimate based on a mix
graphic similar to Option 1 (Figure III– information by increasing its size and of city and highway driving;
3). This graphic shows the range of fuel location on the label (Figure III–4, (2) City estimate based on all city
economy for the comparable class of Option 1). Additionally, we proposed to driving; and
vehicles and indicates where the include further information on which (3) Highway estimate based on all
specific vehicle falls on that range. The the estimated annual fuel costs are highway driving.
focus groups comprehended it easily at determined—specifically the number of Both options were tested with the
a glance, an important consideration miles driven per year and the price of focus groups.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.029</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77902 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

The focus groups had mixed reactions graphic that a person could determine maintain your vehicle and other
to these options, but slightly preferred their own customized fuel cost estimate factors.’’ This statement reinforces to
Option 1 because it was simpler and by modifying one or more parameters customers that the mpg values are
provided all of the vital information. (e.g. mpg, dollars-per-gallon, or miles- estimates only and that drivers will
Others thought that the combined per-year). experience different fuel economy
estimate would be more accurate, since As explained in further detail in depending on many factors. Most
they did not drive exclusively in either Section III.I, the estimated annual fuel commenters favored some sort of
city or highway conditions. cost is determined using a weighted disclaimer statement and provided a
Alternatively, those that preferred combination of estimated city and number of suggestions. Some proposed
seeing the added city/highway fuel costs highway fuel economy values. Currently that the statement both highlight the
did so because they did drive under one the combined fuel economy is based on
inexact nature of the estimate and
condition more often than another; a weighting of 55% city mpg and 45%
others simply preferred having more educate consumers on which factors
highway mpg. We proposed changing
information. may lead to improved fuel economy.
the weighting to 43% city mpg and 57%
We are finalizing Option 1 based on highway mpg, but as discussed in Others suggested that the statement
positive response from both public Section III.I we are not finalizing this as distinguish between factors that drivers
commenters and focus groups. While proposed, choosing instead to retain the could and could not control. We tested
the option to include separate city and 55/45 weighting factors. three alternative versions with the focus
highway annual fuel costs may provide groups: a slight modification to the
additional useful information for some E. ‘‘Your mileage will vary’’ Statement proposed version, one having a list of
consumers, others may disregard it We proposed to include a statement fuel economy tips, and the other simply
altogether because of its complexity. on the label stating, ‘‘Your actual pointing to a Web site where one could
Furthermore, there is enough mileage can vary significantly find the tips. These are shown in Figure
information provided on the simpler depending on how you drive and III–5.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

ER27DE06.030</GPH>

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77903

The focus group reaction was divided near the Web address at the bottom of benign vehicles. Because some
uniformly between the three options the label. comments suggested further
provided. Some liked seeing the more- improvements to our method for
F. Environmental Information Statement
detailed tips, while others preferred the calculating these scores, and because a
Web link, since the list of tips was Historically, EPA has rated fuel clear preference for how to present this
incomplete. Some thought that fewer economy and emissions from 0–10 on information did not emerge from the
details coupled with a Web link would the Green Vehicle Guide Web site comments, we are not finalizing
be appropriate. (www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/). We provisions for including this
All factors that impact fuel economy sought comment on allowing companies information on the label at this time. We
cannot be listed on the fuel economy to voluntarily include EPA air pollution remain open to suggestions for a
label because they are too numerous. and/or greenhouse gas ratings on the voluntary environmental labeling
Our proposed statement was designed to fuel economy label. While auto program that could be implemented in
capture two of the biggest categories that manufacturers supported alerting the future.
drivers can control: Driving style and consumers to these issues, they did not To further consider those comments
vehicle maintenance, with a blanket favor adding emissions ratings to the suggesting that we instead educate
‘‘and other factors’’ clause added. ‘‘How label, because they may dilute the fuel consumers on the relation of fuel
you drive’’ covers such factors such as economy information. Another economy and environmental and
speed, acceleration, use of air comment from the auto industry was societal issues, we tested the following
conditioning, braking, and driving that the emissions factors and weights ‘‘environmental statement’’ with the
predominantly in either city or highway associated with the ratings presented in focus groups: ‘‘Buying a vehicle with
conditions. ‘‘How you maintain your the Green Vehicle Guide are subjective better fuel economy helps protect the
vehicle’’ covers factors like tire and debatable. Thus, they recommended environment and reduces dependence
pressure, oil changes, tune-ups, and that we continue to present on oil.’’ Focus groups were strongly
other maintenance. Both of these environmental ratings on the web, divided on this statement. Some
categories include factors that the driver where there is ample space for asserted that it was ‘‘preachy’’ and
can control in most cases. elaboration. ‘‘stating the obvious,’’ while others
The focus groups generally thought One environmental group did not argued that it was consistent with EPA’s
that the ‘‘other factors’’ clause was support rating a vehicle’s greenhouse mission and, even if obvious, addressed
unnecessary. To increase the likelihood gas emissions from 0–10 because the a concern felt by most of the population.
that consumers will read and scale was ‘‘too coarse,’’ but We are finalizing a label design that
understand the message that fuel recommended that we instead educate does not incorporate an environmental
economy will vary, we believe that a consumers on how their vehicle choice statement. While we agree that it is
simpler statement is preferable. We impacts the environment. Two different important to make a connection
considered adding the Web address to environmental groups favored between a vehicle’s fuel efficiency and
the statement in order to reflect the mandating both greenhouse gas and the environment, we agree with focus
desire within the focus groups for access smog scores on the label. One of these group comments that most consumers
to more detailed information. However, groups disagreed with the auto already recognize this relationship.
in designing the final label format, we manufacturers, stating that there was Additionally, since most of the new
realized that it would be redundant ample space on the label to present the label space is utilized by statutorily-
because it is located directly above the scores without interfering with fuel required information, a practical
identical Web site that is provided at the economy information. The other group concern was that we would not be able
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

bottom right border of the label. further suggested that we compare these to add this statement without creating a
Therefore, we are finalizing a statement scores numerically and graphically to ‘‘fine print’’ look. However, both the
that states, ‘‘Your actual mileage will all vehicles, as in the NPRM, and that Fuel Economy Guide and the
vary depending on how you drive and we include an official EPA ‘‘Seal of www.fueleconomy.gov Web site
ER27DE06.031</GPH>

maintain your vehicle,’’ to be located Approval’’ to the most environmentally (referenced on the label) include details

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77904 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

about the impact of fuel economy on the be offered for sale (as early as January combined fuel economy displayed on
environment, for consumers wishing to 2, 2009), all new vehicles on dealer lots the label and used to calculate the
explore these issues further. will have the new label format and the estimated annual fuel costs. This
transitional statement will no longer be decision does not impact the underlying
G. Government Logos and Web Site Link
necessary. Therefore, we are requiring city/highway split used analytically to
We proposed to include prominent the transition statement on the labels of determine fleetwide composite 5-cycle
EPA and DOE logos on the label and a all 2008 and 2009 model year vehicles. fuel economy, as discussed in the
prominent reference to ‘‘EPA’’ on the Technical Support Document.
label title. These changes reflect earlier I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis
market research indicating that people For calculating the combined fuel J. Labeling Requirements for Dual
were unaware of the fuel economy economy displayed on the label (and Fueled Vehicles
estimates’ origin, and that knowing the also factored into the estimated annual Flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) (also
government was the source of this fuel cost calculation), we proposed a called dual-fueled or bi-fueled vehicles)
information added to its credibility. weighting of 43% city and 57% are vehicles that can operate either on
Since public commenters and focus highway. Currently this value is based gasoline or diesel fuel, or on an
groups responded favorably to this on a 55% city/45% highway weighting. alternative fuel such as ethanol or
proposal, the final label design includes The 43/57 weighting was based on the methanol. Currently, for FFVs,
the government logos at the bottom and new 5-cycle method and reflects average manufacturers may voluntarily include
‘‘EPA Fuel Economy Estimates’’ in the miles driven (not time spent) at speeds the fuel economy estimates (and
title. below and above 45 mph respectively, estimated annual fuel costs) for the
We also proposed to require based on existing data for on-road alternative fuel on the label. This is part
placement of the jointly-sponsored driving patterns. This analysis is of the EPCA statute which requires that
EPA–DOE Web site detailed in the Technical Support for dual fueled vehicles, the label must:
www.fueleconomy.gov on the label. Document. We received comments that ‘‘(A) indicate the fuel economy of the
Since commenters and focus group the 43/57 split was not intuitive to most automobile when operated on gasoline
members reacted positively to adding a drivers and that consumers may think or diesel fuel;
web link, we are finalizing this more in terms of the percent of time (B) clearly identify the automobile as
requirement. they spend driving in city or highway a dual fueled automobile;
conditions, rather than in percent of (C) clearly identify the fuels on which
H. Temporary Transitional Statement
distance traveled. Some commenters the automobile may be operated; and
We asked commenters if the label suggested a simple 50/50 split, which is (D) contain a statement informing the
should include transitional language more intuitive to car buyers; others consumer that the additional
indicating that the estimates are based suggested retaining the 55/45 split since information required by subsection
on new methods. Such a statement it is closer to the intuitive 50/50 split. (c)(2) of this section is published and
could help customers understand why The basis for the 43/57 city-highway distributed by the Secretary of
the fuel economy estimates are lower, weighting as used to assess 5-cycle fuel Energy.’’ 48
especially when 2007 models having economy fleetwide is discussed in the The current labeling requirements for
current fuel economy estimates are on Technical Support Document. The issue dual-fueled vehicles are consistent with
dealer lots with 2008 models having for the label is how best to convey the these EPCA requirements. We did not
new estimates. Commenters generally fuel economy information most relevant propose changes to these requirements,
responded positively. Automakers to consumers and which city/highway and we did not seek comment on the
suggested a brief statement, while weighting supports that purpose. topic. However, EPA received a late
another commenter suggested slightly We agree with the comments that a public comment from several
longer wording. We tested the following 43/57 split based on distance is not environmental and consumer groups
transitional statement with the focus intuitive to consumers. We considered urging EPA to require manufacturers to
groups: ‘‘These estimates reflect new the suggested 50/50 split, since likely include for FFVs the fuel economy and
EPA methods beginning with 2008 most consumers think of ‘‘combined’’ estimated annual fuel costs of both
models.’’ The meaning of this sentence fuel economy as an equal mix of city gasoline and E85 (mixture of 85%
was generally clear to the groups. A few and highway driving. The 55/45 split ethanol and 15% gasoline).
participants wondered what the ‘‘new was used historically to determine Historically, the EPA did not require
EPA methods’’ were, but determined combined fuel economy since it is fuel economy on the label for ethanol
after some discussion that the Web site consistent with the statutory FFVs, because a vast majority of these
provided on the label may give further requirements for determining fuel vehicles operated on gasoline only,
explanation. We are finalizing this economy for CAFE standards and the since ethanol was not widely available,
transitional statement for inclusion on Gas Guzzler tax.47 Thus, since it will and many owners were unaware they
the final fuel economy label. remain the required weighting for the were driving an FFV. However, in
We asked the groups how long this Gas Guzzler tax that appears on the recent months there has been a sharp
statement should be retained, and label for applicable vehicles, it is most increase in national interest in
responses varied widely, from one year consistent to continue using the 55/45 alternatives to fossil-based fuels,
to the duration of an average consumer’s split for combined fuel economy as flexible-fueled vehicles, and ethanol in
vehicle purchase cycle. We believe that well. We do not want to cause consumer particular. With increased awareness
the transitional statement should be confusion by using different city/ and availability of these vehicles, the
used while both the old and the new highway weightings to calculate late comment suggested that the label be
label formats appear simultaneously on different numbers appearing on the required to not only display separate
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

vehicles on dealer lots. When all label. Therefore, we are finalizing that a gasoline and E85 fuel economy and
vehicles on the lot have labels with the 55/45 weighting be used to calculate the annual cost estimates, but also to
new format (estimates based on new provide EPA smog and greenhouse gas
methods), there will be less potential for 47 See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) and 26 U.S.C.

confusion. By the time 2010 models can 4064(c)(1). 48 See, 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77905

scores and the ratio of ethanol to present E85 fuel economy information of kerosene added shall not exceed 20
gasoline (which is not always 85:15) on on the label. We welcome the input of percent. We further proposed the use of
the label. These additions would help stakeholders in this process, and we a manufacturer-specified diesel fuel,
alert customers that although the fuel look forward to suggestions on how to with EPA approval, in lieu of a
economy of dual fuel models may be best convey both the fuel economy and conventional diesel fuel under the
lower than gasoline-only models, they environmental benefit information on alternate test procedure provisions in 40
are still reducing environmental impact E85 relative to gasoline. CFR 86.113–94, where the level of
by using alcohol fuel. kerosene added shall not exceed 20
Since we did not request comments K. Addition of Final Regulatory percent. Since we did not receive any
on this topic, we are not finalizing Specifications for Label Content and comments regarding the winter-grade
requirements today that differ from the Design diesel fuel specification, we are
current regulations. However, we agree We proposed ‘‘placeholder’’ finalizing these provisions as proposed.
that it is important to provide regulatory text that specifies the label However, we did receive comments
consumers with complete fuel economy content and design, knowing that the regarding requiring the Cold FTP for
information on alternatively fueled final label design would depend on the diesel vehicles. The auto industry cited
vehicles, particularly in light of the outcome of both the public comments the potential for major laboratory
rising sale of flex-fueled vehicles and a and the focus group research. The final retrofitting, which required additional
developing E85 fuel infrastructure. We regulations contain the details for the lead time, and suggested that EPA not
agree that it is important for consumers format and content of the label. require diesels to perform the Cold FTP
to understand that fuel economy on E85 until the 2011 model year. They further
is typically about 20% to 30% lower IV. Testing Provisions suggested that Cold FTP testing for
than on gasoline, due to the lower A. Testing Requirements for Vehicles diesels be optional in the 2008–2010
energy density of E85.49 Consumers can Currently Exempt From Certain model years.
view the gasoline and E85 estimates of Emission Tests We have evaluated the comments
all FFVs in the Fuel Economy Guide regarding additional lead time for
Certain vehicles are currently exempt laboratory retrofitting to perform the
and on the www.fueleconomy.gov Web
from some of the emission tests that we Cold FTP test for diesel vehicles and
site. We reiterate that manufacturers
are including in the 5-cycle method.50 believe they have merit. To
may voluntarily include the E85 (or
These vehicles include diesel vehicles accommodate Cold FTP testing of diesel
other alternative fuel) mpg and
and alternative-fueled vehicles. In order vehicles, manufacturers may need to
estimated annual fuel costs on the label
to update the fuel economy methods for add a heated flame ionization detection
today, and we strongly encourage them
these vehicles, we proposed additional (FID) system, including heated probes,
to do so. The final label design includes
provisions and are finalizing them in lines and filters. Some manufacturers
a placeholder for such information.
We are not finalizing a requirement this rulemaking. may need to further modify their
today, because we believe the issue (for 1. Diesel Vehicles facilities for site specific designs and
manufacturers to display E85 fuel configurations, such as additional
Diesel fuel vehicles are not currently insulation to prevent water
economy information on the label in
subject to Cold FTP emission standards condensation in the sampling system or
addition to gasoline) deserves a more
and thus do not have a 20 °Fahrenheit modifying the length of the exhaust
carefully considered approach. The
(F) FTP (i.e., Cold FTP) fuel economy collection hoses.
label design we are finalizing was
result to use in the 5-cycle formulae. As a result, we are changing the
developed based on extensive public
Therefore, we proposed that beginning provisions for requiring Cold FTP diesel
comments and focus group input. None
with the 2008 model year for testing from the proposal, as follows.
of the options considered included E85
certification diesel vehicles, a Cold FTP First, we are providing additional lead
fuel economy information. Before
be performed for the purpose of time by extending the requirement for
requiring the inclusion of E85 fuel
collecting fuel economy data. Cold FTP diesel testing from the 2008
economy for FFVs, there are many
Accordingly, we also proposed and model year to the 2011 model year. This
questions we would consider for the
requested comments on winter-grade will allow manufacturers additional
design and placement of this
diesel fuel specifications for use during lead time to address any facility
information, such as: (1) How to clearly
the Cold FTP test. Specifically, we modifications. Second, we will not
present E85 mpg relative to gasoline; (2)
proposed the use of a #1–D (winter- require the measurement of particulate
how to educate consumers that E85
grade) diesel fuel as specified in ASTM matter (PM) during the Cold FTP diesel
helps reduce greenhouse gases and
D975–04c ‘‘Standard Specification for test, since PM is not part of the fuel
reduce oil consumption; (3) how to best
Diesel Fuel Oils,’’ 51 and that complies economy carbon balance calculation,
convey estimated annual fuel costs of
with 40 CFR Part 80,52 where the level and thus has no impact on fuel
E85 (particularly given the volatility of
E85 prices across the country), and (4) 50 See the applicable regulations at 40 CFR
economy. Third, for manufacturers
how to graphically depict comparable 86.1810(i)(4) and 40 CFR 86.1811–04(g). voluntarily using the 5-cycle method
class fuel economy for E85 in addition 51 ASTM International Specification D975–04C during the 2008–2010 model years, fuel
to gasoline. In the next year, EPA will ‘‘Standard Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels’’ economy over the Cold FTP may be
(November 1, 2005) describes the seven grades of reported based on carbon monoxide
evaluate its legal authority to require diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel
manufacturers to include E85 fuel engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction
(CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
economy on the label. If we determine of ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products measurements only, excluding the
that we have statutory authority, we and Lubricants and is the direct responsibility of hydrocarbon (HC). Based on limited
subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non- existing data showing that HC makes up
would then plan to work with interested
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.


stakeholders to assess how best to 52 40 CFR Part 80—Control of Air Pollution from
a negligible fraction of the total cold fuel
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and economy results (less than 0.1%), the
49 Based on fuel economies of gasoline and E85 Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
reported in the Model Year 2006 Fuel Economy Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation of for Highway Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later
Guide, p. 18. Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations Calendar Years.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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

1
FE gasoline mpg , city = = 19 mpg
1.17895
0.0033563 +
24 mpg
1
FE gasoline mpg, highway = = 23 mpg
1.34619
0.0013934 +
32 mpg

The resulting city and highway label 19 mpg divided by 32 mpg) for the highway
values for the FFV when operating on ratio city = = 0.826 ratio. To calculate the mpg-based city
gasoline are 19 mpg and 23 mpg, 24 mpg and highway fuel economy values for an
respectively. We divide these values (19 23 mpg FFV operating on alternative fuel (for
and 23 mpg) by the measured city and ratio highway = = 0.719 voluntary inclusion on the label or in
32 mpg
highway fuel economy values, 24 and the Fuel Economy Guide,) multiply the
32 mpg, during FFV gasoline operation For this example, the ratios would be measured values (18 mpg and 26 mpg)
to determine the ratios. 0.826 (e.g., 19 mpg divided by 24 mpg) by their respective ratios.
for the city ratio and 0.719 (23 mpg

FE gasoline mpg , city


FE altfuelcity = FTP altfuel × = 18 mpg × 0.826 = 15 mpg
FTP gasoline
FE gasoline mpg, highway
FE altfuelhighway = HFET altfuel × = 26 mpg × 0.719 = 19 mpg
ER27DE06.034</MATH>

HFET gasoline

The estimates reported on the label the city fuel economy and 19 mpg (e.g., done using the 5-cycle approach, as
and in the Fuel economy guide would 26 mpg times 0.719, the highway ratio applicable.
ER27DE06.033</MATH>

be 15 mpg (e.g., 18 mpg times 0.826, the from gasoline operation) for the We did not receive any comments on
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

city ratio from gasoline operation) for highway fuel economy. This can also be the proposed label methods for FFVs
53 Section II contains a derivation of these the city and highway values are determined by whichever is applicable. In this example we
equations. This method for determining the fuel either the mpg-based method or the 5-cycle method, demonstrate the use of the mpg-based method.
ER27DE06.032</MATH>

economy label values for FFVs can be used when

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77907

and, as such, we are finalizing the values. Because dedicated alternative reprogramming for the revised sampling
provisions as stated in the proposal. fuel vehicles are not subject to the Cold periods and minimal hardware changes
Manufacturers of FFVs may FTP test procedures today, there is no to enable the emissions analyzers to
optionally use the 5-cycle approach at cold test fuel specification for perform US06 split-phase emission
their discretion for reporting fuel alternative fuel (e.g., CNG or E85). Thus, testing. In addition, creating a US06
economy when operating on the if a manufacturer wishes to do 5-cycle split-phase sampling period did not
alternative fuel. If this option is used, testing, it would need to request EPA result in any significant difference in
the manufacturer would be required to approval of the cold test fuel under the criteria pollutant emissions results. The
conduct all applicable 5-cycle test special test procedure provisions in 40 full report on this US06 split phase
procedures on the alternative fuel and CFR 86.113–94. evaluation program is available in the
use both the 5-cycle city and highway We did not receive any comments on docket.55
calculation methods to determine fuel the proposed provisions for dedicated We received comments from the auto
economy label. In addition, for Cold alternative-fueled vehicles to optionally industry that the costs of collecting
FTP testing under the 5-cycle approach, use the 5-cycle approach and, as such, US06 exhaust emissions into two bags
the use of a manufacturer-specified we are finalizing the provisions as are substantial, but they did not provide
alternative fuel, with EPA approval, will stated in the proposal. any cost data to substantiate this claim.
be used under the alternate test Further, the auto industry claimed that
B. Modifications to Existing Test
procedure provisions in 40 CFR 86.113– there will be decreased accuracy and
Procedures
94. As stated above, manufacturers will increased variability if the US06 test is
report these values in the annual Fuel To ensure that the 5–cycle method is split into two phases, yet they did not
Economy Guide and may voluntarily more reflective of real-world operating provide additional data or analysis to
include these values on the label. conditions, there are a few procedural support this claim. Finally, the auto
Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles changes that need to be made to certain industry claimed that significant
are also exempt from the SFTP and Cold existing emission tests procedures. First, software changes and lead time would
FTP emission standards. As a result, we proposed procedural changes in the be required to implement the two-phase
these vehicles will not have the SFTP US06 tests, as described below. Second, bag software for diesel vehicles due to
and Cold FTP fuel economy data needed we sought comment on the issue of necessary one-phase PM sample
to determine 5-cycle fuel economy requiring manufacturers to run the
collection systems for diesels, integrated
values. We proposed that manufacturers heater and/or defroster during the cold
real-time total hydrocarbon (THC) data
of dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles FTP test. Third, we proposed to codify
collection for fuel economy
be able to use the mpg-based approach the existing practice of requiring four-
calculations, and the alignment with
in the 2011 model year and beyond, as phase FTP measurements for gasoline-
methane (CH4) bag measurements for
well as during the 2008–2010 model electric hybrid vehicles.
compliance with the emission standard.
years, in order to avoid conducting 1. Splitting the US06 Test Into City and The auto industry recommended that
additional tests for fuel economy Highway Segments we allow the use of alternative methods
reasons only. Further, since the mpg- of determining the US06 city and
based approach uses fuel economy The US06 driving schedule contains
elements of both city and highway highway fuel economy in lieu of
values measured in terms of miles per
driving, yet the exhaust sample is conducting a two-bag US06 test. One
gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel, the fuel
collected in only one sample, or ‘‘bag.’’ suggested method was to use second-by-
economy of dedicated alternative fuel
In order to more accurately reflect the second data over a one-bag US06 test,
vehicles must be expressed in terms of
city portion of the driving schedule into either from modal bench analyzers or
its gasoline equivalent prior to using the
the city fuel economy estimate, and the via On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) data
mpg-based formula. Currently, all
highway portion of the driving schedule stream information, to determine the
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles
into the highway fuel economy estimate, city portion and highway portion and
express fuel economy values in terms of
we proposed a revised test protocol that develop a two-bag US06 fuel economy
a gasoline equivalent.54 For this case,
would require collecting the exhaust calculation. Finally, it was suggested
we proposed that the fuel economy
sample into two bags. This has the that we allow some flexibility for future
values for a dedicated alternative
benefit of more accurately capturing methods that may be developed to
vehicle expressed in gasoline
how a vehicle’s fuel economy would be measure or derive the city and highway
equivalents are directly determined
impacted over the various types of US06 fuel economies.
using the mpg-based approach.
We did not receive any comments on driving reflected in the driving While we continue to believe the two-
the proposed provisions for dedicated schedule. bag US06 measurement proposed is a
alternative-fueled vehicles and, as such, We undertook a test program to valid approach that will not lead to
we are finalizing the provisions as determine the technical feasibility of significant differences in emission
stated above. splitting the US06 exhaust sample in results, we also believe that the
Finally, we proposed that two bags, and whether it would impact alternative approaches suggested by the
manufacturers of dedicated alternative- emissions results for compliance auto industry could yield technically
fueled vehicles may optionally use the purposes. We evaluated the effects of valid results and thus have merit. As a
5-cycle approach at their discretion. If conducting a US06 split-phase (i.e., two result of the comments, we have revised
this option is used, the manufacturer bag) emissions test versus the current the proposal and are finalizing the
would be required to conduct all US06 single-phase (one bag) emission requirements below for the two-bag
applicable 5-cycle test procedures on test on ten vehicles at EPA’s National US06 measurement.
the alternative fuel, and then convert all Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory For the 2008 through 2010 model
years, those manufacturers choosing to
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

the alternative fuel values into gasoline (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. Based on this
equivalents prior to use in the 5-cycle evaluation, the US06 split-phase 55 Mitcham, A. & Fernandez, A., ‘‘Feasibility of
formulae for city and highway label sampling methodology was shown to be Revising the US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase
feasible for fuel economy purposes and Sampling Test Procedure’’ U.S. EPA, Office of
54 See § 600.113–93. required only initial software Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

use the 5-cycle approach must either manufacturers and vehicle lines when these accessories are used in the real-
conduct the two-bag US06 test or performing this test, we sought world at cold temperatures including 20
determine two-bag results from a one- comment on requiring manufacturers to °F, and it is necessary to maintain a
bag test using an alternative method (as operate the heater and/or defroster level playing field across manufacturers
discussed below). For the 2011 model during the Cold FTP. to prevent gaming of the test procedure.
year and beyond, for all certified test As discussed in the NPRM, we We support the need for the heater/
groups, the two-bag US06 must be conducted a test program through the defroster test procedure to reflect real
conducted or data supplied in two-bag Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) world operation. However, we believe
US06 format. that measured the impacts of heater and that a standardized test protocol must be
To determine US06 two-bag fuel defroster operation on fuel economy for implemented as soon as possible so that
economy, manufacturers may use three vehicles during a 20 °F Cold FTP. this real-world impact is taken into
alternate test methods in lieu of We compared the fuel economy results account in the new fuel economy test
conducting an actual two-bag US06. with heater/defroster operational to the methods. There are many approaches
Such alternate test methods include: (1) results of the heater/defroster non- for how the heater and defroster usage
Conducting a one-bag US06 and using operational on each vehicle. The Cold could be incorporated into the Cold FTP
emissions analyzer modal data to FTP fuel economy with the heater/ test procedures, including specifying
determine the appropriate ratio of city defroster on was significantly lower appropriate fan speed settings, timing of
and highway operation; or (2) than that with the heater/defroster off, turning on the heater/defroster during
conducting a one-bag US06 and using ranging from –6.0 percent (∼1 mile per the test, and accounting for various
OBD fuel rate (e.g., grams of fuel per gallon lower on a non-hybrid vehicle) to vehicle climate control designs.
second) data to determine the –17.9 percent (∼8 miles per gallon lower Therefore, we sought comment on the
appropriate ratio of city and highway on a hybrid vehicle). We did not observe methods for how heater/defroster usage
operation over the one-bag US06. a significant impact on CO or other could be specified in the cold FTP
Additionally, the manufacturers may measured emissions as a result of the procedure.
use other methods based on good use of the heater/defroster on the Cold Specifically, we discussed a concept
engineering judgment, with EPA review FTP. The results of this test program that started the test with the airflow
and approval, as long as these methods indicated that different vehicles were directed to the windshield for optimal
achieve equivalent or better, technically impacted more than others, indicating defrosting, the airflow source set to
valid results based on manufacturer that it is important to capture the impact outside air (not recirculation), and the
submitted data. For the case of on fuel economy of heater and defroster air temperature set to high.
conducting a one-bag US06 and using use during cold conditions. The full Approximately 2 minutes into the test,
the emissions analyzer modal or OBD report of this test program is contained the fan speed could be turned to
fuel rate data, the ratio of city and in the docket.57 maximum and left there for the duration
highway operation over the one-bag The auto industry commented that the of the test. This would mimic typical
US06 is applied to the CO, CO2 and HC heater/defroster requirement should be driver behavior in that we expect many
results in order to determine the city deferred until we have a better drivers would not turn the fan to
and highway US06 fuel economy understanding of real-world operation maximum until the engine is producing
values, constituting a ‘‘virtual’’ two-bag of heater/defroster systems. Some some level of heat, which most vehicles
US06. However, this option only applies manufacturers suggested that there is a will do within a couple minutes of
for determining the city and highway far smaller impact on fuel economy due driving. The second concept involved
US06 fuel economy and, thus, is not to defroster/heater operation than EPA the automatic climate control systems
applicable for determining US06 estimates in the proposal based on the set to achieve an inside air temperature
emissions. The requirements for SwRI test program, but they provided no of 72°F, and the fan speed, if
conducting a two-bag US06 and the data to support this claim. independently selectable, would be
options for alternately measuring or Several state and environmental operated as described above. The third
deriving the two-bag US06 outlined organizations supported the concept related to vehicles with
above are applicable to both gasoline requirement to use the heater/defroster multiple zones (either driver and
and diesel vehicles. on the Cold FTP test and recommended passenger, or front and rear) and
2. Heater/Defroster Usage During the that we develop a standardized required operating the controls for all
Cold FTP methodology based on realistic usage zones as described above. Finally, since
patterns. One commenter also cited the some climate control systems might not
The current Cold FTP conducted at 20 level playing field aspect, noting that
°F includes the option to use the heater be compatible with these instructions,
manufacturers who choose to use more we proposed to allow a manufacturer to
and/or defroster.56 While we realistic test conditions may be
understand that some manufacturers request the use of special test
penalized relative to those who do not. procedures, under 40 CFR 86.1840–01,
today are using the heater and/or the We believe, as we stated in the
defroster during the Cold FTP, it is not subject to EPA approval.
proposal, that it is important to reflect We received comments from the auto
mandatory and therefore subject to the heater/defroster operation in our
inconsistent usage across manufacturers industry that the test protocol for
fuel economy test procedures since running the heater/defroster should
and vehicle lines. We expect that, in the heater/defroster operation can have an
real-world, it would be highly unusual mimic as closely as possible how
additional impact on fuel economy,58 drivers typically operate the heater/
for drivers not to use the heater/
defroster when the temperature is cold, defroster system in the real-world.
57 Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ‘‘VOC/PM

including at 20 °F experienced during Cold Temperature Characterization and Interior


Specifically, they commented that a
driver would not keep the fan speed at
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

the Cold FTP. In order to more closely Climate Control Emissions/Fuel Economy Impact;
Final Report Volume II.’’ Prepared for U.S. EPA
reflect real world operation, and to under contract 68–C–05–018, SwRI Project No. Climate Control Emissions/Fuel Economy Impact:
ensure a level playing field across 03.11382.04. Final Report Volume II.’’ Prepared for U.S. EPA
58 Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), ‘‘VOC/PM under contract 68–C–05–018, SwRI Project No.
56 See 40 CFR 86.230–94(f). Cold Temperature Chracterization and Interior 03.11382.04.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77909

maximum for 43 minutes, the effective and the start of bag 2 of the Cold FTP), 3. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing
length of the test, and that many the fan speed setting will be reduced to Provisions
electronic systems automatically bring the lowest possible setting to maintain The FTP consists of two parts referred
the fan speed down as the vehicle air flow, and the temperature setting to as the ‘‘cold start’’ and the ‘‘hot start’’
warms up, and that some vehicles can will remain at the hottest setting. These portion of the test. The ‘‘cold start’’
not simultaneously be in defrost mode settings will be held for the remainder portion is performed following an eight
and have the blower off. They also of the test, including the final bag to twelve hour soak at a stable
commented on the potential impact of following the 10 minute soak period. temperature of 72°F that stabilizes the
this operation on the stringency of For automatic climate control systems, vehicle and brings the engine coolant
existing and proposed emission the manufacturer can manually override temperature to a ‘‘cold’’ condition. The
standards (e.g., proposed Mobile Source the system and use the provisions ‘‘hot start’’ portion is performed
Air Toxics cold hydrocarbon specified for manual systems, or the following prescribed driving sufficient
standards).59 system selector will be set to heater or to bring the vehicle (and engine coolant)
We are finalizing mandatory heater/ defroster mode and the temperature will
up to full operating temperature, and
defroster operation during the Cold FTP, be set to 72°F for the duration of the
then a ten minute soak that stabilizes
but with some changes to the test test. All other aspects of heater/defroster
protocol to more closely reflect real the vehicle. The cold start and hot start
operation and climate control settings
world operation. Further, we are are divided into two periods, or
during the Cold FTP discussed in the
addressing issues of lead time with ‘‘phases’’: A ‘‘transient’’ phase and a
proposal will be finalized unchanged.
respect to applicable model years for ‘‘stabilized’’ phase (i.e., the vehicle is
For vehicles with multiple zone climate
mandatory heater/defroster operation warmed up), which constitute what is
control systems (e.g., front and rear
during the Cold FTP. known as the Urban Dynamometer
temperature/fan controls and/or
We are revising the applicable model Driving Schedule (UDDS). The
separate driver/passenger temperature/
years for implementation of mandatory fan controls), the same fan and emissions for each of the FTP phases are
heater/defroster operation during the temperature settings should be set and collected in ‘‘bags,’’ terminology that
Cold FTP. For the 2008 through 2010 maintained for all the zones for both results from the sample bags in which
model years, only those manufacturers manual and automatic interior climate the exhaust samples are collected. The
choosing to optionally use the 5-cycle control systems, if feasible. If these full four phases of the FTP are
approach are required to operate the settings are not feasible, manufacturers conducted in the following order: Cold
heater/defroster during the Cold FTP. may request and use alternate settings, start transient phase (bag 1), cold start
This will allow manufacturers time to with prior agency approval, only for stabilized phase (bag 2), hot start
fully assess any impacts related to the vehicles with multiple zone climate transient phase (bag 3), and hot
EPA’s Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) control systems. If a manufacturer does stabilized phase (bag 4).
cold hydrocarbon proposed standards,60 request alternate settings for multiple For conventional vehicles, the
which would also be determined based zone systems, at a minimum, the stabilized phase of the hot start test (bag
on the Cold FTP test. Again, we reiterate settings for the front passenger zone of 4) is assumed to be identical to the
that our heater/defroster testing, run the multiple zone system must follow stabilized phase of the cold start test
under a worst-case protocol, did not the protocols set forth above. (bag 2). Thus, the hot stabilized phase
indicate an impact on emissions. The regulations specify that the (bag 4) is typically not performed for
However, we understand that some manufacturer must use good conventional vehicles and is accounted
manufacturers desire additional lead engineering judgment and consider for in the emission and fuel economy
time for conducting their own analyses potential engine control changes that results mathematically by including the
to confirm these results. For the 2011 may be directly impacted by the cold stabilized phase (bag 2) results
model year and beyond when the 5- temperature setting on the manually twice in the calculation. However, since
cycle approach becomes effective, controlled systems (e.g. has direct input hybrid-electric vehicles have dual
manufacturers are required to operate to, or can directly affect, the engine energy sources that can be operated in
the heater/defroster during the Cold control logic). For example, when the synergistic modes, the gasoline or diesel
FTP. heater or defroster is engaged a system engine is supplemented by the electric
The test protocol we are finalizing has may employ such strategies as disabling motor and may not be at peak,
been revised from that outlined in the of engine-off idling features, disabling of optimized operating temperatures
proposal as follows. At the start of the cylinder deactivation, or different during the entire FTP. Based on this, the
test, manually controlled climate engine idling speed. Also, at the 20°F EPA and manufacturers recognized that
control systems will have the airflow ambient temperature of the Cold FTP, it the assumption regarding the
will be directed to the windshield for is highly unlikely that vehicles will equivalence of the cold and hot
optimal defrosting, the airflow source experience any use of the air stabilized phases, and counting the cold
set to outside air (not recirculation), the conditioning compressor during stabilized phase twice in the
fan speed set to off or ‘‘low’’ and the air defroster operation and any fuel calculation, may not be valid for hybrid
temperature set to the hottest setting. At economy differences between heater vehicles. Consequently, we currently
the second idle of the test and defroster operation would be require hybrid-electric vehicles to
(approximately two minutes into the related to engine control changes (e.g., conduct all four phases of the FTP.
test, allowing the engine to accumulate engine off logic, idle speed changes, For hybrid-electric vehicles, the
some heat) the fan speed will be set to spark advance changes). emissions collection process for the FTP
maximum. At the sixth idle of the test, We recognize that there may be can be performed in two different ways:
at approximately 505 seconds into the unique climate control systems that are (1) ‘‘4-bag procedure—the emissions are
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

test (corresponds with the end of bag 1 not addressed through these protocols. collected in an individual bag (e.g., bag
To address such systems, manufacturers 1, bag 2, bag 3, and bag 4) for each phase
59 See 60 FR 15804, ‘‘Control of Hazardous Air can request in writing EPA approval of and analyzed, a total composite
Pollutants From Mobile Sources’’ (March 29, 2006). alternative heater/defroster test emissions number is calculated based
60 Ibid. protocols/procedures. on the emissions in all the bags, and the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77910 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

emissions numbers for each of the bags describe and identify vehicles for which warmed up during bag 2 of the Cold
and the composite emissions are the four-bag FTP would be required. FTP. Thus, fuel economy over a bag 4
reported; or (2) the emissions from the We received the following comments of the Cold FTP would likely be higher
cold start transient phase and cold start regarding requiring the hybrid electric than that over bag 2. Thus, vehicles
stabilized phase are collected in bag 1 vehicle test procedures. First, the auto tested over a 4-bag Cold FTP would
and analyzed, the emissions from the industry commented that 40 CFR likely have higher fuel economy per the
hot start transient phase and hot start 86.1811–04(n) of our regulations, which 5-cycle formulae than those tested over
stabilized phase emissions are collected aligns with California, already requires a three bag test. This would result in
in bag 2 and analyzed, a composite the full four phases of the FTP for inconsistent fuel economy estimates for
number is calculated based on the hybrid-electric vehicles for emissions conventional and hybrid vehicles.
emissions in both bags, and the testing, and therefore suggested we Therefore, we will continue the current
emissions for both bag 1 and bag 2, and should retain section 86.1811–04(n) as- practice of only requiring a three-bag
composite emissions are reported. The is without further codifying language Cold FTP for both conventional and
first collection method, a 4-bag FTP, and requiring the full four phase FTP. hybrid vehicles.
the second collection method, a 2-bag Second, the comments suggested that Third, we understand that some
FTP, are similar in that the emissions we also define the four-phase, two-bag manufacturers may require some new
are collected over the full four-phases of FTP and four-phase, four-bag FTP in software and additional test equipment
the FTP. However, the two methods part 600 of our regulations so that it is to implement a four-phase, 4-bag test. In
differ in that for the 2-bag FTP, the bags only applicable to fuel economy addition, since our test procedures are
are combined as follows: bag 1 is a measurement, not for emissions aligned with California requiring full
combination of bag 1 and bag 2 of the measurement, which is contained in four phase FTP testing for hybrid-
4-bag FTP, and bag 2 is a combination part 86 of our regulations. Third, the electric vehicles, this essentially is an
of bag 3 and bag 4 of the 4-bag FTP. comments supported our proposal to issue of how to divide and analyze the
Therefore, for the purposes of this extend the full four-phase FTP testing emissions results. While we are
rulemaking in relation to hybrid-electric for hybrid vehicles to the Cold FTP. finalizing a requirement for four-phase
vehicles, we are concerned about two Finally, the comments cited that FTP results, manufacturers may choose
distinct things: (1) The number of requiring four bags would force facility to collect the sample either in four bags
phases (e.g., four phases for hybrid- modifications with significant costs and or two bags, as discussed above.
lead time issues and identified the Accordingly, we are finalizing today an
electric vehicles versus three phases for
benefits of the four-phase, two-bag option for a 5-cycle formula that allows
conventional vehicles, as described
approach, including improved accuracy for four-phase, 2-bag FTP inputs for
above) required to be conducted during
and alignment with California. To hybrid-electric vehicles. Our analysis of
the FTP and (2) the number of bags (e.g.
address this, the comments this option in the Technical Support
two bags versus 4 bags, as described
recommended that we add 5-cycle fuel Document shows that there is no
above) that the emissions are collected
economy equations for both two-bag and significant difference in fuel economy
in over the FTP, in particular, for
four-bag testing with appropriate bag results from using a 2-bag versus 4-bag
hybrid-electric vehicles, which we want
fuel consumption weighting by equation.
to require the full four phases for the Finally, since we did not receive any
theoretical distance traveled to ensure
FTP. consistent label adjustments between comments on whether the use of the
We currently require hybrid-electric two- and four-bag data. Finally, we did phrase ‘‘hybrid electric vehicle’’ is
vehicles to perform the complete set of not receive any comments on whether sufficient to describe and identify
four phases of the FTP and referenced the use of the phrase ‘‘hybrid electric vehicles for which the four-bag FTP
the existing, special test procedure vehicle’’ is sufficient to describe and would be required, we believe this
provisions in the regulations (40 CFR identify vehicles for which the four-bag terminology is sufficient and will use
86.1840–01) as the basis for this. Rather FTP would be required. ‘‘hybrid electric vehicle’’ in reference to
than continue using the special test As a result of these comments, we the four-phase, four-bag FTP.
procedure provisions, we proposed to have revised the proposal and are
develop explicit regulatory language to finalizing the requirements for hybrid V. Projected Cost Impacts
require full-four phase testing of hybrid- electric vehicle test procedures as The majority of the costs of this rule
electric vehicles. Additionally, the 5- follows. First, for requiring the full, are due to an increase in the
cycle formula for hybrid-electric four-phase FTP testing for emissions, we manufacturer test burden. While
vehicles requires the four phases of the agree that 40 CFR 86.1811–04(n) does manufacturers conduct tests today for
FTP as inputs for these vehicles. properly reference the California emissions compliance and fuel economy
Therefore, we also proposed to develop procedures which require the full four reporting, they test a more limited set of
explicit regulatory language that phase FTP. In addition, part 600 refers vehicles than will be necessary for the
requires hybrid-electric vehicles to back to procedures in part 86, including fuel economy labeling calculations in
conduct all four phases of the FTP for 40 CFR 86.1811–04(n) which references model years 2011 and beyond. There are
both emissions and fuel economy the California procedure for four-phase also startup costs to implement the new
testing. Finally, we proposed to require FTP testing. Therefore, it is not fuel economy reporting requirements
that the emissions from the full four necessary to develop further language to beginning during the transition period
phases of the FTP be collected in require the full four phase FTP. from model year 2008 through 2010.
individual bags (i.e., four bags; one bag Second, we proposed to extend the The final rule requires calculation of
for each phase) for all tests using the requirement for full, four phase FTP fuel economy values based on the 5-
FTP, including the cold temperature testing of hybrid vehicles to the Cold cycle formulae beginning with model
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

FTP, for those vehicles defined as FTP. Upon further analysis of this year 2011 for some vehicle test groups.
hybrid-electric vehicles. We also provision, we are not finalizing this As discussed in detail elsewhere in this
requested comment on the proposal, requirement. As discussed in Chapter III preamble, for model years 2008 through
and on whether use of the phrase of the Final Technical Support 2010, manufacturers may use the mpg-
‘‘hybrid electric vehicle’’ is sufficient to Document, vehicles may not be fully based calculation for the five-cycle fuel

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77911

economy values or they may conduct adjustments to the same FTP and HFET percent and 0 percent of the additional
voluntary testing. For model years 2011 test results that they otherwise would tests would thereby be avoided,
and beyond, if the five-cycle city and conduct for the fuel economy labeling respectively.63 Based on this analysis in
highway fuel economy values for an program today (see Section II). While our proposal, we estimated that
emission data vehicle group are below manufacturers have the option of potential increases in yearly testing
96 percent and 95 percent of the mpg- conducting and reporting full 5-cycle could range as follows: 169–212
based regression line, respectively, then test results, such tests are not required additional US06 tests, 59–74 additional
all the vehicle configurations by this final rule, and we have not SC03 tests, and 66–82 additional Cold
represented by the emission data included this testing in our cost FTP tests.
vehicle (e.g., all vehicles within the estimates. Manufacturers that This approach is retained in the final
vehicle test group) would use the 5- voluntarily choose to conduct full 5- cost analysis, with one adjustment. The
cycle approach. Vehicles within a test cycle testing would incur some percent falling outside the tolerance
group falling below the city fuel additional testing costs, which we have band for the city test and for the
economy band would be required to not included in our cost estimates, since highway test should only count the
conduct US06, SC03, and Cold FTP we do not have any means of predicting vehicles that are below the tolerance
tests; those falling below the 5 percent which manufacturers would choose this band in both cases, that is, only those
tolerance band for highway fuel option, or for which vehicle models, or vehicles with fuel economy lower than
economy values but not below the city the amount of additional testing that 4 and 5 percent below the regression
tolerance band would be required to would be performed. lines, respectively. With this correction,
conduct US06 tests (the effects of cold 4 percent of the test groups would
2. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later trigger additional testing as falling
temperature and air conditioning would Model Years
be modeled). In addition, we expect that below the city fuel economy regression
some of these vehicles falling below the To derive low and high estimates for tolerance and 13 percent below the
tolerance band may be eligible to the number of additional tests required highway regression tolerance. With the
estimate fuel economy for a given test for our proposal, we used EPA data on ADFE assumptions unchanged, the
through the application of analytically the number of FTP/HFET, US06, SC03, corrected additional test estimates range
derived fuel economy values. Some data and Cold FTP tests. Based on MY 2004 as follows: 96–120 additional US06
are currently available for vehicles that data61, 1,250 fuel economy vehicles tests; 29–37 additional SC03 tests, and
have conducted all 5 tests; based on were tested with the FTP and highway 33–41 Cold FTP tests.
fuel economy tests.62 Data show that Based on manufacturer comments, we
these data, EPA has estimated the
330 SFTP (US06 and SC03) tests were have further revised the estimated test
number of vehicles for which additional
conducted and 220 Cold FTP tests. burden as a result of the four issues
testing would be required because they
Consequently, if all fuel economy discussed in the following sections.
fall below the 4 and 5 percent tolerance
vehicles were required to undergo full
bands, as discussed further in Section II. a. Fuel Economy Labeling for Medium-
EPA received no comments on the 5-cycle tests, approximately 920
Duty Passenger Vehicles
overall methodology of its cost analysis additional SFTP tests and 1,030 Cold
FTP tests would be required. EPA As discussed in Section I, MDPVs will
or the general cost assumptions used in be included in the labeling program
estimated, based on an analysis of our
that analysis. However, we received beginning with model year 2011. This
423 vehicle dataset, that 8 percent of the
comments on a number of specific change is based on NHTSA’s expansion
test groups will fall outside a band
proposal issues having cost of the CAFE program to include MDPVs
approximately less than or equal to 96
implications, including changes to beginning the same model year. As
percent of the regression for the city test
various test procedures. These issues are discussed in Section I, we are finalizing
and 23 percent outside a band
specified in Section IV and the fuel economy test methods for MDPVs
approximately less than or equal to 95
Response to Comments document. The that will not require additional testing
percent of the highway regression.
impacts of the resolution of these issues beyond that which the CAFE program
Taking the 2004 numbers above as a
on the final cost analysis are baseline, 92 percent of the additional will require beginning in model year
summarized here and are discussed in SC03 and Cold FTP tests otherwise 2011 (i.e., the FTP and HFET tests).
more detail in the Technical Support required would be avoided for city fuel Therefore, we are projecting no
Document. economy; 77 percent of the additional additional costs in this final rule to
As in the cost study for the proposed extend labeling to MDPVs.
US06 tests would be avoided. Thus, for
rule, we are presenting low and high
example, the initial estimate of b. Cold FTP Diesel Testing
estimates of the economic impact for
increased testing burden for SC03
two time frames: (1) Model years 2008 EPA proposed to require Cold FTP
would be 8 percent of the difference
to 2010, and (2) model year 2011 and testing for light-duty diesel vehicles
between 1250 and 330. The low and
thereafter. The low and high estimates beginning with the 2008 model year. As
high estimates under these assumptions
of testing burden scenarios provide discussed in Section IV, Cold FTP diesel
are generated by differing estimates of
boundaries on the potential testing costs testing is now optional until model year
the effect of another feature that will be
and informational startup costs. 2011, except for those manufacturers
available for MY 2011 and after—and
A. Incorporation of New Test Cycles expanded use of ADFE as an alternative that voluntarily choose to do 5-cycle
Into Fuel Economy Label Calculations to conducting vehicle tests. The low and testing. Auto manufacturers commented
high burden estimates assumes that 20 that the proposed cost analysis
1. Testing Burden for 2008 Through neglected to account for Cold FTP diesel
2010 Model Years 61 Model year 2004 certification data was the testing costs during MY 2008–MY 2010.
The test burdens, including capital
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

We are finalizing as proposed our latest complete model year of data available at the
estimate that no additional tests will be time of the proposal. The certification data for
model year 2005 is not significantly different. 63 Based on EPA’s current guidance to auto
required during model year (MY) 2008 62 The figure is approximate because the city FTP manufacturers on the use of ADFE, up to 20% of
through MY 2010. Manufacturers may test may be used and recorded primarily as a fuel FTP/HFET tests are allowed to be calculated
simply apply the mpg-based economy test, an emissions test, or both. through ADFEs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

costs, were addressed in the proposal in manufacturers choosing to use the 5- c. Startup Costs
terms of the number of tests estimated cycle approach in the 2008 through Startup costs are treated like capital
for MY 2011 and after. The preamble 2010 model years, as well as costs, annualized over ten years and
noted that eight city/highway test pairs manufacturers required to perform 5- discounted at 7% beginning with model
were conducted for the five light-duty cycle testing in model years 2011 and year 2008. The proposal included
diesel vehicles certified in MY 2006. beyond. Our evaluation indicated that $3,472,000 in total information system
Estimating the number of light-duty the new provisions provide ample lead costs, including reprogramming to
diesel vehicles certified in MY 2011 and time to be implemented. Therefore, report the new data, label design
beyond is difficult at this point, but accommodating two-bag US06
several manufacturers have announced changes, plus $28,000 to $196,000 for
measurements would not significantly information systems for the US06 split
plans to expand or introduce diesel impact the cost analysis presented in
products in this time frame. As a result, phase sample system. Finally, $195,000
our proposal. to $651,000 was provided for validation
for the final rule cost analysis we have
doubled the number of certified light- d. Four-Phase FTP for Gasoline-Electric testing of the US06 split phase
duty diesel test groups in MY 2011 from Hybrid Vehicles sampling. Discounted and annualized,
five to ten. Accordingly, we have this came to $526,000 to $615,000 per
increased the estimated Cold FTP test The proposal included no additional year, industry-wide.
volume from our proposed range of 66– costs for the four-phase FTP For the final rule, we have increased
82 tests and the corrected range of 33– requirement for hybrid-electric vehicles. our range of estimated startup costs to
41 tests to a range of 41–49 tests for the As discussed in Section IV, we received $663,000–$752,000 to account for the
final rule. For the final rule, both low comments on costs of the proposed four- additional information systems needed
and high estimates for testing costs phase FTP in terms of lead time and to manage the increased complexity of
increase approximately $20,000 per year installation of new hardware, software, the fuel economy labeling reporting
reflecting the increased number of tests and test equipment. In response to these system. The auto industry commented
under the unchanged testing cost comments, four-phase FTP testing will that existing database management
assumptions of the proposal (Cold FTP be required, but may be conducted as systems would need to be modified to
facility upgrades are considered either a 2-bag or 4-bag measurement as accommodate the changes in fuel
separately below). Additionally, the suggested by the auto industry, as economy labeling calculations. EPA
additional testing requirement is discussed in Section IV. Consequently, proposed to apply the mpg-line label
reflected in an increase in the corrected we foresee no additional cost impacts. calculations (i.e., ‘‘derived 5-cycle’’) at
total capital costs (unamortized) for the vehicle test level, meaning the FTP
Cold FTP facilities of $770,000– 3. Cost Analysis of the Testing Burden or HFET results from a test vehicle
$1,373,000 to a $957,000–$1,640,000 would undergo the derived 5-cycle
a. Capital Costs
(unamortized). calculations to determine a fuel
In addition, commenters raised a The proposal estimated a capital cost economy label value. The final rule
number of technical issues regarding of $4 million for a facility able to requires applying the derived 5-cycle
laboratory configurations and the perform 750 US06 tests a year, $9 equation at the model-type rather than
difficulty of establishing cold test million for an environmental facility test level; however, this approach is not
facility retrofits to accommodate diesel able to conduct 300 to 428 SC03 tests available for the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
testing without a transition period. per year, and $10 million for an label calculation option and MY 2011
Extending the beginning of diesel cold environmental facility able to conduct requirements. Therefore, the cost
testing requirement to 2011 is intended 300 to 428 Cold FTP tests per year. analysis has been updated to account for
to address some of these concerns, These costs were applied on a per-test this increased information system
particularly the lead time needed to basis to the increased tests required by burden.
implement laboratory modifications. To the proposal, amortized at 7% and Manufacturers will incur a one-time
more fully account for the cost of these annualized over ten years. The resulting cost to upgrade their fuel economy data
laboratory upgrades, we have revised capital cost was $524,000 to $866,000 and reporting systems to account for the
the estimate by increasing capital costs per year. Correcting the estimated new fuel economy calculation
by $55,000 for each of ten number of new tests, applying the same procedures. Based on a projection of
manufacturers to account for these facility costs to the increased estimate EPA’s information development
upgrades. for Cold diesel testing, and adding the contract costs, we have increased the
facility upgrades for Cold diesel, as industry information startup costs
c. Two-Bag US06 Measurements (unamortized) by $933,450. This
discussed above, this capital cost has
The proposal included the costs of the increases the annualized and
been adjusted to a low/high range of
requirement for two-bag US06 discounted startup costs to a low/high
$375,000 to $560,000.
measurements as startup costs involving range of $659,000 to $748,000 for the
information system programming and b. Labor and Operations and industry as a whole.
validation tests, but not new facility Maintenance (O&M) Costs
costs. We are retaining these estimates B. Revised Label Format and New
for the final rule. The proposal included costs of $1,860 Information Included
As discussed in Section IV, we to $2,441 for running each of the tests, This cost item was included in the
received comments on the costs of allocated between labor and O&M based startup information portion of the cost
collecting US06 exhaust emissions in on prior Information Collection analysis in the proposal. No adjustments
two bags, particularly in view of Requests. Adjusting for the corrected have been made in the final analysis.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

software changes and the lead time and additional testing as discussed
needed to implement two-bag software. above, we have changed our cost C. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for
In response, EPA will accept alternative estimates from a proposed range of SC03, US06, and Cold FTP Tests
methods of calculating two-bag data. $606,000–$757,000 to a range of As proposed, we do not expect capital
These alternatives are available for those $343,000–$424,000 for the final rule. or operating costs to increase due to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77913

submission of additional information unexpectedly high fuel economy, fuel have retained this approach in the final
associated with additional tests. economy leader within class, and fuel rule.
However, we do expect additional economy near the Gas Guzzler tax F. Summary of Final Cost Estimate
startup costs for information system threshold.
programming. The startup burden has As discussed above and summarized
been modified as discussed above. E. Fees in the table below, aggregate annual
costs for MY 2008 through MY 2010 are
D. Impact on Confirmatory Testing The proposed rule did not include an
estimated to range from $663,000–
As proposed, the final rule does not increase in the fees to cover any $752,000, compared with the proposed
include an increase in the number of increase in costs of issuing certificates range of $526,000–$615,000. For MY
vehicles targeted for confirmatory of conformity under the new label rule. 2011 and beyond, aggregated annual
testing. We are not revising our Instead, EPA will monitor its costs are estimated to range from
proposed estimation of manufacturer compliance testing and associated costs $1,377,000–$1,732,000 compared with
confirmatory testing under the criteria and, if necessary, in the future adjust the proposed range of $1,655,000–
of failed or high emission levels, the fees to include any new costs. We $2,238,000.
TABLE 5–1—AGGREGATE ANNUAL COSTS TO INDUSTRY
MY 2008 through MY 2010 MY 2011 and after
Cost Element
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Test Volume (Labor, O&M) ............................................................................................. $0 $0 $343,000 $424,000


Facilities (Capital, Annualized) ........................................................................................ 0 0 375,000 560,000
Startup (Capital, Annualized) ........................................................................................... 663,000 752,000 659,000 748,000

Total .......................................................................................................................... 663,000 752,000 1,381,000 1,732,000

VI. Implementation and Other being targeted by the manufacturer. We representative of vehicles that
Provisions did not propose to change how we are consumers would normally compare
addressing the recent proliferation of (the example they cite is the midsize
A. Revisions to Classes of Comparable
Vehicles ‘‘crossover’’ vehicles, but we requested class, which contains the Toyota Prius
comments on whether we should create and the Rolls Royce Phantom). Auto
The EPCA requires that the label a separate ‘‘crossover’’ class. Some manufactures further noted that the
include the range of fuel economy of public comments supported the creation highest sales vehicles are typically near
comparable vehicles of all of this class, but did not suggest how to the midpoint of the range, and that
manufacturers.64 EPA’s comparable define it. Auto companies were opposed vehicles at either end of the range (low
class structure provides a basis for to it, citing the difficulties in creating a and high fuel economy) are typically
comparing a vehicle’s fuel economy to meaningful class definition. Lacking vehicles with low sales volume or
that of other vehicles in its class. We such a definition that would clearly ‘‘niche’’ vehicles. They suggest that
proposed to add separate classes for distinguish between a ‘‘crossover’’ consumers usually shop within subsets
SUVs and minivans, which were vehicle and other vehicle classes, we are of the defined vehicle classes, and not
previously included in the Special not creating a separate class for across the entire class. To address these
Purpose Vehicle category. We also crossover vehicles. It should also be concerns, manufacturers recommended
proposed to modify the definition of noted that the EPA-defined vehicle against using a graphical representation
‘‘small pickup trucks’’ by increasing the
classes are used only to provide of the comparable class fuel economy,
weight limit from 4,500 pounds GVWR
consumer information about fuel and that EPA should continue to use the
to 6,000 pounds GVWR. All comments
economy and serve no other regulatory text that is used today. However, they
on these proposals were favorable. Auto
purpose. did not suggest any specific changes to
manufacturers suggested minor
In portraying the range of fuel the class structure to address these
clarifications to the definition of
economy for comparable vehicles on the concerns.
minivan in order to distinguish it
further from SUVs. We agree with these label, several commenters noted that the We believe that with the changes we
suggestions and are finalizing changes comparable class structure does not are finalizing today, the comparable
accordingly. adequately provide consumers with class structure generally represents the
So-called ‘‘crossover’’ vehicles are meaningful fuel economy comparisons, distinctions between vehicle types
those that meet the definition of more and that class distinctions have been offered in the fleet today. Absent
than one vehicle class, and thus are blurring in recent years. Commenters suggestions during the public comment
difficult to categorize. EPA currently noted that many consumers shop across period for new comparable vehicle
uses discretion to assign these vehicles classes. These commenters did not classifications, we are finalizing the
to a class on a case-by-case basis. For suggest any specific revisions to the comparable class structure largely as
example, we attempt to determine class structure to address these proposed, with minor changes as
which class assignment makes sense concerns; rather, their suggestions relate discussed above. We welcome
from a consumer perspective (e.g., is it to the presentation of the comparable interested parties to continue working
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

more likely to be considered by class information on the label, which is with EPA in the future on how to ensure
consumers looking for a minivan or for addressed in Section III. Additionally, that the comparable classes are kept
an SUV) and what marketing segment is manufacturers expressed concern that current with the dynamic vehicle fleet.
the wide fuel economy ranges of some If it becomes necessary in the future to
64 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C). classes are not necessarily further modify the comparable class

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77914 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

structure, EPA would do so through a calculate the city and highway fuel metric that Americans understand. Our
rulemaking. economy label estimates using the new concern is that without a long-term,
methods being finalized today. Some comprehensive public awareness
B. Fuel Economy Ranges for
manufacturers indicated that they may campaign, any changes to the metric
Comparable Fuel Economy Graphic
introduce model year 2008 vehicles as could confuse the public. Some
Along with the label’s new graphic of early as January 2, 2007. Consumers will commenters mentioned their interest in
comparable fuel economy (Figure III.3), then be comparing vehicles having fuel pursuing research and public education
we proposed both how EPA would economy estimates based on the new on the fuel consumption metric, and we
inform manufacturers of the within- methods to a large volume of model year look forward to learning more in the
class fuel economy ranges for the label, 2007 vehicles having estimates based on future from those stakeholders exploring
and how they are to present this the old methods. To address this, we are the issue.
information on the label if range data is finalizing a temporary option allowing However, the labels currently provide
not available in time for printing (which manufacturers to add additional an easy way to compare the fuel
can occur for models introduced early information in fine print to model year consumption of different vehicles. The
in the year). For example, between 2008 vehicle labels indicating what the estimated annual fuel cost information
August and September of each year, fuel economy estimates would have on the label is based on the fuel
EPA typically issues guidance to the been using the old method. In other consumption metric: it is the dollar
manufacturers specifying the fuel words, all model year 2008 vehicles are equivalent of the number of gallons
economy ranges for the comparable still required to estimate the city and consumed over 15,000 miles. Thus we
classes to be used on labels. Since we highway fuel economy estimates using believe that including the estimated
did not know the final design of the the new methods, but manufacturers annual fuel cost on the label is a
comparable fuel economy element at the may optionally add—in fine print valuable metric for consumers, because
time of the proposal, we suggested only—information indicating what the it relates directly to fuel consumption.
regulatory text nearly identical to the estimates would have been under the We are also locating the estimated
existing language, which requires the previous methods. This option is annual fuel cost information more
term ‘‘N/A’’ (for ‘‘Not Applicable’’) to available only until June 1, 2007, when prominently on the new label to raise
replace actual range values when data is a more significant number of 2008 public awareness.
not yet available. However, since we are models should be available for sale, and,
finalizing a graphical presentation of E. Web-Based Driver-Specific Fuel
thus, there will be few model year 2007 Economy Calculator
comparable fuel economy instead of vehicles on dealer lots with which to
regulatory text, it is necessary to use a compare. This option is available for In the proposed rule, we suggested
different method to illustrate this labels with either the old or new implementing a web calculator in which
information when the range is not yet design.65 consumers could input their own
available. Without the upper and lower customized information in order to
range bounds, it is impossible to D. Consideration of Fuel Consumption estimate more accurately their expected
indicate where the vehicle’s actual vs. Fuel Economy as a Metric in-use fuel economy. User-specific
combined fuel economy falls on the EPCA defines fuel economy as ‘‘* * * information could include such factors
range bar. Therefore, in cases when the average number of miles traveled by as number of miles driven, mix of city
range data for the current model year is an automobile for each gallon of and highway driving, air conditioner
not available in time for printing the gasoline (or equivalent amount of other usage, average speed driven, ambient
label, manufacturers must use the fuel) used, as determined by the temperature, per gallon price of fuel,
ranges of the previous model year. The Administrator* * *’’ 66 Thus, EPA’s and others. We received several positive
vehicle’s combined fuel economy will fuel economy labeling program has comments that a web calculator would
appear on the range bar relative to historically expressed fuel economy in be a useful tool, and could provide users
where it falls within the previous model miles per gallon (mpg). We requested with valuable insight on the effects of
year’s range. comments on how a gallons-per-mile these factors on their fuel economy.
Model year 2008 vehicles introduced fuel consumption metric could be used Another commenter urged EPA to
to the public before EPA can determine and presented publicly, such as in the ensure that the tool would provide
the 2008 fuel economy ranges must be Fuel Economy Guide. A few accurate results. We plan to consider
considered further, because the previous manufacturers suggested that it may be further how to best design and
model year range data is based on the more meaningful to express fuel implement a calculator tool, and we
2007 methods for determining fuel efficiency in terms of consumption may seek additional input from
economy, and is thus not comparable to (gallons per 100 miles) than in terms of interested stakeholders.
the new data. Therefore, until EPA economy (miles per gallon), because
consumption directly measures the F. Fuel Basis for Estimated Annual Fuel
issues guidance on model year 2008
amount of fuel used, a metric related to Costs
comparable class ranges, manufacturers
must include the 2007 range data cost that consumers may consider when To determine the estimated annual
adjusted to account for the new filling up. fuel cost, we currently require that
methods. Upon issuance of this rule, we This final rule maintains the manufactures use the same fuels that
will provide these ‘‘2007-adjusted’’ requirement that the label must express they require or recommend to
ranges to manufacturers via guidance the estimates in terms of fuel economy, customers. In the proposal we did not
letter as soon as possible. instead of fuel consumption. Since intend to change this, but we
historically we have expressed fuel inadvertently omitted the text, ‘‘or
C. Temporary Option To Add ‘‘Old efficiency in miles per gallon, it is a recommended,’’ from the parenthetical
Method’’ City and Highway Estimates on
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

statement in the regulatory text at


Early Introduction Model Year Vehicle 65 As discussed in Section III, the new fuel
600.307–08(a)(3)(iv), regarding the fuel
Labels economy label design becomes mandatory on
type used to determine the estimated
September 1, 2007, before which manufacturers
As discussed previously, all model may optionally use it. annual fuel cost on the label. Therefore,
year 2008 vehicles are required to 66 See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10). we are adding the words, ‘‘or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77915

recommended,’’ to the regulations, manufacturer’s corporate average fuel authority to vehicles between 6,000 and
which means that manufactures must economy.70 DOT is responsible for 8,500 pounds GVWR, without the need
use the fuel that they require or administering the CAFE compliance for any finding by DOT to bring such
recommend to customers as a basis for program, including establishing vehicles into the definition of
the estimated annual fuel cost. standards for non-passenger automobile under section
automobiles and determining if 32901(a)(3)(B). Therefore, based on the
G. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-
manufacturers are complying with the definition of ‘‘automobile’’ in EPCA,
Supplied Fuel Economy Booklet
applicable CAFE standards, and EPA’s labeling regulations are required
We proposed adding language to the assessing any penalties as needed.71 to cover (1) all vehicles below 8,500 lbs
regulations that allows dealers to fulfill DOE is responsible for publishing and GVWR, and (2) those vehicles between
their requirement to provide customers distributing the annual fuel economy 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR that DOT
with copies of the Fuel Economy Guide information booklet.72 has determined by regulation should be
booklet by using an on-site computer.67 EPA published regulations subject to CAFE standards under EPCA.
This method has been used on a trial implementing portions of the EPCA EPA has no authority under EPCA to
basis in recent years. One commenter statute in 1976. These regulations are require fuel economy labeling for
opposed this idea, citing that people are codified at 40 CFR part 600. The vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR, or for
disinclined to use computers, and that provisions in this regulation, effective vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs
the success of this method has been with the 1977 model year, established GVWR where DOT has not made the
neither studied nor proven. However, test methods and procedures to requisite regulatory determination to
the National Auto Dealer Association calculate fuel economy values for apply the CAFE standards. Those
commented that this proposal should be labeling and CAFE purposes that used vehicles do not meet the definition of
finalized, because it is a more efficient, the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or ‘‘automobile,’’ and EPA’s authority to
effective way of providing customers ‘‘city’’ test) and the Highway Fuel require fuel economy labeling is limited
with this information. We agree that Economy Test (HFET or ‘‘highway’’ test) to ‘‘automobiles.’’
there are people who are disinclined to data as the basis for the calculations. At The Department of Transportation,
use computers, but we expect dealers that time, the fundamental process for through NHTSA, has recently
who opt to provide the guide determining fuel economy was the same determined that certain vehicles
electronically to also provide assistance for labeling as for CAFE, except that the between 8,500 and 10,000 GVWR will
as needed to customers who want to CAFE calculations combined the city be considered automobiles and subject
access and/or print portions of the Fuel and highway fuel economy into a single to CAFE standards starting with model
Economy Guide using the dealership’s number.73 year 2011 (see 71 FR 17565 (April 6,
computer. Regulations that provide Under EPCA, EPA’s fuel economy
2006)). Based on this determination EPA
dealers with the option to provide the labeling regulations require
is amending its labeling regulations in
Fuel Economy Guide in this way do not manufacturers to label each
this final rule to include these vehicles.
relieve dealerships of the responsibility ‘‘automobile’’ they produce. EPCA
See the discussion regarding the
to make the Guide ‘‘available to defines ‘‘automobile’’ in 49 U.S.C.
prospective buyers.’’ 68 We are finalizing adoption of fuel economy labeling
32901(a)(3) as:
this requirement as proposed. regulations for medium-duty passenger
* * * a 4-wheeled vehicle * * * rated at— vehicles in Section I.C.2.
VII. Relevant Statutes and Regulations (A) Not more than 6,000 pounds gross EPCA requires manufacturers of
vehicle weight; or
A. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (B) More than 6,000, but less than 10,000 automobiles to attach a fuel economy
pounds gross vehicle weight, if the Secretary label to a prominent place on each
The Energy Policy and Conservation automobile manufactured in a model
decides by regulation that—
Act of 1975 (EPCA) established two (i) An average fuel economy standard year and also requires the dealers to
primary fuel economy requirements: (1) * * * for the vehicle is feasible; and maintain the label on the automobile.74
Fuel economy information, designed for (ii) An average fuel economy * * * for the EPCA specifies minimum requirements
public use, in the form of fuel economy vehicle will result in significant energy for the information to be included on
labels posted on window stickers of all conservation or the vehicle is substantially
used for the same purposes as a vehicle rated
the fuel economy label.75 This final rule
new motor vehicles, and the publication retains these items, as required:
of an annual booklet of fuel economy at not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight. a. The fuel economy of the
information to be made available free to automobile.
the public by car dealers; and (2) Further, section 32902 authorizes DOT
to set CAFE standards for b. The estimated annual fuel cost of
calculation of a manufacturer’s average
‘‘automobiles,’’ and section 32908 operating the automobile.
fuel economy and compliance with a
authorizes EPA to set labeling c. The range of fuel economy of
standard (later, this compliance program
requirements for ‘‘automobiles.’’ comparable automobiles of all
became known as the Corporate Average
Specifically, section 32908 states that, manufacturers.
Fuel Economy (CAFE) program).69 The
responsibilities for these requirements for the purpose of section 32908, d. A statement that a booklet is
were split between EPA, DOT and the ‘‘ ‘automobile’ includes an automobile available from the dealer to assist in
Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is rated at not more than 8,500 pounds making a comparison of fuel economy of
responsible for establishing the test gross vehicle weight regardless of other automobiles manufactured by all
methods and calculation procedures for whether [DOT] has applied this chapter manufacturers in that model year.
determining the fuel economy estimates to the automobile under section e. The amount of the automobile fuel
to be posted on the window stickers and 32901(a)(3)(B).’’ The effect of this is to efficiency tax imposed on the sale of the
in the annual booklet (the Fuel essentially expand EPA’s labeling automobile under section 4064 of the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Economy Guide), and for determining a Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26
70 See 49 U.S.C. 32904, 32908. U.S.C. 4064).
67 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 71 See 49 U.S.C. 32904.
68 See 49 U.S.C. 32908 (c)(3). 72 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3). 74 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
69 See Pub. L. 94–163. 73 See 41 FR 38685 (Sept. 10, 1976). 75 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77916 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

f. Other information required or measured during tests that incorporate features as described further in Section
authorized by the Administrator that is these features. The mpg-based approach II.
related to the information required also takes these factors into
C. Other Statutes and Regulations
[within items a. through d.]. consideration, but less directly, as it
EPCA also defines ‘‘fuel economy’’ as incorporates the effects of these factors 1. Automobile Disclosure Act
the average number of miles traveled by by basing the adjustment factor on an The Automobile Information
an automobile for each gallon of analysis of data developed from the 5- Disclosure Act (AIDA) 80 requires the
gasoline (or equivalent amount of other cycle method. Under the new affixing of a retail price sticker to the
fuel) used, as determined by EPA.76 regulations, the mpg-based approach is windshield or side window of new
Thus, this final rule retains the an interim option to establish an automobiles indicating the
requirement to report fuel economy as appropriate period of lead time for Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price,
miles-per-gallon. manufacturers. We also allow its that is, the ‘‘sticker price.’’ Additional
EPCA also requires EPA to prepare a continued use only where the average information, such as a list of any
fuel economy booklet containing effects reflected under the mpg-based optional equipment offered or
information that is ‘‘simple and readily adjustments (of higher speed/ transportation charges, is also
understandable.’’ 77 This booklet is more acceleration, air conditioning, and cold required.The Act prohibits the sticker
commonly known as the annual ‘‘Fuel temperature) on a specific vehicle from being removed or altered prior to
Economy Guide.’’ EPCA further configuration is representative of those sale to a consumer.
instructs DOE to publish and distribute measured under actual 5-cycle testing. Under EPCA, manufacturers and
the booklet. EPA is required to Second, we interpret the statute’s importers of new automobiles are
‘‘prescribe regulations requiring dealers reference to ‘‘shorter city test cycle required to affix a label to such vehicles
to make the booklet available to lengths’’ to mean shorter than the with an EPA label containing fuel
prospective buyers.’’ 78 This final rule current FTP cycle used to determine economy information.81 Normally, the
makes minor changes to these city fuel economy. We have addressed price sticker label and EPA label are
regulations by allowing manufacturers that concern by including updated combined as one large label. Failure to
and dealers to make the Fuel Economy factors for ‘‘cold starts’’ and ‘‘hot starts’’ maintain the EPA label on the vehicle
Guide available electronically to (where the engine is not warmed up or is considered a violation of AIDA.
customers as an option. has been parked for a brief amount of
time and then restarted) in the equation 2. Internal Revenue Code
B. Energy Policy Act of 2005
for determining city fuel economy. This EPCA requires ‘‘Gas Guzzler’’ tax
Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act simulates shorter city test cycle lengths information to be included on the fuel
of 2005 directs EPA to ‘‘update or revise where a vehicle’s engine is more economy label, under 26 U.S.C.
the adjustment factors in sections frequently shut down and restarted than 4064(c)(1). This code contains the
600.209 85 and 600.209 95, of the Code in the current FTP test. Also, the US06 provisions governing the administration
of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 and SC03 test cycles are physically of the Gas Guzzler Tax. It contains the
(1995) Fuel Economy Regulations for shorter in length than the FTP (the FTP table of applicable taxes and defines
1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles is about 11 miles in length, whereas the which vehicles are subject to the taxes.
to take into consideration higher speed US06 is about 8 miles, and the SC03 is The IRS code specifies that the fuel
limits, faster acceleration rates, about 3.6 miles.) economy to be used to assess the
variations in temperature, use of air amount of tax will be the combined city
Third, we interpret the statutory
conditioning, shorter city test cycle and highway fuel economy as
reference to ‘‘current reference fuels’’ to
lengths, current reference fuels, and the determined by using the procedures in
mean the laboratory fuels used to
use of other fuel depleting features.’’ 79 place in 1975, or procedures that give
In this final rule, the 5-cycle approach perform the fuel economy tests, and that
the underlying concern of Congress was comparable results (similar to EPCA’s
revises the test methods and procedures
that the high-quality lab fuels would requirements for determining CAFE for
for calculating fuel economy, including
give higher fuel economy than the passenger automobiles). This final rule
updating and revising the adjustment
typical commercial fuel used by does not impact these provisions.
factors, by establishing a new method to
calculate fuel economy estimates that consumers. The quality of the laboratory 3. Clean Air Act
uses fuel economy results from test fuel is specified in EPA regulations
for emission compliance. The test EPCA states that fuel economy tests
additional test procedures combined shall to the extent practicable be carried
with a changed adjustment factor. The gasoline fuel is roughly equivalent to
premium, high-octane fuel available at out with the emissions tests required
mpg-based approach uses the same test under Section 206 of the Clean Air Act
methods as the current fuel economy the pump. The impact of the higher-
octane test fuel on fuel economy is less § 32904(c). This final rule incorporates
program (i.e., the FTP and HFET tests), three additional emissions tests,
but changes the adjustment factors significant but there are other real-world
fuel differences that can have a required under the Clean Air Act
applied to those test results. These regulations, for fuel economy testing, as
options satisfy EPA and the EPAct noticeable impact, as discussed in
Section II. For instance, ethanol has a discussed in detail in Section II. We are
provisions as follows. also making several changes to existing
First, the 5-cycle method directly lower energy content than gasoline, and
when blended with gasoline, with all emissions tests. These changes are being
includes the effects of higher speed finalized under the authority of Section
limits, faster acceleration rates, other things being equal, will slightly
lower fuel efficiency. Other seasonal 206 of the Clean Air Act, which permits
variations in temperature, and use of air the Administrator to define, and to
conditioning by including fuel economy variations in fuel composition (e.g.,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

oxygenates in winter fuel) may also


80 More commonly known as the Monroney Act
76 See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10). cause a slight reduction in fuel
(Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of
77 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c). economy. EPA is proposing an the Act) or Price Sticker Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231–
78 Id. adjustment factor to account for fuel 1233.
79 See Pub. L. 109–58. differences and other fuel-depleting 81 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77917

revise from time to time, the test advertising. The Fuel Guide advises The information being collected is
procedures used to determine vehicle manufacturers and dealers how used by EPA to calculate the fuel
compliance with applicable emission to disclose the established fuel economy economy estimates that appear on new
standards. of a vehicle, as determined by the automobile and light truck (and, starting
Environmental Protection Agency’s with model year 2011, medium-duty
4. Additional Provisions in the Energy passenger vehicle) sticker labels. EPA
rules pursuant to the Automobile
Policy Act of 2005 and Transportation currently collects this information
Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C.
Equity Act of 2005 annually as part of its vehicle
2996), in advertisements that make
This action is expected to have no representations regarding the fuel certification and fuel economy program,
impact on the federal income tax credits economy of a new vehicle. The and will continue to do so. This final
for consumers who purchase new disclosure is tied to the claim made in rule changes some of the content of the
hybrid, diesel, dedicated alternative the advertisement. If both city and information submitted. Responses to
fuel, or fuel cell vehicles that meet highway fuel economy claims are made, this information collection are
certain eligibility requirements both city and highway EPA figures mandatory to obtain the benefit of
beginning on January 1, 2006 that the should be disclosed. A claim regarding vehicle certification under Title II of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has either city or highway fuel economy Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.)
established under Section 1341 of the should be accompanied by the and as required under Title III of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.82 IRS uses corresponding EPA figure. A general Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
‘‘unadjusted’’ laboratory FTP (city) fuel fuel economy claim would trigger Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.).
economy test values to determine tax disclosure of the EPA city figure, Information submitted by manufacturers
credit eligibility for light-duty vehicles. although the advertiser would be free to is held as confidential until the specific
Accordingly, the changes being state the highway figure as well. The vehicle to which it pertains is available
finalized today for ‘‘adjusted’’ fuel authority for the Fuel Guide is tied to for purchase. After vehicles are
economy values will have no impact on the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 available for purchase, most information
the tax credit program. U.S.C. 41–58) which, briefly stated, associated with the manufacturer’s
Similarly, this action is expected to makes it illegal for one to engage in application is available to the public.
have no impact on the ‘‘High ‘‘unfair methods of competition in or Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities’’ affecting commerce and unfair or (42 U.S.C. 7542(c)), all information,
regulations EPA is establishing under deceptive acts or practices in or other than trade secret processes or
Section 1121 of the Transportation affecting commerce.’’ methods, must be publicly available.
Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in the Proprietary information is granted
process of developing proposed VIII. Statutory and Executive Order confidentiality in accordance with the
regulations to identify low emission and Reviews Freedom of Information Act, EPA
energy-efficient vehicles for the purpose A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class
of assisting states administering high- Planning and Review determinations issued by EPA’s Office
occupancy vehicle facility of General Counsel.
transportation plans. EPA anticipates Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 The projected increased cost within
that the fuel economy values used to (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this the three-year horizon of the pending
identify these vehicles will be the action is a ‘‘significant regulatory information collection request is
‘‘unadjusted’’ FTP-based fuel economy action.’’ Pursuant to the terms of $747,830 in one-time startup costs, after
test values. Accordingly, the changes in Executive Order 12866, OMB has being annualized and discounted at 7%.
this final rule are anticipated to have no notified EPA that it considers this a No increase in other capital costs, or in
impact on the HOV facilities program. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within operations and maintenance or labor
the meaning of the Executive Order. costs, are anticipated during this period.
5. Federal Trade Commission Guide Accordingly, EPA submitted this action The estimated number of likely
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising to the Office of Management and Budget respondent manufacturers is 35.
for New Vehicles (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and Responses are submitted annually by
In the mid-1970’s when EPCA was any changes made in response to OMB engine family, with the number of
passed, the Federal Trade Commission recommendations have been responses per respondent varying
(FTC) ‘‘took note of the dramatic documented in the docket for this widely depending on the number of
increase in the number of fuel economy action. engine families being certified. Under
claims then being made and of the In addition, EPA prepared an analysis the current information authorization,
proliferation of test procedures then of the potential costs and benefits an average of 8.4 responses a year are
being used as the basis for such associated with this action. This approved for each of 35 respondents
claims.’’ 83 They responded by analysis is contained in the Technical requiring 549.2 hours per response and
promulgating regulations in 16 CFR part Support Document. A copy of the 56.6 hours of recordkeeping at a total
259 entitled ‘‘Guide Concerning Fuel analysis is available in the docket for cost of $46,427 per response for an
Economy Advertising for New Vehicles’’ this action and the analysis is industry total of 178,109 hours and
(‘‘Fuel Guide’’). The Fuel Guide, summarized in Section VI of this $14.2 million annually, including
adopted in 1975 and subsequently document. capital, operations and maintenance,
revised twice,84 provides guidance to and labor costs. This rule will increase
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
automobile manufacturers to prevent this burden by 0 hours and $747,830 per
The information collection year during the next three years (high
deceptive advertising and to facilitate
requirements in this rule have been estimate) for an industry total of $14.9
the use of fuel economy information in
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

submitted for approval to OMB under million annually.


82 See Pub. L. 109–58.
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Burden means the total time, effort, or
83 See 40 FR 42003 (Sept. 10, 1975). 3501 et seq. The information collection financial resources expended by persons
84 See 43 FR 55747 (Nov. 29, 1978); and 60 FR requirements are not enforceable until to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
56230 (Nov. 8, 1995). OMB approves them. or provide information to or for a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77918 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Federal agency. This includes the time 336111. Based on Small Business such an assumption will tend to
needed to review instructions; develop, Administration size standards, a small overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle
acquire, install, and utilize technology business for this NAICS code is defined converters, who typically produce or
and systems for the purposes of as a manufacturer having less than 1000 import a single model or configuration.
collecting, validating, and verifying employees. Out of a total of D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
information, processing and approximately 80 automotive
maintaining information, and disclosing manufacturers subject to this final rule, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
and providing information; adjust the EPA estimates that approximately 10 of Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
existing ways to comply with any these could be classified as small Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
previously applicable instructions and entities based on SBA size standards. federal agencies to assess the effects of
requirements; train personnel to be able Unlike large manufacturers with their regulatory actions on state, local,
to respond to a collection of complex and diverse product lines, we and tribal governments and the private
information; search data sources; expect that the small entities (generally sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
complete and review the collection of these are vehicle importers and vehicle EPA generally must prepare a written
information; and transmit or otherwise converters) will be able use the results statement, including a cost-benefit
disclose the information. of tests they are already conducting for analysis, for proposed and final rules
An agency may not conduct or emissions compliance to satisfy the with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result
sponsor, and a person is not required to proposed fuel economy labeling in expenditures to state, local, and tribal
respond to a collection of information requirements. Therefore, we expect that governments, in the aggregate, or to the
unless it displays a currently valid OMB these small entities will face minimal private sector, of $100 million or more
control number. The OMB control additional burden due to the new fuel in any one year. Before promulgating an
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 economy labeling requirements. EPA rule for which a written statement
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
Independent Commercial Importers generally requires EPA to identify and
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
(ICIs) have averaged about 50 imported consider a reasonable number of
Agency will publish a technical
engine families per year for the last regulatory alternatives, and to adopt the
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
three model years. There are least costly, most cost-effective, or least
Federal Register to display the OMB
approximately 10 ICIs subject to this burdensome alternative that achieves
control number for the approved
final rule. If we assume that the ICIs and the objectives of the rule. The
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule. other small entities account for five provisions of section 205 do not apply
percent of the vehicle models for which when they are inconsistent with
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act fuel economy labels are needed (a applicable law. Moreover, section 205
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) proportion that is certainly an allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
generally requires an agency to prepare overestimate, but useful for placing an than the least costly, most cost-effective,
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any upper bound on the estimated cost or least burdensome alternative if the
rule subject to notice and comment impacts for small entities), then these Administrator publishes with the final
rulemaking requirements under the entities must generate about 65 different rule an explanation of why that
Administrative Procedure Act or any fuel economy labels. Using the total alternative was not adopted.
other statute unless the agency certifies estimated costs from Section V of this Before EPA establishes any regulatory
that the rule will not have a significant preamble, the average annual cost per requirements that may significantly or
economic impact on a substantial labeled vehicle configuration is about uniquely affect small governments,
number of small entities. Small entities $1,280–1,760, and the total annual cost including tribal governments, it must
include small businesses, small for 20 small entities can be estimated to have developed under section 203 of the
organizations, and small governmental be $85,000–114,000. The total average UMRA a small government agency plan.
jurisdictions. annual cost for an individual importer The plan must provide for notifying
For purposes of assessing the impacts or small manufacturer can therefore be potentially affected small governments,
of this final rule on small entities, a estimated to be a maximum of $4,250– enabling officials of affected small
small entity is defined as: (1) A small 5,700. We have recently collected data governments to have meaningful and
business as defined by the Small on the currently operating small entities timely input in the development of EPA
Business Administration (SBA) by in the ICI and vehicle conversion regulatory proposals with significant
category of business using North categories; this data indicates that the federal intergovernmental mandates,
America Industrial Classification average annual revenue for these and informing, educating, and advising
System (NAICS) and codified at 13 CFR companies is approximately $4.8 small governments on compliance with
121.201; (2) a small governmental million. Therefore, the projected cost the regulatory requirements.
jurisdiction that is a government of a increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent This rule contains no federal
city, county, town, school district or of the average revenue for small mandates for state, local, or tribal
special district with a population of less importers or manufacturers. Because of governments as defined by the
than 50,000; and (3) a small the limited range of vehicle provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
organization that is any not-for-profit configurations typically offered by these rule imposes no enforceable duties on
enterprise which is independently small entities, we believe that the any of these governmental entities.
owned and operated and is not maximum cost for these entities will be Nothing in the rule would significantly
dominant in its field. even lower than the low end of the or uniquely affect small governments.
After considering the economic ranges shown above. Our methodology We have determined that this rule
impacts of this final rule on small for estimating costs in Section V does not contain a federal mandate that
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

entities, I certify that this action will not assumes that manufacturers have may result in expenditures of more than
have a significant economic impact on diverse product lines, and thus $100 million to the private sector in any
a substantial number of small entities. A ultimately will need to perform some single year. We believe that this rule
small business that manufactures level of additional testing in 2011 and represents the least costly, most cost
automobiles has a NAICS code of later model years. Using costs based on effective approach to achieve the goals

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77919

of the final rule. The costs are discussed disproportionate effect on children. If J. Congressional Review Act
in Section V and in the Technical the regulatory action meets both criteria,
Support Document. Thus, this final rule the Agency must evaluate the The Congressional Review Act, 5
is not subject to the requirements of environmental health or safety effects of U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. the planned rule on children, and Business Regulatory Enforcement
explain why the planned regulation is Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism that before a rule may take effect, the
preferable to other potentially effective
Executive Order 13132, entitled and reasonably feasible alternatives agency promulgating the rule must
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, considered by the Agency. EPA submit a rule report, which includes a
1999), requires EPA to develop an interprets Executive Order 13045 as copy of the rule, to each House of the
accountable process to ensure applying only to those regulatory Congress and to the Comptroller General
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State actions that are based on health or safety of the United States. EPA will submit a
and local officials in the development of risks, such that the analysis required report containing this rule and other
regulatory policies that have federalism under section 5–501 of the Order has required information to the U.S. Senate,
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have the potential to influence the regulation. the U.S. House of Representatives, and
federalism implications’’ is defined in This final rule is not subject to the Comptroller General of the United
the Executive Order to include Executive Order 13045 because it does States prior to publication of the rule in
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct not establish an environmental standard the Federal Register. A major rule
effects on the States, on the relationship intended to mitigate health or safety cannot take effect until 60 days after it
between the national government and risks. is published in the Federal Register.
the States, or on the distribution of This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
power and responsibilities among the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
various levels of government.’’ Significantly Affect Energy Supply, will be effective on January 26, 2007.
This final rule does not have Distribution, or Use
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal
federalism implications. It will not have This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy Authority
substantial direct effects on the States, action’’ as defined in Executive Order
on the relationship between the national 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations Statutory authority for the fuel
government and the States, or on the That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, economy labeling program can be found
distribution of power and Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May in 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, 49 U.S.C.
responsibilities among the various 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to 32901–32917, and Pub. L. 109–58.
levels of government, as specified in have a significant adverse effect on the
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive List of Subjects
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. The regulations do not require 40 CFR Part 86
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation manufacturers to improve or otherwise Administrative practice and
and Coordination With Indian Tribal change the fuel economy of their procedure, Confidential business
Governments vehicles. The purpose of this regulation information, Incorporation by reference,
Executive Order 13175, entitled is to provide consumers with better Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with information on which to base their Reporting and recordkeeping
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR vehicle purchasing decisions. Therefore, requirements.
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA we have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy 40 CFR Part 600
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by effects. Administrative practice and
tribal officials in the development of I. National Technology Transfer procedure, Electric power, Fuel
regulatory policies that have tribal Advancement Act economy, Incorporation by reference,
implications.’’ Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
This final rule does not have tribal Section 12(d) of the National requirements.
implications as specified in Executive Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law Dated: December 11, 2006.
Order 13175. This rule will be
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 Stephen L. Johnson,
implemented at the Federal level and
note) directs EPA to use voluntary Administrator.
impose compliance costs only on motor
vehicle manufacturers. Tribal consensus standards in its regulatory ■ For the reasons set forth in the
governments will be affected only to the activities unless doing so would be preamble, parts 86 and 600 of title 40,
extent they purchase and use motor inconsistent with applicable law or Chapter I of the Code of Federal
vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 otherwise impractical. Voluntary Regulations is amended as follows:
does not apply to this rule. consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of test methods, sampling procedures, and FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
Children From Environmental Health business practices) that are developed or VEHICLES AND ENGINES
and Safety Risks adopted by voluntary consensus
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA ■ 1. The authority citation for part 86
Children From Environmental Health to provide Congress, through OMB, continues to read as follows:
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, explanations when the Agency decides Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: not to use available and applicable
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically voluntary consensus standards. ■ 2. The table of references in


significant’’ as defined under Executive This rulemaking does not involve § 86.1(b)(1) is amended by revising the
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an technical standards. Therefore, EPA is entry for ‘‘ASTM D 975–04c Standard
environmental health or safety risk that not considering the use of any voluntary Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’ to
EPA has reason to believe may have a consensus standards. read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77920 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

§ 86.1 Reference materials. § 86.159–08 and in part 600 of this directly into the US06 driving schedule
* * * * * chapter, a proportional part of the during which continuous proportional
(b) * * * diluted exhaust may be collected samples of gaseous emissions are
(1) * * * continuously in two bag samples, one collected for analysis. US06 emissions
representing US06 City driving and the may optionally be collected in two bag
Document No. and 40 CFR part 86 ref- other representing US06 Highway samples representing US06 City and
name erence US06 Highway emissions, as provided
driving. If two bag samples are
collected, for petroleum-fueled diesel- for in this section and in part 600 of this
* * * * * cycle vehicles for which THC is chapter. Emissions from seconds 0–130
ASTM D 975–04c 86.1910, 86.213–11. sampled and analyzed continuously and seconds 495–596 are collected in
Standard Specifica- according to the provisions of § 86.110, one bag to represent US06 City
tion for Diesel Fuel the analytical system shall be emissions, and emissions from seconds
Oils. configured to calculate THC for the 130–495 are collected in a second bag to
US06 City phase and the US06 Highway represent US06 Highway emissions. If
Subpart B—[Amended] phase as described in § 86.159–08. engine stalling should occur during
(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test cycle operation, follow the provisions of
■ 3. A new § 86.158–08 is added to read procedure for determining exhaust § 86.136–90 (engine starting and
as follows: emissions with the air conditioner restarting). For gasoline-fueled Otto-
operating (see § 86.160–00) is designed cycle vehicles, the composite samples
§ 86.158–08 Supplemental Federal Test
to determine gaseous exhaust emissions collected in bags are analyzed for THC,
Procedures; overview.
from light-duty vehicles and light-duty CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For petroleum-
The procedures described in fueled diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is
§§ 86.158–08, 86.159–08, 86.160–00, trucks while simulating an urban trip
during ambient conditions of 95 °F, 100 sampled and analyzed continuously
and 86.162–00 discuss the aggressive according to the provisions of § 86.110.
driving (US06) and air conditioning grains of water/pound of dry air
(approximately 40 percent relative Parallel bag samples of dilution air are
(SC03) elements of the Supplemental analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and
Federal Test Procedures (SFTP). These humidity), and a solar heat load
intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test NOX.
test procedures consist of two separable (b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All
test elements: A sequence of vehicle consists of vehicle preconditioning (see
§ 86.132–00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)), official US06 tests shall be run on a
operation that tests exhaust emissions large single roll electric dynamometer,
with a driving schedule (US06) that an engine key-off 10 minute soak, an
engine start, and operation over the or an approved equivalent dynamometer
tests exhaust emissions under high configuration, that satisfies the
speeds and accelerations (aggressive SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the
diluted exhaust is collected requirements of § 86.108–00.
driving); and a sequence of vehicle (2) Position (vehicle can be driven)
operation that tests exhaust emissions continuously during the engine start
and the SC03 driving cycle for the test vehicle on the dynamometer
with a driving schedule (SC03) which and restrain.
includes the impacts of actual air subsequent analysis, using a constant
(3) Required US06 schedule test
conditioning operation. These test volume (variable dilution) sampler or
dynamometer inertia weight class
procedures (and the associated critical flow venturi sampler.
(e) The emission results from the selections are determined by the test
standards set forth in subpart S of this vehicles test weight basis and
part) are applicable to light-duty aggressive driving test (§ 86.159–08), air
conditioning test (§ 86.160–00), and FTP corresponding equivalent weight as
vehicles and light-duty trucks. listed in the tabular information of
(a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust test (§ 86.130–00 (a) through (d) and (f))
(conducted on a large single roll or § 86.129–94(a) and discussed in
emissions of THC, CO, NOX, CH4, and § 86.129–00 (e) and (f).
CO2. For diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is equivalent dynamometer) are analyzed
(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia
sampled and analyzed continuously according to the calculation
weight and roadload horsepower
according to the provisions of § 86.110. methodology in § 86.164–08 and
requirements for the test vehicle
(b) Each test procedure follows the compared to the applicable SFTP
according to § 86.129–00 (e) and (f). The
vehicle preconditioning specified in emission standards in subpart S of this
dynamometer’s horsepower adjustment
§ 86.132–00. part.
settings shall be set to match the force
(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test (f) These test procedures may be run
imposed during dynamometer operation
procedure for emissions on the US06 in any sequence that maintains the
with actual road load force at all speeds.
driving schedule (see § 86.159–08) is applicable preconditioning elements (5) The vehicle speed as measured
designed to determine gaseous exhaust specified in § 86.132–00. from the dynamometer rolls shall be
emissions from light-duty vehicles and ■ 4. A new § 86.159–08 is added to read used. A speed vs. time recording, as
light-duty trucks while simulating high as follows: evidence of dynamometer test validity,
speed and acceleration on a chassis shall be supplied on request of the
dynamometer (aggressive driving). The § 86.159–08 Exhaust emission test Administrator.
full test consists of preconditioning the procedures for US06 emissions. (6) The drive wheel tires may be
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as (a) Overview. The dynamometer inflated up to a gauge pressure of 45 psi
specified in § 86.132–00, and an engine operation consists of a single, 600 (310 kPa), or the manufacturer’s
idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after second test on the US06 driving recommended pressure if higher than 45
which the vehicle is accelerated into the schedule, as described in appendix I, psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The
US06 cycle. A proportional part of the paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle drive wheel tire pressure shall be
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

diluted exhaust is collected is preconditioned in accordance with reported with the test results.
continuously for subsequent analysis, § 86.132–00, to bring it to a warmed-up (7) The driving distance, as measured
using a constant volume (variable stabilized condition. This by counting the number of
dilution) sampler or critical flow venturi preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2 dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions,
sampler. Optionally, as specified in minute idle period that proceeds shall be determined for the test.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77921

(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel evacuated sample collection bags to the and samples to the ‘‘US06 Highway’’
drive vehicles may be tested either in a dilute exhaust and dilution air sample bags and samples, switch gas flow
four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive collection systems. measuring device No. 1 (and the
mode of operation. In order to test in the (iii) Start the CVS (if not already on), petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive the sample pumps, the temperature integrator No. 1 and mark the
and all-wheel drive vehicles may have recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
one set of drive wheels disengaged; the heated THC analysis recorder recorder chart if applicable) to
four-wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles (diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger ‘‘standby’’ mode, and start gas flow
which can be shifted to a two-wheel of the constant volume sampler, if used, measuring device No. 2 (and the
mode by the driver may be tested in a petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
two-wheel drive mode of operation. analyzer continuous sample line should integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before
(9) During dynamometer operation, a be preheated to their respective the acceleration which is scheduled to
fixed speed cooling fan with a operating temperatures before the test occur at 136 seconds, record the
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000 begins. measured roll or shaft revolutions.
cfm will be positioned so as to direct (iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to (B) At two seconds after the end of the
cooling air to the vehicle in an the desired flow rate and set the gas deceleration which is scheduled to
appropriate manner with the engine flow measuring devices to zero. occur at 493 seconds (i.e., at 495
compartment cover open. In the case of (A) For gaseous bag samples (except seconds), simultaneously switch the
vehicles with front engine THC samples), the minimum flow rate sample flows from the ‘‘US06 Highway’’
compartments, the fan shall be is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec). bags and samples to the ‘‘US06 City’’
positioned within 24 inches (61 (B) For THC samples, the minimum bags and samples, switch off gas flow
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case FID (or HFID in the case of diesel-cycle measuring device No. 2 (and the
of vehicles with rear engine vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031 petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
compartments (or if special designs liters/sec). integrator No. 2 and mark the
make the above impractical), the cooling (C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
fan(s) shall be placed in a position to the venturi design. recorder chart if applicable), and start
provide sufficient air to maintain (v) Attach the exhaust tube to the gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and
vehicle cooling. The Administrator may vehicle tailpipe(s). the petroleum-fueled diesel
approve modified cooling (vi) Start the gas flow measuring hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 if
configurations or additional cooling if device, position the sample selector applicable). Before the acceleration
necessary to satisfactorily perform the valves to direct the sample flow into the which is scheduled to occur at 500
test. In approving requests for additional exhaust sample bag, the dilution air seconds, record the measured roll or
or modified cooling, the Administrator sample bag, turn on the petroleum- shaft revolutions and the No. 2 gas
will consider such items as actual road fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system meter reading or flow measurement
cooling data and whether such integrator, mark the recorder chart, and instrument. As soon as possible transfer
additional cooling is needed to provide record both gas meter or flow the ‘‘US06 Highway’’ exhaust and
a representative test. measurement instrument readings, (if dilution air bag samples to the
(c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall applicable). analytical system and process the
be large enough to virtually eliminate (vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting samples according to § 86.140–94
water condensation in the system. the gas flow measuring device, but prior obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag
(d) Practice runs over the prescribed to the first acceleration. Begin the first exhaust sample on all analyzers within
driving schedule may be performed at acceleration 5 seconds after starting the 20 minutes of the end of the sample
test point, provided an emission sample measuring device. collection phase of the test.
is not taken, for the purpose of finding (viii) Operate the vehicle according to (x) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after
the appropriate throttle action to the US06 driving schedule, as described the end of the last deceleration (i.e.,
maintain the proper speed-time in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part. engine off at 596 seconds).
relationship, or to permit sampling Manual transmission vehicles shall be (xi) Five seconds after the engine
system adjustment. shifted according to the manufacturer stops running, simultaneously turn off
(e) Perform the test bench sampling recommended shift schedule, subject to gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and
sequence outlined in § 86.140–94 prior review and approval by the the petroleum-fueled diesel
to or in conjunction with each series of Administrator. For further guidance on hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark
exhaust emission measurements. transmissions see § 86.128–00. the petroleum-fueled diesel
(f) Test activities. (1) The US06 (ix) Paragraphs (f)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) of hydrocarbon recorder chart if
consists of a single test which is directly this section apply to vehicles for which applicable) and position the sample
preceded by a vehicle preconditioning the manufacturer is collecting US06 City selector valves to the ‘‘standby’’
in accordance with § 86.132–00. and US06 Highway emissions for position. Record the measured roll or
Following the vehicle preconditioning, subsequent analysis according to the shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas
the vehicle is idled for not less than one provisions of part 600 of this chapter. meter reading or flow measurement
minute and not more than two minutes. Vehicles for which emissions are being instrument.
The equivalent dynamometer mileage of collected in a single continuous sample (xii) As soon as possible, transfer the
the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km). for subsequent analysis must be tested exhaust and dilution air bag samples (or
(2) The following steps shall be taken according to paragraph (x) of this the US06 City exhaust and dilution air
for each test: section, and this paragraph (f)(2)(ix) will bag samples, if applicable) to the
(i) Immediately after completion of not apply. analytical system and process the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

the preconditioning, idle the vehicle. (A) At two seconds after the end of samples according to § 86.140–94
The idle period is not to be less than the deceleration which is scheduled to obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag
one minute or greater than two minutes. occur at 128 seconds (i.e., at 130 exhaust sample on all analyzers within
(ii) With the sample selector valves in seconds), simultaneously switch the 20 minutes of the end of the sample
the ‘‘standby’’ position, connect sample flows from the ‘‘US06 City’’ bags collection phase of the test.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77922 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

(xiii) Immediately after the end of the (A) YWSFTP(NMHC) = results of paragraph and diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles
sample period, turn off the cooling fan, (c)(1)(i) of this section for NMHC. and light-duty trucks.
close the engine compartment cover, (B) YWSFTP(NOX) = results of paragraph (b) All of the provisions of this
disconnect the exhaust tube from the (c)(1)(i) of this section for NOX. subpart are applicable to testing
vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle (2) When the test vehicle is not conducted at a nominal temperature of
from dynamometer. equipped with air conditioning, the 20 °F (¥7 °C).
(xiv) The CVS or CFV may be turned final reported test results for the SFTP (c) The provisions that are specifically
off, if desired. composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional applicable to testing at temperatures
■ 5. A new § 86.164–08 is added to read composite CO standards shall be between 25 °F (¥4 °C) and 68 °F (20 °C)
as follows: computed by the following formulas. are specified in § 86.246–94 of this
(i) YWSFTP = 0.72(YFTP)+0.28(YUS06) subpart.
§ 86.164–08 Supplemental Federal Test ■ 7. A new § 86.205–11 is added to read
Procedure calculations. Where: as follows:
(a) The provisions of § 86.144–94 (b) (A) YWSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a
and (c) are applicable to this section particular pollutant weighted in terms of § 86.205–11 Introduction; structure of this
except that the NOX humidity correction the contributions from the FTP and US06 subpart.
factor of § 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv) must be schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained (a) This subpart describes the
modified when adjusting SC03 for each of the exhaust emissions of equipment required and the procedures
NMHC, NOX and CO.
environmental test cell NOX results to to follow in order to perform gaseous
(B) YFTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile
100 grains of water according to (Ywm) based on the measured driving exhaust emission tests on gasoline-
paragraph (d) of this section. These distance of the FTP test schedule. fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel
provisions provide the procedures for (C)(1) YUS06 = Calculated mass emissions per cycle (where applicable under part 600
calculating mass emission results of mile based on the measured driving of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and
each regulated exhaust pollutant for the distance of the US06 test schedule; or, light-duty trucks. Subpart A of this part
test schedules of FTP, US06, and SC03. (2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run sets forth testing requirements and test
(b) The provisions of § 86.144–94(a) according to the provisions of § 86.159– intervals necessary to comply with EPA
are applicable to this section. These 08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter: certification procedures.
provisions provide the procedures for YUS06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile, (b) A section reference without a
using the summed mass emissions of the
determining the weighted mass model year suffix refers to the section
‘‘US06 City’’ phase (sampled during
emissions for the FTP test schedule seconds 1–130 and seconds 495–596 of applicable for the appropriate model
(Ywm). the US06 driving schedule) and the years.
(c)(1) When the test vehicle is ‘‘US06 Highway’’ phase (sampled during (c) Three topics are addressed in this
equipped with air conditioning, the seconds 130–495 of the US06 driving subpart. Sections 86.206 through 86.215
final reported test results for the SFTP schedule), based on the measured set forth specifications and equipment
composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional driving distance of the US06 test requirements; §§ 86.216 through 86.226
composite CO standards shall be schedule. discuss calibration methods and
computed by the following formulas. (ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX) = frequency; test procedures and data
(i) YWSFTP = 0.35(YFTP) + 0.37(YSC03) + YWSFTP(NMHC) + YWSFTP(NOX) requirements are listed (in approximate
0.28(YUS06) Where: order of performance) in §§ 86.227
Where: (A) YWSFTP(NMHC) = results of paragraph
through 86.245.
(A) YWSFTP = Mass emissions per mile for a (c)(2)(i) of this section for NMHC. ■ 8. A new § 86.206–11 is added to read
particular pollutant weighted in terms of (B) YWSFTP(NOX) = results of paragraph as follows:
the contributions from the FTP, SC03, (c)(2)(i) of this section for NOX.
and US06 schedules. Values of YWSFTP § 86.206–11 Equipment required;
are obtained for each of the exhaust (d) The NOX humidity correction overview.
emissions of NMHC, NOX and CO. factor for adjusting NOX test results to This subpart contains procedures for
(B) YFTP = Weighted mass emissions per mile the environmental test cell air exhaust emission tests on gasoline-
(YWM) based on the measured driving conditioning ambient condition of 100 fueled and petroleum-fueled diesel
distance of the FTP test schedule. grains of water/pound of dry air is: cycle (where applicable under part 600
(C) YSC03 = Calculated mass emissions per
mile based on the measured driving KH (100) = 0.8825/[1–0.0047(H–75)] of this chapter) light-duty vehicles and
distance of the SC03 test schedule. Where: light-duty trucks. Equipment required
(D)(1) YUS06 = Calculated mass emissions per and specifications are as follows:
H = measured test humidity in grains of
mile based on the measured driving water/pound of dry air.
(a) Exhaust emission tests. Exhaust
distance of the US06 test schedule; or, from gasoline-fueled and petroleum-
(2) In the case of a 2-phase US06 test run Subpart C—[Amended] fueled diesel cycle (where applicable
according to the provisions of § 86.159– under part 600 of this chapter) vehicles
08(f)(2)(ix) and part 600 of this chapter: is tested for gaseous emissions using the
■ 6. A new § 86.201–11 is added to read
YUS06 = Calculated mass emissions per mile,
using the summed mass emissions of the as follows: Constant Volume Sampler (CVS)
‘‘US06 City’’ phase (sampled during concept (§ 86.209). Equipment necessary
§ 86.201–11 General applicability. and specifications appear in §§ 86.208
seconds 1–130 and seconds 495–596 of
the US06 driving schedule) and the (a) This subpart describes procedures through 86.214.
‘‘US06 Highway’’ phase (sampled during for determining the cold temperature (b) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving
seconds 130–495 of the US06 driving carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from schedule specifications. Fuel
schedule), based on the measured 1994 and later model year new gasoline- specifications for exhaust emission
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

driving distance of the US06 test fueled light-duty vehicles and light-duty testing for gasoline-fueled and
schedule.
trucks, and for emissions sampling for petroleum-fueled diesel cycle vehicles
(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX) = determining fuel economy according to are specified in § 86.213. Analytical
YWSFTP(NMHC) + YWSFTP(NOX) part 600 of this chapter for 2011 and gases are specified in § 86.214. The EPA
Where: later model year new gasoline-fueled Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77923

(UDDS) for use in gasoline-fueled (3) The THC probe (when the THC (iii) The overflow gas flow rates into
emission tests is specified in § 86.115 probe is required) shall be: the sample line shall be at least 105%
and Appendix I to this part. (i) Installed at a point where the of the sample system flow rate.
■ 9. A new § 86.210–08 is added to read dilution air and exhaust are well mixed. (iv) The overflow gases shall enter the
as follows: (ii) Heated and insulated over the
heated sample line as close as
entire length to maintain a 375 °±20 °F
§ 86.210–08 Exhaust gas sampling (191 °±11 °C) wall temperature. practicable to the outside surface of the
system; Diesel-cycle vehicles not requiring (iii) 0.19 in. (0.48 cm) minimum CVS duct or dilution tunnel.
particulate emissions measurements. inside diameter. ■ 10. Section 86.211–94 is revised to
(a) General applicability. The exhaust (4) It is intended that the THC probe read as follows:
gas sampling system requirements of be free from cold spots (i.e., free from
§ 86.109–4 (which apply to Otto-cycle spots where the probe wall temperature § 86.211–94 Exhaust gas analytical
vehicles), also apply to diesel vehicles is less than 355 °F). This will be system.
that are not required to undergo determined by a temperature sensor The provisions of § 86.111–94 apply
particulate measurement as allowed located on a section of the probe wall to this subpart, except that the NOX
under § 600.111–08(e) of this chapter, outside of the walls of the sampling analyzer is optional. The exhaust gas
except that heated flame ionization system. The temperature sensor shall be
analytical system must contain
detector (HFID), probe, sample lines and insulated from any heating elements on
components necessary to determine
filters are required as described below. the probe. The sensor shall have an
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon
(1) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle accuracy and precision of ±2 °F (1.1 °C).
(5) The dilute exhaust gas flowing in dioxide, methane, and formaldehyde.
vehicles require a heated flame The exhaust gas analytical system is not
ionization detector (HFID) (375 °±20 °F the THC sample system shall be:
(i) At 375 °F±10 °F (191 °C±6 °C) required to contain components
(191 °±11 °C)) sample for total necessary for determining oxides of
hydrocarbon (THC) analysis. The HFID immediately before the heated filter.
This will be determined by a nitrogen.
sample must be taken directly from the
diluted exhaust stream through a heated temperature sensor located immediately ■ 11. A new § 86.213–11 is added to
upstream of the filter. The sensor shall read as follows:
probe and continuously integrated
have an accuracy and precision of ±2 °F
measurement of diluted THC is
(1.1 °C). § 86.213–11 Fuel specifications.
required. Unless compensation for (ii) At 375 °F±10 °F (191 °C ±6 °C)
varying mass flow is made, a constant (a) Gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles
immediately before the HFID. This will
mass flow system must be used to and light-duty trucks. Gasoline having
be determined by a temperature sensor
ensure a proportional THC the following specifications will be used
located at the exit of the heated sample
measurement. line. The sensor shall have an accuracy by the Administrator except that the
(2) For natural gas-fueled and and precision of ±2 °F (1.1 °C). Administrator will not use gasoline
liquefied petroleum gas-fueled diesel (6) It is intended that the dilute having a sulfur specification higher than
vehicles either a heated flame ionization exhaust gas flowing in the THC sample 0.0045 weight percent. Gasoline having
detector (HFID) [375°±20 °F (191°±11 system be between 365 °F and 385 °F the specifications set forth in the table
°C)] or a non-heated flame ionization (185 °C and 197 °C). in this section, or substantially
detector may be used for hydrocarbon (7) The requirements for the equivalent specifications approved by
analysis. continuous HC measurement system are the Administrator, may be used by the
(3) Other sampling systems may be as follows: manufacturer except that the octane
used if shown to yield equivalent or (i) The system must use an specification does not apply. In lieu of
superior results and if approved in ‘‘overflow’’ zero and span system. In using gasoline having these
advance by the Administrator. this type of system, excess zero or span specifications, the manufacturer may,
(b) Component description. The gas spills out of the probe when zero for certification testing, use gasoline
components necessary for petroleum- and span checks of the analyzer are having the specifications specified in
fueled diesel vehicle exhaust sampling made. The ‘‘overflow’’ system may also § 86.113–04 provided the cold CO
shall meet the following requirements: be used to calibrate the HC analyzer per emissions are not decreased.
(1) The PDP system shall conform to § 86.1321(b), although this is not Documentation showing that cold CO
all of the requirements listed for the required. emissions are not decreased must be
exhaust gas PDP-CVS (§ 86.109– (ii) No other analyzers may draw a maintained by the manufacturer and
94(a)(3)). sample from the continuous HC sample must be made available to the
(2) The CFV-CVS sample system shall probe, line or system, unless a common Administrator upon request. The table
conform to all of the requirements listed sample pump is used for all analyzers listing the cold CO fuel specifications
for the exhaust gas EFC sample system and the sample line system design described in the text in this section
(§ 86.109–94(a)(5)). reflects good engineering practice. follows:

TABLE—COLD CO FUEL SPECIFICATIONS


Cold CO high
Cold CO low octane value or
Item ASTM test octane 1 value or
range
range

(RON+MON)/2, min ................................................................. D 2699 ................................... 87.8±.3 ................................... 92.3±0.5.


Sensitivity, min ......................................................................... D 2699 ................................... 7.5 .......................................... 7.5.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Distillation range:
IBP, deg.F ......................................................................... D 86 ....................................... 76–96 ..................................... 76–96.
10% point, deg.F .............................................................. D 86 ....................................... 98–118 ................................... 105–125.
50% point, deg.F .............................................................. D 86 ....................................... 179–214 ................................. 195–225.
90% point, deg.F .............................................................. D 86 ....................................... 316–346 ................................. 316–346.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77924 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE—COLD CO FUEL SPECIFICATIONS—Continued


Cold CO high
Cold CO low octane value or
Item ASTM test octane 1 value or
range range

EP, max, deg.F ................................................................. D 86 ....................................... 413 ......................................... 413.


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

(b) Petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle encountered by the test vehicle shall (2) In lieu of using a separate fan, an
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. average 20 ° ±5 °F (¥7 °C ±2.8 °C) and air handling system that is integral with
Diesel test fuel used for cold shall not be less than 10 °F (¥14 °C) nor the test cell may be used provided
temperature FTP testing under part 600 more than 30 °F (¥1 °C) during vehicle comparable air movement is obtained.
of this chapter must be a winter-grade preconditioning, except for The cooling air temperature shall be
diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975– preconditioning performed in measured in the center of a vertical
04c ‘‘Standard Specification for Diesel accordance with § 86.232(a)(7), and plane that is located approximately 2
Fuel Oils.’’ (incorporated by reference, during all emission testing. feet in front of the vehicle.
see § 86.1) Such test fuel must also (2) The ambient temperature reported
(3) The manufacturer may use, for
comply with the requirements of part 80 shall be a simple average of the test cell
temperatures measured at constant certification testing, alternative engine
of this chapter. This incorporation by
intervals no more than one minute compartment cooling fans or systems,
reference was approved by the Director
apart. Before the driving cycle may including those which provide a
of the Federal Register in accordance
begin, the test cell temperature shall be variable air flow, if the manufacturer
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
20 °F ±3 °F (¥7 °C ±1.7 °C) when has determined that comparable results
Copies may be obtained from the
measured in accordance with paragraph are obtained.
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. (e)(2) of this section. The temperature (f) Heater and defroster usage. The
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA may not exceed 25 °F (¥4 °C) or fall vehicle interior climate control system
19428–2959. Copies may be inspected at below 15 °F (¥9 °C) for more than three shall be operated with the interior
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA consecutive minutes during the test. heating system on and the air flow
West Building, Constitution Avenue and (d) Vehicle positioning. The vehicle directed to the mode that primarily
14th Street, NW., Room 3340, shall be approximately level during all defrosts the front window during the
Washington DC, or at the National phases of the test sequence to prevent test. Air conditioning controls shall be
Archives and Records Administration abnormal fuel distribution. set to the ‘‘Off’’ position. No
(NARA). For information on the (e) Engine compartment cooling. (1) supplemental auxiliary heat is
availability of this material at NARA, Fixed speed air cooling of the engine permitted during the dynamometer
call 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// compartment with the compartment procedure. The heater may be used at
www.archives.gov/federal_register/ cover open shall be utilized during any temperature and fan settings during
code_of_federal_regulations/ testing that is conducted by the vehicle preconditioning. The
ibr_locations.html. The Administrator Administrator and, optionally for manufacturer shall use the vehicle’s
may approve the use of a different diesel certification testing, by the controls to achieve the operation
test fuel, provided that the level of manufacturer. If a separate movable fan specified in this paragraph (f). The
kerosene added shall not exceed 20 is used, it shall be squarely positioned manufacturer shall use good engineering
percent. within 12 inches (30.5 centimeters) of judgment and take into account engine
the front of vehicles with front engine control changes (e.g., engine-off logic,
■ 12. A new § 86.230–11 is added to
compartments. In the case of vehicles idle speed operation, spark advance
read as follows: with rear engine compartments (or if changes) and engine control features
§ 86.230–11 Test sequence: general special designs make the normal front that may be directly affected by the fan
requirements. engine positioning impractical), the or temperature settings.
(a) Sequence steps. Figure C94–1 of cooling fan shall be placed in a position
to provide sufficient air to maintain (1) Manually controlled systems. (i)
§ 86.230–94 shows the steps
vehicle cooling. The fan capacity shall Prior to the first acceleration of the test
encountered as the test vehicle
normally not exceed 5,300 cfm (2.50 at T=20 seconds the climate control
undergoes the procedures subsequently
cubic meters per second). If, however, settings shall be set as follows (these
described, to determine conformity with
the manufacturer showed (as provided settings may be initiated prior to starting
the standards set forth.
(b) Driving schedule. The Urban in § 86.135–94(b)) that additional the vehicle if allowed by the vehicle’s
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) cooling is necessary, the fan capacity climate control system):
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

test procedure (see § 86.115 and may be increased or additional fans (A) Temperature: Manually operated
appendix I to this part) is used for used if approved in advance by the systems shall be set to maximum heat.
vehicle preconditioning and testing. Administrator. The cooling air Automatic systems optionally using the
(c) Ambient temperature level. (1) temperature shall be measured at the provisions of this paragraph (f)(1) shall
Ambient temperature levels inlet to the fan. be set to 72 degrees F or higher.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77925

(B) Fan speed: Full off, or if a full off approximately 7.5 miles (12.1 (2) Open the vehicle engine
position is not available, to the lowest kilometers) and a hot start drive of compartment cover and position the
available speed. approximately 3.6 miles (5.8 cooling fan.
(C) Airflow direction: Airflow kilometers). (3) For all vehicles, with the sample
directed to the front window (window (b) If the preconditioned vehicle is not selector valves in the ‘‘standby’’
defrost mode). Based on good already on the dynamometer, it shall be position, connect evacuated sample
engineering judgment, an alternative pushed into position. collection bags to the dilute exhaust and
vent setting may be used if necessary to (c) The vehicle is allowed to stand on dilution air sample collection systems.
achieve the temperature and fan speed the dynamometer during the ten minute (4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, with
settings in this paragraph (f)(1). time period between the cold and hot the sample selector valves in the
(D) Air source: If independently start test. The cold start test is divided ‘‘standby’’ position, insert fresh sample
controllable, the airflow source control into two periods. The first period, collection impingers into the methanol
shall be set to the position which draws representing the cold start ‘‘transient’’ sample collection system, fresh
outside air. phase, terminates at the end of the impingers or a fresh cartridge into the
(ii) At the second idle of the test deceleration which is scheduled to formaldehyde sample collection system
cycle, which occurs at the first occur at 505 seconds of the driving and fresh impingers (or a single
deceleration to zero miles per hour at schedule. The second period, cartridge for formaldehyde) into the
T=125 seconds, the fan speed shall be representing the ‘‘stabilized’’ phase, dilution air sample collection systems
set to maximum, and, if not already set consists of the remainder of the driving for methanol and formaldehyde
in this position, the airflow shall be schedule, including engine shutdown. (background measurements of methanol
directed fully to the front window in the The hot start test is identical to the first and formaldehyde may be omitted and
window defrost mode. Temperature and part or transient phase of the cold start concentrations assumed to be zero for
air source settings shall remain as set in test. Therefore, the hot start test calculations in § 86.144).
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. These (5) Start the CVS (if not already on),
terminates after the first period (505
settings shall be completed by T=130 the sample pumps (except the
seconds) is run.
seconds. particulate sample pump, if applicable),
(d) The dynamometer run consists of
(iii) At the sixth idle of the test cycle, the temperature recorder, the vehicle
two tests, a cold start test, after a
which occurs at the deceleration to zero cooling fan, and the heated THC
minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-
miles per hour at T=505 seconds, the analysis recorder (diesel-cycle only).
hour soak according to the provisions of
fan speed shall be set to the lowest (The heat exchanger of the constant
§ 86.132, and a hot start test following
setting that maintains air flow. This volume sampler, if used, petroleum-
the cold start test by 10 minutes. The
setting shall be completed by T=510 fueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer
vehicle shall be stored prior to the
seconds. Based on good engineering continuous sample line and filter,
emission test in such a manner that
judgment, the manufacturer may use methanol-fueled vehicle THC, methanol
precipitation (e.g., rain or dew) does not
alternative vent and/or higher fan speed and formaldehyde sample lines, if
occur on the vehicle. The complete
settings for the remainder of the test. applicable, should be preheated to their
dynamometer test consists of a cold start
Temperature and air source settings respective operating temperatures before
drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km) and
shall remain as set in paragraph (f)(1)(i) the test begins).
simulates a hot start drive of 7.5 miles (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to the
of this section for the remainder of the (12.1 km). The vehicle is allowed to
test. desired flow rate and set the gas flow
stand on the dynamometer during the measuring devices to zero.
(2) Automatic systems. Automatic
10 minute time period between the cold (i) For gaseous bag samples (except
systems may use either the provisions in
and hot start tests. The cold start test is THC samples), the minimum flow rate
paragraph (f)(1) of this section or
divided into two periods. The first is 0.17 cfm (0.08 1/sec).
manufacturers may set the temperature
period, representing the cold start (ii) For THC samples, the minimum
at 72 degrees F and the air flow control
‘‘transient’’ phase, terminates at the end FID (or HFID in the case of diesel-cycle
to the front window defroster mode for
of the deceleration which is scheduled and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle
the entire duration of the test.
(3) Multiple-zone systems. For to occur at 505 seconds of the driving vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031
vehicles with separate driver and schedule. The second period, 1/sec).
passenger controls, or for vehicles with representing the ‘‘stabilized’’ phase, (iii) For methanol samples, the flow
separate controls for the front seating consists of the remainder of the driving rates shall be set such that the system
region and for the passenger region schedule including engine shutdown. meets the design criteria of § 86.109 and
behind the driver, all sets of The hot start test, similarly, consists of § 86.110. For samples in which the
temperature and fan controls shall be set two periods. The first period, concentration in the primary impinger
according to paragraphs (f)(1) through representing the hot start ‘‘transient’’ exceeds 0.5 mg/l, it is recommended
(f)(3) of this section. phase, terminates at the same point in that the mass of methanol collected in
(4) Alternative test procedures. The driving schedule as the first period of the secondary impinger not exceed ten
Administrator may approve the use of the cold start test. The second period of percent of the total mass collected. For
other settings under § 86.1840–01 if, for the hot start test, ‘‘stabilized’’ phase, is samples in which the concentration in
example, a vehicle’s climate control assumed to be identical to the second the primary impinger does not exceed
system is not compatible with the period of the cold start test. Therefore, 0.5 mg/l, analysis of the secondary
provisions of this section. the hot start test terminates after the first impingers is not necessary.
period (505 seconds) is run. (iv) For formaldehyde samples, the
■ 13. A new section 86.237–08 is added
Measurement of NOX and particulate flow rates shall be set such that the
to read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

matter is not required. system meets the design criteria of


§ 86.237–08 Dynamometer test run, (e) The following steps shall be taken § 86.109 and § 86.110. For impinger
gaseous emissions. for each test: samples in which the concentration of
(a) The complete dynamometer test (1) Place drive wheels of vehicle on formaldehyde in the primary impinger
consists of a cold start drive of dynamometer without starting engine. exceeds 0.1 mg/l, it is recommended

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

that the mass of formaldehyde collected minutes of the end of the sample gas meter reading or flow measurement
in the secondary impinger not exceed collection phase of the test. Obtain instrument). (Carefully remove the third
ten percent of the total mass collected. methanol and formaldehyde sample pair of particulate sample filters from its
For samples in which the concentration analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours holder and place in a clean petri dish
in the primary impinger does not exceed of the end of the sample collection and cover, if applicable.)
0.1 mg/l, analysis of the secondary phase of the test. (19) As soon as possible, transfer the
impingers is not necessary. (13) Turn the engine off 2 seconds hot start ‘‘transient’’ exhaust and
(7) Attach the exhaust tube to the after the end of the last deceleration (at dilution air samples to the analytical
vehicle tailpipe(s). 1,369 seconds). system and process the samples
(8) Start the gas flow measuring (14) Five seconds after the engine according to § 86.140, obtaining a
device, position the sample selector stops running, simultaneously turn off stabilized reading of the exhaust bag
valves to direct the sample flow into the gas flow measuring device No. 2 and if sample on all analyzers within 20
‘‘transient’’ exhaust sample bag, the applicable, turn off the hydrocarbon minutes of the end of the sample
‘‘transient’’ methanol exhaust sample, integrator No. 2, mark the hydrocarbon collection phase of the test. Obtain
the ‘‘transient’’ formaldehyde exhaust recorder chart and position the sample methanol and formaldehyde sample
sample, the ‘‘transient’’ dilution air selector valves to the ‘‘standby’’ position analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours
sample bag, the ‘‘transient’’ methanol (and open the valves isolating of the end of the sample period. (If it is
dilution air sample and the ‘‘transient’’ particulate filter No. 1, if applicable). not possible to perform analysis on the
formaldehyde dilution air sample (turn Record the measured roll or shaft methanol and formaldehyde samples,
on the petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle revolutions (both gas meter or flow within 24 hours the samples should be
THC analyzer system integrator, mark measurement instrumentation readings), stored in a dark cold (4–10 °C)
the recorder chart and record both gas and reset the counter. As soon as environment until analysis. The
meter or flow measurement instrument possible, transfer the ‘‘stabilized’’ samples should be analyzed within
readings, if applicable), turn the key on, exhaust and dilution air samples to the fourteen days.)
and start cranking the engine. analytical system and process the (20) Disconnect the exhaust tube from
(9) Fifteen seconds after the engine samples according to § 86.140, obtaining the vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the
starts, place the transmission in gear. a stabilized reading of the exhaust bag vehicle from dynamometer.
(10) Twenty seconds after the engine sample on all analyzers within 20 (21) The CVS or CFV may be turned
starts, begin the initial vehicle minutes of the end of the sample off, if desired.
acceleration of the driving schedule. collection phase of the test. Obtain (22) Vehicles to be tested for
(11) Operate the vehicle according to methanol and formaldehyde sample evaporative emissions will proceed
the Urban Dynamometer Driving analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours according to § 86.138. For all others this
Schedule (§ 86.115). of the end of the sample period. (If it is completes the test sequence.
not possible to perform analysis on the ■ 14. Section 86.244–94 is revised to
Note: During particulate testing, if
applicable, adjust the flow rate through the methanol and formaldehyde samples read as follows:
particulate sample probe to maintain a within 24 hours, the samples should be
constant value within ±5 percent of the set stored in a dark cold (4–10 °C) § 86.244–94 Calculations; exhaust
flow rate. Record the average temperature environment until analysis. The emissions.
and pressure at the gas meter or flow samples should be analyzed within The provisions of § 86.144–94 apply
instrument inlet. If the set flow rate cannot fourteen days.) to this subpart, except that NOX
be maintained because of high particulate (15) Immediately after the end of the measurements are optional. Should NOX
loading on the filter, the test shall be sample period, turn off the cooling fan measurements be calculated, note that
terminated. The test shall be rerun using a
and close the engine compartment the humidity correction factor is not
lower flow rate, or larger diameter filter, or
both. cover. valid at colder temperatures. Light-duty
(16) Turn off the CVS or disconnect vehicles and light-duty trucks must
(12) At the end of the deceleration the exhaust tube from the tailpipe(s) of calculate and report the weighted mass
which is scheduled to occur at 505 the vehicle. of each relevant pollutant, i.e., THC, CO,
seconds, simultaneously switch the (17) Repeat the steps in paragraphs THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, CH4, NOX, and
sample flows from the ‘‘transient’’ bags (b)(2) through (b)(2) of this section for CO2 in grams per vehicle mile.
and samples to the ‘‘stabilized’’ bags the hot start test, except only two
and samples, switch off gas flow evacuated sample bags, two methanod PART 600—FUEL ECONOMY OF
measuring device No. 1, switch off the sample impringers, and two VEHICLES
No. 1 petroleum-fueled diesel formaldehyde sample impingers are
hydrocarbon integrator, mark the required. The step in paragraph (b)(9) of ■ 15. The authority citation for part 600
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon this section shall begin between 9 and is revised to read as follows:
recorder chart, start gas flow measuring 11 minutes after the end of the sample Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901—23919q, Pub.
device No. 2, and start the petroleum- period for the cold start test. L. 109–58.
fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. (18) At the end of the deceleration
2. Before the acceleration which is which is scheduled to occur at 505 Subpart A—[Amended]
scheduled to occur at 510 seconds, seconds, simultaneously turn off gas ■ 16. A new § 600.001–08 is added to
record the measured roll or shaft flow measuring device No. 1 (and the read as follows:
revolutions and reset the counter or petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
switch to a second counter. As soon as integrator No. 1, mark the petroleum- § 600.001–08 General applicability.
possible transfer the ‘‘transient’’ exhaust fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder (a) The provisions of this subpart are
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

and dilution air samples to the chart) and position the sample selector applicable to 2008 and later model year
analytical system and process the valve to the ‘‘standby’’ position. (Engine automobiles, except medium duty
samples according to § 86.140 obtaining shutdown is not part of the hot start test passenger vehicles, manufactured on or
a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust sample period.) Record the measured after January 26, 2007, and to 2011 and
sample on all analyzers within 20 roll or shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 later model year medium-duty

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77927

passenger vehicles. All 2008 automobiles produced by a City fuel economy means the city fuel
automobiles manufactured prior to manufacturer that is subject to average economy determined by operating a
January 26, 2007 may optionally comply fuel economy standards. vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving
with the provisions of this subpart. Axle ratio means the number of times schedule in the Federal emission test
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce only the input shaft to the differential (or procedure, or determined according to
electric vehicles are exempt from the equivalent) turns for each turn of the the vehicle-specific 5-cycle or derived 5-
requirements of this subpart, except drive wheels. cycle procedures.
with regard to the requirements in those Base level means a unique Cold temperature FTP means the test
sections pertaining specifically to combination of basic engine, inertia performed under the provisions of
electric vehicles. weight class and transmission class. Subpart C of part 86 of this chapter.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide Base vehicle means the lowest priced Combined fuel economy means:
production (excluding electric vehicle version of each body style that makes up (1) The fuel economy value
production) of less than 10,000 gasoline- a car line. determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by
fueled and/or diesel powered passenger Basic engine means a unique harmonically averaging the city and
automobiles and light trucks may combination of manufacturer, engine highway fuel economy values, weighted
optionally comply with the electric displacement, number of cylinders, fuel 0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
vehicle requirements in this subpart. system (e.g., type of fuel injection), (2) For electric vehicles, the term
catalyst usage, and other engine and means the equivalent petroleum-based
■ 17. A new § 600.002–08 is added to
emission control system characteristics fuel economy value as determined by
read as follows:
specified by the Administrator. For the calculation procedure promulgated
§ 600.002–08 Definitions. electric vehicles, basic engine means a by the Secretary of Energy.
3-bag FTP means the Federal Test unique combination of manufacturer Dealer means a person who resides or
Procedure specified in part 86 of this and electric traction motor, motor is located in the United States, any
chapter, with three sampling portions controller, battery configuration, territory of the United States, or the
consisting of the cold-start transient electrical charging system, energy District of Columbia and who is engaged
(‘‘Bag 1’’), stabilized (‘‘Bag 2’’), and hot- storage device, and other components as in the sale or distribution of new
start transient phases (‘‘Bag 3’’). specified by the Administrator. automobiles to the ultimate purchaser.
4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with Battery configuration means the Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means
the addition of a sampling portion for electrochemical type, voltage, capacity the 5-cycle fuel economy derived from
the hot-start stabilized phase (‘‘Bag 4’’). (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and the FTP-based city and HFET-based
5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, physical characteristics of the battery highway fuel economy by means of the
SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests as used as the tractive energy device. equation provided in § 600.210–08.
described in Subparts B and C of this Body style means a level of Drive system is determined by the
part. commonality in vehicle construction as number and location of drive axles (e.g.,
Administrator means the defined by number of doors and roof front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four
Administrator of the Environmental treatment (e.g., sedan, convertible, wheel drive) and any other feature of
Protection Agency or his authorized fastback, hatchback) and number of the drive system if the Administrator
representative. seats (i.e., front, second, or third seat) determines that such other features may
Alcohol means a mixture containing requiring seat belts pursuant to National result in a fuel economy difference.
85 percent or more by volume methanol, Highway Traffic Safety Administration Electrical charging system means a
ethanol, or other alcohols, in any safety regulations in 49 CFR part 571. device to convert 60 Hz alternating
combination. Station wagons and light trucks are electric current, as commonly available
Alcohol-fueled automobile means an identified as car lines. in residential electric service in the
automobile designed to operate Calibration means the set of United States, to a proper form for
exclusively on alcohol. specifications, including tolerances, recharging the energy storage device.
Alcohol dual fuel automobile means unique to a particular design, version of Electric traction motor means an
an automobile: application of a component, or electrically powered motor which
(1) Which is designed to operate on component assembly capable of provides tractive energy to the wheels of
alcohol and on gasoline or diesel fuel; functionally describing its operation a vehicle.
and over its working range. Energy storage device means a
(2) Which provides equal or greater Car line means a name denoting a rechargeable means of storing tractive
energy efficiency as calculated in group of vehicles within a make or car energy on board a vehicle such as
accordance with § 600.510(g)(1) while division which has a degree of storage batteries or a flywheel.
operating on alcohol as it does while commonality in construction (e.g., body, Engine code means a unique
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and chassis). Car line does not consider any combination, within an engine-system
(3) Which, in the case of passenger level of decor or opulence and is not combination (as defined in part 86 of
automobiles, meets or exceeds the generally distinguished by this chapter), of displacement, fuel
minimum driving range established by characteristics as roof line, number of injection (or carburetion or other fuel
the Department of Transportation in 49 doors, seats, or windows, except for delivery system), calibration, distributor
CFR part 538. station wagons or light-duty trucks. calibration, choke calibration, auxiliary
Automobile has the meaning given by Station wagons and light-duty trucks are emission control devices, and other
the Department of Transportation at 49 considered to be different car lines than engine and emission control system
CFR 523.3. passenger cars. components specified by the
Auxiliary emission control device Certification vehicle means a vehicle Administrator. For electric vehicles,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

(AECD) means an element of design as which is selected under § 86.1828–01 of engine code means a unique
defined in part 86 of this chapter. this chapter and used to determine combination of manufacturer, electric
Average fuel economy means the compliance under § 86.1848–01 of this traction motor, motor configuration,
unique fuel economy value as computed chapter for issuance of an original motor controller, and energy storage
under § 600.510 for a specific class of certificate of conformity. device.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
77928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Federal emission test procedure (FTP) Label means a sticker that contains (1) Which is designed to operate on
refers to the dynamometer driving fuel economy information and is affixed natural gas and on gasoline or diesel
schedule, dynamometer procedure, and to new automobiles in accordance with fuel;
sampling and analytical procedures subpart D of this part. (2) Which provides equal or greater
described in part 86 of this chapter for Light truck means an automobile that energy efficiency as calculated in
the respective model year, which are is not a passenger automobile, as § 600.510(g)(1) while operating on
used to derive city fuel economy data. defined by the Secretary of natural gas as it does while operating on
FTP-based city fuel economy means Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This gasoline or diesel fuel; and
the fuel economy determined in term is interchangeable with ‘‘non- (3) Which, in the case of passenger
§ 600.113–08 of this part, on the basis of passenger automobile’’. automobiles, meets or exceeds the
FTP testing. Medium-duty passenger vehicle minimum driving range established by
Fuel means: means a vehicle which would satisfy the the Department of Transportation in 49
(1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for criteria for light trucks as defined by the CFR part 538.
gasoline- or diesel-powered Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR Nonpassenger automobile means a
automobiles; or 523.5 but for its gross vehicle weight light truck.
(2) Electrical energy for electrically rating or its curb weight, which is rated Passenger automobile means any
powered automobiles; or at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or has a
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobile which the Secretary of
vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 Transportation determines is
automobiles; or pounds or has a basic vehicle frontal
(4) Natural gas for natural gas- manufactured primarily for use in the
area in excess of 45 square feet, and transportation of no more than 10
powered automobiles.
Fuel economy means: which is designed primarily to transport individuals.
(1) The average number of miles passengers, but does not include a Pickup truck means a nonpassenger
traveled by an automobile or group of vehicle that: automobile which has a passenger
automobiles per volume of fuel (1) Is an ‘‘incomplete truck’’ as compartment and an open cargo bed.
consumed as calculated in this part; or defined in this subpart; or Production volume means, for a
(2) The equivalent petroleum-based (2) Has a seating capacity of more domestic manufacturer, the number of
fuel economy for an electrically than 12 persons; or vehicle units domestically produced in
powered automobile as determined by (3) Is designed for more than 9
a particular model year but not
the Secretary of Energy. persons in seating rearward of the
exported, and for a foreign
Fuel economy data vehicle means a driver’s seat; or
manufacturer, means the number of
vehicle used for the purpose of (4) Is equipped with an open cargo
vehicle units of a particular model
determining fuel economy which is not area (for example, a pick-up truck box
imported into the United States.
a certification vehicle. or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length
or more. A covered box not readily Rounded means a number shortened
Gross vehicle weight rating means the to the specific number of decimal places
manufacturer’s gross weight rating for accessible from the passenger
compartment will be considered an in accordance with the rounding
the individual vehicle. method specified in ASTM E 29–67
Hatchback means a passenger open cargo area for purposes of this
definition. (Reapproved 1973) ‘‘Standard
automobile where the conventional Recommended Practice for Indicating
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is Minivan means a light truck which is
designed primarily to carry no more which Places of Figures are to be
replaced by a cargo area which is open Considered Significant in Specified
to the passenger compartment and than eight passengers having an integral
enclosure fully enclosing the driver, Limiting Values.’’ This incorporation by
accessed vertically by a rear door which reference was approved by the Director
encompasses the rear window. passenger, and load-carrying
compartments, with a total interior of the Federal Register in accordance
Highway fuel economy means the
volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
highway fuel economy determined
rear seats readily removed or folded to Copies may be obtained from the
either by operating a vehicle (or
floor level to facilitate cargo carrying. A American Society for Testing and
vehicles) over the driving schedule in
minivan typically includes one or more Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
the Federal highway fuel economy test
sliding doors and a rear liftgate. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
procedure, or determined according to
Model year means the manufacturer’s 19428–2959. Copies may be inspected at
either the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
equation or the derived 5-cycle equation annual production period (as U.S. EPA Headquarters Library, EPA
for highway fuel economy. determined by the Administrator) which West Building, Constitution Avenue and
Highway fuel economy test procedure includes January 1 of such calendar 14th Street, NW., Room 3340,
(HFET) refers to the dynamometer year. If a manufacturer has no annual Washington, DC, or at the National
driving schedule, dynamometer production period, the term ‘‘model Archives and Records Administration
procedure, and sampling and analytical year’’ means the calendar year. (NARA). For information on the
procedures described in subpart B of Model type means a unique availability of this material at NARA,
this part and which are used to derive combination of car line, basic engine, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://
highway fuel economy data. and transmission class. www.archives.gov/federal_register/
HFET-based fuel economy means the Motor controller means an electronic code_of_federal_regulations/
highway fuel economy determined in or electro-mechanical device to convert ibr_locations.html.
§ 600.113–08 of this part, on the basis of energy stored in an energy storage SC03 means the test procedure
HFET testing. device into a form suitable to power the specified in § 86.160–00 of this chapter.
Inertia weight class means the class, traction motor. Secretary of Transportation means the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

which is a group of test weights, into Natural gas-fueled automobile means Secretary of Transportation or his
which a vehicle is grouped based on its an automobile designed to operate authorized representative.
loaded vehicle weight in accordance exclusively on natural gas. Secretary of Energy means the
with the provisions of part 86 of this Natural gas dual fuel automobile Secretary of Energy or his authorized
chapter. means an automobile: representative.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER2.SGM 27DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77929

Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a schedule and terminates at the end of economy data vehicle, and make it
light truck with an extended roof line to the deceleration which is scheduled to available to the Administrator upon
increase cargo or passenger capacity, occur at 495 seconds of the driving request:
cargo compartment open to the schedule. (i) A description of all maintenance to
passenger compartment, and one or Van means any light truck having an engine, emission control system, or fuel
more rear seats readily removed or integral enclosure fully enclosing the system, or fuel system components
folded to facilitate cargo carrying. driver compartment and load carrying performed within 2,000 miles prior to
Station wagon means a passenger device, and having no body sections fuel economy testing.
automobile with an extended roof line protruding more than 30 inches ahead (ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a
to increase cargo or passenger capacity, of the leading edge of the windshield. description of all maintenance to
cargo compartment open to the Vehicle configuration means a unique electric motor, motor controller, battery
passenger compartment, a tailgate, and combination of basic engine, engine configuration, or other components
one or more rear seats readily removed code, inertia weight class, transmission performed within 2,000 miles prior to
or folded to facilitate cargo carrying. configuration, and axle ratio within a fuel economy testing.
Subconfiguration means a unique base level. (iii) A copy of calibrations for engine,
combination within a vehicle Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy fuel system, and emission control
configuration of equivalent test weight, means the fuel economy calculated devices, showing the calibration of the
road-load horsepower, and any other according to the procedures in actual components on the test vehicle as
operational characteristics or parameters § 600.114–08. well as the design tolerances.
which the Administrator determines ■ 18. A new § 600.006–08 is added to (iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a
may significantly affect fuel economy read as follows: copy of calibrations for the electric
within a vehicle configuration. motor, motor controller, battery
Transmission class means a group of § 600.006–08 Data and information configuration, or other components on
transmissions having the following requirements for fuel economy vehicles. the test vehicle as well as the design
common features: Basic transmission (a) For certification vehicles with less tolerances.
type (manual, automatic, or semi- than 10,000 miles, the requirements of (v) If calibrations for components
automatic); number of forward gears this section are considered to have been specified in paragraph (b)(2) (iii) or (iv)
used in fuel economy testing (e.g., met except as noted in paragraph (c) of of this section were submitted
manual four-speed, three-speed this section. previously as part of the description of
automatic, two-speed semi-automatic); (b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit another vehicle or configuration, the
drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, the following information for each fuel original submittal may be referenced.
rear wheel drive; four wheel drive), type economy data vehicle: (c) The manufacturer shall submit the
of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final (i) A description of the vehicle, following fuel economy data:
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate exhaust emission test results, applicable (1) For vehicles tested to meet the
overdrive unit); torque converter type, if deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust requirements of part 86 of this chapter
applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, emission levels, and test fuel property (other than those chosen in accordance
variable ratio); and other transmission values as specified in § 600.113–08. with §§ 86.1829–01(a) or 86.1845 of this
characteristics that may be determined (ii) A statement of the origin of the chapter, the FTP, highway, US06, SC03
to be significant by the Administrator. vehicle including total mileage and cold temperature FTP fuel economy
Transmission configuration means the accumulation, and modification (if any) results, as applicable, from all tests on
Administrator may further subdivide form the vehicle configuration in which that vehicle, and the test results
within a transmission class if the the mileage was accumulated. (For adjusted in accordance with paragraph
Administrator determines that sufficient modifications requiring advance (g) of this section.
fuel economy differences exist. Features approval by the Administrator, the (2) For each fuel economy data
such as gear ratios, torque converter name of the Administrator’s vehicle, all individual test results
multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift representative approving the (excluding results of invalid and zero
calibration, or shift speed may be used modification and date of approval are mile tests) and these test results
to further distinguish characteristics required.) If the vehicle was previously adjusted in accordance with paragraph
within a transmission class. used for testing for compliance with (g) of this section.
Test weight means the weight within part 86 of this chapter or previously (3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet
an inertia weight class which is used in accepted by the Administrator as a fuel the requirements of part 86 of this
the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, economy data vehicle in a different chapter, data from a cold temperature
and which is based on its loaded vehicle configuration, the requirements of this FTP, performed in accordance with
weight in accordance with the paragraph may be satisfied by reference § 600.111–08(e), using the fuel specified
provisions of part 86 of this chapter. to the vehicle number and previous in § 600.107–08(c).
Ultimate consumer means the first configuration. (4) For all vehicles tested in paragraph
person who purchases an automobile for (iii) A statement that the fuel (c)(1) through (3) of this section, the
purposes other than resale or leases an economy data vehicle for which data are individual fuel economy results
automobile. submitted: measured on a per-phase basis, that is,
US06 means the test procedure as (A) Has been tested in accordance the individual phase results for all
described in § 86.159–08 of this chapter. with