Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates, 5426-5513 [06-451]
Download as PDF
5426
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0169; FRL–8021–8]
RIN 2060–AN14
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor
Vehicles: Revisions To Improve
Calculation of Fuel Economy
Estimates
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing changes to
the test methods used to calculate the
fuel economy estimates that are posted
on window stickers of all new cars and
light trucks sold in the United States. A
fundamental issue with today’s fuel
economy estimates is that the
underlying test procedures do not fully
represent real-world driving conditions.
Although no single test or set of tests
can ever account for the wide variety of
conditions experienced by every driver,
the new fuel economy estimates would
more accurately reflect a number of
important factors that drivers are likely
to experience on the road. These
changes will take effect starting with
2008 model year vehicles. Under the
new methods, the City MPG estimates
for most vehicles would drop 10 percent
to 20 percent from today’s labels,
depending on the vehicle. The Highway
MPG estimates would generally drop 5
percent to 15 percent for most vehicles.
Although today’s proposed fuel
economy test methods would provide
more accurate estimates for many
consumers, there will always continue
to be drivers who get higher or lower
fuel economy than the window sticker
numbers. Currently the same test
procedures are used for both the
window sticker estimates and the fuel
economy values used to determine a
manufacturer’s corporate average fuel
economy (CAFE). However, this
proposal would not alter the test
procedures, driving cycles,
measurement techniques, or the
calculation methods used to determine
CAFE.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before April 3, 2006.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by OMB on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
or before March 3, 2006. See Section
VII.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for more
information about written comments.
Hearings: We will hold a public
hearing in Romulus, Michigan, on
March 3, 2006. See Section VII.C of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
more information about public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0169, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code
6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0169. In addition, please mail a copy of
your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725
17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.’’
• Hand Delivery: Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, Attention Docket ID No. OAR–
2005–0169. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0169. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section VII
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Public Hearing: The public hearing
will be at the Crowne Plaza Hotel,
Detroit—Metro Airport, 8000 Merriman
Road, Romulus, Michigan.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Docket Center telephone number is
(202) 566–1742. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744.
Rob
French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734) 214–
4636; E-mail: french.roberts@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This proposed action would affect
companies that manufacture or sell new
light-duty motor vehicles. Regulated
categories and entities include:
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Category
NAICS codes A
Industry .............
Industry .............
336111, 336112 .................
811112, 811198, 541514 ...
A North
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Motor vehicle manufacturers.
Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This list is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. To determine whether
particular activities may be regulated by
this action, you should carefully
examine the proposed regulations. You
may direct questions regarding the
applicability of this action to the person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5427
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy
Requirements
B. Why is Today’s Action Warranted?
C. What New Requirements Are We
Proposing?
D. Today’s Proposal Does Not Impact or
Change CAFE Test Procedures
E. When Will the New Fuel Economy
Estimates Take Effect?
F. How Will EPA Communicate to the
Public the Transition Between the Old
Label Values and New?
G. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy
Label Methodology
A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae
B. Application of the Formulae To Develop
Fuel Economy Labels for Specific
Vehicles
C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-Cycle Fuel
Economy Formulae
D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach
E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel
Economy Label Values
F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel
Economy Estimates
III. What Major Alternatives Were
Considered?
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label
Format and Content
A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
C. ‘‘Your mileage will vary * * *’’ Range
of Expected Fuel Economy Information
D. Other Format Changes
V. Other Related Proposals
A. Comparable Class Categories
B. Electronic Distribution of DealerSupplied Fuel Economy Booklet
C. Testing Provisions
D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for
Vehicles Exceeding 8500 Pounds GVWR
E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs.
Fuel Economy as a Metric
F. Environmental Information on Fuel
Economy Labels
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed
Requirements
A. Information and Reporting Burden
B. Fees
C. Aggregate Costs
VII. Public Participation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
A. How and To Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
The EPA fuel economy estimates have
appeared on the window stickers of all
new cars and light trucks since the late
1970’s and are well-recognized by
consumers. The fuel economy estimates
essentially serve two purposes: to
provide consumers with a basis on
which to compare the fuel economy of
different vehicles, and to provide
consumers with a reasonable estimate of
the range of fuel economy they can
expect to achieve. While the estimates
historically have been a valuable tool for
comparison shopping purposes,
attention has been focused recently on
how closely the EPA estimates
approximate consumers’ real-world fuel
economy experience.
Today, we are proposing changes to
EPA’s fuel economy test methods to
bring the estimates closer to the fuel
economy consumers are achieving in
the real-world. We believe these
estimates will provide car buyers with
useful information when comparing the
fuel economy of different vehicles. It is
important to emphasize that fuel
economy varies from driver to driver for
a wide variety of reasons, such as
different driving styles, climates, traffic
patterns, use of accessories, loads,
weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even
different drivers of the same vehicle will
experience different fuel economy as
these and other factors vary. Therefore,
it is impossible to design a ‘‘perfect’’
fuel economy test that will provide
accurate real-world fuel economy
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimates for every consumer. With any
estimate, there will always be
consumers that get better or worse
actual fuel economy. The EPA estimates
are meant to be a general guideline for
consumers, particularly to compare the
relative fuel economy of one vehicle to
another. Nevertheless, we do believe
that today’s new fuel economy test
methods will do a better job of giving
consumers a more accurate estimate of
the fuel economy they can achieve in
the real-world.
It is essential that our fuel economy
estimates continue to be derived from
controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests.
However, the inputs to our estimates are
based on data from actual real-world
driving behavior and conditions.
Because the test is controlled and
repeatable, an EPA fuel economy test
result can be used for comparison of
different vehicle models and types. EPA
and manufacturers test over 1,250
vehicle models annually and every test
is run under identical conditions and
under a precise driver’s trace, which
assures that the result will be the same
for an individual vehicle model no
matter when and where the laboratory
test is performed. Variations in
temperature, road grade, driving
patterns, and other variables do not
impact the result of the test. While such
external conditions impact fuel
economy on a trip-to-trip basis, they do
not change the laboratory test result.
Therefore, a repeatable test provides a
level playing field for all vehicles,
which is essential for comparing the
fuel economy of one vehicle to another.
Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to
confirm the values achieved by the
manufacturers’ testing, and this can
only be achieved with a highly
repeatable test or set of tests. No other
fuel economy test program provides the
level of repeatability as the EPA
program.
However, the EPA fuel economy test
methods need to reflect real world
conditions as well as being a repeatable
test. While some organizations have
issued their own fuel economy numbers
based on on-road driving, this approach
introduces a wide number of variables—
different drivers, driving patterns,
weather conditions, temperatures, etc.—
that make repeatability impossible. Our
proposed fuel economy test methods are
more representative of real-world
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5428
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
conditions than the current fuel
economy tests—yet we would retain our
practice of relying on controlled,
repeatable, laboratory tests.
The methods used today for
calculating the city and highway mpg
estimates were established in the 1970’s,
and were adjusted in the mid-1980’s.
Since these adjustments were made,
America’s driving behavior has
changed. In the past 20 years, speed
limits have increased and vehicles have
been designed for higher power—as a
result, Americans are driving faster and
more aggressively than ever before.
Vehicle technology has changed
markedly, and many more vehicles are
equipped with energy-consuming
accessories like air conditioning. These
and other factors are not accounted for
in the current test procedures used to
determine the city and highway mpg
estimates. Our analyses indicate that if
these factors were better accounted for,
the city and highway fuel economy label
estimates would be generally lower and
closer to the average real-world
experience of consumers.
A fundamental issue with today’s fuel
economy estimates is that the
underlying test procedures do not fully
represent real-world driving conditions.
Some of the key limitations are that the
highway test has a top speed of only 60
miles per hour, both the city and
highway tests are run at mild climatic
conditions (75 deg. F), both tests have
mild acceleration rates, and neither test
is run with the use of accessories, such
as air conditioning. However, since the
time of the last fuel economy labeling
revisions in the mid-1980’s, EPA has
established several additional test
procedures, used for emissions
compliance purposes, which capture a
much broader range of real-world
driving conditions. Specifically, these
emissions test cycles capture the effects
of higher speeds, more aggressive
driving (i.e., higher acceleration rates),
the use of air conditioning at higher
ambient temperatures, and colder
temperature operation. Our analysis
indicates that these factors can have a
significant impact on fuel economy, and
that the impacts can vary widely across
different vehicles.
Today, we are proposing that three
additional emission tests, already used
by manufacturers, could be utilized to
derive more accurate fuel economy
estimates. These three test procedures
encompass a much broader range of
real-world driving, as they incorporate
the effects of higher speeds, more rapid
accelerations, air conditioning use, and
cold temperatures. Our proposed
approach would utilize these additional
emission tests, together with the current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
two fuel economy tests, so that our fuel
economy test methods reflect a much
broader range of driving conditions.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Congress required EPA to update or
revise adjustment factors to better reflect
a variety of real-world factors that affect
fuel economy. Section 774 of the Act
directs EPA to ‘‘* * * update or revise
the adjustment factors in [certain
sections of the fuel economy labeling
regulations] to take into consideration
higher speed limits, faster acceleration
rates, variations in temperature, use of
air conditioning, shorter city test cycle
lengths, current reference fuels, and the
use of other fuel depleting features.’’ 1
Today’s proposal does take into account
these conditions and would address this
statutory requirement.
Over the past few years, there have
been several independent studies
comparing EPA’s fuel economy
estimates to the real-world experience of
consumers. These studies confirm that
there is considerable variation in realworld fuel economy, and provide
further evidence that EPA’s mileage
ratings often overestimate real-world
fuel economy. Although these studies
differ in a number of variables,
including their test methods, driving
conditions, and fuel economy
measurement techniques, they indicate
that EPA’s approach to estimating fuel
economy needs to be improved to better
represent some key real-world fuel
economy impacts.
Currently the same test procedures are
used for both the window sticker
estimates and the fuel economy values
used to determine a manufacturer’s
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE),
although the label estimates are adjusted
downward. This proposal would not
alter the test procedures, driving cycles,
measurement techniques, or the
calculation methods used to determine
CAFE. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 requires that
CAFE values be determined from the
EPA test procedures in place as of 1975
(or procedures that give comparable
results), meaning that whatever action
we take to improve the window sticker
estimates must leave in place the
existing tests used for CAFE
determination. The proposed test
methods for determining the new fuel
economy label estimates would be
incorporated in sections of the
regulations that are entirely separate
from the CAFE regulations.
This section begins with a history of
EPA’s involvement in fuel economy
programs. Then we discuss why we are
taking action, including discussions of
1 Pub.
PO 00000
L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the limitations of the current tests,
various data sources of real-world fuel
economy, the additional real-world
driving conditions captured by other
emissions tests procedures, and the
impact of these factors on fuel economy.
We then provide an overview of our
proposed new fuel economy test
methods (which are discussed in detail
in Section II), and conclude with a
discussion of the relevant Federal
statutes and how they bear on this
proposal.
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy
Requirements
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (EPCA) established two
primary fuel economy requirements: (1)
Fuel economy information, designed for
public use, in the form of fuel economy
labels posted on window stickers of all
new motor vehicles, and the publication
of an annual booklet of fuel economy
information to be made available free to
the public by car dealers; and (2)
calculation of a manufacturer’s average
fuel economy and compliance with a
standard (later, this compliance program
became known as the Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) program). The
responsibilities for these requirements
were split between EPA, the Department
of Transportation (DOT) and the
Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is
responsible for establishing the test
methods and procedures both for
determining the fuel economy estimates
to be posted on the window stickers and
in the annual booklet, and for the
calculation of a manufacturer’s
corporate average fuel economy. DOT is
responsible for administering the CAFE
compliance program, including
establishing standards for non-passenger
automobiles and determining if
manufacturers were complying with the
applicable CAFE standards, and
assessing any penalties as needed. DOE
is responsible for publishing and
distributing the annual fuel economy
information booklet.
EPA published regulations
implementing portions of the EPCA
statute in 1976.2 The provisions in this
regulation, effective with the 1977
model year, established procedures to
calculate fuel economy values for
labeling and CAFE purposes that used
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or
‘‘city’’ test) and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET or ‘‘highway’’ test)
data as the basis for the calculations. At
that time, the fundamental process for
determining fuel economy was the same
for labeling as for CAFE, except that the
2 See 41 FR 38685, which is promulgated at 40
CFR Part 600.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
CAFE calculations combined the city
and highway fuel economy into a single
number.
After a few years of public exposure
to the fuel economy estimates on the
window stickers of new vehicles, it soon
became apparent that drivers were
disappointed that they were not often
achieving these estimates on the road
and that they expected them to be as
accurate as possible. In 1978, Congress
recognized the concern about
differences between EPA estimated fuel
economy values and actual consumer
experience and mandated a study under
section 404 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 1978.3 In
February, 1980, a set of hearings were
conducted by the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on
Environment, Energy, and National
Resources. One of the recommendations
in the subsequent report by the
Subcommittee was that ‘‘EPA devise a
new MPG system for labeling new cars
and for the Gas Mileage Guide that
provides fuel economy values, or a
range of values, that most drivers can
reasonably expect to experience.’’ 4
EPA commenced a rulemaking
process in 1980 to revise its fuel
economy labeling procedures, and
analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel
economy data.5 In 1984, EPA published
new fuel economy labeling procedures
that were applicable to 1985 and later
model year vehicles.6 The decision was
made to retain the FTP and highway test
procedures, primarily because those
procedures were also used for other
purposes—emissions certification and
CAFE determination. Based on the inuse fuel economy data, however, it was
evident that the final fuel economy
values put on the labels needed to be
adjusted downward in order to more
accurately reflect consumers’ average
fuel economy experience. The final rule,
therefore, included downward
adjustment factors for both the city and
highway label fuel economy estimates.
The city values (based on the raw FTP
test data) were adjusted downward by
10 percent and the highway values
(likewise based on the raw highway test
3 Pub. L. 95–619, Title IV, 404 (November 9,
1978).
4 See House Committee on Government
Operations, ‘‘Automobile Fuel Economy: EPA’s
Performance,’’ Report 96–948, May 13, 1980.
5 See ‘‘Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and
Road,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report no. EPA 460/3–80–010, September, 1980,
and ‘‘Technical Support Report for Rulemaking
Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy
Labeling,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE–81–6, October, 1980.
6 See 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR
48149, December 10, 1984.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
data) were adjusted downward by 22
percent.
EPA projected at the time that these
adjustments would put the average city
and highway MPG values in the middle
of the range of fuel economy values
experienced by consumers.7 During the
rulemaking process, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
expressed concern that fuel economy
estimates based on the average
experience would result in a significant
number of drivers failing to achieve that
fuel economy. They requested that EPA
provide a range of values on the label
that would encompass the expected fuel
economy of about 75 percent of the
driving population.8 To address this
concern, in the final rule, EPA required
the label to contain the range of city and
highway fuel economy that most drivers
should expect. Based on our
understanding of the frequency
distribution of in-use fuel economy data
at the time, the range was set at plus or
minus 15 percent of the stated city and
highway estimates, and appears on fuel
economy labels today as small print
text. Further in this section, we discuss,
in the context of today’s proposal,
similar issues regarding how best to
communicate to the public the level of
the city and highway mpg estimates, as
well as the range of drivers’ fuel
economy experience.
B. Why Is Today’s Action Warranted?
The fundamental problem with the
current fuel economy estimates is that
the test procedures on which they are
based do not reflect a broad enough
range of in-use driving conditions. The
current test procedures omit several
critical factors that are prevalent in the
real-world and that can have a
significant impact on fuel economy. Key
among these are higher speeds, faster
accelerations, the use of air
conditioning, and colder temperatures.
The impact of these factors on fuel
economy can vary widely from vehicle
to vehicle. However, for emissions
compliance, we have already developed
additional test procedures to account for
these factors, and these test procedures
are already being regularly used by the
auto companies. Today, we are
proposing to use these tests, in
conjunction with the existing fuel
economy tests, as an input into the
calculation of fuel economy estimates.
In doing so, the fuel economy test
methods would reflect a much broader
range of real-world conditions than they
do today.
7 See
49 FR 13832, April 16, 1984.
8 See 49 FR 13835, April 16, 1984.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5429
There is broad-based support among
automobile manufacturers and other
stakeholders proposing changes to
current fuel economy estimates.
Congress recognized the need for action
by including a provision in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 requiring EPA to
revise its fuel economy estimates. EPA
has worked closely with auto
manufacturers, states, and other
organizations in developing this
proposed rule.
Bluewater Network petitioned EPA to
revise the fuel economy labeling test
procedures.9 EPA published a Federal
Register notice requesting comments on
the petition, and received over 33,000
comments.10 Nearly all of these
comments support the revision of EPA’s
fuel economy estimates to better reflect
real world driving. Today’s proposal is
responsive to this petition.
1. Fuel Economy Labels Could Be
Improved To Better Reflect Real-World
Driving
First, it is important to stress that the
EPA city and highway mpg ratings are
estimates—they are not intended to give
consumers an exact indication of the
fuel economy they will achieve. The
complete range of consumer fuel
economy experience can not be
represented perfectly by any one
estimate. Fuel economy varies based on
a wide range of factors, which we have
discussed above. There will always be
consumers that achieve real-world fuel
economy both better and worse than a
given estimate.
In the past few years, there have been
a number of studies, conducted by a
variety of sources, suggesting that there
is often a shortfall between the EPA
estimates and real-world fuel economy.
Several organizations have provided
consumers with their own fuel economy
estimates, which in some cases vary
from EPA’s estimates. For example,
Consumer Reports utilizes on-road
driving to measure fuel economy under
a variety of conditions. They derive city,
highway, and overall fuel economy
estimates, and their methods clearly
demonstrate the large degree of
variation across vehicles. While their
city fuel economy estimates fall on
average below the EPA label values,
their highway estimates are, on average,
higher than the EPA label values.
Consumer Reports’ overall fuel economy
estimates range from 27 percent below
to 20 percent above the EPA overall
rating. The Automobile Association of
America (AAA) likewise publishes the
9 The Bluewater Network petition was submitted
to EPA on June 7, 2002.
10 See 69 FR 16188, March 29, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5430
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
fuel economy results they achieve in
their annual auto guide for new cars and
trucks. In their 2004 auto guide, about
half of their estimates were below the
EPA combined city/highway value, and
about one half were above the EPA city/
highway combined value. Their
estimates ranged from 40 percent lower
than EPA’s to 22 percent higher, again
reflecting a great deal of vehicle-tovehicle variation. Other sources of fuel
economy data include Edmunds.com,
the Department of Energy’s (DOE) ‘‘Your
MPG’’ database on the fueleconomy.gov
Web site, and DOE’s FreedomCar
program.
Each of these studies differs in its test
methods, driving cycles, sampling of
vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel
economy. There are strengths and
weaknesses of each study, which we
discuss further in Section II and in the
Draft Technical Support Document.
Collectively, these studies indicate there
are many cases where real-world fuel
economy falls below the EPA estimates.
The studies also indicate that real-world
fuel economy varies significantly
depending on the conditions under
which it is evaluated. Nevertheless,
taken as a whole, these studies reflect a
wide range of real-world driving
conditions, and show that fuel economy
can be much lower than EPA’s estimates
if more real-world conditions are
considered.
The fundamental problem with the
current fuel economy estimates is that
the test procedures on which they are
based are missing a number of critical
factors that exist in real-world driving
and have a significant impact on fuel
economy. The following section
discusses the limitations of our existing
fuel economy test procedures.
2. Today’s Fuel Economy Tests Do Not
Represent the Full Range of Driving
Conditions
The current city and highway fuel
economy tests do not represent the full
range of real-world driving conditions.
The 1985 adjustment factors were
designed to ensure that the fuel
economy estimates across the vehicle
fleet reflected the average impacts of a
number of conditions not represented
on the tests. However, as we noted
earlier, many changes have occurred
since then that make it once again a
reasonable time to reevaluate the fuel
economy test methods. Given the
significant degree of variation that is
apparent across vehicles, we believe it
is important to reconsider the approach
of ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ adjustment factors
and instead move to an approach that
more directly reflects the impacts of fuel
economy on individual vehicle models.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
The city fuel economy estimate is
based on the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP), which was designed to measure
a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions under
urban driving conditions. The driving
cycle used for the FTP is called the LA–
4, which was developed in the mid1960’s to represent home-to-work
commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is
also one of the tests used to determine
emissions compliance today. The FTP
includes a series of accelerations,
decelerations, and idling (such as at
stop lights). It also includes starting the
vehicle after it has been parked for an
extended period of time (called a ‘‘cold
start’’), as well as a start on a warmedup engine (called a ‘‘hot start’’). The
total distance covered by the FTP is
about 11 miles and the average speed is
about 21 mph, with a maximum speed
of about 56 mph.
The highway fuel economy estimate is
based on the Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET), which was developed by
EPA in 1974 and was designed to
represent a mix of interstate highway
and rural driving. It consists of
relatively constant higher-speed driving,
with no engine starts or idling time. The
HFET covers a distance of about 10
miles, at an average speed of 49 mph
and a top speed of about 60 mph.
There are several key limitations in
the FTP and HFET tests that cause them
to not adequately reflect real-world
driving today. First, most consumers
understandably think ‘‘highway’’ fuel
economy means the fuel economy you
can expect under freeway driving
conditions. In fact, the highway test has
a top speed of only 60 mph, since the
test was developed more than 20 years
ago to represent more rural driving
conditions at a time when the national
speed limit was 55 miles per hour. The
national speed limit since has been
eliminated, states have established
speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour,
and much driving is at even higher
speeds. Recent real-world driving
studies indicate that about 28 percent of
driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT)
is at speeds of greater than 60 mph.
(This analysis is detailed in the Draft
Technical Support Document). These
studies also show that 33 percent of
real-world driving VMT falls outside the
FTP/HFET speed and acceleration
activity region. Thus, a substantial
amount of high speed driving is not
captured at all in today’s FTP or HFET
tests. This is a critical weakness in our
current fuel economy test procedures.
Since higher speed driving has a
negative impact on fuel economy,
incorporating these higher speed driving
conditions into the fuel economy tests
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would lower the fuel economy
estimates.
Second, the maximum acceleration
rates of both the FTP and HFET tests are
a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per
second, considerably lower than the
maximum acceleration rates seen in
real-world driving. Recent real-world
driving studies indicate that maximum
acceleration rates are as high as 11 to 12
mph/sec and significant activity occurs
beyond 3.3 mph/sec. Even at the time
these tests were first developed, the
real-world accelerations were higher
than 3.3 mph/sec, but the test cycle’s
acceleration rates needed to be
constrained to the mechanical limitation
of the dynamometer test equipment.
These constraints no longer exist with
today’s dynamometers, so we now have
the ability to incorporate higher
maximum acceleration rates that more
closely reflect those of actual driving. In
fact, we have incorporated higher
acceleration rates into a test recently
developed for emissions compliance,
which we discuss in the next section.
As with high speed driving, higher
acceleration rates have a negative
impact on fuel economy; thus, if these
higher accelerations were factored into
our fuel economy methods, the
estimates would be lower.
The maximum deceleration rate of the
FTP and HFET tests is important to
consider as well, because it relates to
the regenerative breaking effect of
hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and
HFET tests include a mild maximum
deceleration rate of ¥3.3 mph/sec; yet
in recent real-world driving rates as
high as ¥11 to ¥17 mph/sec were
recorded. Under higher deceleration
rates, the effects of regenerative breaking
for hybrid electric vehicles are
diminished, thereby lowering fuel
economy. In this regard, today’s FTP
and HFET tests result in better fuel
economy, which is seldom achieved
under actual driving conditions.
Third, both tests are run at mild
ambient conditions (approximately 75
degrees Fahrenheit), while real-world
driving occurs at a wide range of
ambient temperatures. Fuel economy is
lower at temperatures colder or warmer
than the 75 degree F test temperature.
Only about 20 percent of VMT occurs
between 70 and 80 degrees F—
approximately 15 percent of VMT
occurs at temperatures above 80 degrees
F, and 65 percent occurs below 70
degrees F. Moreover, neither the FTP
nor HFET tests are run with accessories
operating, such as air conditioners,
heaters, or defrosters. These accessories,
most notably air conditioning, can have
a significant impact on a vehicle’s fuel
economy.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Finally, there are many factors that
affect fuel economy that cannot be
replicated on dynamometer test cycles
in a laboratory. These include road
grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g.,
tire pressure), snow/ice, precipitation,
fuel effects, and others. It is not possible
to develop a test cycle that captures the
full range of factors impacting fuel
economy. However, it is clear that the
FTP and HFET tests alone are missing
some critical elements of real-world
driving. All of these factors have a
negative impact on fuel economy. This
largely explains why our current
estimates often do not reflect
consumers’ real-world fuel economy
experience. However, since the 1985
adjustment factors were established,
EPA has adopted several new test cycles
for emission compliance purposes,
which collectively represent a much
broader range of in-use driving
conditions than those captured by the
FTP and HFET tests. These additional
emission tests, discussed below, can be
brought into the fuel economy estimate
calculations.
3. Additional Emissions Tests Reflect a
Broader Range of Real-World Driving
Conditions
Since 1984 when we last updated the
fuel economy estimate methodology,
EPA has established several new test
cycles for emissions certification. EPA
was concerned that the FTP omitted
many critical driving modes and
conditions that existed in actual use,
and that emissions could be
substantially higher during these
driving modes compared to the FTP.
Manufacturers were frequently
designing their vehicles’ emission
control systems to meet the specified
FTP test conditions, and actual emission
levels could be quite different under the
broader range of real-world ‘‘off-cycle’’
conditions.
The need for these actions was
recognized by Congress, in the passage
of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA).11 Section 206(h) required EPA
to study and revise as necessary the test
procedures used to measure emissions,
taking into consideration the actual
current driving conditions under which
motor vehicles are used, including
conditions relating to fuel, temperature,
acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j)
of the CAAA required EPA to establish
emission standards for carbon monoxide
under cold (20 deg. F) temperature
conditions.
In 1992, EPA published rules
implementing the 202(j) cold
11 See
42 U.S.C. 7525(h), 42 U.S.C. 7521(j).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
temperature testing requirement,
acknowledging that the ambient
temperature conditions of the FTP test
(run between 68 and 86 °F) do not
represent the full range of ambient
temperature conditions that exist across
the United States and that cold
temperature had different emissions
effects on different vehicle designs.12
EPA’s cold temperature emission
regulations required manufacturers to
conduct FTP testing at 20 °F. By
promulgating this new test procedure
and associated emission standard, EPA
sought to encourage manufacturers to
employ better emission control
strategies that would improve ambient
air quality across a wider range of in-use
conditions.
In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA
requirement, EPA published a report in
1993 which concluded that the FTP
cycle did not represent the full range of
urban driving conditions that could
impact the in-use driving emission
levels.13 Consequently, EPA
promulgated a rule in 1996 that
established two new test procedures,
with associated emission standards, that
addressed certain shortcomings with the
current FTP.14 Known as the
‘‘Supplemental FTP,’’ or ‘‘SFTP,’’ these
procedures, similar to the cold
temperature FTP, encouraged the use of
the better emission controls across a
wider range of in-use driving conditions
in order to improve ambient air quality.
One of the new test cycles, the US06,
was designed to address high speed,
aggressive driving behavior (with more
severe acceleration rates and speeds) as
well as rapid and frequent speed
fluctuations. The US06 test contains
both lower-speed city driving and
higher-speed highway driving modes.15
Its top speed is 80 mph, and average
speed is 48 mph. The top acceleration
rate exceeds eight mph per second. The
other new SFTP test, the SC03, was
designed to address air-conditioner
operation under a full simulation of
high temperature (95 °F), high sun-load,
and high humidity. The SC03 drive
cycle was designed to represent driving
immediately following a vehicle startup,
and rapid and frequent speed
fluctuations.16 Its top speed is about 55
mph and average speed is 22 mph. The
12 See
57 FR 31888, July 17, 1992.
Environmental Protection Agency. Federal
Test Procedure Review Project: Preliminary
Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, No. EPA420–R–93–007, May 1993.
Website: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
14 See 61 FR 54854 published on October 22,
1996.
15 See 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (g).
16 Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (h).
13 U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5431
top acceleration rate is about five mph
per second.
The basis for the SFTP rulemaking
was a study of real-world driving in four
cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and
Los Angeles, where driving activity was
measured on instrumented vehicles as
well as by chase cars.17 18 At that time,
it was found that 18 percent of the
driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside
of the speed/acceleration distribution of
the FTP drive schedule. More recent
real-world driving activity data
indicates that driving has become even
more aggressive than it was in 1992.
Recent real-world activity data collected
in California and Kansas City found that
about 28 percent of driving (vehicle
miles traveled) is at speeds greater than
60 mph. Further, about 33 percent of
recent real-world driving falls outside of
the FTP/HFET speed and acceleration
activity region.19 20 21 22 This is based on
extensive chase car studies in California
and instrumented vehicle studies in
Kansas City. Our assessment of these
recent real-world driving activity
studies is described in detail in the Draft
Technical Support Document.
Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone
do not fully capture the broad range of
real-world driving conditions. In order
for EPA’s fuel economy tests to be more
representative of key aspects of realworld driving, it is critical that we
consider the test conditions represented
by these additional emission tests.
4. Fuel Economy on Driving Modes
Represented by Additional Emissions
Tests is Lower for Many Vehicles
As discussed above, there are several
key conditions missing from the current
fuel economy test procedures that are
prevalent in real-world driving. These
conditions—higher speeds, faster
17 Final Technical Report on Aggressive Driving
Behavior for the Revised Federal Test Procedure
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1995. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal
Test Procedure Review Project: Preliminary
Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, No. EPA420-R–93–007, May 1993. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
19 Sierra Research, Inc., ‘‘Task Order No. 2 SCF
Improvement—Field Data Collection,’’ Sierra
Report No. SR02–07–04, July, 2002.
20 U.S. EPA Draft Technical Support Document
‘‘Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles:
Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy
Estimates,’’ December, 2005.
21 Brzezinski, D., E. Nam, J. Koupal, G. Hoffman.
Changes in Real World Driving Behavior: Analysis
of Recent Driving Activity Data. Proceedings of the
15th Coordinating Research Council On Road
Vehicle Emissions Workshop, 2005.
22 Eastern Research Group. Late Model Vehicle
Emissions and Fuel Economy Characterization
Study: Addendum to the Kansas City Exhaust
Characterization Study-Draft Report. ERG No.
0133.18.004.001, September 26, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5432
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(US06, SC03, and Cold FTP) in order to
assess the impact of these factors on fuel
economy. The analysis includes data
from more than 400 vehicles.
Comparisons were made to the
unadjusted city and highway fuel
economy test results, and the findings
are summarized below. Because so
many other factors bear on real-world
consumer experience, it is important to
point out that these comparisons are not
intended to indicate the exact impact of
a given factor on real-world fuel
economy. However, comparing these
different test results is informative
because we establish the relative
magnitude of the impacts and of the
variation across vehicles. The entire
report of this analysis is in the docket
for this rulemaking.23
a. Cold Temperature Operation. To
assess the impact of cold temperature
operation on fuel economy, we
compared the fuel economy measured
over the Cold FTP test directly to that
over the standard FTP test. The driving
cycles in these two tests are identical
(i.e., the LA4 cycle). Both tests include
both cold and hot starts at their
respective ambient temperatures, and
both tests are generally run with
accessories turned off. The difference in
fuel economy should therefore be
entirely due to the difference in ambient
temperature: 20 °F versus 75 °F.
On average, fuel economy over the
Cold FTP was about 12 percent lower
than over the standard FTP. There was
wide vehicle-to-vehicle variation, with
the loss in fuel economy due to the cold
conditions as much as 40 percent.
Figure I.B–1 below shows the range of
cold temperature impacts. Hybrid
vehicles tended to show the greatest
sensitivity to cold temperature. Of the
six vehicles showing a cold temperature
impact of greater than 30 percent, five
are hybrids. Overall, conventional
gasoline vehicles averaged a cold
temperature effect of about ¥11
percent, while the impact on hybrid
vehicles averaged about ¥32 percent.
b. Air Conditioning. To assess the
impact of air conditioning on fuel
economy, we compared the fuel
economy measured over the SC03 test to
a comparable portion of the FTP. The
SC03 test is run with the airconditioning turned onto its maximum
setting in a test cell set at 95 °F with
strong sun load and moderate humidity.
On average, air conditioner operation at
95 °F reduced fuel economy by about 21
percent. The impact of air conditioning
ranged from ¥41 percent to ¥25
percent for more than a third of the
vehicles. Similar to the cold
temperature impacts, there was a great
deal of vehicle-to-vehicle variation in
the impact of air conditioning on fuel
economy. Figure I.B–2 shows the
distribution of the percentage
differences (negative numbers indicate
lower fuel economy over SC03). As can
be seen in the figure, the vast majority
of vehicles show an impact of ¥27.5
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, ‘‘Vehicle Fuel
Economy Labeling and The Effect of Cold
Temperature, Air-Conditioning Usage and
Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,’’ Draft Staff
Report, August 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.000
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
accelerations, air conditioning
operation, and cold temperatures—have
already been incorporated into our test
procedures for emissions compliance, as
a result of our finding in the 1990’s that
they have a significant impact on
emissions. Our analysis below
demonstrates that these additional
driving conditions can also have a
significant impact on fuel economy—
and that these impacts vary widely from
vehicle to vehicle. Thus, we believe that
these factors need to be included in our
fuel economy test methods.
We analyzed fuel economy data
collected by manufacturers for
emissions certification purposes in the
2003, 2004 and 2005 model years. This
analysis included data from all five tests
used for emissions compliance today,
including the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03,
and Cold Temperature FTP. The fuel
economy measured on the standard fuel
economy tests (FTP and HFET) was
compared to the fuel economy on the
other emissions certification tests
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5433
percent greater than the 20 percent
impact on conventional vehicle fuel
economy.
speed and aggressive driving we
developed a combination of the city and
highway tests which is roughly
comparable to that contained in the
US06 cycle.
On average, the fuel economy over the
US06 cycle was almost 30 percent lower
than over the composite FTP and HFET
fuel economy. The observed impacts
ranged from ¥44 percent to ¥25
percent for more than 80 percent of the
vehicles. Figure I.B–3 shows the
distribution of per vehicle impacts due
to the aggressive driving of the US06
cycle. Hybrid vehicles showed a slightly
greater impact of aggressive driving on
fuel economy than conventional
gasoline vehicles (33 percent versus 29
percent, respectively).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.001
than conventional vehicles. The effect of
air conditioning operation reduced
hybrid fuel economy by 31 percent, 50
c. Aggressive and High-Speed Driving.
The US06 test was designed to address
aggressive driving behavior, such as
high acceleration rates and high speeds.
The US06 test contains both lowerspeed but aggressive urban driving and
higher-speed highway driving modes.
Because of the different driving modes
contained on the US06 test, for the
purpose of assessing the impacts of high
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
percent to ¥7.5 percent. Hybrid
vehicles tended to show greater
sensitivity to air conditioning operation
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
d. Conclusions. Many of the vehicles
whose fuel economies were most
affected by these driving conditions
were hybrids and other high mile-pergallon vehicles. In general, high mpg
vehicles will be more sensitive to
changes in driving conditions for two
reasons. One, because they use
relatively little fuel in the first place,
any increase in fuel consumption will
show up as a relatively larger percentage
fuel consumption increase. Two,
because of the non-linearity of fuel
economy with respect to fuel
consumption, an increase in fuel
consumption will lower the fuel
economy of a high mpg vehicle much
more than it will lower the fuel
economy of a low mpg vehicle. For
example, the fuel consumption increase
associated with a 35 mpg rating that
actually achieves 30 mpg in the realworld is the same as a 15 mpg rating
that actually achieves 14 mpg.
Hybrids, most of which achieve
relatively high mpg and therefore share
the issues discussed above, also face
some additional challenges. Hybrids
may well be the most significant
powertrain technology innovation
driven to market commercialization
primarily because of its fuel economy
potential. In addition, the nature of
hybrid technology (the addition of a
battery as a second source of on-board
power, sophisticated control systems,
sometimes a smaller engine) suggests
that fuel economy will likely be more
sensitive to certain conditions such as
high acceleration and deceleration rates,
cold ambient temperatures, etc. Finally,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
by industry standards, hybrids are a
relatively young technology, and there
is every reason to believe that as the
technology matures, hybrid vehicle fuel
economy will become much more
robust over a broader range of driver
behavior and climate conditions.
This analysis clearly shows that the
driving conditions represented by US06,
SC03 and Cold FTP tests can have
substantial, measurable negative impact
on fuel economy. There also is a large
amount of vehicle-to-vehicle variation—
that is, different vehicles are impacted
differently by these factors. These
findings call into question the
appropriateness of the continued use of
the current ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ 10 and 22
percent adjustment factors applied,
respectively, to FTP and HFET fuel
economy test results. The FTP and
HFET tests clearly do not adequately
reflect the broad range of conditions that
exist in today’s real-world driving. The
additional emission test cycles
incorporate several critical factors that
are present in real-world driving, and
that can have a significant impact on
fuel economy. Thus, these additional
emission test cycles need to be brought
into the fuel economy test methods, so
that the estimates themselves will be
more representative of the fuel economy
consumers can expect to achieve in the
real-world.
C. What New Requirements Are We
Proposing?
We are proposing to revise and
improve the methods used to determine
the city and highway fuel economy
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimates by incorporating fuel economy
results over a broader range of driving
conditions. An overview of this
proposal is provided below. Section II
provides a detailed explanation of the
proposed new test methods, as well as
the data and analysis upon which it is
based.
In addition, we are proposing minor
changes to revise the format and content
of the fuel economy label to make the
information more useful to consumers.
We also are proposing minor changes
related to the fuel economy information
program, including revising the
comparable vehicle classes and adding
a new provision for the electronic
distribution of the annual Fuel Economy
Guide. An overview of each of these
proposals follows.
1. Revised Test Methods for Calculating
City and Highway Fuel Economy
Estimates
Today’s proposal would revise the
test methods by which the city and
highway fuel economy estimates are
calculated. We are proposing to replace
the current method of adjusting the city
(FTP) test result downward by 10
percent and the highway (HFET) test
result downward by 22 percent. Instead,
we are proposing a new approach that
incorporates additional test methods
that address factors that impact fuel
economy, but are missing from today’s
tests—specifically, higher speeds, more
aggressive driving (e.g., higher
acceleration rates), the use of air
conditioning, and the effect of cold
temperature. The proposed test methods
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.002
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5434
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
would bring into the fuel economy
estimates the test results from the five
emissions tests in place today: FTP,
HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP.
Thus, we refer to this as the ‘‘5-cycle’’
method. Under our proposal, rather than
basing the city mpg estimate solely on
the adjusted FTP test result, and the
highway mpg estimate solely on the
adjusted HFET test result, each estimate
would be based on a ‘‘composite’’
calculation of all five tests, weighting
each appropriately to arrive at new city
and highway mpg estimates. The new
city and highway estimates would each
be calculated according to separate city
and highway ‘‘5-cycle’’ formulae that
are based on fuel economy results over
these five tests. The conditions
represented by each test would be
‘‘weighted’’ according to how much
they occur over average real-world city
or highway driving. For example, we
have derived weightings to represent
driving cycle effects, trip length, air
conditioner compressor-on usage, and
operation over various temperatures.
This methodology is described in detail
in Section II.
We also are proposing a downward
adjustment to account for effects that are
not reflected in our existing five test
cycles. There are many factors that
impact fuel economy, but are difficult to
account for in the test cell on the
dynamometer. These include roadway
roughness, road grade (hills), wind, tire
pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice,
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger
vehicle loads (e.g., trailers, cargo,
multiple passengers), and others.
Current data indicates that these
impacts can lower fuel economy from 9
to 13 percent. Thus, we need to account
for these factors in our new test
methods, as they will lower a driver’s
fuel economy beyond those factors we
are accounting for from our existing test
cycles. We are proposing an 11 percent
downward adjustment to account for
these non-dynamometer effects. Our
basis for this downward adjustment
factor is detailed in Section II.C.3 and
the Draft Technical Support Document.
The 5-cycle approach, including this
11 percent downward adjustment factor
to account for non-dynamometer effects,
will result in city and highway
estimates that reflect average fuel
economy. We are proposing to continue
to set the city and highway mpg
estimates at the average, or mean, level.
However, we understand that many
drivers expect to achieve or exceed the
fuel economy indicated by these mpg
estimates. By continuing to set the
estimates at the average level, by
definition, half of drivers will get worse
fuel economy than the label values. We
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
seek comment on whether the city and
highway estimates should be set a level
that is lower than average—for example,
to ensure that 75 percent, or even more,
of drivers achieve or exceed the label
values.
Because the 5-cycle method is
inherently vehicle-specific, the
difference between today’s values and
the new fuel economy estimates could
vary widely from vehicle to vehicle.
Today’s proposed approach would
result in city fuel economy estimates
that are between 10 to 20 percent lower
than today’s labels for the majority of
conventional vehicles. For vehicles that
achieve generally better fuel economy,
such as gasoline-electric hybrid
vehicles, new city estimates would be
about 20 to 30 percent lower than
today’s labels. The new highway fuel
economy estimates would be 5 to 15
percent lower for the majority of
vehicles, including hybrids.
Today’s proposal would greatly
improve the EPA fuel economy
estimates, so that they come closer to
the fuel economy that consumers
achieve in the real-world. However, as
discussed previously in this notice,
these are still estimates. Even with the
improved fuel economy test methods
proposed today, some consumers will
continue to get fuel economy that is
higher or lower than the new estimates.
Under this new 5-cycle approach,
some auto manufacturers have
expressed concern about the potential
for increased test burden. The three
additional emission tests that we
propose to include in the fuel economy
calculation are run today on a much
more limited number of vehicle groups
than are the FTP and HFET tests.
Typically, for every 3–4 FTP and HFET
tests conducted, only one US06 or SC03
test is run, and cold FTP testing is even
more limited. If we were to require full
5-cycle testing across all vehicle types,
the testing demands for the auto
industry could increase dramatically,
and could trigger the need for a major
expansion of their testing facilities.
Thus, we are proposing to implement
the new fuel economy test methods in
a way that gives the auto industry
sufficient lead time to plan for their
increased testing needs. This enables us
to implement an improved fuel
economy label methodology as soon as
possible—in the 2008 model year. We
also are implementing an approach that
mitigates the testing burden where
warranted. We have done this in two
key ways.
First, for the first three model years
(2008 through 2010), we would provide
manufacturers with the option of using
a scale of adjustments based on an
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5435
analysis of data developed from the 5cycle method. This approach, called the
mpg-based approach, incorporates the
effects of higher speed/aggressive
driving, air conditioning use, and colder
temperatures, but less directly than the
5-cycle vehicle-specific method. The
mpg-based adjustments were derived by
applying the 5-cycle formulae to a data
set of recent fuel economy test data, and
developing a regression line through the
data. (See Section II for a full
description of this approach). These
adjustments differ based on the mpg a
vehicle obtains over the FTP (City) or
HFET (Highway) tests. In other words,
every vehicle with the same mpg on the
FTP test would receive the same
adjustment for its city fuel economy
label. Likewise, every vehicle with the
same mpg on the HFET test would
receive the same adjustment for its
highway fuel economy label. This
method of adjustment would not require
any testing beyond the FTP/HFET tests
already performed today, thus, it can be
implemented sooner than the 5-cycle
approach as an interim improvement to
our fuel economy test methods.
However, during this timeframe,
manufacturers may choose to run full 5cycle testing for any of their vehicle
models. This approach would provide
consumers with more accurate
estimates, while allowing the industry
the necessary lead time to prepare for
the necessary testing under the 5-cycle
approach.
Second, when we move to the 5-cycle
vehicle-specific approach in model
years 2011 and beyond, we are
proposing criteria that would select
specific vehicle groups for full 5-cycle
testing, rather than requiring complete
5-cycle data generation for every
vehicle. We believe this approach
would result in fuel economy estimates
that are generally as accurate as they
would be under full 5-cycle testing. In
other words, we are only requiring full
5-cycle testing where we can predict
with reasonable certainty that the fuel
economy results under the 5-cycle
method would yield a significantly
different result than the mpg-based
adjustments.
We propose to establish a tolerance
band around the mpg-based city and
highway adjustment lines.
Manufacturers would be required to
calculate a 5-cycle fuel economy
estimate for each vehicle group for
which 5-cycle data exists for emissions
purposes. If the 5-cycle fuel economy
estimate for this vehicle group falls
below the respective tolerance band
around the mpg adjustment line, then
the manufacturer would be eligible to
use the mpg-based adjustments for each
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5436
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
vehicle configuration represented by
that set of 5-cycle data. That is, the 5cycle vehicle group may include within
it several vehicle groupings, or specific
vehicle model types, for which
additional FTP/HFET data is available.
The manufacturer would be able to use
the MPG line to determine the fuel
economy label adjustments for each of
these model types with associated FTP/
HFET test data. Fuller 5-cycle testing
would be required for all vehicles
represented by a vehicle group for
which the 5-cycle fuel economy is
below the tolerance bands. Section II
further describes the level of these
tolerance bands and how this concept
would be implemented. A full
discussion of our proposed
methodology and results is contained in
Section II.
2. Revised Label Format
To make the label more easily
understood by consumers, we are also
proposing changes to the fuel economy
label format specified in the regulations.
The proposed changes include updating
the look of the label, simplifying its
contents, and improving its graphics,
among others. The purpose of these
changes is to present the fuel economy
information in a manner that is easier
for the consumer to understand and use.
The proposed changes are discussed in
detail in Section IV.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
3. Revised Comparable Vehicle Classes
The comparable vehicle classes are
currently defined in EPA’s fuel
economy regulations. They are needed
to fulfill the EPCA statutory requirement
to provide fuel economy information
about comparable vehicles on the
label.24 These classes were last revised
in 1984. Since that time, there have
been some significant changes to vehicle
designs which warrant changes to the
defined classes. Briefly, we are
proposing to add SUV and Minivan
classes, and to consolidate some classes
which have become less prevalent in the
market. This is discussed in more detail
in Section V.
4. Minor Changes in Certain Test
Procedures
We are proposing minor procedural
changes in certain test procedures. First,
the US06 drive cycle contains elements
of both city and highway types of
driving, yet the exhaust sample is
collected in only one ‘‘bag,’’ yielding
one overall fuel economy result. In
order to more accurately reflect the city
portion of the drive cycle into the city
fuel economy estimate, and the highway
portion of the US06 into the highway
fuel economy estimate, we are
proposing a revised test protocol that
would require collecting the exhaust
sample into two bags, thus providing
separate results from the city and
highway portions. This has the benefit
of more accurately capturing how a
vehicle’s fuel economy would be
impacted over the various types of
driving reflected in the cycle, but with
very minimal cost impact.
Second, today diesel vehicles are not
required to run the cold FTP test since
they are currently exempt from the cold
carbon monoxide standard. We are
proposing that diesel vehicles be
required to run this test for 5-cycle fuel
economy purposes.
Finally, the current cold FTP test
gives manufacturers the option, but does
not require them to, run the heater or
defroster while performing this test at
20 degrees F. We expect that in most
cases in the real world, consumers
would indeed be running these
accessories in colder temperatures,
which will impact their fuel economy.
We also understand that some, but not
all, manufacturers today do run these
accessories during the test. Therefore, to
ensure this test most accurately reflects
real-world conditions, and to ensure
these conditions are run uniformly
across manufacturers, we are seeking
comment on requiring manufacturers to
run the heater and defroster while
performing the cold FTP test.
5. Other Fuel Economy-Related Topics
In addition to the proposed fuel
economy label calculations and label
formats, we are proposing a few other
changes related to the fuel economy
labels and annual fuel economy booklet.
These topics are discussed in Section V.
D. Today’s Proposal Does Not Impact or
Change CAFE Test Procedures
Today’s proposal does not alter the
FTE and HFET driving cycles, the
measurement techniques or the
calculation methods used to determine
CAFE. EPCA requires that CAFE be
determined from the EPA test
procedures in place as of 1975 (or
procedures that give comparable
results), which are the city and highway
tests of today, with a few small
adjustments for minor procedural
changes that have occurred since
1975.25 Today’s proposal will not adjust
the CAFE calculations; the new method
for calculating fuel economy label
estimates will fall under regulations that
are separate from the CAFE regulations
(currently, the regulations for
calculating CAFE are in 40 CFR
600.501–85 through 513–91).
E. When Will the New Fuel Economy
Estimates Take Effect?
We want the public to benefit from
the improved information provided by
the new fuel economy estimates as soon
as possible. Therefore, we propose that
these new regulations take effect with
the 2008 model year, which will be
available for sale at dealers in the fall of
2007. We believe this is the earliest
possible date for implementation, since
some manufacturers typically begin
certifying model year 2008 vehicles as
early as late 2006. We also encourage
manufacturers to voluntarily utilize
these new methods sooner, and are
therefore proposing that manufacturers
may voluntarily comply with the new
regulations as soon as the final
regulations are published.
F. How Will EPA Communicate to the
Public the Transition Between the Old
Label Values and New?
To ensure that the public understands
the relationship between the old
estimates and the new, EPA plans to
conduct extensive public outreach
concurrent with the implementation of
a final rule. We will provide
information about the new estimates
and how to use them via web-based
information, fact sheets, and other
communication methods. This
information will be designed to explain
all aspects of any new calculation
methods, including their impact on
label estimates from previous model
years.
G. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
1. EPCA
The statutory authority for today’s
proposal is provided by the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
Most of the labeling provisions
applicable to vehicle labeling and
information are found at 49 U.S.C.
32908. This section restricts EPA’s
requirements for fuel economy labeling
to automobiles rated at no more than
8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. It
requires manufacturers of automobiles
to attach a fuel economy label to a
prominent place on each automobile
manufactured in a model year and also
requires the dealers to maintain the
label on the automobile.26
EPCA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations to measure and calculate
fuel economy.27 To the extent
practicable, EPCA requires that fuel
26 See
24 See
49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
25 See
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
27 See
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
economy tests be carried out with
emissions tests performed under section
206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7525).28
EPA’s resulting fuel economy
regulations are found in 40 CFR Part
600. EPA has broad discretion in
determining how to measure and
calculate fuel economy for purposes of
labeling under 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).29
The fact that EPA’s current fuel
economy labeling regulations includes
the reporting of separate ‘‘city’’ and
‘‘highway’’ fuel economy is a result of
a series of EPA regulations as discussed
in Section I.A. above. Thus, in
developing today’s proposal (discussed
in Section III below), we considered, but
ultimately are not proposing, other
methodologies for reporting fuel
economy.
EPCA imposed some specific
requirements for the information to be
included on the fuel economy label.30
Today’s proposal retains these items:
a. The fuel economy of the
automobile.
b. The estimated annual fuel cost of
operating the automobile.
c. The range of fuel economy of
comparable automobiles of all
manufacturers.
d. A statement that a booklet is
available from the dealer to assist in
making a comparison of fuel economy of
other automobiles manufactured by all
manufacturers in that model year.
e. The amount of the automobile fuel
efficiency tax imposed on the sale of the
automobile under section 4064 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26
U.S.C. 4064).
f. Other information required or
authorized by the Administrator that is
related to the information required
[within items a. through d.]
EPCA also defines ‘‘fuel economy’’ as
the average number of miles traveled by
an automobile for each gallon of
gasoline (or equivalent amount of other
fuel) used, as determined by EPA.31
Thus, today’s proposal retains the
requirement to report fuel economy as
miles-per-gallon.
EPCA requires EPA to prepare a fuel
economy booklet containing
information that is ‘‘simple and readily
understandable.’’ 32 It further instructs
DOE to publish and distribute the
booklet. EPA is required to ‘‘prescribe
regulations requiring dealers to make
the booklet available to prospective
buyers.’’ 33 This booklet is more
commonly known as the annual ‘‘Fuel
Economy Guide.’’
EPCA also contains statutory
provisions for average fuel economy
(known widely as ‘‘Corporate Average
Fuel Economy,’’ or CAFE).34 Under
these provisions, EPA is required to
prescribe testing and calculation
procedures to measure fuel economy for
each model and calculate average fuel
economy for a manufacturer, using the
same procedures that were used for
1975 model year passenger automobiles
(weighted 55 percent urban cycle and 45
percent highway cycle), or procedures
that give comparable results.35 This
requirement does not apply to the fuel
economy information manufacturers
apply to the fuel economy label required
in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).36
EPA is also required to consult with
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
DOT and DOE in carrying out the fuel
economy information requirements in
EPCA.37
2. Energy Policy Act of 2005
Section 774 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct) directs EPA to ‘‘update
or revise the adjustment factors in
sections 600.209–85 and 600.209–95, of
the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR
Part 600 (1995) Fuel Economy
Regulations for 1977 and Later Model
Year Automobiles to take into
consideration higher speed limits, faster
acceleration rates, variations in
temperature, use of air conditioning,
shorter city test cycle lengths, current
reference fuels, and the use of other fuel
depleting features.’’ 38
In today’s proposal, the 5-cycle
approach changes the adjustment factors
by establishing a new method to
calculate fuel economy estimates that
uses fuel economy results from
additional test procedures combined
with a changed adjustment factor. The
mpg-based approach uses the same test
methods as the current fuel economy
program (i.e., the FTP and HFET tests),
but changes the adjustment factors
applied to those test results. These
options satisfy the EPAct provisions as
follows.
First, the 5-cycle method proposed
today directly includes the effects of
higher speed limits, faster acceleration
rates, variations in temperature, and use
of air conditioning by including fuel
economy measured during tests that
28 Id.
29 EPCA places testing restrictions on corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE), discussed below.
Today’s proposal does not impact those restrictions.
30 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
31 See 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10).
32 See 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
33 Id.
34 See
35 See
49 U.S.C. 32902–32904.
49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
36 Id.
37 See
38 See
PO 00000
49 U.S.C. 32908(f).
Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5437
incorporate these features. The mpgbased approach also takes these factors
into consideration, but less directly, as
it incorporates the effects of these
factors by basing the adjustment factor
on an analysis of data developed from
the 5-cycle method. Under our proposal,
we use the mpg-based approach as an
interim option to establish an
appropriate period of lead time for
manufacturers. We also allow its
continued use only where the average
effects reflected under the mpg-based
adjustments (of higher speed/
acceleration, air conditioning, and cold
temperature) on a specific vehicle
configuration would be representative of
those measured under actual 5-cycle
testing.
Second, we interpret the statute’s
reference to ‘‘shorter city test cycle
lengths’’ to mean shorter than the
current FTP cycle used to determine
city fuel economy. We have addressed
that concern in the proposal by
weighting in updated factors for ‘‘cold
starts’’ and ‘‘hot starts’’ (where the
engine is not warmed up or has been
parked for a brief amount of time and
then restarted) into the equation for
determining city fuel economy. This
simulates shorter city test cycle lengths
where a vehicle’s engine is more
frequently shut down and restarted than
in the current FTP test. Also, the US06
and SC03 test cycles are physically
shorter in length than the FTP (the FTP
is about 11 miles in length, whereas the
US06 is about 8 miles, and the SC03 is
about 3.6 miles.)
Third, we interpret the statutory
reference to ‘‘current reference fuels’’ to
mean the laboratory fuels used to
perform the fuel economy tests, and that
the underlying concern of Congress was
that the high-quality lab fuels would
give higher fuel economy than the
typical fuel used by consumers. The
quality of the laboratory test fuel is
specified in EPA regulations for
emission compliance.39 The test
gasoline fuel is roughly equivalent to
premium, high-octane fuel available at
the pump. It is necessary that all
vehicles use the same grade of fuel to
provide a level playing field for
manufacturers to compare the emission
compliance results to the federal
emission standards, since certain fuel
specifications can have an impact on
tailpipe emissions. The impact of the
higher-octane test fuel on fuel economy
is less significant but there are other
real-world fuel differences that can have
a noticeable impact, as discussed in
Section II. For instance, ethanol has a
lower energy content than gasoline, and
39 See
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
40 CFR 86.113–94.
01FEP2
5438
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
when blended with gasoline, with all
other things being equal, will slightly
lower fuel efficiency. Other seasonal
variations in fuel composition (e.g.,
oxygenates in winter fuel) may also
cause a slight reduction in fuel
economy. EPA is proposing an
adjustment factor to account for fuel
differences and other fuel-depleting
features as described further in Section
II.
3. Relationship of Today’s Proposal
With Other Statutes and Regulations
a. Automobile Disclosure Act. A
provision in EPCA (at 49 U.S.C.
32908(b)(2)) allows the fuel economy
information to be included on the
window sticker label of vehicle
manufacturing and price information
required by the Automobile Disclosure
Act at 15 U.S.C. 1232 (the so-called
‘‘Monroni’’ label.). To that end, the
Federal Trade Commission issued a
‘‘Fuel Guide’’ concerning the fuel
economy advertising for new
automobiles, published in the Federal
Register at 16 CFR Part 259. This guide
refers back to EPA’s fuel economy
regulations and specifically to how
manufacturers are permitted to advertise
the city and highway fuel economy of
their vehicles.
b. Internal Revenue Code. This code
contains the provisions governing the
administration of the Gas Guzzler Tax.40
It contains the table of applicable taxes
and defines which vehicles are subject
to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that
the fuel economy to be used to assess
the amount of tax will be the combined
city and highway fuel economy as
determined by using the procedures in
place in 1975, or procedures that give
comparable results (similar to EPCA’s
requirements for determining CAFE).
Today’s proposal does not impact these
procedures.
c. Clean Air Act. Reference is made in
EPCA to the Clean Air Act statute.
Specifically, EPCA states that fuel
economy shall to the extent practicable
include the emissions tests required
under Section 206 of the Clean Air
Act.41 Today’s proposal incorporates
three additional types of emissions tests
required under the Clean Air Act for
fuel economy testing, as discussed in
detail in Section II. We also propose to
make several changes to existing
emissions tests. These changes are being
proposed under the statutory authority
of Section 206 of the Clean Air Act,
which permits the Administrator to
define, and to revise from time to time,
the test procedures used to determine
40 See
41 See
26 U.S.C. 4064.
49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
compliance with applicable emission
standards.
d. Additional Provisions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and Transportation
Equity Act of 2005. This action is
expected to have no impact on the
alternative motor vehicle federal income
tax credits the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) is establishing under Section 1341
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. IRS is
in the process of preparing the final
guidance for these new federal income
tax credits for consumers who purchase
new hybrid, diesel, dedicated
alternative fuel, or fuel cell vehicles
beginning on January 1, 2006. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires EPA
to coordinate with and support IRS’
implementation of these new tax
credits, and EPA is providing input on
a number of technical issues. EPA
anticipates that the fuel economy values
used to help determine tax credit
eligibility for light-duty vehicles will be
‘‘unadjusted’’ laboratory city fuel
economy test values. Accordingly, the
changes being proposed today are
anticipated to have no impact on the tax
credit program.
Similarly, this action is expected to
have no impact on the ‘‘HOV Facilities’’
regulations EPA is establishing under
section 1121 of the Transportation
Equity Act of 2005. EPA is in the
process of developing proposed
regulations to identify low emission and
energy-efficient vehicles for the purpose
of assisting states administering highoccupancy lane transportation plans.
EPA anticipates that the fuel economy
values used to identify these vehicles
will be the ‘‘unadjusted’’ FTP-based fuel
economy test values. Accordingly, the
changes proposed today are anticipated
to have no impact on the HOV facilities
program.
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel
Economy Label Methodology
The current fuel economy label values
utilize measured fuel economy over city
and highway driving cycles and adjust
these values downward by 10 and 22
percent, respectively, to account for a
variety of factors not addressed in EPA’s
vehicle test procedures. These factors
include differences between the way
vehicles are driven on the road and over
the test cycles, air conditioning use,
widely varying ambient temperature
and humidity, varying trip lengths,
wind, precipitation, rough road
conditions, hills, etc. The purpose of the
new formulae for city and highway fuel
economy labels is to widen the base for
the labels to include actual vehicle
testing over a wider range of driving
patterns and ambient conditions than is
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currently covered by the FTP and HFET
tests.
For example, vehicles are often driven
more aggressively and at higher speeds
than is represented in the FTP and
HFET tests. The incorporation of
measured fuel economy over the US06
test cycle into the fuel economy label
values would make the label values
more realistic. Drivers often use air
conditioning in warm, humid
conditions, while the air conditioner is
turned off during the FTP and HFET
tests. The incorporation of measured
fuel economy over the SC03 test cycle
into the fuel economy label values
would reflect the added fuel needed to
operate the air conditioning system.
Vehicles also often are driven at
temperatures below 75 degrees
Fahrenheit (F), at which the FTP and
HFET tests are performed. The
incorporation of measured fuel economy
over the cold temperature FTP test into
the fuel economy label values would
reflect the additional fuel needed to
start up a cold engine at colder
temperatures.
The proposed vehicle-specific, 5-cycle
approach to fuel economy label
estimation would incorporate estimates
of the fuel efficiency of each vehicle
during high speed, aggressive driving,
air conditioning operation and cold
temperatures into each vehicle’s fuel
economy label. It would combine
measured fuel economy over the two
current fuel economy tests, the FTP and
HFET, as well as that over the US06,
SC03 and cold FTP tests into estimates
of city and highway fuel economy for
labeling purposes. The test results from
each cycle (and in some cases, portions
of cycles or emission ‘‘bags’’)42 would
be weighted to represent the
contribution of each cycle’s attributes to
onroad driving and fuel consumption.
The vehicle-specific, 5-cycle approach
would eliminate the need to account for
the effect of aggressive driving, air
conditioning use and colder
temperatures on fuel economy through
generic factors (as done today) which
may not reflect that particular vehicle’s
sensitivity to these factors. A generic
adjustment would still be necessary to
42 The FTP consists of two parts, referred to in the
regulations as the ‘‘cold start’’ test and the ‘‘hot
start’’ test. Each of these parts is divided into two
periods, or ‘‘phases’: A ‘‘transient’’ phase and a
‘‘stabilized’’ phase. Because the stabilized phase of
the hot start test is assumed to be identical to the
stabilized phase of the cold start test, only the cold
start stabilized phase is typically run. These
‘‘phases’’ are often called ‘‘bags,’’ terminology that
results from the sample bags in which the exhaust
samples are collected. The phases are run in the
following order: Cold start transient (Bag 1), cold
start stabilized (Bag 2), and hot start transient (Bag
3).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
account for factors not addressed by any
of the five dynamometer tests. The
magnitude of such an adjustment is
comparable to today’s 10 and 22 percent
generic adjustments. Overall, under the
vehicle specific 5-cycle approach, each
vehicle’s label fuel economy would
better reflect the capabilities of that
vehicle on the road.
Currently, the US06, SC03 and cold
FTP tests are only performed on a subset of new vehicle configurations. In
contrast, for fuel economy purposes,
FTP and HFET tests are performed on
many more vehicle configurations. In
order to minimize the number of
additional US06, SC03 and cold FTP
tests resulting from this proposal, we are
proposing that manufacturers be
allowed to estimate the fuel economy
over these three tests for vehicle
configurations that are not normally
tested for emission compliance
purposes using the fuel economy
measurements that are normally
available. This is currently done on a
more limited basis for both the FTP and
HFET, and is referred to as analytically
derived fuel economy (ADFE).43 We are
also proposing that manufacturers be
allowed to use the interim approach to
fuel economy label estimation, the mpgbased approach, indefinitely when the
available 5-cycle fuel economy data
indicate that a vehicle’s specific 5-cycle
fuel economy is very close to that
estimated by the mpg-based curve.
Even with these policies, we expect
that some manufacturers would have to
perform some additional US06, SC03, or
cold FTP tests to address differences in
vehicle designs which are not covered
by the analytical derivation
methodology. Other manufacturers may
decide to perform additional tests
simply to improve accuracy over the
analytical derivation methodology.
Depending on how manufacturers
choose to apply this method, this
additional testing could involve the
construction of additional test facilities.
(Test burden issues are discussed
further in Section VI of this preamble.)
Therefore, in order to allow sufficient
lead-time for the construction of these
facilities, we are proposing to allow
manufacturers the option of using an
alternative, interim set of adjustments
through the 2010 model year until the
5-cycle approach becomes mandatory
with the 2011 model year. However, a
manufacturer can still use the 5-cycle
43 EPA’s current policy for analytically derived
fuel economy estimates for the FTP and HFET tests
is contained in the EPA memorandum entitled,
‘‘Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 Model Year,’’ March 11,
2004, CCD–04–06 (LDV/LDT).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
formula prior to the 2011 model year for
specific vehicle models, if it so desires.
The interim set of adjustments is
termed the ‘‘mpg-based’’ adjustment.
(See Figure II–1 in the following section
for a graphical depiction of these
adjustments.) The mpg-based approach
is a sliding scale of adjustments which
varies according to a vehicle’s measured
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET
tests. The mpg-based adjustment factors
were developed from applying the 5cycle formulae to 423 recent model year
vehicles and determining the average
difference between the 5-cycle and
current city and highway fuel
economies. Thus, because the data used
to develop the average adjustment
factors were derived from 5-cycle fuel
economies, the mpg-based adjustment
factors include the effect of high speeds,
aggressive driving, air conditioning, and
colder temperatures. However, they do
so based on the impact of these factors
on the average vehicle, not the
individual vehicle, which is the case
with the 5-cycle formulae. For example,
for vehicles with FTP fuel economy of
20–30 mpg, the mpg-based approach
would adjust the FTP fuel economy
downward by 22–24 percent, versus
today’s 10 percent downward
adjustment. Thus, city fuel economy
label values under the mpg-based
approach tend to be about 13–15
percent lower than today’s label values.
For vehicles with HFET fuel economy of
25–35 mpg, the mpg-based approach
would adjust the HFET fuel economy
downward by 29 percent, versus today’s
22 percent downward adjustment. Thus,
highway fuel economy label values
under the mpg-based approach would
tend to be about 9 percent lower than
today’s label values.
As mentioned above, the mpg-based
equations described above were
developed from the 5-cycle fuel
economy estimates for 423 2003–2005
model year vehicles. We propose to
update the mpg-based curves
periodically using all of the available 5cycle fuel economy estimates for the
previous three or more model years.
These revised mpg-based equations
would be issued through the publication
of an EPA guidance document. EPA
would publish the mpg-based equations
by January 1 of the calendar year prior
to the model year to which the
equations first apply (e.g., for model
year 2010 fuel economy calculations the
equations would be made available
before January 1, 2009). In order to keep
the mpg-based equations up-to-date and
based on recent technology vehicles,
EPA would update these equations
periodically, but no more than on an
annual basis. However, rather than
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5439
publish the equations applicable to 2008
model year vehicles via guidance, the
proposed regulations contain the
equations that would be applicable to
2008 model year vehicles, as well as the
components of the equations to be
utilized for future model year vehicles.
We request comment on this updating of
the mpg-based equations.
In addition to proposing the mpgbased adjustment factors for the 2008–
2010 model years, as mentioned above,
we propose to allow use of this method
of label estimation to be used for 2011
and later model years for those vehicles
which meet certain criteria (discussed
in detail below) that indicate that the
full 5-cycle testing would not likely
result in significantly different fuel
economy label values. Each year, a
number of vehicles are tested over all
five dynamometer test cycles for
emission certification purposes (i.e.,
emission data vehicles). The fuel
economy data for the five dynamometer
test cycles for each emission data
vehicle can be inserted into the 5-cycle
formulae and the 5-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values
determined. Emission data vehicles also
undergo testing over the FTP and HFET.
Thus, the mpg-based city and highway
fuel economy values for each emission
data vehicle can also be determined
using the available FTP and HFET fuel
economy values. The 5-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values can be
compared to the mpg-based city and
highway fuel economy values,
respectively, for each emission data
vehicle.
The mpg-based line represents the
effects of high speed, high acceleration,
air conditioning, and colder
temperatures of the average new
vehicle. Therefore, we believe that it is
reasonable to allow continued use of the
mpg-based line when the available 5cycle fuel economy data (from
emissions certification testing) indicates
that the particular vehicle design
reflects at least these average effects. To
accomplish this, we defined the lower
bound of a tolerance band around the
mpg-based line as the criteria for
whether the mpg-based line could be
used or whether 5-cycle testing would
be required. We chose four and five
percent as the tolerance bands for the 5cycle city and 5-cycle highway fuel
economy values, respectively.
Mathematically, the tolerance line is
defined by Y × mpg-based fuel
economy, where Y is 0.96 for city fuel
economy and 0.95 for highway fuel
economy. In other words, if the 5-cycle
city fuel economy value is greater than
0.96 times the mpg-based city fuel
economy, all the vehicle configurations
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5440
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
represented by the emission data
vehicle (i.e., all vehicles within the
vehicle test group) would be eligible to
use the mpg-based approach. Similarly,
when the 5-cycle highway fuel economy
is less than the mpg-based highway fuel
economy minus five percent, all vehicle
configurations represented by the
emission data vehicle would be required
to use the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach. This could be done using
ADFE estimates, when appropriate. This
approach is appropriate because those
vehicles above the upper tolerance band
that used the mpg-based line would
simply be reducing their fuel economy
down to the average level, even though
the 5-cycle data indicated better than
average performance was likely for that
vehicle group. Because of the betterthan-average performance, we expect
that most manufacturers will want to do
complete 5-cycle testing for vehicles
likely to be above the upper tolerance
band. However, we request comment on
whether there may be some inherent
variability regarding all outliers above
and below the tolerance band that
would make it desirable to require 5cycle testing in all of these cases.
If the 5-cycle city fuel economy fell
below the mpg-based city fuel economy
by more than four percent, but the 5cycle highway fuel economy did not fall
below the mpg-based highway fuel
economy by more than five percent, all
the vehicle configurations represented
by the emission data vehicle would be
required to use the vehicle-specific 5cycle approach for both city and
highway fuel economy, since fuel
economy values for all five cycles are
important in estimating 5-cycle city fuel
economy. However, if the 5-cycle
highway fuel economy was less than the
mpg-based highway fuel economy by
more than five percent, but the 5-cycle
city fuel economy was not more than
four percent lower than the mpg-based
city fuel economy, all the vehicle
configurations represented by the
emission data vehicle would use mpgbased approach to estimate the city fuel
economy label. For highway label
estimation, all the vehicle
configurations represented by the
emission data vehicle would use an
approximate 5-cycle formula for
highway fuel economy which includes
vehicle-specific fuel economy
measurements for the FTP, HFET and
US06 tests, but the values for the SC03
and cold FTP tests could be estimated
based on relationships developed from
other vehicles. This is appropriate
because the impact of the cold FTP test
on highway fuel economy is not vehiclespecific, but modeled. Also the impact
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
of the SC03 test on highway fuel
economy is very small, particularly
compared to that for the US06 test.
The proposed criteria for long term
use of the mpg-based approach (5-cycle
city fuel economy above ¥4.0 percent
and 5-cycle highway fuel economy
above ¥5.0 percent) are based on the
balance of three factors. One, we
designed them to be sufficiently large so
that simple test-to-test variability would
not cause an emission data vehicle to
fail the criteria. This was a greater
concern for the highway fuel economy
comparison, due to the dominance of
the US06 fuel economy (which
inherently has greater test-to-test
variability than the other tests) in the 5cycle formula. Two, we desired to
minimize the potential error in the fuel
economy label. Label fuel economy
values are rounded to the nearest one
mpg. Thus, we desired to keep the
difference between the 5-cycle and mpgbased fuel economy values within
roughly one mpg, if possible. Three, we
desired to avoid additional fuel
economy testing that had little impact
on the label values.
The four percent tolerance band for
city fuel economy is equivalent to
roughly 0.6–0.7 mpg on average. Due to
the contribution of a number of
independent fuel economy
measurements in the 5-cycle city fuel
economy formula, the effect of test-totest variability should be much lower
than 4.0 percent. Based on the 5-cycle
test results of 423 recent model year
vehicles, we estimate that 90 percent of
all emission data vehicles would meet
the 4.0 percent. Thus, we believe that
this criterion adequately satisfies the
three factors mentioned above.
The five percent tolerance band for
highway fuel economy is equivalent to
roughly 1.1 mpg on average. Thus, it is
slightly higher than the typical error
associated with rounding. However, due
to the dominant contribution of the
US06 fuel economy in the 5-cycle
highway fuel economy formula, and the
fact that this test tends to have relatively
high variability, we are concerned that
test-to-test variability could be on the
order of 3.0 percent in the 5-cycle
highway fuel economy formula. We
estimate that 75 percent of all emission
data vehicles would meet the 5.0
percent. Thus, again, we believe that
this criterion adequately satisfies the
three factors mentioned above.
Overall, allowing the continued use of
the mpg-based approach would reduce
the number of additional SC03 and cold
FTP tests by about 90 percent and
reduce the number of additional US06
tests by about 75 percent indefinitely.
We request comment on the continued
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
use of the mpg-based approach beyond
the 2010 model year and on the 4.0 and
5.0 percent criteria for its use.
Section II.A presents the proposed
interim mpg-based formulae and the
proposed vehicle-specific 5-cycle
formulae for city and highway fuel
economy label values. Section II.B
describes how these formulae would be
applied to develop labels for specific
grouping of vehicles. Section II.C
describes how the 5-cycle formulae
were derived. Section II.D describes
how the mpg-based formulae were
derived. Section II.E describes how the
current city and highway fuel economy
values would change under the
proposed formulae.
A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label
Formulae
Currently, manufacturers test their
vehicles over two dynamometer tests in
order to develop their fuel economy
label values: the FTP or city test and the
HFET or highway test. Fuel economies
measured over these two tests are
multiplied by 0.90 and 0.78,
respectively. These ‘‘adjusted’’ fuel
economies are then sales-weighted
using procedures outlined in Subpart D
of Part 600 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) to develop
fuel economy label values by model
type.
Under today’s proposal, we would
replace the 0.90 and 0.78 factors with
new factors which are not simply
constants. For model years 2008–2010,
a manufacturer would have the option
of using two distinct methodologies to
calculate the city and highway fuel
economy values for any specific test
vehicle. One approach is called the
mpg-based approach or formula, since
the city and highway label values are
based on the fuel economy (or MPG)
measured over the FTP and HFET,
respectively. The other approach is
called the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach, since the city and highway
label values are based on the test results
of five test cycles, the FTP, HFET, US06,
SC03 and cold FTP. Beginning with the
2011 model year, we propose that
manufacturers would use the vehiclespecific 5-cycle method, but that the
mpg-based approach could still be used
by qualifying vehicles. Below we
present the specific equations under the
two approaches which would be used to
convert fuel economies measured over
the dynamometer cycles into city and
highway fuel economy values prior to
sales weighting. We are not proposing
any changes to the methods for
combining city and highway fuel
economy values for specific vehicles
into label values for a model type.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5441
wide average relationship, as opposed to
that vehicle’s own results over the 5 test
cycles. In other words, every vehicle
with the same measured FTP fuel
economy would receive the same city
fuel economy label value. Likewise,
every vehicle with the same measured
HFET fuel economy would receive the
same highway fuel economy label value.
Figure II–1 shows the 5-cycle city fuel
economy for 423 recent model year
vehicles and the mpg-based city fuel
curve which has been developed from
these data. The horizontal axis is the
measured FTP fuel economy.
formula to these vehicles would have
produced city fuel economy values by
reading a number off of the curved line
in the plot.
Figure II–2 shows the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy for the same 423 recent
model year vehicles and the mpg-based
highway fuel economies which have
been developed from these data. The
horizontal axis is the measured HFET
fuel economy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.003
approach, the fuel economy
measurements over the 5 dynamometer
test cycles would all be performed on
(or estimated for) a specific vehicle in
the current model year. Under the mpgbased approach, historic fuel economy
data over the 5 test cycles would have
been analyzed to produce a fleet-wide
average relationship between (1) FTP
fuel economy and 5-cycle city fuel
economy, and (2) HFET fuel economy
and 5-cycle highway fuel economy.
Under the mpg-based approach, a
specific vehicle’s city and highway fuel
economy labels are based on this fleet-
Application of the 5-cycle approach to
these vehicles would have produced the
city fuel economy values indicated by
the diamonds in the plot. (The nine
hybrid vehicles are indicated by large
squares.) Application of the mpg-based
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The formulae for the 5-cycle approach
are, as indicated by its name, based on
the fuel economy measurements over
the five test cycles (FTP, HFET, US06,
SC03 and cold FTP). Both approaches
also include an additional downward
adjustment to represent effects
impossible to incorporate in laboratory
dynamometer testing. However, the
formulae for the mpg-based approach
are also based on fuel economy
measurements over the five test cycles.
The difference is the set of 5-cycle fuel
economy measurements that are used.
Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
such factors to the on-road fuel
economy experience of consumers, and
on the relevance of these factors to the
fuel economy label. We also seek
comment on the extent to which such
unique factors might reduce the
perceived objectivity of the fuel
economy estimates if they presume
differences in driving behavior.
1. MPG-Based Approach (Available in
2008–2010 Model Years)
Under the mpg-based approach, the
city fuel economy value would be
calculated as follows:
Equation 1:
City FE =
1
1.2259
0.002549 +
FTP FE
where
FTP FE = the fuel economy in miles per
gallon of fuel during the FTP test
conducted at an ambient temperature
of 75 °F.
This value is normally a salesweighted average of the vehicle models
included in the ‘‘fuel economy
grouping’’ (e.g., model type) as defined
in 40 CFR 600.002–93.
Likewise, the highway fuel economy
value would be calculated as follows:
Equation 2:
Highway FE =
where
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
1
1.4030
0.000308 +
HFET FE
EP01FE06.006
assess such new information and
evaluate the need for changes to this
approach over time.
Since our goal is to develop a
consistent, objective approach that
applies to all vehicles, we have assumed
that all types of vehicles are driven and
maintained similarly, and we have
proposed to weight the five driving
cycles and apply non-dynomometer
adjustments in the same way for all
types of vehicles. However, if data
showed that a specific type of vehicle is
driven or maintained very differently,
and this impacted fuel economy
significantly (e.g., an unusually low
incidence of aggressive driving, A/C
usage, etc.), then one might consider
different weights or adjustment factors
on this basis. We seek comment on any
data that would inform whether unique
weighting factors or non-dynomometer
adjustments should be considered for
specific vehicle technologies (e.g.,
hybrids or diesels). For example,
hybrids may be purchased preferentially
by people whose driving patterns take
advantage of their performance
characteristics, and hybrid owners may
be more conscious of driving techniques
(such as mild braking) that improve fuel
economy. Even if this were the case
today, this difference would not
necessarily persist as hybrids become
more prevalent in the fleet. Moreover, it
is not clear how such vehicle
technology-specific factors can or
should be reflected in EPA’s fuel
economy test methods or calculations.
We seek comment on the contribution of
EP01FE06.005
Both Figure II–1 and II–2 include
several data points which are
represented by large squares. These are
vehicles which incorporate hybrid
technology. Hybrids appear to fall well
below the mpg-based curve for city fuel
economy, but not for highway fuel
economy. This issue will be discussed
in more detail below.
Given that both approaches utilize the
5-cycle fuel economy formulae in some
fashion, it is useful to begin this section
with a description of how the fuel
economy measured over the 5 test
cycles are combined to represent onroad
city and highway fuel economy. Then
we will describe how the fleet-average
formulae for the mpg-based approach
were derived from these 5-cycle fuel
economy estimates.
The 5-cycle formulae are derived from
extensive data on real-world driving
conditions, such as driving activity,
temperatures, air conditioner operation,
trip length, and other factors. In this
section and in the Draft Technical
Support Document, we fully describe
the basis for developing these formulae.
We seek comment on all aspects of the
formulae and the underlying data upon
which they are based. We also
encourage interested parties to submit
any additional data that would be
relevant in our final analysis. Further,
we want to ensure the 5-cycle approach
continues in future years to reflect
updated conditions impacting realworld fuel economy. Therefore, we
encourage the public to submit any such
data in the future so that EPA may
EP01FE06.004
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5442
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per
gallon over the HFET test.
This value is normally a salesweighted average of the vehicle models
included in the ‘‘fuel economy
grouping’’ (e.g., model type) as defined
in 40 CFR 600.002–93.
The rationale for the various constants
in Equations (1) and (2) is described in
Section II.B.
5443
2. Vehicle-Specific 5-Cycle Approach
(Applicable to 2011 and Later Model
Years and Optional in Prior Model
Years)
Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
approach, the city fuel economy value
would be calculated as follows:
City FE = 0.89 ×
1
(Start FC + Running FC )
, where
( 0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20 )
StartFC (gallons per mile) = 0.330 ×
3.5
where,
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a 3 − bag FTP =
3.59
3.59
−
Bag 1 FE x Bag 3 FE x
or,
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a 4 − bag FTP =
7.5
7.5
−
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per
gallon over the SC03 test.
Vehicles tested over a 4-bag FTP
would substitute the fuel economy over
Bag 4 for Bag 2 in the above equation.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Highway FE = 0.89 ×
Under the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
formula, the highway fuel economy
value would be calculated as follows:
1
, where
Start FC + Running FC
0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20
StartFC (gallons per mile) = 0.330 ×
60
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:50 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
EP01FE06.012
EP01FE06.009
where
US06 FE = fuel economy in mile per
gallon over the US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per
gallon over the HFET test,
EP01FE06.011
0.48
0.41
0.11
0.5
0.5
Running FC = 0.70 ×
+
+
+
+ 0.30 ×
Bag 275 FE Bag 375 FE US06 City FE
Bag 220 FE Bag 220 FE
21.5
1
0.61
0.39
+ 0.133 ×
×
−
+
19.9 SC03 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE
EP01FE06.010
F. The rationale for the various
constants in the equations is described
below in Section II.B. Likewise,
01FEP2
EP01FE06.008
bag of the FTP test conducted at an
ambient temperature of 75 ° or 20°
EP01FE06.007
where
Bag y FEx = the fuel economy in miles
per gallon of fuel during the specified
EP01FE06.013
3.91 3.59
3.91
3.59
Bag 1 FE + Bag 2 FE Bag 3 FE + Bag 4 FE
x
x
x
x
5444
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
0.79
0.21
Running FC = (1.012 ) ×
+
US06 Highway FE HFET FE
1
0.61
0.39
+ 0.133 × 0.377 ×
−
+
SC03 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE
The upper line in the figure is the
mpg-based formula for city fuel
economy. The lower line represents a
difference of 4.0 percent from city fuel
economy based on the mpg-based
formula. The points shown in Figure II–
3 represent city fuel economy of
emission data vehicles estimated by the
5-cycle fuel economy formula. The
model types represented by emission
data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel
economy values fall above the lower
line would be allowed to use the mpgbased approach for that model year. The
model types represented by emission
data vehicles whose 5-cycle city fuel
economy values fall below the lower
bounding line would be required to use
the 5-cycle approach for that model
year. Implicit in this proposal is that
manufacturers would be allowed to use
the mpg-based approach for a particular
test group if the 5-cycle fuel economy
for an emission data vehicle exceeded
the mpg-based curve by more than the
4.0 or 5.0 percent criteria on the high
side, since this would result in a lower
fuel economy label value.
The test groups for which their
emission data vehicles did not pass the
4.0 percent and 5.0 percent criteria
described above could face some
additional testing requirements. All the
vehicle sub-configurations contained in
these test groups would require fuel
economy values over all five cycles for
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
B. Application of the Formulae To
Develop Fuel Economy Labels for
Specific Vehicles
44 See
40 CFR 600 and relevant EPA guidance.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.015
vehicle-specific 5-cycle approach. The
test groups for which their emission
data vehicles passed the 4.0 percent and
5.0 percent criteria described above
would face no additional testing
requirements. Just as in 2008–2010, the
mpg-based formulae would be applied
to fuel economy values measured over
the FTP and HFET already being
performed and city and highway label
values determined.
Figure II–3 shows how the 4.0 percent
criterion would work for city fuel
economy.
EP01FE06.014
We are not proposing any major
changes to the way that vehicle
configurations are grouped for fuel
economy labeling purposes. For model
years 2008–2010, when the mpg-based
formulae are applicable, there would be
no change in the procedure by which
specific vehicle labels are developed.44
Since the mpg-based formulae are based
solely on the current fuel economy test
cycles, no additional tests would need
to be conducted. Only the effective
adjustment factors would be modified.
Starting with the 2011 model year,
vehicle manufacturers would first
utilize their available 5-cycle fuel
economy testing of emission data
vehicles to determine which test groups
could utilize the mpg-based approach
and which would have to use the
where the various symbols have the
same definitions as described under the
formula for the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
city fuel economy value.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
use in the 5-cycle city and highway fuel
economy formulae. The city and
highway label values produced by the 5cycle fuel economy formulae would
then be averaged and sales-weighted
just as they are today. However, the fuel
economy values over the five test cycles
could be generated in either of two ways
in most instances. One way would be to
test the vehicle over the US06, SC03 and
cold FTP tests (the FTP and HFET tests
already being performed under current
requirements). The other way would be
estimate fuel economy values over the
US06, SC03 and cold FTP tests
analytically (i.e., ADFEs) from testing of
a similar vehicle over these three cycles.
Specifically, we propose to allow
manufacturers to estimate the effect of
differences in inertial test weight, road
load horsepower and N/V ratio (the ratio
of engine revolutions to vehicle speed
when the vehicle is in its highest gear).
A procedure to estimate the effect of
these three vehicle parameters on FTP
and HFET fuel economy has already
been developed. We plan to work with
manufacturers to develop analogous
formulae for the US06, SC03 and cold
FTP tests. We would implement these
estimation procedures using agency
guidance, as is currently done for FTP
and HFET fuel economy.
It is possible for the 5-cycle fuel
economy values to meet the above
criteria for either city or highway fuel
economy, but not the other. If the 5cycle fuel economy values for a specific
emission data vehicle are more than
four percent below the mpg-based
estimate for city fuel economy, but no
more than five percent below the mpgbased estimate for highway fuel
economy, all the vehicle configurations
represented by that emission data
vehicle would be required to use the 5cycle formulae in complying with the
fuel economy label requirements for
both city and highway fuel economy.
All five cycles play a significant role in
the 5-cycle city fuel economy formula.
Once the five tests have been performed
for the city estimate, there is little
reason not to use the same information
to derive the highway fuel economy
estimate.
We propose a different approach for
the opposite situation. If the 5-cycle fuel
economy values for a specific emission
data vehicle are no more than four
percent below the mpg-based estimate
for city fuel economy, but more than
five percent below the mpg-based
estimate for highway fuel economy, all
the vehicle configurations represented
by that emission data vehicle would be
allowed to use the mpg-based formulae
Alternative Highway FE = 0.89 ×
StartFC = 0.33 ×
5445
in deriving the city fuel economy label
value. The highway fuel economy value,
however, would be based on an
alternative, simplified 5-cycle formula
as opposed to the full 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula. This alternative
5-cycle highway formula would be
based on fuel economy values over the
FTP, HFET and US06 tests. The impact
of the SC03 and cold FTP tests is
relatively small in the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula, as explained in
the Draft Technical Support Document.
This approach requires that we
develop a simplified 5-cycle highway
fuel economy formula which is
consistent with the full 5-cycle formula.
We developed this simplified formula
using estimates of the average impact of
the SC03 and cold FTP test results on
5-cycle highway fuel economy. In both
cases, we estimated this average impact
by regressing the impact of these test
cycles on the 5-cycle highway fuel
economy for the 423 vehicles in our
certification database against fuel
economy values which would be
available from FTP, HFET and US06
testing. This analysis (described in
detail in the Draft Technical Support
Document) results in the following
alternative calculation for highway fuel
economy.
1
, where
Start FC + Running FC
( 0.004774 + 1.1377 × StartFuel75 )
60.0
, where
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
HFET fuel economy address changes in
axle ratio, tractive road load horsepower
and inertia test weight. Differences
involving changes in transmission
design, engine displacement, turbocharging, etc., require actual testing. We
expect that a similar situation would
exist with the estimation of US06, SC03
and cold FTP fuel economy.
We request comment on the
appropriateness of the continued use of
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.018
mpg-based approach after 2010 should
alone eliminate 90 percent of the
potential need for additional SC03 and
cold FTP testing and 75 percent of the
potential need for US06 testing. At the
same time, we expect that there would
be some need for additional testing
when the available estimation
procedures mentioned above do not
apply. For example, the current
estimation procedures for FTP and
EP01FE06.017
We expect that the continued use of
the mpg-based approach and the
development of analytical estimation
procedures for US06, SC03 and cold
FTP fuel economy would allow
manufacturers to avoid the vast majority
of additional tests that would have been
required if every vehicle currently
tested over the FTP and HFET tests had
to be tested over the US06, SC03 and
cold FTP tests. The option to use the
EP01FE06.016
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
0.15931
0.79
0.21
Running FC = 1.0 + ( 0.04 × 0.3) ×
US06 Highway FE + HFET FE + 0.377 × 0.133 × 0.004254 + US06 FE
EP01FE06.019
1
1
StartFuel75 = 3.59 ×
−
, and
Bag 1 FE 75 Bag 3 FE 75
5446
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the mpg-based approach beyond the
2010 model year. We also request
comment on the appropriateness of the
4.0 and 5.0 percent tolerance bands for
city and highway fuel economy,
respectively. We also seek comment on
alternative approaches that may employ
concepts similar to the tolerance band,
or other ways of extrapolating fuel
economy test results to a broader group
of vehicle configurations. We
specifically request comment on an
approach which would employ tighter
criteria (e.g., a tolerance of 3 percent)
that would allow the use of the mpgbased approach beyond 2010 model
year, but which would include other
aspects which would avoid full 5-cycle
testing of all the model types which
failed to pass the criteria. For example,
failing the initial criteria might require
the manufacturer to generate fuel
economy data over the US06, the least
expensive of the three additional cycles.
City and highway fuel economy values
could then be calculated using three
cycles (the FTP, HFET, and US06), and
tested with additional criteria (e.g.,
comparison to a tolerance band around
the appropriately generated mpg-based
line) to assess whether the mpg-based
approach could be used or whether full
5-cycle testing would be required.
C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-cycle
Fuel Economy Formulae
1. Five-Cycle Fuel Economy Estimates
The purpose of the 5-cycle fuel
economy formulae is to best represent
city and highway fuel economy in the
U.S. using the test results from the 5 test
cycles. To the fullest extent possible, we
desire to account for the effect of
seasonal and geographical variations on
automotive fuel economy, as well as the
different driving habits of individual
drivers. As described in Section I., we
chose to base the fuel economy label
values on 5 vehicle emission and fuel
economy tests which are already being
performed. This maximizes the use of
fuel economy information that is
already currently being collected, while
at the same time minimizes the costs
associated with the proposal, as
described in more detail below in
Section VI. The five current emission
and fuel economy tests and their key
aspects are described below in Table II–
1. Actual second by second descriptions
of these driving cycles can be found in
Section 86 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
TABLE II–1.—KEY FEATURES OF THE FIVE CURRENT EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY TESTS
Ambient
temperature
Test
Driving
FTP ..............................................................................
HFET ...........................................................................
US06 ...........................................................................
SC03 ...........................................................................
Cold FTP .....................................................................
Low speed ................................................
Mid-speed .................................................
Aggressive; low and high speed ..............
Low speed ................................................
Low speed ................................................
economy estimates for five distinct
driving patterns:
(1) Bags 1 and 3 of the FTP,
(2) Bag 2 of the FTP,
(3) HFET,
(4) the city portion of US06 and
(5) the highway portion of US06.
We propose to combine the results of
these five tests to represent typical city
and highway driving patterns. (The
separation of the US06 test into two
distinct sections is discussed further
below.)
The FTP and the cold FTP are the
only tests which include a cold start
(i.e., an engine start after an overnight
soak); the fuel needed to warm up the
engine at 75 °F is taken from the FTP
results. The SC03 test is the only test to
be performed with the air conditioning
system operational. Therefore, its results
are used to augment the fuel economy
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Overall fuel economy =
We describe the estimation of start
fuel use in Section II.B.1 and the
estimation of running fuel use in
Section II.B.2. In Section II.B.3, we
discuss other aspects of driving which
are not addressed by the dynamometer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Frm 00022
............
............
............
............
............
Cold and hot .....
Hot ....................
Hot ....................
Hot ....................
Cold and hot .....
None.
None.
None.
A/C on.
None.
from the five driving pattern tests for the
fuel needed to operate air conditioning.
The cold FTP is the only test performed
at a temperature below 75 °F. Therefore,
its results are used to represent the
additional fuel needed to warm up an
engine after a cold start, as well as any
fuel needed to operate a warmed up
engine, at colder temperatures.
As implied above, we estimate the
fuel needed to start and warm up the
engine separately from fuel used to
operate the engine after start-up, or
running fuel use. This is consistent with
the approach taken in EPA emission
models, such as MOBILE6.2 and
MOVES. In terms of a mathematical
formulae,
Total fuel use = start fuel use +
running fuel use
and,
1
start fuel use + running fuel use
tests and which are addressed by
applying an overall, or off-test
adjustment factor to the city and
highway fuel economy formulae. The
reader is referred to Chapter II of the
Draft Technical Support Document for a
PO 00000
°F
°F
°F
°F
°F
Accessories
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
more detailed discussion of each of the
inputs to the fuel economy formulae.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.020
We have highlighted in bold the
distinctive features of the five current
vehicle tests. The FTP, HFET and US06
are all performed at an ambient
temperature of 75 °F. Each test consists
of a distinctive driving pattern. In
addition, the FTP test consists of three
distinct measurements, called bags. Bags
1 and 3 consist of the exact same driving
pattern, but Bag 2 consists of a different
pattern. Given that separate emission
measurements are already made for each
bag, we considered each bag of the FTP
to be its own driving cycle. In addition,
as discussed in Section V, the US06
cycle includes both low and high speed
driving. We are proposing that separate
emission measurements be made for
these two types of driving, again
providing separate estimates of fuel use
for these two driving patterns.
Therefore, we have available fuel
75
75
75
95
20
Engine start
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1. Start Fuel Use
For a specific vehicle, the fuel needed
to warm up the engine depends
primarily on two factors:
(1) The ambient temperature at which
the vehicle has been sitting, and
(2) the length of time which the
vehicle has been sitting since it was last
used (commonly referred to as soak
time).
Emissions during engine start up have
been studied for some time. Most
recently, estimates of start fuel use as a
function of ambient temperature were
made for use in EPA’s new emission
inventory model, MOVES (MOtor
Vehicle Emission inventory System).45
The relationship between start fuel use
relative to that at 75 °F at other ambient
temperatures is as follows: 46
Start Fuel Use Relative to that
at 75 °F =
1 + 0.01971 × (Ambient Temperature
¥ 75) + 0.000219 × (Ambient
Temperature ¥ 75)2
As will be seen below, we do not need
an absolute estimate of start fuel use,
simply an estimate of start fuel use
relative to some specified ambient
condition, such as 75 °F, which is the
nominal temperature of the FTP test.
MOVES does not yet include the
effect of soak time on start fuel use.
Therefore, we obtained a relationship
between start fuel use and ambient
temperature which was developed by
the California Air Resources Board for
use in their emission inventory model,
EMFAC2000.47 EPA utilizes the results
of this study in our current emission
model, MOBILE6.2, to estimate the
effect of soak time on regulated
emissions during start-up. The equation
for fuel use versus soak time (in
minutes) relative to the fuel use after a
12 hour soak is as follows:
For soaks of 90 minutes or less:
Start Fuel Use = 0.00433672 × Soak
Time ¥ 0.000002393 × (Soak Time)2
For soaks greater than 90 minutes:
Start Fuel Use =
0.25889542+0.0014848 × Soak
Time ¥ 0.0000006364 × (Soak Time)2
45 A draft of MOVES2004 was released for public
comment on Dec. 31, 2004.
46 Koupal, J., and L. Landman, E. Nam, J. Warila,
C. Scarbro, E. Glover, R. Giannelli. MOVES2004
Energy and Emissions Report—Draft Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420–P–
05–003, March 2005, pp 57–63. Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf.
47 California Air Resources Board. Public Meeting
to Consider Approval of Revisions to the State’s OnRoad Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory—
Technical Support Document. California
Environmental Protection Agency, March 2000. See
Section 6.7 (Start Correction Factors). Web site:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/
doctable_test.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
As is assumed in EMFAC2000 and
MOBILE6.2, we assumed that these
relationships are independent of
ambient temperature.
In order obtain the combined effect of
ambient temperature and soak time, we
multiplied the two above equations
together, as follows:
For soaks of 90 minutes or less:
Start Fuel Use = 0.00433672 × Soak
Time ¥ 0.000002393 × (Soak
Time)2×[1+0.01971 × (Ambient
Temperature ¥ 75)+0.000219 × (Ambient
Temperature ¥ 75)2]
For soaks greater than 90 minutes:
Start Fuel
Use = 0.25889542+0.0014848 × Soak
Time ¥ 0.0000006364 × (Soak
Time)2×[1+0.01971 × Ambient
Temperature
¥ 75)+0.000219 × (Ambient
Temperature ¥ 75)2]
The hot and cold starts contained in
the standard and cold temperature FTP
tests occur after 10 minute and 12 hour
soaks, respectively. The above equations
relating the effect of soak time on start
fuel use indicate that the start fuel use
after a 10 minute soak is only 4 percent
of that after a 12 hour soak. The above
equation relating the effect of
temperature on start fuel use indicates
that start fuel use at 20 °F is 2.75 times
that at 75 °F. Combining these effects,
the start fuel use after a 10 minute soak
at 20 °F is about 11 percent that of a 12
hour soak at 75 °F. Thus, the start fuel
use after the hot starts of both standard
and cold temperature FTP tests are
relatively small compared to that of a
cold start at 75 °F.
In contrast to the cold start after a 12
hour soak, the hot starts for Bag 3 of the
standard and cold temperature FTP tests
and the US06, SC03 and HFET tests
occur after only a 10 minute soak. The
above equation indicates that the fuel
use for a hot start is only 4 percent of
that for a cold start.
In order to estimate start fuel use
throughout the U.S. under average
ambient conditions, we need estimates
of the soak times for typical vehicle
operation, as well as the ambient
temperature at start up. The amount of
time a vehicle has sat prior to start up
varies dramatically depending on the
time of day at which it is started. For
example, for vehicles started up at 6
a.m., nearly all have sat idle overnight.
However, for vehicles started at noon,
most have been driven in the past 4–5
hours. Ambient temperature varies
significantly during the day. Thus, it is
more accurate to evaluate start fuel use
by hour of the day rather than simply
at the daily average temperature.
Ambient temperatures also vary
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5447
dramatically across the U.S., as does the
distribution of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). Therefore, we combined
estimates of vehicle starts and prior soak
times by hour of the day with estimates
of ambient temperature and VMT by
county in order to reflect the effects of
both soak time and ambient temperature
on start fuel use.
We obtained estimates of each of
these input parameters from EPA’s
MOBLE6.2 and MOVES emission
models. The draft MOVES2004 model
includes estimates of ambient
temperature by hour of the day for each
month of the year for each county in the
U.S. These estimates were obtained
from the National Weather Service and
represent 30-year averages. The draft
MOVES2004 model includes estimates
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
vehicle type for every county in the U.S.
during 2002. We used these estimates to
determine the percentage of VMT by
cars and light trucks in each county.
MOBILE6.2 includes estimates of the
frequency distributions of vehicle soak
times by time of day, as well as the
frequency distribution of vehicle starts
by hour of the day. Draft MOVES2004
also includes estimates of VMT by
month of the year for the nation as a
whole.
We first estimated the effect of soak
time on start fuel use by hour of the day.
These estimates ranged from a low of
0.25 of an overnight soak at 2 p.m. to a
high of 0.68 of an overnight soak at 6
a.m. This makes sense, as most vehicles
being started at 6 a.m. in the morning
have sat overnight, while most vehicles
being started in the middle of the
afternoon have been used in the past
few hours. These estimates are
independent of temperature, because
the temperature during any particular
hour is assumed to be constant.
In order to estimate start fuel use
across the nation throughout the year,
we calculated the start fuel use for each
hour of the day by month for each
county in the U.S. and then weighted
each estimate by the relative number of
starts occurring in each hour of the day
and by the relative amount VMT in each
month and county. Finally we summed
the weighted start fuel use estimates
across all hours of the days, months and
counties and found the average.
The average start fuel use resulting
from this process was 0.4665 of an
overnight soak at 75 °F. We can simulate
this average start fuel use with a variety
of combinations of hot and cold starts at
20 °F and 75 °F. For example, the level
of start fuel use is equal to a 0.4665
weighting of the cold start fuel use in
Bag 1 of the FTP at 75 °F and no
weighting of the start fuel use at 20 °F.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5448
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Or, this level of start fuel use is also
equal to a lower weighting of the cold
start fuel use in Bag 1 of the FTP at 20
°F and no weighting of the start fuel use
at 75 °F. In order to select a single
combination which best incorporated
the measured start fuel use at both 20 °F
and 75 °F, we evaluated start fuel use
only as a function of soak time and time
of day, assuming temperature was
constant throughout the day. We found
that the typical start fuel use was 0.330
times that of a cold start (12 hour soak).
We then determined that a weighting of
0.24 for a cold start at 20 °F and 0.76
for a cold start at 75 °F, combined with
an overall weighting of 0.330 for cold
starts produced the same level of start
fuel use as 0.4665 times a cold start at
75 °F, or the average level of start
emissions estimated to occur in-use.
In terms of the use of the FTP test
results, Bag 3 contains the start fuel use
after a 10-minute soak, and Bag 1
contains the start fuel use after a 12
hour soak. Other aspects of Bag 1 and
Bag 3 are the same (i.e., the vehicle is
driven exactly the same, only the soak
time prior to start up differs). As
indicated above, however, the start fuel
use after a 10 minute soak can be
assumed to be negligible compared to
that after the 12 hour soak.48 This means
that the difference between fuel use in
Bag 1 and Bag 3 is the start fuel use
following a 12 hour soak. Thus, the
average start fuel use in the U.S. is 0.24
times 0.330 times the difference
between fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of
the cold temperature FTP plus 0.76
times 0.330 times the difference
between fuel use in Bag 1 and Bag 3 of
the standard FTP at 75 °F.
Hybrids are tested over what is
commonly referred to as a 4-bag FTP
test, with Bag 4 consisting of a Bag 2
repeated after Bag 3. In this case, the
cold start fuel use would be determined
exactly as described above. However,
these four bags can also be combined
into two bags, with Bag 1 consisting of
a typical Bag 1 and Bag 2 and Bag 2
consisting of a typical Bag 3 and Bag 4.
In this case, cold start fuel use would be
determined from the difference in fuel
use between Bags 1 and 2 of the 2-bag
FTP test.
This estimate of start fuel use is in
terms of total fuel use per start. In order
to combine this with running fuel use in
terms of gallons per mile, start fuel use
must be divided by the average trip
length. We based our estimate of the
average trip length in the U.S. on the
National Household Travel Survey
(NHTS). The NHTS was performed in
2001 and statistically surveyed
approximately 26,000 households in the
U.S. This survey represents the sixth in
a series of surveys dating back to 1969.
(The name of the survey has changed a
few times and the precise survey
methods have varied to some degree.)
NHTS found that the average trip taken
using a personal vehicle in the U.S. was
9.8 miles long. This estimate excludes
very long trips, such as those taken on
vacations, as well as commercial trips,
such as those by taxi cabs. Based on the
survey questionnaire, we believe that
the survey also excludes brief stops
(e.g., those at gas stations or
convenience stores), as well as
extremely short trips (e.g., moving a
vehicle out of a driveway to allow
another vehicle to exit, moving from one
shopping center to another just across
the street). Using trip information from
instrumented vehicles in Baltimore and
Spokane (described in more detail
below), about 27 percent of all trips fall
into one of these two categories. Thus,
we believe that a more precise estimate
of trip length, and one that is more
Start Fuel x ( gallons of fuel ) =
consistent with our estimate of the
fraction of cold starts described above,
is 7.7 miles (9.8 miles divided by 1.27).
This trip length of 7.7 miles includes
all driving, both city and highway
oriented. NHTS does not attempt to split
driving into city and highway
categories. Therefore, additional
information was needed to perform this
split. As will be described in more
detail below, we estimate that 43
percent of all U.S. driving falls under
our definition of city driving, while 57
percent falls into the highway driving
category. The highway fuel economy
label assumes no cold starts (i.e., it is
based solely on the HFET, which is a
hot start test), except insofar that the
effect of a cold start is included in the
22 percent adjustment factor. Since even
long trips have a beginning and often
begin with a cold start, we assumed that
the average highway trip had a length of
60 miles. This is somewhat arbitrary.
However, once trip length is over 20
miles, start fuel use has very little
impact on fuel economy. Still, the
inclusion of some start fuel use in the
highway fuel economy estimate makes
this estimate more realistic. Assuming
an average trip length of 60 miles for
highway driving, the average length of
a city trip must be 3.5 miles for the
overall average to be 7.7 miles. Using
these two estimates of average trip
length allows us to convert fuel use per
engine start into fuel use per mile.
The total volume of fuel used in either
Bag 1 or Bag 3 of the FTP can be
determined by dividing the number of
miles of driving during these portions of
the test (3.59 miles for either bag) by the
fuel economy measured during that bag.
Thus, the equation for fuel use per start
at either 20 °F or 75 °F is as follows:
For vehicles tested over either a 3-Bag
FTP or 4-Bag FTP:
3.59
3.59
−
Bag 1 FE x Bag 3 FE x
For vehicles tested over either a 2-Bag
FTP:
The equation for start fuel use in
terms of gallons per mile is:
For city driving:
48 The Draft MOVES2004 model also assumes that
start fuel use after a hot start is negligible.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.022
where x is either 20 °F or 75 °F.
7.5
7.5
−
,
Bag 1 FE x Bag 2 FE x
EP01FE06.021
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Start Fuel x ( gallons of fuel ) =
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5449
( 0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20 )
StartFC ( gallonspermile ) = 0.330 ×
3.5
For highway driving:
( 0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20 )
StartFC ( gallonspermile ) = 0.330 ×
60.0
2. Running Fuel Use
Running fuel use depends primarily
on how the vehicle is driven and the use
of fuel to power accessories. Of the
latter, air conditioning is the most
significant and the primary accessory
addressed in the emission and fuel
economy dynamometer tests. Once the
vehicle is warmed up, ambient
temperature has only a modest effect on
fuel use.
The five dynamometer tests include
four distinct driving cycles, or patterns
of driving. In addition, the FTP and
US06 cycles (the latter as proposed to be
modified) each include two distinct
driving patterns. Two basic
characteristics of these driving patterns
are depicted in Table II–2: average
speed and a basic measure of the
average power required by the engine.
TABLE II–2.—DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CURRENT DYNAMOMETER TESTS
Average
speed
Cycle
FTP (Bags 2 and 3) .................................................................................................................................................
FTP: Bag 3 .......................................................................................................................................................
FTP: Bag 2 .......................................................................................................................................................
HFET ........................................................................................................................................................................
US06 ........................................................................................................................................................................
US06: City Bag .................................................................................................................................................
US06: Highway Bag .........................................................................................................................................
SC03 (run with air conditioning on) .........................................................................................................................
Cold Temperature FTP (same driving cycle as FTP) .............................................................................................
19.6
25.6
16.1
48.2
48.0
21.5
61.0
21.4
19.6
Average
power A
40.9
53.6
33.8
34.9
104.3
152.9
78.2
49.2
40.9
A Power defined as velocity times the change in velocity per second during cruise or accelerations. Power is set equal to zero during decelerations and not considered in the determination of average power.
The FTP and the cold temperature
FTP both involve the same driving
cycle, just at different ambient
temperatures. Thus, their average
speeds and power are identical, both for
the total cycle and for each bag of
emissions measured. The FTP and SC03
involve distinct, but similar driving
cycles. Both are low speed cycles having
similar average speeds and power
levels. As the SC03 test is only run with
the air conditioning on and all the other
tests are run with air conditioning off,
it is not possible to isolate the effect of
the driving cycle differences between
the FTP and SC03 tests directly. Thus,
this leaves five distinct driving patterns
which can be used to represent typical
U.S. driving: Bag 2 of the FTP, Bag 3 of
the FTP, HFET, City Bag of US06 and
Highway Bag of US06.
As shown in Table II–2, both Bags 2
and 3 of the FTP are low speed cycles,
but their average power requirements
differ by a factor of 1.7. As will be seen
below, it is useful to consider each bag
separately in simulating typical city and
highway driving.
The current US06 test currently
consists of 600 seconds of driving and
the emissions are collected in one bag
(i.e., one single collection of pollutants
emitted during the test). Thus, the fuel
economy result is over the entire cycle.
The US06 driving cycle consists of 5
hills, or 5 driving segments which begin
and end with the vehicle at idle. All but
the second and third hills consist of
relatively low speed driving, while the
second hill reaches 71 mph and the
third hill reaches 80 mph. Therefore, in
terms of predicting fuel economy, it is
useful to separate the low speed driving
from the high speed driving. For
practical reasons, when separating the
city into ‘‘city’’ and ‘‘highway’’ portions,
we grouped the second hill with the
four low speed hills in the city bag and
the highway bag consists of the
relatively long third hill. Overall,
seconds 0–131 and 496–600 of the cycle
would comprise the city bag and
seconds 132–495 would comprise the
highway bag. The description of the
hills within US06 and their designation
is summarized in Table II–3 below.
TABLE II–3.—SPLIT OF US06 CYCLE INTO CITY AND HIGHWAY PORTIONS
......................................................................
......................................................................
......................................................................
......................................................................
......................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Maximum speed
(mph)
0–43
44–134
134–499
500–563
564–600
PO 00000
Frm 00025
44.2
70.7
80.3
29.8
51.6
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Designation
City.
City.
Highway.
City.
City.
EP01FE06.024
1
2
3
4
5
Portion of driving cycle (cumulative seconds)
EP01FE06.023
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Hill
5450
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
As described in the Introduction,
driving at an average speed below 45
mph is defined as city driving, while
that above 45 mph is defined as
highway driving. We obtained a
description of average U.S. driving from
the Draft MOVES2004 motor vehicle
emissions model. This description
included a distribution of vehicle
speeds and levels of vehicle specific
power. Using the definition of city and
highway driving, we separated the
MOVES description of driving into city
and highway categories. We then
performed a linear regression to
estimate what two combinations of the
five driving cycles or bags best fit
average U.S. city and highway driving
patterns, respectively. The results are
two sets of cycle combinations in terms
of time spent driving. These are shown
in Table II–3. We then used the average
speeds of the various cycles and bags to
convert these to combinations to a
mileage basis. The combinations of
cycles found to best represent onroad
driving in terms of both time spent
driving and mileage driven are shown in
Table II–4.
TABLE II–4.—WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR THE FIVE DYNAMOMETER CYCLES (PERCENT)
City driving
Cycle
Time
(percent)
Bag 3 FTP .......................................................................................................................
Bag 2 FTP .......................................................................................................................
HFET ................................................................................................................................
US06 City .........................................................................................................................
US06 Hwy ........................................................................................................................
label) is not representative of higher
speed driving in the U.S.
These results also confirm the
separation of the two types of driving
contained in the US06 cycle. Only the
city portion of US06 appears in the
description of city driving and only the
highway portion of US06 appears in the
description of highway driving. At the
same time, the relative weights for Bags
2 and 3 in the description of city driving
are similar to that implicit in the FTP,
which is 52 percent and 48 percent,
respectively.
As mentioned above, the fuel use over
the three dynamometer cycles, when
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Frm 00026
0
0
25
0
75
0
0
21
0
79
combined using these weighting factors,
best matches the fuel use which would
occur during typical city and highway
driving. The weighting is performed in
terms of fuel use, or fuel consumption
per mile. For example, fuel use during
city driving is 0.48 times the
multiplicative inverse of the fuel
economy measured over Bag 2 of the
FTP cycle plus 0.41 times the
multiplicative inverse of the fuel
economy measured over Bag 3 of the
FTP cycle plus 0.11 times the
multiplicative inverse of the fuel
economy measured over the city bag of
the US06 cycle.
0.21
0.79
+
FE HFET FEUS06H
turned off. This combination is 0.39
times the fuel consumption over Bag 2
and 0.61 times the fuel consumption
over Bag 3. Thus, we propose to
estimate the incremental fuel use due to
the operation of the air conditioner as
the difference in fuel use measured over
the SC03 versus this combination of fuel
use over Bags 2 and 3 of the standard
FTP.
This difference in fuel use between
the two tests provides a direct estimate
of the impact of air conditioning use for
the conditions present during the SC03
test. The SC03 test is performed at 95 °F
and 40 percent relative humidity. The
test only lasts 10 minutes and the
PO 00000
41
48
0
11
0
Mileage
(percent)
0.48
0.41
0.11
+
+
FE Bag 2 FE Bag 3 FEUS06C
Funning fuel use (highway) =
These estimates of running fuel use
accounts for a wider variety of city and
highway driving patterns than the FTP
and HFET cycles alone. However, these
combinations of fuel use still do not
include any fuel use related to air
conditioning or cold temperature. Fuel
use related to air conditioning is
estimated using the SC03 test. As shown
in Table II–2, the driving pattern
contained in the SC03 test is similar to
that of the FTP, but not identical.
Using the MOVES2004 methodology
for modeling fuel use, we estimated the
combination of Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP
which would match the fuel use over
the SC03 cycle with the air conditioning
32
60
0
8
0
Time
(percent)
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
vehicle is pre-heated with radiant lamps
for 10 minutes prior to the test. Thus,
the air conditioning compressor is
generally engaged throughout the entire
test. As shown in Table II.–2., the speed
of the vehicle during the SC03 test is
also relatively low, at an average speed
of 21.5 mph. Of course, onroad, vehicles
operate at different speeds and ambient
temperatures and the compressor may
not be engaged 100 percent of the time,
particularly during longer trips. All
three of these factors can affect the
impact of air conditioning on fuel
economy. We therefore adjust the
estimate of the impact of air
conditioning on fuel use from the SC03
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.026
Funning fuel use (city) =
Mileage
(percent)
EP01FE06.025
From the results shown in Table II–
4, over 90 percent of the time spent in
city driving, and nearly 90 percent of
the mileage, is best explained by Bags 2
and 3 of the FTP cycle. Roughly 80
percent of both driving time and
mileage of highway driving is best
explained by the highway portion of the
US06 cycle. These findings confirm that
the FTP (the current basis for the city
fuel economy label) is still generally
representative of most low speed
driving in the U.S. However, the
relatively low speed and mild
accelerations of the HFET (the current
basis for the highway fuel economy
Highway driving
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
test in three ways to account for these
three factors.
The largest factor is portion of driving
time during which the compressor is
actually engaged to cool inlet air to the
vehicle. The Draft MOVES2004 model
contains an algorithm which estimates
the percentage of time which the
compressor is engaged as a function of
ambient temperature and humidity.
This algorithm was developed from the
direct measurement of air conditioning
operation of 20 vehicles in Phoenix,
Arizona during the summer and fall of
1992.49 The algorithm considers both
the frequency that the system is turned
on by the driver and the frequency that
the compressor is engaged once the
system is turned on. We combined this
algorithm with long term average
meteorological conditions for each
county in the U.S. to estimate the
percentage of driving time during which
the compressor was engaged under
those conditions. We considered both
diurnal and seasonal temperature
variations, as well as variations in the
amount of driving performed
throughout the day and across seasons.
We estimate that drivers have the air
conditioning turned on 23.9 percent of
the time on average across the U.S., and
the compressor is engaged 15.2 percent
of the time.
We then adjusted this latter
percentage to account for reduced
compressor loads at temperatures less
than 95 °F and higher loads above 95
°F.50 Again this was done for each
county in the U.S., accounting for
diurnal and seasonal temperature and
driving differences. From this, we
estimate that the average load of the air
conditioning compressor in-use is about
87 percent of that at 95 °F (i.e., during
the SC03 test). Thus, the average load of
the compressor in-use is the same as
13.3 percent (15.2 percent × 0.87) of the
load experienced during the SC03 test.
Finally, the impact of air conditioning
on fuel economy varies with vehicle
driving pattern. Most air conditioning
compressors are belt-driven by the
engine. The efficiency of both the
engine and compressor varies with
engine speed and load. This variation is
difficult to model, as the speed and load
of engines in various vehicles varies
dramatically based on the vehicle’s
drivetrain design, even over the same
driving cycle. Therefore, we assume that
the efficiency of the engine and air
conditioning compressor implied in the
SC03 test applies to other types of
driving, as well. However, a more basic
effect related to driving pattern is that
the faster a vehicle is moving, the
shorter the amount of time that the
vehicle needs to be cooled while it
travels a specific distance. Other factors
being equal, this reduces the amount of
energy needed to cool the vehicle per
mile of travel. Therefore, for a specific
set of ambient conditions, we assume
that the impact of air conditioning on
fuel use is constant with driving time
(i.e., fuel use in terms of gallons per
hour is constant). This means that the
excess fuel use due to operating the air
conditioner varies inversely
proportional to vehicle speed. In other
words, at low vehicle speeds, like that
of the SC03 test, excess fuel use is
relatively high on a per mile basis. At
high vehicle speeds, like that of
highway driving, the excess fuel use due
5451
to operating the air conditioner is
relatively low on a per mile basis. We
confirmed this assumption by testing
five vehicles over a variety of test cycles
at EPA’s Ann Arbor laboratory with
both the air conditioning turned on and
off. The results of this test program and
an analysis of the data are described in
the Draft Technical Support Document.
The air conditioning compressor is
also often engaged when the defroster is
turned on to keep the windshield from
fogging up. The air conditioning
dehumidifies the air and excesses the
effectiveness of the defroster. Today’s
proposal does not include a specific
weighting for demisting activity. We
lack a direct estimate of the frequency
that the defroster is turned on or the
compressor is engaged during
demisting. Due to the fact that the
defroster tends to be operated at lower
ambient temperatures than the air
conditioner, the load on the engine is
generally much lower than that during
summertime air conditioning. Thus, the
impact of demisting on fuel economy is
likely much smaller than that of
summertime air conditioning.
Given the above, the impact of air
conditioning on running fuel use is
estimated as 13.3 percent of the
difference between fuel use per mile
over the SC03 and a combination of
Bags 2 and Bag 3 of the FTP times 21.5
mph and divided by the average speed
of either city or highway driving. Based
on the descriptions of city and highway
driving from Draft MOVES2004, the
average speeds are 19.9 mph and 57.1
mph, respectively. Thus, the excess fuel
use due to air conditioning operation is:
21.5
For city driving = 0.133 ×
×
19.9
49 Koupal, J. W. Air Conditioning Activity Effects
in MOBILE6 (M6.ACE.001). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. EPA420–R–01–054,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
November 2001. Website: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
models/mobile6/r01054.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
50 Nam, Edward K., ‘‘Understanding and
Modeling NOX Emissions From Air Conditioned
Automobiles,’’ 2000, SAE #2000–01–0858.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.027
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1
1
−
Fuel economy
0.39
0.61
+
over the SC03 test Fuel economy over Bag 2 Fuel economy over Bag 3
5452
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
21.5
For highway driving = 0.133 ×
×
57.1
1
1
−
Fuel economy
0.39
0.61
+
l
over the SC03 test Fuel economy over Bag 2 Fuel economy over Bag 3
Finally, we have to add the impact of
colder ambient temperatures on running
fuel use. We can obtain a direct estimate
of the impact of colder ambient
temperatures on running fuel use by
comparing the fuel use over the
standard and cold temperature FTP
tests. By focusing on Bag 2 of each FTP
test, we exclude the impact of cold
temperature on start up fuel use, which
was already addressed in Section II.B.1
above. For hybrid vehicles, which are
tested over the bag 2 driving cycle twice
(the first time as Bag 2 and the second
time as Bag 4), we propose to
harmonically average the fuel
economies from Bags 2 and 4.
We considered including Bag 3 in the
determination of the effect of cold
temperature on running fuel use. Bag 3
includes some higher speed driving, so
its inclusion broadens the overall
driving pattern included in the estimate.
This would particularly improve the
representativeness of the estimate for
highway driving. However, Bag 3 begins
with a hot start, unlike Bag 2 which
simply follows directly after Bag 1 with
no engine shut-off and restart in
between. At 75 °F, a hot start requires
a negligible volume of additional fuel
use. However, at 20 °F, even a hot start
can require some excess fuel use. Thus,
including the difference between Bag 3
fuel use at 20 and 75 °F in the estimate
of the impact of cold temperature on
running fuel use could also include
some excess fuel use related to engine
warm up, as well. Available data
indicate that the relative impact of
operation at 20 °F versus 75 °F is nearly
identical for the two bags (10 percent for
Bag 2 and 11 percent for Bag 3).
However, the fuel economy over Bag 3
is lower than over Bag 2, so the absolute
difference in fuel use between 20 °F and
75 °F is actually lower in Bag 3 than Bag
2. We request comment on whether the
impact of cold temperature on running
fuel use should only involve Bag 2 or
should involve both Bags 2 and 3.
Neither MOBILE6.2 nor MOVES2004
include correlations of the effect of
ambient temperature on running fuel
use. However, as just described, the
impact of colder ambient temperatures
on running fuel use is small (i.e., 10
percent over a drop in temperature of 55
°F). We believe that the additional fuel
use is primarily due to the loss of heat
to the cooler ambient air, higher friction
in the slightly cooler moving parts, as
well as slight changes in the properties
of the cooler intake air and air fuel
mixture during combustion. All of these
changes are expected to be gradual and
fairly linear. Therefore, we assume that
the excess fuel use increases linearly as
temperatures decrease below 75 °F.
Above 75 °F, we assumed that there was
no further reduction in running fuel use.
(This latter assumption was confirmed
as part of the five vehicle test program
described above.) We also assume that
the excess fuel use is independent of
driving pattern. In other words, the
excess fuel use is the same for city and
highway driving on an absolute basis.
We request comment on assuming that
the excess running fuel use due to
colder temperatures is independent of
driving pattern on a relative basis (i.e.,
in percentage terms).
Using the same meteorological and
VMT inputs described above related to
start fuel use, we estimate the average
temperature in the U.S. at which driving
occurs is 58.7 °F. This temperature is 70
percent of the way from 75 °F to 20 °F.
Thus, any excess fuel use associated
with operation at 20 °F should be
weighted by 100 percent minus 70
percent, or 30 percent.
Given the fact that over 80 percent of
city driving is represented by Bags 2 and
3 of the FTP, we decided to use the fuel
economy measured during Bags 2 and 3
of the cold FTP directly to represent the
fuel economy of city driving at 20 °F.
We repeated the regression of the VSP
distribution of city driving from Draft
MOVES2004 against the VSP
distributions of just Bags 2 and 3. The
best fit produced a 50/50 weighting of
the two bags. Thus, we propose to
represent the fuel economy of city
driving at 20 °F by a 50/50 harmonic
average of the fuel economy over Bags
2 and 3 of the cold FTP. Mathematically, then, for city driving:
Excess fuel use due to colder temperatures =
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
concluded that the effect of cold
temperature on fuel economy at city
driving speeds could overestimate the
effect at higher speeds. Thus, we
decided not to use the fuel economy
measured over the cold FTP directly to
represent the impact of cold
temperature on highway fuel economy.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Instead, we believe that it is more
prudent at this time to simply assume
that running fuel use at 20 °F at
highway speeds is 4 percent greater than
that at 75 °F. Thus, mathematically, for
highway driving:
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.029
Highway driving occurs at higher
speeds than those typical of the cold
FTP. We conducted a detailed review of
past test programs which evaluated the
impact of colder temperatures on fuel
economy at highway driving speeds.
This review is described in the Draft
Technical Support Document. There, we
EP01FE06.028
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
0.5
0.5
04.1
0.48
0.11
0.3 ×
+
+
+
−
Bag 220 FE Bag 320 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE US06 City FE
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5453
0.21
0.79
Excess fuel use due to colder temperatures = 0.3 × 0.04 ×
+
HFET FE US06 Highway FE
Combining the estimates of running
fuel use at 75 °F without the air
conditioning system running with the
estimate of excess fuel use of running
the air conditioning system and the
estimate of excess fuel use due to colder
ambient temperatures produces the
following formulae for running fuel use:
For city driving:
0.48
0.41
0.11
0.5
0.5
Running Fuel Use = 0.70 ×
+
+
+
+ 0.30 ×
Bag 275 FE Bag 375 FE US06 City FE
Bag 220 FE Bag 220 FE
+ 0.133 ×
21.5
1
0.61
0.39
×
−
+
19.9 SC03 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE
For highway driving:
Running Fuel Use =
21.5
1
0.61
0.39
0.79
0.21
+
+ 0.133 × 57.1 × SC03 FE − Bag 3 FE + Bag 2 FE
US06 Highway FE HFET FE
75
75
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
square inch (psi), while those on light
trucks were under-inflated by 1.9 psi.
Using estimates of the effect of tire
pressure on fuel economy presented by
NHTSA, we estimate that the fleet-wide
effect of under-inflation is 0.5 percent.
Another factor which can be
estimated, though more approximately,
is wind. Wind affects vehicular fuel
economy in two ways. First,
aerodynamic drag is proportional to the
square of vehicle speed (i.e., the higher
the vehicle speed, the faster
aerodynamic drag increases for a given
increase in speed). Thus, increasing
wind speed by 1 mph increases
aerodynamic drag, and thus, reduces
fuel economy, more than the effect of
decreasing wind speed by 1 mph.
Second, both the effective area of a
vehicle and its drag coefficient increases
as the true wind direction moves to
either side from head-on. Basically,
vehicles are designed to move forward
through the air, not sideways. Thus, any
side wind increases drag and decreases
fuel economy. Based on a distribution of
wind speeds (yielding an average wind
speed in the U.S. of 9.4 mph), we
estimate that these two effects reduce
onroad fuel economy on average by 5–
6 percent.
Several other factors are still relevant
to a 5-cycle fuel economy estimate,
namely altitude, road grade, road
surface, road curvature, brake drag,
wheel alignment, tire switching, and
vehicle load. EPA estimated the impact
of these factors to be 8 percent at the
time of the 1984 label adjustment rule.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.031
Fuel economy estimated using the
five current dynamometer tests can
account for many factors, including
vehicle design, driving pattern, trip
length, cold temperature and air
conditioning. However, there are still a
large number of factors which affect
vehicle fuel economy that cannot be
addressed by dynamometers tests. These
include roadway roughness, road grade
(hills), fuel quality, large vehicle loads
(e.g., trailers, cargo, multiple
passengers), wind, precipitation, to
name just a few. Even when a factor is
addressed by a dynamometer test, such
as driving pattern or air conditioning,
the effect can only be approximated, as
all realistic driving patterns cannot
possibly be included in a test having a
reasonable length of time. Nor can all
the possible ambient conditions
affecting air conditioner operation be
tested. Thus, any estimate of in-use fuel
economy derived from the five
dynamometer tests is necessarily
approximate, both with respect to
factors addressed directly by the tests
and those which are not.
The impacts of a number of these
factors on onroad fuel economy relative
to that measured on a dynamometer is
possible to estimate, while others are
difficult to estimate. One factor which
can be estimated is fuel quality. EPA’s
certification test fuel contains no
oxygenates, while commercial gasoline
contains significant volumes of ethanol
and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
Both ethanol and MTBE contain less
energy per gallon, so vehicles operating
on fuel containing these oxygenates
tend to achieve lower fuel economy,
generally in proportion to the reduction
in the energy content of the finished
gasoline. For example, the driver of a
vehicle operating on gasoline containing
ten percent ethanol by volume would
experience a 3.5 percent decrease in fuel
economy compared to gasoline not
containing any ethanol or other
oxygenate. We expect the nation’s
gasoline supply to contain roughly 5.4
billion gallons of ethanol by 2008. This
is equivalent to 37 percent of the
nation’s gasoline supply containing 10
percent ethanol by volume. Thus, by
2008, we expect commercial gasoline on
average to contain about 1.2 percent less
energy per gallon than EPA test fuel.
Thus, this difference in energy content
means that onroad fuel economy will be
about 1.2 percent less than that
estimated using the 5-cycle formulae
described in the previous section. This
effect could increase beyond 2008 as
more ethanol is used in the nation’s
gasoline supply.
Another factor which can be
estimated is tire pressure. In February
2001, NHTSA conducted a survey of the
tire pressure of in-use vehicles. Tire
pressures were measured on over 11,500
vehicles at 24 locations throughout the
U.S. The results of the study and our
analysis of the data are described in the
Draft Technical Support Document. We
found that the tires of the average car
were under-inflated by 1.1 pounds per
EP01FE06.030
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
3. Adjustment Factor for NonDynamometer Effects
EP01FE06.032
(1 + 0.30 × 0.04 ) ×
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
We have reduced the impact of road
surface from 4 percent to 1–3 percent
due to increased urbanization and road
paving which has occurred since that
time. Thus, we estimate these other
factors to reduce onroad fuel economy
by 5–7 percent. Combining this estimate
with those of fuel quality, tire pressure
and wind produces an overall
downward effect of 11–15 percent.
As described further in Section II.E
below, we also compared the 5-cycle
fuel economy values to fleet-wide
estimates of fuel economy made by
FHWA for 2002 and 2003, after we
made several adjustments to improve
the comparability of the two estimates.
The 5-cycle fuel economy values best
match the FHWA-based estimates when
we include a factor of 0.88–0.91 in the
5-cycle fuel economy formulae (i.e., a
reduction of 9–12 percent due to factors
not addressed by the 5-cycle formulae).
We propose to average these two ranges
(i.e., the 9–12 percent range based on
FHWA, and the 11–15 percent range
based on the analysis of nondynamometer effects discussed above)
and account for these factors by
including a factor of 0.89 in the 5-cycle
city and highway formulae (i.e., a
reduction of 11 percent in both city and
highway fuel economy).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
D. Derivation of the MPG-Based
Approach
The mpg-based approach to fuel
economy label adjustments utilizes the
results of applying the 5-cycle formulae
to all vehicles for which we were able
to gather fuel economy data for all five
dynamometer cycles. We requested that
all manufacturers submit to us all their
available fuel economy data for vehicles
which had been tested over at least one
of the US06, SC03 or cold FTP tests. We
combined this data with our own fuel
economy data to develop a database of
423 recent model year vehicles which
had been tested over all five cycles. We
applied the above 5-cycle formulae to
these vehicles. We then developed a
relationship between the 5-cycle city
and highway fuel economies and the
city and highway fuel economies using
the current adjustment factors,
respectively.
We evaluated two options for
developing this relationship. One option
plotted 5-cycle fuel economy versus fuel
economy using the current adjustment
factor. The other option plotted the
inverse of 5-cycle fuel economy (i.e.,
fuel consumption) versus the inverse of
fuel economy using the current
adjustment factor. As indicated from the
description of the 5-cycle fuel economy
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
formulae, most of the modeling of fuel
economy is performed in terms of fuel
consumption (i.e., gallons of fuel burned
per mile versus miles traveled per
gallon of fuel burned). While both types
of plots produce relationships with a
high degree of correlation, the plots in
terms of fuel consumption are linear,
while those in terms of fuel economy
are non-linear. Given that the linear
relationship is simpler and the degrees
of correlation are essentially the same,
we are proposing to base the mpg-based
adjustments on the correlations in terms
of fuel consumption. However, the label
values themselves would remain in
terms of fuel economy, as required by
EPCA. We request comment on the use
of the correlations performed in terms of
fuel consumption versus those
performed in terms of fuel economy.
Both approaches are described in detail
in the Draft Technical Support
Document.
Figures II–5 and II–6 show the
relationship between the inverse of 5cycle city (or highway) fuel economy
(i.e., fuel consumption) versus the
inverse of FTP (or HFET) fuel economy.
Figure II–5 shows city fuel
consumption, while Figure II–6 shows
highway fuel consumption.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.033
5454
5455
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The results of regressing 5-cycle fuel
consumption versus fuel consumption
over the FTP or HFET are shown in the
above figures. In terms of fuel economy:
MPG Based City FE Label Value =
1
1.2259
0.002549 +
FTP FE
MPG Based Highway FE Label Value =
The standard deviation of the
difference between the mpg-based
equations and the 5-cycle fuel
economies are 2 percent for city and 5
percent for highway. These differences
are roughly equivalent to 0.5 mpg for
city fuel economy and 1–2 mpg for
highway fuel economy. Thus, while the
mpg-based equations represent much of
the difference in fuel economy
represented by the 5-cycle formulae,
differences between the fuel efficiency
of individual vehicles on the order of
1
1.4030
0.000308 +
HFET FE
0.5–2 mpg are muted by the mpg-based
approach.
As mentioned above, the mpg-based
equations described above were
developed from the 5-cycle fuel
economy estimates for 423 2003–2005
model year vehicles. We propose to
update the mpg-based curves annually
using all of the available 5-cycle fuel
economy estimates for the previous
three model years. EPA would publish
the mpg-based equations for the
upcoming model year’s labels by March
1 of the previous year (i.e., by March 1,
2007 for the 2008 model year).
E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel
Economy Label Values
The impact of today’s proposal on city
and highway fuel economy label values
was assessed using the same database of
423 late model year vehicles used to
develop the mpg-based adjustments
above. Table II–5 presents the results of
this comparison for all 423 vehicles, as
well as various sub-sets of vehicles.
Hybrids ...........................................................
Diesels ............................................................
5-cycle
(mpg)
42
26
Percent
change
Current
(mpg)
¥23
¥13
41
35
36
32
23
5-cycle
(mpg)
Combined *
Percent
change
Current
(mpg)
5-cycle
(mpg)
Percent
change
37
31
¥9
¥11
41
30
34
27
¥16
¥9
33
¥8
33
30
¥10
Conventional vehicles
12 Highest FE ................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
30
Frm 00031
26
Fmt 4701
¥15
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.035
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Current
(mpg)
Highway
EP01FE06.034
City
EP01FE06.036
TABLE II–5.—EFFECT OF 5-CYCLE FORMULAE ON CITY AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY LABELS
5456
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–5.—EFFECT OF 5-CYCLE FORMULAE ON CITY AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY LABELS—Continued
City
Current
(mpg)
12 Lowest FE .................................................
Average ..........................................................
Highway
5-cycle
(mpg)
11
19
Percent
change
Current
(mpg)
¥11
¥13
15
25
10
16
5-cycle
(mpg)
Combined *
Percent
change
Current
(mpg)
¥8
¥9
12
21
14
22
5-cycle
(mpg)
12
19
Percent
change
¥6
¥8
* Combined fuel economy for Current MPG is based on weighting of 55%/45% city/highway, respectively.
Combined fuel economy for 5-Cycle MPG is based on weighting of 43%/57% city/highway, respectively.
As can be seen from Table II–5, use
of the 5-cycle formulae would reduce
both current city and highway fuel
economy label values. For conventional
vehicles, city and highway fuel
economy values would be reduced an
average of 13 percent and 9 percent,
respectively. The reduction in city fuel
economy label values for higher than
average fuel economy vehicles would be
slightly higher, while that for lower than
average fuel economy vehicles would be
slightly lower. The reduction in
highway fuel economy label values
varies only slightly.
The impact on hybrid vehicles would
be greater, averaging a 23 percent
reduction for city fuel economy and 9
percent for highway fuel economy. This
above for conventional vehicles. This is
not surprising, since the mpg-based
formulae are based essentially on the
average results of the 5-cycle formulae.
However, the mpg-based formulae
would increase the city fuel economy of
hybrid vehicles slightly, as indicated in
Table II–6. This occurs because there are
only 9 hybrid vehicles in the database,
compared to 413 gasoline-fueled,
conventional vehicles. The mpg-based
regression of city fuel economy,
therefore, represents essentially the
impact of the 5-cycle formulae on
conventional vehicles, which is less
than that for hybrids. The mpg-based
regression of highway fuel economy is
essentially the same for conventional
and hybrid vehicles.
greater impact occurs primarily because
a number of the fuel efficient aspects of
hybrid vehicles produce their maximum
benefit under conditions akin to the FTP
and HFET tests, and are somewhat less
beneficial during aggressive driving,
colder ambient temperatures and when
the air conditioner is turned on.
However, these vehicles would still
remain among the top fuel economy
vehicles.
There is one diesel vehicle in our 5cycle fuel economy database. The
impact of the 5-cycle formulae on this
one diesel is very similar to that for the
average conventional, gasoline-fueled
vehicle.
The impact of the mpg-based
formulae would be very similar on
average to those shown in Table II–5
TABLE II–6.—EFFECT OF MPG-BASED FORMULAE ON CONVENTIONAL AND HYBRID FUEL ECONOMY
City
Current
(mpg)
Conventional ....................................................................
Hybrids .............................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel
Economy Estimates
In the 1984 label adjustment rule,
EPA was able to compare fleetwide
estimates of a variety of city and
highway fuel economy label options to
a number of independent estimates of
onroad fleet fuel economy. In the late
1970’s and early 1980’s, EPA and
several auto manufacturers had
collected onroad fuel economy
estimates from tens of thousands of
drivers which could be compared to the
EPA city and highway fuel economy
labels. The fleetwide combined EPA
fuel economy estimate could also be
compared to onroad fuel economy based
on estimates of total VMT and total fuel
consumption from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). EPA primarily
used the driver-based fuel economy
estimates to develop the current 10
percent and 22 percent adjustments to
fuel economy over the FTP and HFET,
respectively.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Highway
MPG-based
(mpg)
19
42
Percent
change
16
34
Repeating this type of comparison is
more complicated today than it was in
1984. First, 5-cycle fuel economy
estimates are not available for the
current car and light truck fleet.
Emission standards based on the US06
and SC03 tests just began to be phased
in with the 2001 model year. Also, these
tests are only performed on a limited
number of vehicle configurations.
Second, studies of driver-based fuel
economy similar to those available in
1984 have not been performed of late.
At the same time, as mentioned in the
Introduction above, a number of
consumer organizations have begun
conducting their own fuel economy
tests. Several governmental
organizations have been monitoring
onroad fuel economy, focused
particularly on new hybrid technology.
While the findings of these various
organizations were compared to the
current EPA label fuel economy values
in the Introduction, here they will be
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Current
(mpg)
¥13
¥18
MPG-based
(mpg)
25
41
22
37
Percent
change
¥9
¥10
compared to the 5-cycle and mpg-based
fuel economy estimates.
We begin with a comparison of the 5cycle fuel economy values with the
fleetwide fuel economy estimates
developed by FHWA. Because we do
not have fuel economy data for all
vehicles over all 5 dynamometer cycles,
and therefore cannot develop a 5-cycle
fuel economy estimate for the current
onroad fleet directly, this comparison
requires a three-step process.
The first step in this process compares
fleetwide fuel economy estimates based
on EPA’s current fuel economy labels to
the FHWA estimate of onroad fuel
economy. The second step in this
process is to compare combined cityhighway fuel economy using the 5-cycle
formulae to that using the current EPA
city and highway label procedures. This
comparison is performed for vehicles for
which we have 5-cycle fuel economy
data. We will assume that this
relationship also applies to those
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
distinguish between cars plus light
trucks and other vehicles are very
consistent. The FHWA definition of
light trucks (actually 4-tire, 2-wheel
trucks) includes some vehicles which
EPA classifies as heavy-duty vehicles.
We have adjusted the FHWA estimates
upward to provide a more direct
comparison. After this adjustment, the
FHWA-based estimate of fleet-wide
onroad fuel economy for cars and light
trucks is 20.3 mpg for 2002 and 20.5
mpg for 2003.
We used the EPA MOBILE6.2 in-use
emission model to calculate fleet-wide
average EPA combined fuel economy
label values for these two years. For
both years, average label fuel economy
was 21.1 mpg. Thus, for 2002 and 2003,
the FHWA-based onroad fuel economy
was 4 percent and 3 percent lower than
the current combined EPA label value,
respectively. Thus, the result of the first
step in this process is an indication that
the current labeling formulae, based on
FTP and HFET testing with the 10
percent road load adjustment, could be
over-estimating onroad fuel economy by
3–4 percent.
Moving to the second step, in Table
II–5 above, we presented city and
highway fuel economy label values
using both current and 5-cycle formulae
for 423 2003–2005 model year vehicles.
The FHWA estimates apply to all
driving, both city and highway.
Therefore, we are primarily interested in
combined city-highway fuel economy
values. Also, we are using FHWA
estimates for the 2002 and 2003
calendar years, as these are the most
recent available. The number of hybrid
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Average onroad fuel economy =
vehicles on the road was negligible
during this timeframe. Therefore, we
will only use the 5-cycle fuel economy
estimates for the 414 non-hybrid
vehicles in our database. There is no
need to perform this comparison
separately for the mpg-based formulae,
since the average fuel economy from the
5-cycle and mpg-based formulae are
identical for non-hybrid vehicles.
The combined fuel economy using the
current label formulae is a 55/45
harmonic weighting of the current city
and highway fuel economy labels. The
average combined fuel economy using
the current EPA label values for these
414 vehicles is 20.9 mpg. However, it is
important to note that the FTP and
HFET testing upon which these values
are based were performed without the
10 percent increase in road load
horsepower to account for air
conditioning and other accessories. For
the proposed 5-cycle formulae,
combined fuel economy is a 43/57
harmonic weighting of the 5-cycle city
and highway fuel economies. This city/
highway split for the 5-cycle fuel
economies is based on:
(1) The assumption that driving
generally less than 45 mph is city
driving and that above 45 mph is
highway driving, and
(2) the description of onroad driving
patterns contained in MOVES.
We seek comment on any other data
that may indicate what constitutes city
and highway driving. The mathematical
formula for converting the 5-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values into
an estimate of average onroad fuel
economy is as follows:
1
0.43
0.57
5-cycle City FE + 5-cycle Highway FE
The average combined 5-cycle fuel
economy using this formula for the 414
conventional vehicles is 19.2 mpg,
which is 8 percent lower than that based
on the current label values. This is the
result of the second step in the process.
Moving to the third step, prior to the
implementation of the Supplemental
FTP standards and the running of the
US06 and SC03 tests, EPA
approximated the occasional load on the
engine of the air conditioner and other
accessories by increasing the tractive
road load horsepower setting on the
dynamometer by 10 percent of each
vehicle’s normal road load. This
increase was equivalent to increasing
the rolling resistance of the tires and
aerodynamic drag of moving the vehicle
through the air by 10 percent. When the
explicit testing of emissions with the air
conditioning system turned on during
the SC03 test, EPA removed this 10
percent adjustment on the FTP and
HFET tests. This was appropriate for
emissions testing, given the direct
measurement of emissions with the air
conditioning on during the SC03 test.
However, since the fuel economy over
the SC03 test is not included in the
51 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration. Highway Statistics 2003.
calculation of the fuel economy label
values, the removal of the 10 percent
adjustment during FTP and HFET
testing effectively increased the city and
highway label values with no
accompanying change in onroad fuel
economy.
Using a detailed model of a vehicle’s
energy use on the road (please see the
Draft Technical Support Document for
details), we estimate that removing the
10 percent adjustment in road load
increased fuel economy over the FTP
and HFET by 2 percent and 5 percent,
respectively. Decreasing the FTP and
See Table VM–1. Web site: https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/vm1.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.037
vehicles for which we do not have 5cycle data. The third step evaluates
changes in FTP and HFET test
procedures which accompanied the
implementation of the US06 and SC03
testing requirements. The most
important change was the removal of a
10 percent increase in tractive road load
horsepower which was intended to
represent the use of air conditioning in
the summer. This effectively increased
fuel economy label values with no
accompanying change in onroad fuel
economy. The vehicles assessed by
FHWA were nearly all tested with the
10 percent adjustment in road load,
while those in the 5-cycle certification
database were not. Therefore, this
difference needs to be accounted for
when connecting the results of the two
previous comparisons.
Overall, the difference between 5cycle fuel economy and FHWA onroad
fuel economy is the combination of the
percentage differences from the three
comparisons:
(1) Current EPA label fuel economy
(with 10 percent road adjustment) to
FHWA onroad fuel economy,
(2) 5-cycle fuel economy to current
EPA label fuel economy (without 10
percent road load adjustment), and
(3) the effect of the removal of the 10
percent road load adjustment.
FHWA publishes fleet-wide estimates
of onroad fuel economy for cars and
light trucks in their annual Highway
Statistics publication.51 We will focus
on the combined estimates for cars and
light trucks here, since various states
use different criteria to distinguish
between the two vehicle classes. At the
same time, the criteria used to
5457
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5458
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
HFET fuel economy values for the 414
conventional vehicles in our 5-cycle
certification database by these amounts
decreased combined EPA fuel economy
on average by 3 percent. The average
combined fuel economy using the
current label formulae decreased from
20.9 mpg to 20.2 mpg. Thus, instead of
decreasing the current combined label
value by 8 percent, when considered in
terms of test procedures effective for the
2002–2003 onroad fleet, the 5-cycle
formulae only decrease label fuel
economy by an average of 5 percent.
This 5 percent decrease represents the
combined effects of steps 2 and 3 in our
process.
Overall, then, from step 1, the current
label values over-estimate onroad fuel
economy per FHWA (with some
adjustments by EPA) by 3–4 percent,
while the 5-cycle formulae decrease
current label values (of the 2002–2003
fleet) by 5 percent. Thus, the proposed
5-cycle formulae should move the
combined fuel economy label values to
within 1–2 percent of a comparable
estimate of fleetwide fuel economy
using FHWA techniques.
Next, several governmental and nongovernmental organizations perform
their own fuel economy assessments. Of
these, the American Automobile
Association (AAA) and Consumer’s
Union (CU) have tested the greatest
number of vehicles. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) has recently begun a
program where drivers can submit their
own fuel economy measurements via
the Internet. Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL) has also been
operating an extensive hybrid
demonstration project for a few years as
part of DOE’s Freedom Car project.
Each of these estimates of onroad fuel
economy have their relative strengths
and weaknesses. The strengths of the
non-governmental organization testing
include the fact that the vehicles are
tested on actual roads, usually in traffic
and under real environmental
conditions. The primary weaknesses of
this testing include:
(1) The fact that the driving patterns
involved are not typically published, so
they may or may not be representative
of average U.S. driving,
(2) Vehicles are tested throughout the
year, so some vehicles are tested in hot
weather and others in cold weather and
some under moderate conditions, and
(3) In some cases, the actual test
procedures used to measure the volume
of fuel consumed during the test are not
described, leaving some doubt as to
their accuracy. Still, because of the
public interest in these estimates, we
believed that they should be considered
here.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Consumer Report recently published
their fuel economy estimates for 303
2000–2005 model year vehicles.
Consumer Report makes three fuel
economy measurements: one for city
driving, one for highway driving and
one for a 150-mile trip. They also
publish a combined fuel economy value
which is a harmonic average of the three
fuel economy measurements.
We were able to match 151 of these
vehicles with those in our 5-cycle fuel
economy database. For these 151
vehicles, we compared Consumer
Report’s city, highway and combined
fuel economy measurements to the
analogous current EPA label, 5-cycle
and mpg-based fuel economy estimates.
The results show that the Consumer
Report city fuel economy values are
well below both the current label or 5cycle label values, though the difference
for the 5-cycle values are half those of
the current label values. The reverse is
true for highway fuel economy. The
current EPA combined label values
average 10 percent higher than the
Consumer Report values. However, the
average of the combined 5-cycle values
is only 1 percent higher than the average
combined Consumer Report fuel
economy.
More specifically, the vehicles tested
by Consumer Report include 6 hybrid
vehicles. We have 5-cycle fuel economy
estimates for five of these vehicles. A
comparison of the Consumer Report,
current EPA label and 5-cycle label fuel
economy values shows that the current
combined EPA label fuel economy
values average 27 percent higher than
the combined fuel economy measured
by Consumer Report. The difference
between EPA and Consumer Report
combined fuel economy decreases
dramatically with the 5-cycle approach.
On average, the EPA 5-cycle combined
fuel economy is only 5 percent higher
than that measured by Consumer
Report. This is slightly higher than the
zero percent difference found for nonhybrids. Thus, the vehicle-specific 5cycle approach appears to reflect some
of the factors measured with Consumer
Report testing which are missed by the
current fuel economy tests (FTP and
HFET). As expected, the differences
increase with the mpg-based approach,
since the mpg-based adjustments are
based essentially on non-hybrid vehicle
results. Additional discussion and
analysis of the Consumer Reports data
can be found in the Draft Technical
Support Document.
As discussed above, AAA also
develops its own fuel economy
estimates. In their 2004 report, AAA
presented their test results and the EPA
label values for 163 models. As AAA
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
only develops a single fuel economy
estimate for each vehicles (i.e., no
separate city or highway estimates), we
compared their estimates to a combined
mpg-based fuel economy value. As
discussed above, the mpg-based city
fuel economy was weighted 43 percent
and the highway value was weighted 57
percent. We did not compare the 5-cycle
fuel economy values to the AAA
estimates due to the relatively low
number of models which were in both
the AAA and EPA certification fuel
economy database.
The average mpg-based combined fuel
economy for the 163 vehicles was 2
percent higher than the average AAA
fuel economy. The combined mpg-based
fuel economy was higher than the AAA
estimate for 91 models and lower for 71
models. The two estimates matched for
one model. These comparisons are quite
similar to those between the current
label fuel economy values and the AAA
values. However, the mpg-based fuel
economy more closely matches those of
AAA for the two hybrids in the AAA
database. For the Insight and Prius, the
current combined EPA fuel economy
values exceed those of AAA by 6–8
percent. The combined mpg-based fuel
economy values straddle the AAA
estimates, one being one percent higher
and the other being two percent lower.
The ORNL Your MPG data discussed
in Section I are similar in nature to the
much larger databases analyzed for the
1984 label adjustment rule. Drivers
measure their own fuel economy and
provide a perceived split of their driving
into city and highway categories. The
strength of this type of data is the fact
that the vehicle is being operated by the
owner or regular driver in typical use.
The weaknesses are the unknown
representativeness of the sample, the
unknown nature of the technique used
by the owner/driver to measure fuel
economy and the short time period over
which fuel economy is generally
assessed (e.g., a couple of tanks full). In
the particular case of the ORNL
database, its current size is still small
(2544 estimates of fuel economy for
1794 vehicles) compared to those
available in 1984, though it is growing
daily.
We compared the fuel economy
estimates submitted to the ORNL
website with the mpg-based fuel
economy values. We did not attempt to
estimate 5-cycle fuel economy values for
these vehicles, as we lacked 5-cycle fuel
economy data for most of the vehicles.
However, on average for non-hybrid
vehicles, the mpg-based values match
the 5-cycle values. We combined the
mpg-based city and highway values
using each driver’s estimate of the
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5459
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
percentage which was city and highway.
If a driver did not provide an estimate
of the breakdown of their driving
pattern, we assumed that their driving
was 43 percent city and 57 percent
highway. We also conducted separate
comparisons for conventional gasoline
vehicles, hybrids and diesels. The
results are shown in Table II–9 below.
TABLE II–9.—YOUR MPG VERSUS CURRENT EPA LABEL FUEL ECONOMY
Fuel economy (mpg)
Number of
estimates
Vehicle type
Conventional Gasoline .............................................................................
Hybrid Gasoline .......................................................................................
Diesel .......................................................................................................
As can be seen, diesels appear to
perform the best with respect to their
mpg-based fuel economy values,
outperforming the proposed mpg-based
combined label by 5.7 percent.
Conventional gasoline vehicles also
appear to slightly outperform the mpgbased label values by 1.3 percent.
Hybrids are the only category to fall
short, but do so by a small margin of 2.2
percent.
The Department of Energy has
overseen the real world operation of a
number of electric hybrid vehicles for a
period of years. The Advanced Vehicle
Testing Activity (AVTA), conducted
jointly by the Idaho National Laboratory
(INL) and the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), has been
benchmarking hybrid electric vehicle
MPG-based
EPA combined
label: vehicle
city/hwy
weighting
Your MPG
2315
239
88
Difference from
MPG-based (%)
23.4
47.1
38.8
1.3
¥2.2
5.7
23.7
46.1
41.0
performance as part of the FreedomCAR
& Vehicle Technologies Program. The
strength of the FreedomCAR program
testing of hybrid vehicles lies in the fact
that the vehicles are operated on the
road over long term periods similar to
what consumer-purchased vehicles
experience, albeit often in commercial
applications. Over a million miles of
operation have been assessed and
careful fuel consumption and mileage
records are kept. The weaknesses are
that some of the vehicles are in
commercial use (e.g., company pool
vehicles) for accelerated mileage
accumulation and that the vehicles are
operated exclusively in the Southwest,
mainly Phoenix, Arizona and
surrounding areas. Nevertheless, the
vehicles are operated just as any other
vehicle would be in that application and
the vehicles are subject to all of the
environmental and roadway factors
which affect the fuel economy of typical
vehicles, such as winds, rough roads,
hills, traffic congestion, etc. Because of
the limited geographic area of the
program, the vehicles are more likely to
experience hot temperatures and air
conditioning use than cold
temperatures.
The vehicles’ operators report mileage
and fuel usage to FreedomCAR which
posts the monthly and cumulative fuel
economy of each electric hybrid fleet on
a monthly schedule.52 Therefore,
seasonal changes in fuel economy can
be observed. The results of the fleets are
shown in Table II–10.
TABLE II–10.—FREEDOMCAR HYBRID FLEET CUMULATIVE VERSUS EPA COMBINED LABEL FUEL ECONOMY
Fuel economy (mpg)
Accumulated
mileage
Vehicle
Fleet
size
EPA combined
Onroad
5-cycle
MGPbased
51.5
..............
38.0
45.9
..............
14.9
..............
24.1
26.3
24.8
32.2
52.6
..............
40.0
46.0
..............
15.3
..............
25.9
29.1
24.8
33.4
Current
2001 Honda Insight ..............................
2002 Toyota Prius ................................
2003 Honda Civic .................................
2004 Toyota Prius ................................
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 2wd .............
2004 Chevrolet Silverado 4wd .............
2005 Ford Escape 2wd ........................
2005 Ford Escape 4wd ........................
2005 Honda Accord .............................
2005 Lexus RX400h ............................
Average ................................................
417,000
458,000
378,000
102,000
21,000
28,000
28,000
29,000
62,000
20,000
154,000
6
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2.6
45.2
41.0
37.6
44.4
18.5
17.7
28.1
25.5
27.6
26.3
31.2
61.0
48.6
46.3
54.6
18.8
16.9
33.6
29.9
32.3
28.1
37.0
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
A Current combined is a 55⁄45 weighting of city/highway fuel economy. 5-cycle combined is a
explained further in this section.
As can be seen, EPA’s current label
formulae over-estimate the onroad fuel
economy achieved by all but one of the
hybrid vehicle fleets. It should be noted
that the values for current combined
Difference (%)
label A
fuel economy are those from EPA’s
certification database and are not the
official label values. The official label
values are even higher due to
differences between the worse case
⁄
43 57
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35
19
23
23
2
¥5
20
17
17
7
16
5-cycle
MPGbased
14
..............
1
3
..............
¥16
..............
¥5
¥5
¥6
¥2
16
..............
6
4
..............
¥14
..............
¥2
5
¥6
2
weighting of city/highway fuel economy, as
vehicles tested over the Supplemental
FTP cycles and the average vehicle sold.
The largest shortfall was 35 percent for
the Honda Insights. The Chevrolet
Silverado was the only model which
52 https://energy.inel.gov/x-web/other/
framed.shtml?https://avt.inel.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Current
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5460
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
exceeded the current label value of the
test vehicle in our certification database.
This is likely related to the fact that its
hybrid design includes limited fuel
economy targeted features. Except for
the Chevrolet Silverado, the onroad fuel
economy for each fleet never exceeded
either the city or highway fuel economy
label. This indicates that regardless of
whether the vehicles were driven
predominantly in city or highway
driving modes, other real world factors
reduced onroad fuel economy beyond
that captured in the FTP and HFET and
the current 10 percent and 22 percent
adjustment factors.
Table II–10 also presents combined
fuel economy values using the proposed
5-cycle and mpg-based formulae for
those vehicles for which we have 5cycle fuel economy data. The proposed
combined 5-cycle label values exceed
onroad fuel economy for three out of
seven models, while the proposed mpgbased values do so for five out of seven
models. The average of the differences
is very small in both cases. On average,
the combined 5-cycle value is 2 percent
lower than those measured onroad.
However, as mentioned above, the
specific vehicles in our 5-cycle database
tend to be worse case. For example, the
current official label values exceed
those shown in Table II–10 by 3 percent.
If we increased the combined 5-cycle
values commensurately, they would
exceed the onroad values by 1 percent.
Thus, while both of the proposed
approaches do a much more reasonable
job at predicting the onroad fuel
economy achieved in the DOE
FreedomCar program than the current
label formulae, the proposed 5-cycle
formulae appear to be particularly
accurate when compared to the
FreedomCar experience.
When analyzing monthly reported
fuel economy, large seasonal
fluctuations in fuel economy were
observed on most of the hybrid fleets.
The seasonal fluctuations are especially
noticeable on the fleets that had been in
service for over one year. The fuel
economy during the hot and often
humid summer weather months when
heavy air conditioning usage could be
expected was as much as 15 mpg lower
than observed fuel economy during
mild Phoenix area winter months. Fuel
economy over the SC03 air conditioning
test for the three hybrids with the
highest rated fuel economy shown in
Table II–10 (Prius, Insight and Civic)
tends to be 15–20 mpg lower than that
over the FTP. No cold weather operation
similar to northern states or the Cold
FTP (20 °F) was reported which would
likely have resulted in further shortfalls.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
The FreedomCAR program is
continuing to accumulate mileage on all
of the 2004 and 2005 models listed
above. While the time in service and
accumulated mileage is relatively low
compared with the original fleets that
have completed service, the initial
results support similar substantial
shortfall likely due to the same real
world factors not currently captured
during the FTP or HFET.
III. What Major Alternatives Were
Considered?
As explained in Section I, the current
city and highway test results for fuel
economy are adjusted downward by 10
and 22 percent, respectively, to derive
the current fuel economy label values.
One possible approach that we
evaluated would be to simply revise
these adjustment factors, presumably to
further ‘‘discount’’ the test results, to
achieve results that more closely mirror
real-world fuel economy. However, this
is a fundamentally flawed approach that
does not solve the problems with the
current fuel economy estimates.
There is little doubt that revising the
current adjustment factors could result
in city and highway fuel economy
values that better approximate realworld values on average across the U.S.
vehicle fleet. This approach might be
more accurate for certain vehicle
models. However, the fundamental
problem with this approach is that it
ignores the variation in how different
vehicle models respond to factors that
impact fuel economy. As we discussed
in Section I, there is a wide variation in
how different vehicles respond to
factors such as the use of air
conditioning, cold temperature
operation, and higher speeds and
accelerations. For example, in our
database of about 420 vehicles,
operation on the city test cycle at 20
degrees F resulted in fuel economy that
was anywhere from 0 to 40 percent
worse than fuel economy achieved on
the same test cycle at 75 degrees F.
Because there are now additional tests
in place (for emissions compliance) that
have the ability to measure a vehicle’s
fuel economy over this wider range of
driving operation, we have an
opportunity to design the new fuel
economy label methodology in a way
that relies on these test results, and is
thus inherently more vehicle-specific. In
this way, our fuel economy test methods
would yield results that are not only
more accurate across the fleet, but also
more reflective of the fuel economy
consumers can expect to achieve from a
given vehicle in the real-world.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy
Label Format and Content
In addition to our proposal to revise
the methods for calculating the ‘‘city’’
and ‘‘highway’’ mpg estimates, we are
proposing revisions to the way these
estimates and the other information on
the label are presented to the consumer.
Our goal is to improve the label
format and content so that consumers
more readily understand and use it. To
gain a better understanding of how
consumers are using the current fuel
economy label, we conducted a series of
focus groups in five cities around the
country in March 2005. The input
received from the participants
confirmed some of our perceptions
about weaknesses of the current label,
and also brought up some constructive
suggestions for improvements that we
could address. The contractor that
conducted the focus groups issued a
report to EPA of their findings, which is
included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.53
In the focus groups, we clearly heard
that people are very familiar with the
big, bold City and Highway estimates on
the label. We tested whether consumers
preferred to see the estimates continue
to be expressed as City and Highway
mpg values or replacing the City and
Highway designations with a fuel
economy range. Consumers agreed that
the City and Highway distinction is
useful information and wanted it to
remain intact. Consumers had a very
strong negative reaction to a range, and
indicated it was not something they
could easily compare to other cars.
Thus, we are proposing to retain the
City and Highway mpg estimates. As
discussed in Section I, our new test
methods are designed to reflect the
average fuel economy, so the City and
Highway mpg estimates on the label
will reflect the fuel economy expected
to be achieved by half of drivers. We
seek comment on whether the average is
the appropriate value for the large, bold,
City and Highway estimates. In other
words, we invite comment on whether
it would be more appropriate to capture
a greater proportion of consumers’
experience by using a lower fuel
economy estimate, for example, an
estimate that would capture 75 percent,
or even a greater percentage, of drivers’
experience.
Further, the consumer focus groups
indicated that people are not noticing or
reading the current ‘‘fine print’’ range of
fuel economy expressed on today’s
label. Yet, we believe it is important to
53 PRR, Inc. ‘‘EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus
Groups—Report of Findings,’’ prepared for EPA by
PRR Inc., March 2005.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5461
fueleconomy.gov Web site, and
welcomes further input on how such a
tool might best be designed.
Based on input from the focus groups,
as well as our own observations from
implementing the fuel economy labeling
program for the past 20 years, we are
proposing to revise the fuel economy
label as discussed below. For a point of
reference, a sample of the current Fuel
Economy Label is provided below,
followed by four proposed label formats
on which we are requesting comment.
Sample A takes a more traditional
approach by preserving some of the
‘‘look and feel’’ of the current label.
Samples B and C are graphical updates
and offer different ways of presenting
the same information. Sample D has the
same look as Sample B, but presents a
different option for illustrating the
comparable class information. One
benefit of adopting a less traditional
look is to signal to consumers that the
new label design coincides with our
new way of calculating the fuel
economy estimates.
We are planning to conduct a series
of focus groups after evaluating the
public comments received on these
label designs, to assure that the final
design will be understood and useful for
consumers. More details about this
proposal are in section VIII.B below.
much information to include on the
label itself. We would like to make
additional information available to
those consumers who are most
interested in more detail, and the Fuel
Economy Guide, or
www.fueleconomy.gov Web site, may be
good places to include such
information. Some have suggested the
idea of a fuel economy calculator on the
Web site, that would enable consumers
to calculate an estimated fuel economy
that is more tailored to their specific
driving conditions. A similar tool
already exists on the Web site in the
form of a calculator to estimate
individualized annual fuel costs, based
on specific cost and mileage data input
by the user. A fuel economy calculator
could be designed that would allow the
user to input their specific driving
conditions, such as the amount of time
spent with air conditioning on, what
climate they live in, how much driving
is done under higher speed/aggressive
driving conditions, etc. These inputs
could go into an algorithm that would
estimate the fuel economy for a specific
vehicle under the conditions input by
the user. For instance, drivers in areas
of climactic extremes may want to know
the fuel economy impact of driving
exclusively in those conditions. EPA
requests comments on the merits of
adding such a calculator to the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
54 Based on the assumption of a normal
distribution and available data that allows us to
estimate the standard deviation, the 10th and 90th
percentiles are equal to the mean ±17 percent, and
the 5th and 95th percentiles are equal to the mean
±21 percent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
ˆEP01FE06.038
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
continue to report an expected fuel
economy range in smaller print, in
addition to the City and Highway mpg
estimates, so that consumers can better
understand how much their fuel
economy in actual driving can vary from
the estimate. To accompany the City
and Highway mileage estimates, we
propose to express the range of expected
fuel economy as a 10th percentile to a
90th percentile fuel economy. In that
way, the range represents 80 percent of
driving experience—10 percent of
drivers may get fuel economy below the
lower end of the range, and 10 percent
may get fuel economy greater than the
higher end. We seek comment on other
approaches to expressing the expected
fuel economy range on the label. For
example, we ask for comments on
whether this range should be wider to
capture even more of drivers’
experience, such as a 5th percentile to
a 95th percentile, which would capture
90 percent of all drivers’ fuel economy
experience.54
Finally, we are interested in
commenters’ feedback on what
additional information could be made
available either in the annual Fuel
Economy Guide or the
www.fueleconomy.gov Web site,
administered jointly by EPA and DOE.
We recognize that some of the ideas we
are presenting here may become too
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
ˆEP01FE06.039
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5462
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5463
ˆEP01FE06.040
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
ˆEP01FE06.041
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5464
5465
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
ˆEP01FE06.042
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5466
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
The EPCA statute requires the label to
include the estimated annual fuel cost.
EPA’s current regulations specify that
this information just include the dollar
amount, but gives manufacturers the
option to also include the per-gallon
fuel costs and annual miles driven (i.e.,
to explain how annual fuel costs were
derived). However, most manufacturers
do not take that option, so most labels
include only the cost number. It was
clear from the focus group research that
consumers care a lot about this
information but currently do not find it
adequate. They desired more
information about how this cost was
determined, including the assumed pergallon fuel costs and miles-per-year
driven. Therefore, we are proposing to
require this information on the label in
addition to the estimated annual fuel
cost. The per-gallon fuel costs and
annual miles driven will be that which
EPA provides to manufacturers each
year via guidance letters.55 Providing
per-gallon fuel costs each year through
guidance ensures that the information
stays as current as possible while still
providing a common basis to allow
comparisons of annual fuel cost
information across all vehicles. The fuel
economy basis on which the estimated
annual fuel costs are determined would
be the adjusted combined fuel economy
(as determined by the proposed
weighting of 43 and 57 percent for city
and highway, respectively, as discussed
in Section II). The label information is
proposed to read: ‘‘Estimated Annual
Fuel Costs = $XXXX (based on XX,XXX
miles at $X.XX per gallon).’’ We also
seek comment on whether the label text
should include the combined fuel
economy number as part of the
derivation for Estimated Annual Fuel
Cost.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
B. Fuel Economy of Comparable
Vehicles
The EPCA statute requires the label to
include the fuel economy of comparable
vehicles. This requirement was
intended to help car shoppers compare
the fuel economy of similar vehicles.
EPA’s current regulations require that
the label include the following
statement: ‘‘For comparison shopping,
all [vehicles/trucks] classified as [insert
category as determined in § 600.315]
55 The estimated annual fuel costs are derived
from information provided by DOE’s Energy
Information Administration. Separate costs are
determined for regular and premium gasoline,
diesel, CNG, LPG, ethanol (E85), electricity and
hydrogen. See EPA’s Guidance Letter CCD–05–11 in
the Docket for this rulemaking for an example of
how EPA transmits this information to
manufacturers.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
have been issued mileage ratings
ranging from l to l mpg city and l
to l mpg highway.’’ Based on the focus
group research, it appears that car
buyers do not notice this statement
since it appears in small print and has
lengthy text. Some perceived it as ‘‘fine
print,’’ and thus less important. There
are two ways to address these concerns.
The first would shorten the statement to
lessen its ‘‘fine print’’ look. The sample
labels A through C above contain a
revised statement as follows: ‘‘For
comparison shopping, the range of fuel
economy for all [INSERT
COMPARABLE CLASS] is l to l MPG
city and l to l MPG highway.’’
After completion of the focus groups,
we considered another option for
presenting the fuel economy of
comparable vehicles that might aid
consumers by replacing the ‘‘fine print’’
text with a graphic representation. This
approach would use combined fuel
economy as the comparison basis
(versus separate city and highway
comparisons), to simplify the fuel
economy values presented. Combined
fuel economy has not previously
appeared on the label, but is used as an
input to calculate the estimated annual
fuel costs. The graphic presentation is
similar in concept to DOE’s
‘‘EnergyGuide’’ label, which has been
effectively used for years to illustrate
where an electrical appliance falls on an
energy-usage comparison scale.
Therefore, we believe this visual may be
familiar to consumers. A sample label
with the graphical presentation of
comparable fuel economy appears in the
Sample D label above. The graphic
would replace the text regarding
comparable class fuel economy. We
request comment on the merits of this
graphical concept for depicting the fuel
economy of comparable class vehicles,
and whether it would enhance
consumers’ understanding.
In addition, we welcome comment on
whether it would be useful to include
additional information, either on the
label or a Web site, that would give
consumers a better understanding of
how a given vehicle’s fuel economy
compares with the range of fuel
economy of other vehicle classes. This
may be particularly useful for those
consumers shopping for cars across
vehicles classes (e.g., SUVs vs. large
sedans). However, including this much
information on the label may be
problematic due to space limitations.
The annual Fuel Economy Guide
already includes graphical information
on the fuel economy range for all
comparable classes, so that consumers
can identify where a given vehicle fits
within these ranges. We welcome input
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on whether additional information on
comparable class fuel economy would
be useful, and if so, how best to present
that information in a user-friendly way
for consumers.
Another change that will help
improve the usefulness of this
information to consumers is to revise
the comparable vehicle class categories
themselves, since they have not been
updated in twenty years. A discussion
of proposed changes to the comparable
vehicle classifications is in Section V
below.
C. ‘‘Your mileage will vary * * *’’
Range of Expected Fuel Economy
Information
The current label has a statement
explaining why actual fuel economy
will vary from the EPA estimates, and
gives an expected range of fuel economy
for that vehicle, determined by ±15
percent of the city and highway
estimates. While not statutorily required
to be on the label, as discussed in
Section I above, EPA included it in the
1984 fuel economy rule since many
drivers would not precisely achieve the
estimated fuel economy. EPA agrees that
it is important to emphasize on the label
that the city and highway numbers are
estimates and do not necessarily reflect
the actual fuel economy a driver can
expect at any given time. Providing the
range of expected city and highway fuel
economy on the label gives the
consumer a better understanding of
what fuel economy they can expect
across a wider spectrum of real-world
driving conditions. The current label
format does this in a single statement
that gives a few reasons why mileage
will vary, as well as the range of
expected city and highway fuel
economy. Unfortunately, this
information is often disregarded by car
buyers. Similar to the comparable class
information, focus group participants
viewed this information as ‘‘fine print,’’
and as a sort of disclaimer. Once they
had taken the time to consider it, the
focus groups understood why actual inuse fuel economy may vary from the
estimates, and concluded that this type
of information was useful.
To improve consumer
comprehension, the proposed statement
has been reworded and reformatted to
be more noticeable. The proposed text
for presenting the range of expected fuel
economy is ‘‘Your actual mileage can
vary significantly depending on how
you drive and maintain your vehicle
and other factors.’’ We propose to place
the range of expected fuel economy
underneath (or on the side of,
depending on the label) the actual city
and highway estimates to provide
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
consumers with a clearer understanding
of the fuel economy they can expect to
achieve on the road. We request
comments on the effectiveness of this
format in conveying this message, as
well as on the specific wording of this
statement.
D. Other Format Changes
Based on the focus group research, the
current label would benefit from some
graphic updating. In the sample labels,
we have included a more modernlooking fuel pump. Many focus group
participants did not understand that
EPA was the source of the fuel economy
estimates (many thought that the auto
manufacturers or dealers were
responsible). Once they did, they
thought the association with the
government added credibility to the
ratings. We believe that more prominent
government logos (EPA and DOE), will
make it clearer to consumers that these
Agencies are responsible for the fuel
economy estimates. The web link to the
EPA–DOE Fuel Economy Guide Web
site, www.fueleconomy.gov, has also
been added so that interested consumers
may obtain additional information
related to fuel economy.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
V. Other Related Proposals
A. Comparable Class Categories
The EPCA statute requires that the
label contain ‘‘the range of fuel economy
of comparable automobiles of all
manufacturers,’’ but does not specify
what constitutes ‘‘comparable
automobiles.’’ 56 Therefore, EPA has
discretion to interpret how to best
define these categories. The comparable
class categories in place today are the
same as those established in 1976.57
Cars were split according to size based
on their interior volume (with one
exception), and trucks were split
according to their utility and GVWR
into the following groups:
Cars: Two-seater; mini-compact;
compact sedan; medium sedan; large
sedan; station wagon.
Trucks: Small pickup truck; standard
pickup truck; van; special purpose
vehicle.
Clearly, the U.S. vehicle fleet looks
significantly different that it did nearly
30 years ago. Since the time these
classes were created, there have been
many vehicle design changes that are
not reflected in the above class
designations. For example, the sport
utility vehicle (SUV)—one of the most
popular vehicle types today—does not
even have its own class designation.
The same is true for minivans. Another
56 See
49 U.S.C. 32908.
57 See 41 FR 49752, November 19, 1976.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
trend in vehicle design is vehicles that
defy classification in design and utility.
Known commonly as ‘‘crossover’’
vehicles, they do not fit neatly into any
of EPA’s existing classifications. All of
the above shortcomings have limited the
usefulness of the comparable vehicle
fuel economy information on the label.
Having more clearly-defined classes that
reflect the current market will improve
the usefulness of this information on the
label. There are several challenges with
assigning comparable class categories:
we need to accommodate a dynamic
market of changing vehicle designs; the
categories should be as objective as
possible and not rely upon subjective
qualities that are difficult to define
(such as ‘‘luxury’’ or ‘‘sporty’’); and
there should be enough classes to allow
consumers to differentiate, but not so
many as to cause confusion.
The following discussion explains the
specific issues associated with the
existing comparable classes, and how
we propose to address them. It should
be noted that the comparable vehicle
categories are used only for fuel
economy labeling, and in no way
determine if a vehicle is a ‘‘passenger
vehicle’’ or ‘‘nonpassenger vehicle’’ for
the purpose of CAFE compliance. That
determination is made by DOT–NHTSA.
1. Create New Classes for SUVs and
Minivans
The ‘‘Special Purpose Vehicle’’ class
was created to contain vehicles that had
off-road capability and other features
that weren’t covered by the pickup truck
or van category. Since it was first
created, the ‘‘special purpose vehicle’’
class has come to include two widelypopular, high-selling, but very different,
vehicle types—SUVs and minivans.
EPA and DOE have recognized the
evolution of these two classes
informally by including them in the
annual Fuel Economy Guide as
subdivisions of the ‘‘special purpose’’
vehicle class. The determination of
these classes was left to individual
manufacturer’s discretion.58 However,
these subdivisions are not used on the
fuel economy label because EPA’s
current regulations have clear
instructions that manufacturers must
use the comparable classes as defined
by those regulations. This means a
consumer looking at the label on an
SUV will see the range of fuel economy
for all ‘‘special purpose vehicles.’’ We
believe it is appropriate to update the
comparable class regulations by creating
separate classes for SUVs and minivans.
58 EPA Guidance Letter VPCD–99–08, June 23,
1999, provides guidance to manufacturers on using
SUV and minivan designations.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5467
We are also proposing to revise the
‘‘special purpose vehicle’’ class to
capture vehicles that do not fit into any
other category.
Minivan: Minivans have not neatly fit
into EPA’s ‘‘Van’’ class due to the way
vans are defined in the regulations:
‘‘* * * any light truck having an
integral enclosure fully enclosing the
driver compartment and load carrying
device, and having no body sections
protruding more than 30 inches ahead
of the leading edge of the
windshield.’’ 59 Minivans generally do
not meet the last criterion, thus they
have been placed in the ‘‘Special
Purpose Vehicle’’ class. In general,
minivans are smaller than full-size vans,
and have rear seats that are designed to
be easily removable or stowable. Taking
those distinguishing characteristics into
account, we are proposing that minivans
be defined as vehicles which are
designed primarily to carry no more
than eight passengers having an integral
enclosure fully enclosing the driver,
passenger, and load-carrying
compartments, with a total interior
volume at or below 180 cubic feet and
rear seats readily removed or folded to
floor level to facilitate cargo carrying.
SUV: Sport Utility Vehicles likewise
do not fit into the ‘‘van’’ class because
of the 30 inch protuberance criterion.
The class of vehicles which may be
closest in design to the SUV is a station
wagon, defined in the regulations as
‘‘* * * a passenger automobile with an
extended roof line to increase cargo or
passenger capacity, cargo compartment
open to the passenger compartment, a
tailgate, and one or more rear seats
readily removed or folded to facilitate
cargo carrying.’’ The most significant
difference is that SUVs are
‘‘nonpassenger automobiles.’’ 60 The
proposed definition of SUVs is a
nonpassenger automobile with an
extended roof line to increase cargo or
passenger capacity, cargo compartment
open to the passenger compartment, and
59 See
40 CFR 600.002–93.
automobile’’ is a term used in
EPCA and by EPA’s current comparable class
definitions. It includes vehicles which do not fall
under the EPCA definition of passenger
automobiles and that are ‘‘capable of off-highway
operation that the Secretary decides by regulation
(A) has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive)
designed for off-highway operation; and (B) is a 4wheel drive automobile or is rated at more than
6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.’’ The DOT
regulations that further define the distinguishing
features of these vehicles are found at 49 CFR
523.5(a). It should be noted that the methods of
classification of ‘‘nonpassenger automobiles’’ or
‘‘light trucks’’ for the purpose of creating
comparable vehicle classes for fuel economy
labeling are not related to those used to administer
the federal emission compliance requirements.
60 ‘‘Nonpassenger
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5468
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
one or more rear seats readily removed
or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
2. Redefine ‘‘Small Pickup Truck’’ Class
Pickups are currently divided into
‘‘small’’ and ‘‘standard’’ categories, with
‘‘small’’ pickups distinguished from
‘‘standard pickup truck’’ by GVWR
(greater than 4500 lbs is ‘‘standard’’).
For the past several years, no vehicles
certified have been classified as ‘‘small
pickup trucks.’’ To provide better
comparable classes for pickup trucks,
we are proposing to increase the weight
limit distinguishing small and standard
standard pickups to 6000 pounds
GVWR. Pickups less than 6000 pounds
GVWR would be considered ‘‘small’’
and those at or above would be
considered ‘‘standard.’’
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
3. ‘‘Crossover’’ Vehicles
These are vehicles that may not fit
neatly into one classification. Examples
are SUVs or station wagons that may
have characteristics of both classes. Our
policy in that regard has been to work
with the manufacturer to determine
which of the prescribed comparable
classes the vehicle is most appropriate.
We are concerned that by defining
specific parameters for crossover
classes, we will be building
obsolescence into our regulation. Our
preference is to retain our current policy
in which manufacturers propose to EPA
which of the existing comparable
classes their ‘‘crossover’’ vehicles best
fit, with the caveat that if they advertise
within-class fuel economy it must be
with the selected class. We request
comments on whether we should
continue this policy for crossover
vehicles or whether we should create a
new class.
EPA requests general comments on
the proposed modifications to
comparable classes, and also welcomes
comments on other possible ways to
classify vehicles for comparison
purposes. Comments should address
how the classifications will be useful for
the consumer who is comparison
shopping.
B. Electronic Distribution of DealerSupplied Fuel Economy Booklet
A statutory provision in EPCA
requires car dealers to provide to
consumers a copy of the annual fuel
economy booklet (Fuel Economy
Guide).61 Historically, DOE has printed
and sent copies of the Guide to dealers
at government expense, although this is
not an EPCA requirement. At the time
that these EPA regulations were written,
the internet was non-existent, and
61 See
49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(3).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
personal computers were not readily
available. Today’s proposal modifies the
ways in which the Fuel Economy Guide
can be distributed by giving dealers the
option to provide it electronically.
There are a number of ways that this can
happen. Dealers can present the Guide
on an on-site computer that customers
can view, or they can provide them with
a diskette or CD containing the Guide,
or they can print paper copies directly
from the government Web site that has
the Guide (www.fueleconomy.gov).
These methods are superior to the
current hard-copy method for a number
of reasons. First, it spares the
government the large expense of
printing many thousands of copies and
mailing them to dealers. Second, it
allows consumers to have more up-todate information. The deadline for
manufacturers to provide fuel economy
data for inclusion in the annual printed
Guide is generally October of the
calendar year prior to the model year
(e.g. the deadline for the 2005 Guide
was October, 2004). In reality, some
manufacturers are not able to meet this
deadline, due to late introduction of
models or other timing issues, so those
vehicles will not appear in the printed
Guide, which is printed only once per
year. However, the electronic version on
the Guide posted on the internet is
updated regularly to include new
models. Thus consumers can get more
accurate information from the internet
than from the printed Guide. This
method has been used on a trial basis
for the 2004 and 2005 model years with
much success, and EPA is today
proposing to codify the electronic
dissemination of the Guide. This change
would be effective with the 2008 model
year. EPA has consulted with DOE on
this topic and DOE concurs it would be
an effective means of providing
information to car buyers.
C. Testing Provisions
1. Testing Requirements for Vehicles
Currently Exempt From Certain
Emission Tests
Certain vehicles are currently exempt
from some of the emission tests that we
are including in the 5-cycle method. In
order to use the 5-cycle method for
these vehicles, additional fuel economy
testing provisions are necessary.
a. Alternative-Fueled Vehicles. There
are two types of alternative-fueled
vehicles: (1) Flexible-fuel vehicles
(FFVs; also known as dual-fueled or bifueled vehicles) that can operate on
gasoline or diesel and/or some
alternative fuel (i.e., ethanol, methanol,
etc.), and (2) dedicated alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fueled vehicles that operate only on
some alternative fuel.
FFVs are subject to the SFTP and Cold
CO emission standards and test
requirements, but only when operating
on gasoline. Therefore, we propose that
the fuel economy label values of FFVs
when operating on gasoline be
determined using the same mpg-based
or 5-cycle approaches applicable to
dedicated gasoline or diesel fueled
vehicles and, thus, additional testing for
US06, SC03 and Cold FTP while
operating on alternative fuel would not
be required. In addition, although the
fuel economy values when operating on
an alternative fuel are not required to be
reported on the label, they are included
in the annual Fuel Economy Guide.
Accordingly, we propose that the city
and highway fuel economy label values
must reflect the same adjustment factors
relative to FTP and HFET fuel economy,
respectively, developed using the
applicable mpg-based or 5-cycle
approach for gasoline. In other words, if
the city FTP fuel economy is 24 mpg for
operation on gasoline and the calculated
label value using the mpg-based or 5cycle approach is 20 mpg, then the city
label value for operation on alternative
fuel would be the FTP fuel economy
measured when the vehicle is operated
on alternative fuel multiplied by the
ratio of 20 over 24.
Dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles
are exempt from the SFTP and Cold CO
emission standards according to 40 CFR
86.1810(i)(4) and 40 CFR 86.1811–04(g).
As a result, these vehicles will not have
the SFTP and Cold CO fuel economy
data needed to determine 5-cycle fuel
economy values. We propose that
manufacturers of dedicated alternativefueled vehicles be able to use the mpgbased approach in 2011 and beyond, as
well during 2008–2010 in order to avoid
conducting additional tests for fuel
economy reasons only. Since the mpgbased approach uses fuel economy
values measured in terms of miles per
gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel, the fuel
economy of dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles must be expressed in terms of
its gasoline equivalent prior to using the
mpg-based formula. Currently, all
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicle fuel
economy values are expressed in terms
of gasoline equivalent. In this case, the
fuel economy values for a dedicated
alternative vehicle expressed in gasoline
equivalents can be directly determined
using the mpg-based approach.
However, if the fuel economy values for
a dedicated alternative vehicle is
expressed in alternative fuel
equivalents, then, the fuel economy in
terms of miles per gallon of the
alternative fuel would be adjusted by
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
the ratio of the mpg-based value to the
FTP or HFET value, as applicable, just
as described above for FFVs.
We are also proposing that
manufacturers of dedicated alternativefueled vehicles may optionally use the
5-cycle approach at their discretion. In
this case, all the fuel economy values
used in the formulae would be
expressed in terms of operation on the
alternative fuel. If this option is used,
the manufacturer would be required to
conduct all applicable 5-cycle test
procedures and use both the 5-cycle city
and highway calculation methods to
determine fuel economy label values.
b. Diesel Vehicles. Diesel fuel vehicles
are not currently subject to Cold CO
emission standards and, thus, do not
have a 20 degree Fahrenheit (F) FTP fuel
economy result to use in the 5-cycle
based approach. Therefore, beginning
with the 2008 model year for
certification diesel vehicles, we are
proposing that a 20 degree F FTP be
performed for the purpose of collecting
fuel economy data. Accordingly, for a 20
degree FTP only, the manufacturer must
use a #1–D (winter-grade) diesel fuel as
specified in ASTM D975–04c ‘‘Standard
Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’ 62
and that complies with 40 CFR Part
80,63 where the level of kerosene added
shall not exceed 20 percent.
Alternatively, manufacturers may use,
with EPA approval, a manufacturerspecified diesel fuel in lieu of
conventional diesel fuel under alternate
test procedure provisions in 40 CFR
§ 86.113–94, where the level of kerosene
added shall not exceed 20 percent. We
request comment on these proposed
winter-grade diesel fuel specifications.
We expect that the impact of
extending the cold FTP test requirement
to light-duty diesel vehicles will be very
small, given that there are so few diesel
vehicles currently certified. In model
year 2006, for example, only five diesel
light-duty vehicles were certified for
sale in the U.S. Further discussion of
how we evaluated this requirement in
our estimated cost impacts is contained
in Section VI.
62 ASTM International Specification D975–04C
‘‘Standard Specification for Diesel Oil Fuels’’
(November 1, 2005) describes the seven grades of
diesel fuel oils suitable for various types of diesel
engines. This specification is under the jurisdiction
of ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products
and Lubricants and is the direct responsibility of
subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, NonAviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels.
63 40 CFR Part 80—Control of Air Pollution from
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Control Requirements: Final Rule and Regulation of
Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations
for Highway Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later
Calendar Years.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
2. Modifications to Existing Test
Procedures
To ensure that the 5-cycle method is
reflective of real-world operating
conditions, there are a few minor
procedural changes that need to be
made to certain existing emission tests
procedures. First, we are proposing
minor procedural changes in the US06
tests, as described below. Second, we
are seeking comment on the issue of
requiring manufacturers to run the
heater and/or defroster during the cold
FTP test. Third, we are proposing to
codify the existing practice, which has
been done through special test
procedure provisions, of requiring fourbag FTP measurements for gasolineelectric hybrid vehicles.
a. Revisions to US06 Bag
Measurements. The US06 drive cycle
contains elements of both city and
highway driving, yet the exhaust sample
is collected in only one sample, or
‘‘bag.’’ In order to more accurately
reflect the city portion of the drive cycle
into the city fuel economy estimate, and
the highway portion of the cycle into
the highway fuel economy estimate, we
are proposing a revised test protocol
that would require collecting the
exhaust sample into two bags. This has
the benefit of more accurately capturing
how a vehicle’s fuel economy would be
impacted over the various types of
driving reflected in the cycle, but with
very minimal cost impact.
In assessing the split of US06 into two
bags, we undertook a test program to
determine that it was technically
feasible to do so, and that it would not
have a significant impact on emission
results for compliance purposes. To do
this, we evaluated the effects of
conducting a US06 split-phase
emissions test versus the current US06
single-phase emission test on ten
vehicles at EPA’s National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in
Ann Arbor. Based on this evaluation,
the US06 split-phase sampling
methodology was shown to be feasible
for fuel economy purposes and required
only initial software reprogramming for
the revised sampling periods and
minimal hardware changes to enable the
emissions analyzers to perform US06
split-phase emission testing. In
addition, creating a US06 split-phase
sampling period did not result in any
significant difference in criteria
pollutant emissions results. The full
report on this US06 split phase
evaluation program is available in the
docket.64 Our proposed changes to the
64 Mitcham,
A. & Fernandez, A., ‘‘Feasibility of
Revising the US06 Test Cycle into a Split Phase
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5469
US06 test procedure to incorporate the
split-phase sampling are found in the
proposed regulations at 40 CFR 86.159–
08. We have also accounted for any
additional costs to manufacturers in
making the necessary changes to their
testing equipment and data collection
software in our cost analysis discussed
in Section VI. We estimate these costs
to be minimal.
b. Heater/Defroster Usage During the
Cold FTP. The current Cold FTP
conducted at 20 degrees F includes the
option to use the heater and/or
defroster.65 While we understand that
some manufacturers today are using the
heater and/or the defroster during the
Cold FTP, it is not mandatory and
therefore subject to inconsistent usage
across manufacturers and vehicle lines.
We expect that, in the real-world, it
would be highly unusual for drivers not
to use the heater/defroster when the
temperature is cold, including at 20
degrees F experienced during the Cold
FTP. In order to more closely reflect real
world operation, and to ensure a level
playing field across manufacturers and
vehicle lines when performing this test,
we are seeking comment on requiring
that manufacturers operate the heater
and/or defroster during the Cold FTP.
To better understand the potential
impact of heater and/or defroster usage
on fuel economy at cold temperatures,
we attempted to determine the fuel
economy impacts of heater and defroster
usage at 20 degrees F. In order to
quantify the impact of heater and/or
defroster usage on fuel economy, we
conducted testing through the
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI).
This program measured the impacts of
heater and defroster operation on fuel
economy for three vehicles during a 20
degree Cold FTP. We compared the fuel
economy results with heater/defroster
operational with the results of the
heater/defroster non-operational on
each vehicle. The Cold FTP fuel
economy with the heater/defroster on
was significantly lower than that with
the heater/defroster off, ranging from
¥6.0 percent (∼1 mile per gallon lower
on a non-hybrid vehicle) to ¥17.9
percent (∼8 miles per gallon lower on a
hybrid vehicle). We did not observe a
significant impact on CO or other
measured emissions as a result of the
use of the heater/defroster on the Cold
FTP. The results of this test program
indicated that different vehicles were
impacted more than others, suggesting
that it would be important to capture
the impact on fuel economy of heater
Sampling Test Procedure’’ U.S. EPA, Office of
Transportation & Air Quality, 2005.
65 See 40 CFR 86.230–94(f).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5470
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and defroster use during cold
conditions. The full report of this test
program is contained in the docket.66
Since heater and defroster operation
can have an additional impact on fuel
economy beyond cold temperature
operation, and since these accessories
are used in the real-world at cold
temperatures including 20 degrees F, we
are seeking comment on how this
condition should be captured in the fuel
economy label estimates. Specifically,
we are seeking comment on requiring
the use of heater/defroster during the
Cold FTP, rather than to continue to
allow it as an option only.
There are many approaches for how
the heater and defroster usage could be
incorporated into the Cold FTP test
procedures, including specifying
appropriate fan speed settings, timing of
turning on the heater/defroster during
the test, and accounting for various
vehicle climate control designs. One
concept that we have considered is as
follows. This concept would involve
starting the test with the airflow
directed to the windshield for optimal
defrosting, the airflow source set to
outside air (not recirculation), and the
air temperature set to high.
Approximately two minutes into the
test, the fan speed could be turned to
maximum and left there for the duration
of the test. This would mimic typical
driver behavior in that we expect many
drivers typically would not turn the fan
to maximum until the engine is
producing some level of heat, which
most vehicles will do within a couple
minutes of driving. Automatic climate
control systems could be set to achieve
an inside air temperature of 72 degrees
F, and the fan speed, if independently
selectable, would be operated as
described above. Vehicles with multiple
zones (either driver and passenger, or
front and rear) could be required to
operate the controls for all zones as
described above. We anticipate that
some climate control systems might not
be compatible with these instructions,
and to address these we could allow a
manufacturer to request the use of
special test procedures, subject to EPA
approval. We seek comment on this
possible concept for how heater/
defroster usage could be specified in the
cold FTP procedure, as well as
comments on alternative approaches.
c. Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicle
Testing Provisions. The FTP consists of
two parts, referred to in the regulations
as the ‘‘cold start’’ test and the ‘‘hot
66 Fernandez, A. & Mitcham, A., ‘‘Fuel Economy
Impacts of Interior Heater/Defroster Usage on
Conventional and Hybrid Gasoline powered
Vehicles’’, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation & Air
Quality, 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
start’’ test. Each of these parts is divided
into two periods, or ‘‘phases’’: a
‘‘transient’’ phase and a ‘‘stabilized’’
phase. Because the stabilized phase of
the hot start test is assumed to be
identical to the stabilized phase of the
cold start test for conventional vehicles,
only the cold start stabilized phase is
typically run. These ‘‘phases’’ are often
called ‘‘bags,’’ terminology that results
from the sample bags in which the
exhaust samples are collected. The
phases are run in the following order:
cold start transient (Bag 1), cold start
stabilized (Bag 2), and hot start transient
(Bag 3). The virtual hot start stabilized
phase (Bag 4) is accounted for in the
emission and fuel economy results
mathematically by including Bag 2
twice in the calculation.
Because gasoline-electric hybrid
vehicles have two energy sources that
can be combined in many ways, EPA
and manufacturers recognized that the
assumption regarding the equivalence of
the stabilized phases of the hot and cold
start tests may not be valid for hybrid
vehicles. Consequently, we have been
requiring vehicles with gasoline-electric
hybrid systems to perform the complete
set of four phases of the FTP, under
existing provisions in the regulations
that allow special test procedures.
However, rather than continue to do this
under the special test procedures, we
believe it is appropriate to codify this
practice in the testing regulations.
Additionally, the 5-cycle formula for
gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles
requires the four phases of the FTP as
inputs for these vehicles. Therefore, we
are proposing to require that gasolineelectric hybrid vehicles conduct all four
phases of the FTP for both emissions
and fuel economy testing. We propose
that four bags be required for all tests
using the FTP, including the cold
temperature FTP, for those vehicles
defined as hybrid electric vehicles. We
request comment on this proposal, and
on whether use of the phrase ‘‘hybrid
electric vehicle’’ is sufficient to describe
and identify vehicles for which the fourbag FTP would be required.
D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for
Vehicles Exceeding 8500 Pounds GVWR
The EPCA statute explicitly excludes
automobiles weighing over 8500 pounds
GVWR from fuel economy labeling
requirements.67 However, over the past
several years there has been a growing
market for these heavier vehicles, which
fall into a number of utility classes, such
as SUVs, pickups, and vans (including
heavier versions of such models as
Hummer, Ford Excursion, Chevy
67 See
PO 00000
49 U.S.C. 32908(a)(1).
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Silverado and Dodge Ram). We believe
that consumers would be interested in
using fuel economy estimates for these
vehicles when comparison shopping.
The rising fuel prices of recent times
certainly have increased consumer
awareness of the costs associated with
owning a vehicle.
We encourage auto manufacturers of
vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds to
voluntarily provide fuel economy
information for these vehicles, and we
request comments on the value of such
a voluntary program and how it could
be implemented.
E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption
vs. Fuel Economy as a Metric
EPCA defines fuel economy as ‘‘* * *
the average number of miles traveled by
an automobile for each gallon of
gasoline (or equivalent amount of other
fuel) used, as determined by the
Administrator under section 32904(c) of
this title.’’ Thus, EPA’s fuel economy
information program has always
expressed fuel efficiency in miles per
gallon. It is a metric that Americans
have come to know and understand.
Notwithstanding this requirement, a
few auto manufacturers have suggested
that it may be more meaningful to
express fuel efficiency in terms of
consumption (e.g., gallons per 100
miles) rather than in terms of economy
(miles per gallon). A fuel consumption
metric is currently used in Canada and
in Europe. Fuel consumption numbers
speak directly to the amount of fuel
used, to which a consumer can relate in
terms of cost when filling up.
A fuel consumption metric also
directly reflects the impacts of fuel
economy variations in very fuel efficient
vehicles. Consumers that are
disappointed that their highly-rated
vehicle may have fuel economy that is
5 mpg lower than expected may have
fewer concerns if they saw that a 5 mpg
difference for that vehicle really
amounts to very little difference in
actual fuel consumption (and, therefore,
cost at the pump) compared with a 5
mpg difference in a vehicle with a lower
mpg rating. For example, a very fuelefficient vehicle at 60 miles per gallon
will burn 1.67 gallons per 100 miles,
whereas a vehicle achieving 5 mpg less,
at 55 miles per gallon, will burn 1.82
gallons per 100 miles, an increase in
consumption of only 0.15 gallons every
100 miles. On the other hand, a less
fuel-efficient vehicle at 25 miles per
gallon will burn 4 gallons every 100
miles, whereas a vehicle achieving 5
mpg less, at 20 mpg, will burn 5 gallons
per 100 miles, an increase of
consumption of 1 gallon every 100
miles.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5471
F. Environmental Information on Fuel
Economy Labels
For a number of years, EPA has
presented fuel economy and emissions
information about vehicles in the form
of a 0–10 rating system on the Green
Vehicle Guide Web site (www.epa.gov/
greenvehicles). This information has
been well-received (over 50 million
‘‘hits’’ to date) and apparently wellunderstood by consumers, judging from
feedback about this site and third-party
market research comparing interest in
and comprehension of such
information. Some have suggested that
adding similar information to the fuel
economy label would provide the
consumer with a more complete picture
of the overall environmental
performance of that vehicle and provide
a more graphical way to make vehicle-
to-vehicle comparisons. It would also
complete the information loop by
allowing consumers to identify the
vehicles on the dealer lot that match
those on the Web site with the
environmental criteria they are seeking.
This would be useful because many
vehicle models are available in multiple
versions that receive different Air
Pollution and Greenhouse Gas scores,
and it is often difficult for the consumer
to identify these variations when buying
a vehicle. When conducting the focus
group research discussed in Section IV
above, participants were shown
examples of fuel economy labels that
included environmental ratings (for Air
Pollution and Greenhouse Gas) and
asked for their impressions. Although
there was some confusion due to the
newness of the information, there was
general agreement that it could be useful
in the future. At this time, we are not
proposing to require environmental
ratings on fuel economy labels.
However, we are considering
implementing a voluntary
environmental labeling program and
request comments on this subject. An
example of how the environmental
scores could look is below:
tests and projected sales, to establish
fuel economy ratings. Currently, the
pertinent emissions tests for fuel
economy purposes are the FTP and the
HFET. The vehicles that are tested for
emissions purposes and for fuel
economy purposes are overlapping but
not identical classes: because fuel
economy ratings are based on the salesweighted fuel economy ratings, different
vehicles may sometimes be tested to
determine an appropriate average so
that its ratings accurately reflect the
entire fleet.
The fuel economy ratings used to
comply with the labeling requirements
for new vehicles (40 CFR Part 600,
Subpart D) are listed by model type.
These ratings are computed as the sales
weighted harmonic mean of the ‘‘base
levels’’ within each model type, which
in turn are calculated as the sales
weighted harmonic mean of the
configurations/sub-configurations
within each base level. The criteria for
determining a configuration, subconfiguration, and base level are set
forth in the regulations. This procedure
is intended to ensure that the most
representative fuel economy values are
posted on new vehicles. New vehicles
are sold and therefore labeled and rated
by the manufacturer’s model
designation rather than the categories
that correspond to the test groups and
fuel economy vehicles that are used for
generating fuel economy data.
No changes are contemplated by this
rulemaking in the methodology for the
sales-weighted calculations based on
configurations of vehicles summarized
in the preceding paragraph. That
methodology would simply be extended
to the additional test cycles that would
be included in calculating the label
values under the five-cycle proposal.
For example, US06, SC03, and Cold FTP
data would be grouped and sales
A. Information and Reporting Burden
The information and reporting burden
associated with this rule occurs within
the context of EPA’s motor vehicle
certification program. Current
regulations require manufacturers to
submit fuel economy information to
EPA in conjunction with this program.
Manufacturers must submit an
application for emission certification
prior to production. The application
describes the major aspects of the
proposed product line, technical details
of the emission control systems, and the
results of tests to indicate compliance
with the emissions limitations. The
application and supporting test results
are reviewed and, if appropriate, a
certificate of conformity is issued.
Some of the product information used
to verify emission compliance is also
used, in conjunction with additional
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.043
regard to using the fuel consumption
metric. At this time we view presenting
fuel consumption information on the
vehicle label as a future, long-term
effort. We request comments on the
gallons-per-mile fuel consumption
metric, and how it could be best used
and presented publicly, including
comments on whether it should be
included in the Fuel Economy Guide.
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed
Requirements
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The ‘‘estimated annual fuel cost’’
information on the label is actually
based on a fuel consumption metric: the
cost of X number of gallons consumed
over 15,000 miles. Thus we believe the
inclusion of the estimated annual fuel
cost on the label is already a valuable
metric for consumers, which relates
directly to fuel consumption. Given that
we are obligated statutorily to report
fuel economy in terms of miles per
gallon, we cannot change the metric on
the fuel economy label. Moreover, we
believe it would be a long-term
educational process for consumers to
begin to relate to the fuel consumption
metric of gallons per mile. There may be
an option to also provide additional fuel
consumption information in the annual
Fuel Economy Guide.
Our experience is that consumers are
very comfortable with the miles-pergallon estimates given on the label. We
are concerned that consumers would
not understand a different fuel
efficiency metric and, without a longterm, comprehensive public awareness
campaign, it would be very confusing to
the public. We also understand that
some manufacturers plan to pursue
some public outreach and education in
5472
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
weighted in the same way that FTP and
HFET data are now. The system for
reporting and calculating the resultant
fuel economy label values would be the
same as that currently in use. Likewise,
the requirement for manufacturers to
publish the fuel economy information
on the labels of new vehicles would be
the same as the current requirements.
Consequently, the purely reporting
burdens are those associated with
updating information formats and
databases to comply with the new fuel
economy computations.
To the extent that information costs
are taken to include new capital costs
associated with gathering the
information under the rule, as is the
case for purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, these costs must also be
considered. These information burdens
corresponding to the various parts of the
proposal are discussed below.
Additional details are given in the Draft
Technical Support Document.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1. Incorporation of Other Driving
Conditions Into the City and Highway
Fuel Economy Label Calculations
The proposal would require
calculation of fuel economy values
based on the five-cycle formulae
beginning with model year 2011 for
some engine families. As discussed in
detail elsewhere in this preamble, for
model years 2008 through 2010,
manufacturers may use the mpg-based
calculation for the five-cycle fuel
economy values or they may conduct
voluntary testing. For model year 2011
and after, if the five-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values for an
emission data vehicle group are within
4 percent and 5 percent of the mpgbased regression line, respectively, then
all the vehicle configurations
represented by the emission data
vehicle (e.g., all vehicles within the
vehicle test group) would use the mpgbased approach. Vehicles within a test
group falling outside the 5 percent
tolerance band for highway fuel
economy values would be required to
conduct US06 tests; those falling
outside the city fuel economy band
would be required to conduct SC03,
US06, and Cold FTP tests. In addition,
we expect that some of these vehicles
falling outside the tolerance level may
be eligible to estimate fuel economy for
a given test through the application of
analytically derived fuel economy
(ADFE) values. Some data is currently
available for vehicles that have
conducted all five tests; based on this
data, EPA has estimated the number of
vehicles for which additional testing
would be required because they fall
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
outside the 4 and 5 percent bands, as
discussed below.
We have prepared a range of burden
estimates for this analysis and the
discussion will mention minimum and
maximum burden scenarios. These low
and high estimates are intended to
provide EPA’s estimate of the outer
boundaries of the likely testing and
information costs, and EPA solicits
comments on the basis of these
estimates, including the number of
additional tests and costs for performing
those tests and additional tests that will
be likely under the proposal.
a. Testing Burden for 2008 through
2010 Model Years. EPA estimates no
additional tests during MY 2008
through MY 2010 based on the fact that
the mpg-based fuel economy estimates
will be available for all manufacturers.
No additional testing would be required
because manufacturers simply apply the
mpg-based scale of adjustments to the
same FTP and HFET test results that
they otherwise would conduct for the
fuel economy labeling program. While
manufacturers have the option of
conducting and reporting full five-cycle
test results, such tests are not required,
and most manufacturers have indicated
it is unlikely they will do so. This cost
analysis is limited to burdens that are
mandated by the proposal.
b. Testing Burden for 2011 and Later
Model Years. Based on MY 2004 data,
1250 fuel economy vehicles were tested
with the FTP and highway fuel
economy tests. (The figure is
approximate because the city FTP test
may be used and recorded primarily as
a fuel economy test, an emissions test,
or both.) Data show that 330
Supplemental FTP (US06 and SC03)
tests were conducted and 220 Cold CO
tests. Consequently, if all fuel economy
vehicles were required to conduct full
five-cycle tests, approximately 920
additional Supplemental FTP tests and
1,030 Cold CO tests would be required.
EPA estimates, based on an analysis of
our 423 vehicle dataset, that 8 percent
of the test groups will fall outside a
band of 〈≡∼ 4 percent of the regression
for the city test and 23 percent outside
a band of 〈≡∼ 5 percent of the highway
regression. Taking the 2004 numbers
above as a baseline, 92 percent of the
additional SC03 and Cold CO tests
otherwise required would be avoided
for city fuel economy; 77 percent of the
additional USO6 tests would be
avoided. Thus, for example, the initial
estimate of increased testing burden for
SC03 would be 8 percent of the
difference between 1250 and 330.
The estimated cost impact of
requiring cold FTP testing for light-duty
diesel vehicles (as discussed in Section
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
V.C.1.b) is small. As an example, in
model year 2006, only five light-duty
diesel vehicles were certified for sale in
the U.S. A total of eight city/highway
tests were performed on those vehicles
to determine fuel economy estimates. As
applied to the 2006 model year, our
proposal would require that an
additional eight cold FTP tests be
performed in addition to the city/
highway tests. Our cost analysis has
accounted for additional cold FTP
testing across the entire automotive
industry, including diesel vehicles.
Finally, the high and low estimates
under these assumptions are generated
by differing estimates of the effect of
another feature that will be available for
MY 2011 and after: an expanded use of
analytically derived fuel economy
(ADFE) as an alternative to conducting
vehicle tests. Current guidance (CCD–
04–06) limits ADFE to 20 percent of the
values that would otherwise be derived
from tests; the 1250 test baseline already
excludes such analytically derived
results. Expanded ADFE guidance will
be prepared in time for MY 2011 to
allow for derivation of fuel economy
values for some of the additional test
cycles that otherwise would be required
as described above. The low and high
burden estimates assumes that 20
percent and 0 percent of the additional
tests would thereby be avoided,
respectively.
c. Cost Analysis. The information and
paperwork burden, consistent with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, is considered
to consist of labor hours and costs,
operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs, and costs associated with
gathering, reporting, and storing the
information newly mandated by this
rule. These costs include the costs
associated with gathering the
information that has to be reported to
EPA, such as test results, and the capital
costs needed to construct and maintain
facilities to conduct the tests. It does not
include other burdens associated with
compliance with the fuel economy
requirements of federal law and
regulations. The analysis below follows
this conceptualization and considers
capital, labor and O&M associated with
testing, and one-time startup costs
primarily for information technology
and paperwork, in turn.
i. Capital Costs. For capital costs, the
largest component of the information
burden estimate, we have used an FTP
facility cost of $4 million per facility
able to perform 750 US06 tests per year,
a cost of $9 million for an
environmental test facility able to
conduct 300 to 428 SC03 tests per year,
and $10 million for an environmental
facility able to conduct 300 to 428 Cold
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
FTP tests per year. The new tests were
deemed to require these facilities in
proportion to the number of tests
needed, and the costs were then
annualized over ten years with a seven
percent depreciation. This is likely a
very conservative assumption since it
does not attempt to account for the
current excess capacity that exists in
manufacturers’ current test facilities. We
assume that there is no excess capacity
in our analysis. Furthermore, consistent
with other information burden analyses
for the emissions and fuel economy
programs, we have considered these as
ongoing rather than startup costs (i.e., as
the facilities depreciate they are
continually being replaced). Annualized
and depreciated over ten years at seven
percent, these capital costs per year
under the above analysis are $0 for each
of model years 2008, 2009 and 2010,
and range from $524,000 to $866,000
per year for model years 2011 and after.
ii. Labor and Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Costs. For the labor
and O&M costs of conducting tests,
costs and hours for the differing
categories are derived from prior
Information Collection Requests
submitted for EPA’s light duty
certification program. Those estimates
are based on the number of tests and the
hours of labor used at EPA’s testing
facility combined with industry data
supplied in response to questionnaires;
these have been somewhat adjusted to
reflect current information. These costs
are estimated to range from $1,860 to
$2,441 per test. These costs per test are
applied to the numbers of tests
estimated under the minimum and
maximum scenarios above, and amount
to $606,000 to $757,000 and 8,800 to
11,000 hours per year for MY 2011 and
after.
iii. Startup Costs. The incremental
startup costs and hours, in contrast, are
considered to be one-time costs
beginning with model year 2008. These
startup burdens are primarily
information technology and paperwork
costs involving familiarization with the
new data reporting requirements and
reformatting management information
systems to carry out and report the
necessary data and calculations. All
these burdens are add-ons to well
established reporting requirements:
manufacturers already submit data to
EPA on all five test cycles, have the
option of applying analytically derived
fuel economy numbers, and report
vehicle class determinations and
supporting information. These costs also
include one-time costs for implementing
US06 split phase sampling, as described
in Section V of this preamble, which
entails software and instrumentation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
reprogramming and a limited number of
US06 validation tests. EPA estimates all
startup costs, depreciated at 7 percent
and annualized over ten years, as
$526,100 to $614,900 and 3,800 to 4,700
hours.
2. Revised Label Format and New
Information Included
The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the fuel
economy label are set forth in 40 CFR
sections 600.312 to 600.314. These
sections require that manufacturers
supply EPA with the label values and
the data used to derive them, and
provide schedules for the updating of
this information. Under the proposed
rule, these values will be recalculated
and new data will be submitted. The
costs for these efforts are very minimal
and are addressed above. There will be
a one-time set-up charge associated with
the new label format based on the effort
required for each manufacturer to apply
the new EPA templates to the labels
they must print. This cost item has been
included in the paperwork startup costs
portion of the cost analysis.
3. Reporting of Fuel Economy Data for
SC03, US06 and Cold CO Tests
Current regulations do not require
manufacturers to measure and report
fuel economy values for vehicles
undergoing the SC03, US06, and Cold
FTP. The proposed rule would require
fuel economy values to be reported,
along with the existing reporting
requirements, under these tests
whenever they are conducted. Providing
this additional information is not
expected to involve any additional
capital or operating costs for
manufacturers because the fuel
economy data can be obtained without
any modification of these test
procedures and without the need for
any new testing equipment. The only
burden associated with this new
requirement would be an initial startup
paperwork burden of modifying
information and reporting systems to
report and store the fuel economy
results for these tests. These burdens are
included within the paperwork and
information burden estimate in Section
VI.A.1 above.
4. Impact on Confirmatory Testing
Confirmatory testing is additional
testing performed either by EPA or by
the manufacturer to confirm the results
of the initial vehicle tests. EPA
regulations describe confirmatory
testing of fuel economy vehicles in 40
CFR 600.008–01 and of emission
certification vehicles in 40 CFR
86.1835–01. We are not proposing to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5473
change those regulations in today’s
proposal, but we need to consider the
potential burden impact of today’s
proposal based on these existing
regulations. There are two primary
considerations.
First, the regulations permit EPA to
perform confirmatory testing of any
vehicle. EPA’s policy is to randomly test
a small percentage of vehicles and other
targeted vehicles (such as newtechnology vehicles or previously
uncertified models). EPA performs
confirmatory testing on roughly ten
percent of the vehicles that the
manufacturers test. The cost to
manufacturers associated with EPA
confirmatory testing includes the cost of
preparing and transporting vehicles to
EPA testing facilities. (EPA bears the
burden of testing). EPA is not proposing
to increase the number of vehicles it
targets for confirmatory testing; thus no
additional burden is anticipated.
Second, manufacturers are required to
perform their own confirmatory testing
using criteria specified in the
regulations, including failed or high
emission levels, unexpectedly high fuel
economy, fuel economy leader within
class, and fuel economy near the Gas
Guzzler tax threshold. The only
criterion that could potentially cause an
increase in the number of manufacturerperformed confirmatory tests under the
proposal is failed or high emission
levels. This is because more US06, SC03
and Cold CO tests will be needed to
determine the label estimates, thus
increasing the possibility for failed or
high emission levels. This possibility is
slight, however, and very difficult to
quantify. Thus we do not anticipate any
additional burden. In the event that
confirmatory testing is increased as a
result of today’s proposed rule, this will
be reflected in the next renewal request
for EPA information collection
authorization.
B. Fees
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA collects
fees to cover its costs of issuing
certificates of conformity for the classes
of vehicles and engines covered by this
proposal. On May 11, 2004, EPA
updated its fees based upon a study of
the costs associated with its motor
vehicle and engine compliance program
(69 FR 51402). At the time that cost
study was conducted the current
rulemaking was not considered.
The proposed rule does not place
additional burden upon the EPA. There
may be a slight increase in compliance
testing when the rule is initially
implemented, but it is expected to be
minimal. Because EPA does not expect
an increase in the costs of the motor
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5474
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
vehicle and compliance program at this
time, there will be no increase in the
fees collected as a result of this
proposal. We may need to add
additional testing capacity at our
laboratory facilities in the future. EPA
will monitor its compliance testing and
associated costs and, if necessary, in the
future may change fees by rulemaking to
include these new costs.
C. Aggregate Costs
Aggregate annual costs, as discussed
above and summarized in Table VI–1
below, are estimated to be between
$526,000 and $2.2 million.
TABLE VI–1.—AGGREGATE COSTS
MY 2008 through MY 2010
MY 2011 and after
Cost element
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Test Volume .....................................................................................................................
Facilities ...........................................................................................................................
Startup .............................................................................................................................
$0
0
526,128
$0
0
614,928
$605,672
524,112
526,128
$757,090
866,111
614,928
Total ..........................................................................................................................
526,128
614,928
1,655,122
2,238,129
VII. Public Participation
This rule is being proposed under the
authority of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA),68 and Section
774 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.69
We request comment on all aspects of
this proposal. This section describes
how you can participate in this process.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
A. How and To Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
We are opening a formal comment
period by publishing this document. We
will accept comments for the period
indicated under DATES above. If you
have an interest in the program
described in this document, we
encourage you to comment on any
aspect of this rulemaking.
Your comments will be most useful if
you include appropriate and detailed
supporting rationale, data, and analysis.
If you disagree with parts of the
proposal, we encourage you to suggest
and analyze alternate approaches to
meeting the goals described in this
proposal. You should send all
comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air
Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end
of the comment period.
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the
body of your comment. Submit your
comments within the specified
comment period. Comments received
after the close of the comment period
will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments. If you wish to submit CBI or
information that is otherwise protected
by statute, please follow the instructions
in Section VI.B below. Do not use EPA
68 See
69 See
49 U.S.C. 32908.
Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or
information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
If you submit an electronic comment
as prescribed below, we recommend
that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact
information on the outside of any disk
or CD–ROM you submit, and in any
cover letter accompanying the disk or
CD–ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the
comment and allows us to contact you
if we cannot read your comment or if we
need further information on the
substance of your comment. Our policy
is that we will not edit your comment;
any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will
be included as part of the comment that
is placed in the official public docket
and made available in EPA’s electronic
public docket. If we cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
we may not be able to consider your
comment.
a. EPA Dockets. To submit comments
to EPA’s electronic public docket, go
directly to the Federal Docket
Management System at https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0169. The system is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, which means we will
not know your identity, e-mail address,
or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
b. Disk or CD–ROM. You may submit
comments on a disk or CD–ROM that
you send to the mailing address
identified in Section VI.A.2 below.
Avoid the use of special software,
characters, and any form of encryption.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. By Mail
Send your comments to:
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and
Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0169.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0169. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
Do not submit information that you
consider to be confidential business
information (CBI) electronically through
EPA’s electronic public docket or by email. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Assessment and Standards
Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0169. You may
claim information that you submit to
EPA as CBI by marking any part or all
of that information as CBI (if you submit
CBI on disk or CD–ROM, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket and EPA’s electronic public
docket. If you submit the copy that does
not contain CBI on disk or CD–ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be
included in the public docket and EPA’s
electronic public docket without prior
notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
We will hold a public hearing on this
proposal on March 3, 2006 in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. The hearing will start
at 10 a.m. and continue until testimony
is complete. See ADDRESSES above for
location and phone information.
If you would like to present testimony
at a public hearing, we ask that you
notify the contact person listed above at
least ten days before the hearing. You
should estimate the time you need for
your presentation and identify any
needed audio/visual equipment. We
suggest that you bring copies of your
statement or other material for the EPA
panel and the audience. It would also be
helpful if you send us a copy of your
statement or other materials before the
hearing.
We will make a tentative schedule for
the order of testimony based on the
notification we receive. This schedule
will be available on the morning of each
hearing. In addition, we will reserve a
block of time for anyone else in the
audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing
informally, and technical rules of
evidence won’t apply. We will arrange
for a written transcript of the hearing
and keep the official record of the
hearing open for 30 days to allow you
to submit supplementary information.
You may make arrangements for copies
of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 the
Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and
the requirements of this Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
regulatory action that is likely to result
in a rule that may:
• Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, Local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
• Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
• Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
• Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
A Draft Technical Support Document
has been prepared and is available in
the docket for this rulemaking and at the
internet address listed under ADDRESSES
above. Pursuant to the terms of
Executive Order 12866, OMB has
notified EPA that it considers this a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the meaning of the Executive Order.
EPA has submitted this action to OMB
for review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
documents prepared by EPA have been
assigned EPA ICRs number 0783.48
(OMB control number 2060–0104) and
2211.01.
1. ICR #0783.48
The information collection burden
associated with this rule (testing,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements) is estimated to total
between 3,703 and 15,634 hours yearly,
and between $1,639,965 and $2,222,183
yearly ($510,181 to $598,982 for each of
calendar years 2008 and 2009). This
includes $10,290,300 in one-time
startup and ongoing capital costs for test
facilities annualized over ten years and
depreciated at 7 percent for the highest
estimate. The annual costs and hours for
information collection activities by a
given manufacturer under any of the
options in this proposed rule depend
upon manufacturer-specific variables,
such as the number of different test
groups and the number of vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5475
tested for fuel economy determinations.
The estimated number of likely
respondent manufacturers is 35. The
responses will be submitted annually as
a part of the existing EPA certification
and fuel economy process. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
2. ICR #2211.01
EPA is planning to conduct a series of
focus groups as a result of comments
received on the proposed label design
formats. The specific questions to be
asked of the groups will depend upon
the comments received, but will
generally fall into the areas described in
the following two sections.
a. Fuel Economy Background
Questions. These questions will be
designed to assess the respondents’
familiarity with the current fuel
economy label and to lay the
groundwork for the discussion about the
revised labels. Examples of possible
questions are: Have they seen the city
and highway numbers anywhere else
besides the label? If so, where? What do
the various pieces of information on the
label mean? Is this information useful?
What is their overall opinion of the
label? What improvements would they
make?
b. Questions About New Label
Designs. These questions could be either
about those designs proposed by EPA or
variations thereof, if indicated by the
comments received on the proposal.
Examples of possible questions are:
What is their first impression of the
label? Do they think the new label(s)
looks better than the old label? Is it
more easy to understand and, if so,
why? Is any of the information
presented in a better way or a more
confusing way? Is any one of the
alternatives better/worse than the
others?
The information from the focus
groups would be used as additional
information to guide EPA in
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5476
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
determining the final fuel economy
label format. The burden associated
with conducting the focus groups can be
roughly estimated, based on the
assumption that there would be 10
groups total with 9 participants in each
group. The groups would be situated at
about 5 different geographical locations.
Each group would take about 2 hours,
with an additional 2 hours allotted for
traveling and screening. The
participants would be chosen based on
some very nominal screening criteria,
such as having a valid driver’s license
and owning or leasing a vehicle. The
screening would be done via telephone,
and take no longer than 30 minutes.
Thus the burden associated with the
focus groups would be approximately
4.5 hours per participant, for a total of
about 405 burden-hours.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA
has established a public docket for this
rule, which includes these ICRs, under
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0169. Submit any comments
related to the ICRs for this proposed rule
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after February 1, 2006, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by March 3, 2006. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this final rule on small entities, a
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) by
category of business using North
America Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) and codified at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A small business that
manufactures automobiles has a NAIC
code of 336111. Based on Small
Business Administration size standards,
a small business for this NAIC code is
defined as a manufacturer having less
than 1000 employees. Out of a total of
approximately 80 automotive
manufacturers subject to today’s
proposal, EPA estimates that
approximately 10 of these could be
classified as small entities based on SBA
size standards. Unlike large
manufacturers with complex and
diverse product lines, we expect that the
small entities (generally these are
vehicle importers and vehicle
converters) will be able use the results
of tests they are already conducting for
emissions compliance to satisfy the
proposed fuel economy labeling
requirements. Therefore, we expect that
these small entities will face minimal
additional burden due to the proposed
fuel economy labeling requirements.
Independent Commercial Importers
(ICIs) have averaged about 50 imported
engine families per year for the last
three model years. There are
approximately 10 ICIs subject to today’s
proposal. If we assume that the ICIs and
other small entities account for five
percent of the vehicle models for which
fuel economy labels are needed (a
proportion that is certainly an
overestimate, but useful for placing an
upper bound on the estimated cost
impacts for small entities), then these
entities must generate about 65 different
fuel economy labels. Using the total
estimated costs from Section VI of this
preamble, the average annual cost per
labeled vehicle configuration is about
$1280–$1760, and the total annual cost
for 20 small entities can be estimated to
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be $85,000–$114,000. The total average
annual cost for an individual importer
or small manufacturer can therefore be
estimated to be a maximum of $4,250–
$5,700. We have recently collected data
on the currently operating small entities
in the ICI and vehicle conversion
categories; this data indicates that the
average annual revenue for these
companies is approximately $4.8
million. Therefore, the projected cost
increase is a maximum of 0.12 percent
of the average revenue for small
importers or manufacturers. Because of
the limited range of vehicle
configurations typically offered by these
small entities, we believe that the
maximum cost for these entities will be
even lower than the low end of the
ranges shown above. Our methodology
for estimating costs in Section VI
assumes that manufacturers have
diverse product lines, and thus
ultimately will need to perform some
level of additional testing in 2011 and
later model years. Using costs based on
such an assumption will tend to
overestimate costs for ICIs and vehicle
converters, who typically produce or
import a single model or configuration.
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities.
Additionally, there are numerous
existing regulatory relief provisions in
the emissions compliance regulations
for such small entities. Those provisions
remain in effect and would not be
impacted by today’s proposed rule. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result
in expenditures to state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year. Before promulgating an
EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives, and to adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal
mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on
any of these governmental entities.
Nothing in the rule would significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
We have determined that this rule
does not contain a federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of more than
$100 million to the private sector in any
single year. We believe that this
proposed rule represents the least
costly, most cost effective approach to
achieve the goals of the proposed rule.
The costs are discussed in Section VI
and in the Draft Technical Support
Document.
unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order
contains additional requirements for
rules that preempt State or local law,
even if those rules do not have
federalism implications (i.e., the rules
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all
affected State and local officials notice
and an opportunity for appropriate
participation in the development of the
regulation. If the preemption is not
based on expressed or implied statutory
authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate
State and local officials regarding the
conflict between State law and
Federally protected interests within the
agency’s area of regulatory
responsibility.
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
Under Section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’
This rule does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This rule will be
implemented at the Federal level and
impose compliance costs only on engine
manufacturers and ship builders. Tribal
governments will be affected only to the
extent they purchase and use equipment
with regulated engines. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5477
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Risks
Health and Safety
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
Section 5–501 of the Order directs the
Agency to evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it does not
involve decisions on environmental
health or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not likely to
have a significant effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. As
specifically stated in section I.D, the
proposed regulations do not affect the
CAFE program. The proposed
regulations do not require
manufacturers to improve or otherwise
change the fuel economy of their
vehicles. The purpose of this proposal is
to provide consumers with better
information on which to base their
vehicle purchasing decisions.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5478
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
Statutory authority for the fuel
economy labeling program proposed
today can be found in 42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671q.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and
procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 10, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, we propose to amend parts 86
and 600 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
VEHICLES AND ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 86
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart B—[Amended]
2. A new § 86.158–08 is added to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 86.158–08 Supplemental Federal Test
Procedures; overview.
The procedures described in
§§ 86.158–08, 86.159–08, 86.160–00,
and 86.162–00 discuss the aggressive
driving (US06) and air conditioning
(SC03) elements of the Supplemental
Federal Test Procedures (SFTP). These
test procedures consist of two separable
test elements: A sequence of vehicle
operation that tests exhaust emissions
with a driving schedule (US06) that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
tests exhaust emissions under high
speeds and accelerations (aggressive
driving); and a sequence of vehicle
operation that tests exhaust emissions
with a driving schedule (SC03) which
includes the impacts of actual air
conditioning operation. These test
procedures (and the associated
standards set forth in subpart S of this
part) are applicable to light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks.
(a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust
emissions of THC, CO, NOX, CH4, and
CO2. For diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is
sampled and analyzed continuously
according to the provisions of § 86.110.
(b) Each test procedure follows the
vehicle preconditioning specified in
§ 86.132–00.
(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test
procedure for emissions on the US06
driving schedule (see § 86.159–00) is
designed to determine gaseous exhaust
emissions from light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks while simulating high
speed and acceleration on a chassis
dynamometer (aggressive driving). The
full test consists of preconditioning the
engine to a hot stabilized condition, as
specified in § 86.132–00, and an engine
idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after
which the vehicle is accelerated into the
US06 cycle. A proportional part of the
diluted exhaust is collected
continuously in two bag samples, one
representing US06 city driving and the
other representing US06 highway
driving, for subsequent analysis, using a
constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler or critical flow venturi sampler.
For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
vehicles for which THC is sampled and
analyzed continuously according to the
provisions of § 86.110, the analytical
system shall be configured to calculate
THC for the US06 City phase and the
US06 Highway phase as described in
§ 86.159–08.
(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test
procedure for determining exhaust
emissions with the air conditioner
operating (see § 86.160–00) is designed
to determine gaseous exhaust emissions
from light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks while simulating an urban trip
during ambient conditions of 95 °F, 100
grains of water/pound of dry air
(approximately 40 percent relative
humidity), and a solar heat load
intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test
consists of vehicle preconditioning (see
§ 86.132–00 paragraphs (o)(1) and (2)),
an engine key-off 10 minute soak, an
engine start, and operation over the
SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the
diluted exhaust is collected
continuously during the engine start
and the SC03 driving cycle for
subsequent analysis, using a constant
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
volume (variable dilution) sampler or
critical flow venturi sampler.
(e) The emission results from the
aggressive driving test (§ 86.159–08), air
conditioning test (§ 86.160–00), and a
FTP test (§ 86.130–00 (a) through (d)
and (f)) (conducted on a large single roll
or equivalent dynamometer) are
analyzed according to the calculation
methodology in § 86.164–08 and
compared to the applicable SFTP
emission standards in subpart A of this
part (§§ 86.108–00 and 86.109–00).
(f) These test procedures may be run
in any sequence that maintains the
applicable preconditioning elements
specified in § 86.132–00.
3. A new § 86.159–08 is added to read
as follows:
§ 86.159–08 Exhaust emission test
procedures for US06 emissions.
(a) Overview. The dynamometer
operation consists of a single, 600
second test on the US06 driving
schedule, as described in appendix I,
paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle
is preconditioned in accordance with
§ 86.132–00, to bring it to a warmed-up
stabilized condition. This
preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2
minute idle period that proceeds
directly into the US06 driving schedule
during which continuous proportional
samples of gaseous emissions are
collected for analysis. The US06 test is
divided into three periods collected in
two bag samples. The first period,
representing the first portion of city
driving, terminates at the end of the
deceleration which is scheduled to
occur at 128 seconds of the driving
schedule. The second period,
representing highway driving, starts at
the conclusion of the first phase of city
driving and terminates at the end of the
deceleration which is scheduled to
occur at 493 seconds of the driving
schedule. The third period, representing
the second portion of city driving,
consists of the remainder of the driving
schedule including engine shutdown.
The first period and the third period are
collected in one bag sample,
representing ‘‘US06 city’’ driving, and
the second period is collected in a
second bag sample, representing ‘‘US06
highway’’ driving. If engine stalling
should occur during cycle operation,
follow the provisions of § 86.136–90
(engine starting and restarting). For
gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the
composite samples collected in bags are
analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and
NOX. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed
continuously according to the
provisions of § 86.110. Parallel bag
samples of dilution air are analyzed for
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles
for which THC is sampled and analyzed
continuously according to the
provisions of § 86.110, the analytical
system shall be configured to calculate
THC for the US06 City phase and the
US06 Highway phase as described in
§ 86.159–08.
(b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All
official US06 tests shall be run on a
large single roll electric dynamometer,
or an approved equivalent dynamometer
configuration, that satisfies the
requirements of § 86.108–00.
(2) Position (vehicle can be driven)
the test vehicle on the dynamometer
and restrain.
(3) Required US06 schedule test
dynamometer inertia weight class
selections are determined by the test
vehicles test weight basis and
corresponding equivalent weight as
listed in the tabular information of
§ 86.129–94(a) and discussed in
§ 86.129–00(e) and (f).
(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia
weight and roadload horsepower
requirements for the test vehicle (see
§ 86.129–00(e) and (f)). The
dynamometer’s horsepower adjustment
settings shall be set to match the force
imposed during dynamometer operation
with actual road load force at all speeds.
(5) The vehicle speed as measured
from the dynamometer rolls shall be
used. A speed vs. time recording, as
evidence of dynamometer test validity,
shall be supplied on request of the
Administrator.
(6) The drive wheel tires may be
inflated up to a gauge pressure of 45 psi
(310 kPa), or the manufacturer’s
recommended pressure if higher than 45
psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The
drive wheel tire pressure shall be
reported with the test results.
(7) The driving distance, as measured
by counting the number of
dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions,
shall be determined for the test.
(8) Four-wheel drive vehicles will be
tested in a two-wheel drive mode of
operation. Full-time four-wheel drive
vehicles will have one set of drive
wheels temporarily disengaged by the
vehicle manufacturer. Four-wheel drive
vehicles which can be manually shifted
to a two-wheel mode will be tested in
the normal on-highway two-wheel drive
mode of operation.
(9) During dynamometer operation, a
fixed speed cooling fan with a
maximum discharge velocity of 15,000
cfm will be positioned so as to direct
cooling air to the vehicle in an
appropriate manner with the engine
compartment cover open. In the case of
vehicles with front engine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
compartments, the fan shall be
positioned within 24 inches (61
centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case
of vehicles with rear engine
compartments (or if special designs
make the above impractical), the cooling
fan(s) shall be placed in a position to
provide sufficient air to maintain
vehicle cooling. The Administrator may
approve modified cooling
configurations or additional cooling if
necessary to satisfactorily perform the
test. In approving requests for additional
or modified cooling, the Administrator
will consider such items as actual road
cooling data and whether such
additional cooling is needed to provide
a representative test.
(c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall
be large enough to virtually eliminate
water condensation in the system.
(d) Practice runs over the prescribed
driving schedule may be performed at
test point, provided an emission sample
is not taken, for the purpose of finding
the appropriate throttle action to
maintain the proper speed-time
relationship, or to permit sampling
system adjustment.
(e) Perform the test bench sampling
sequence outlined in § 86.140–94 prior
to or in conjunction with each series of
exhaust emission measurements.
(f) Test activities. (1) The US06
consists of a single test which is directly
preceded by a vehicle preconditioning
in accordance with § 86.132–00.
Following the vehicle preconditioning,
the vehicle is idled for not less than one
minute and not more than two minutes.
The equivalent dynamometer mileage of
the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).
(2) The following steps shall be taken
for each test:
(i) Immediately after completion of
the preconditioning, idle the vehicle.
The idle period is not to be less than
one minute or not greater than two
minutes.
(ii) With the sample selector valves in
the ‘‘standby’’ position, connect
evacuated sample collection bags to the
dilute exhaust and dilution air sample
collection systems.
(iii) Start the CVS (if not already on),
the sample pumps, the temperature
recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and
the heated THC analysis recorder
(diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger
of the constant volume sampler, if used,
petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC
analyzer continuous sample line should
be preheated to their respective
operating temperatures before the test
begins.
(iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to
the desired flow rate and set the gas
flow measuring devices to zero.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5479
(A) For gaseous bag samples (except
THC samples), the minimum flow rate
is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).
(B) For THC samples, the minimum
FID (or HFID in the case of diesel-cycle
vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031
liters/sec).
(C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by
the venturi design.
(v) Attach the exhaust tube to the
vehicle tailpipe(s).
(vi) Start the gas flow measuring
device, position the sample selector
valves to direct the sample flow into the
exhaust sample bag, the dilution air
sample bag, turn on the petroleumfueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system
integrator, mark the recorder chart, and
record both gas meter or flow
measurement instrument readings, (if
applicable).
(vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting
the gas flow measuring device, but prior
to the first acceleration. Begin the first
acceleration 5 seconds after starting the
measuring device.
(viii) Operate the vehicle according to
the US06 driving schedule, as described
in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part.
Manual transmission vehicles shall be
shifted according to the manufacturer
recommended shift schedule, subject to
review and approval by the
Administrator. For further guidance on
transmissions see § 86.128–00.
(ix) At the end of the deceleration
which is scheduled to occur at 128
seconds, simultaneously switch the
sample flows from the ‘‘US06 city’’ bags
and samples to the ‘‘US06 highway’’
bags and samples, switch gas flow
measuring device No. 1 (and the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 1 and mark the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
recorder chart if applicable) to
‘‘standby’’ mode, and start gas flow
measuring device No. 2 (and the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 2 if applicable). Before
the acceleration which is scheduled to
occur at 136 seconds, record the
measured roll or shaft revolutions.
(x) At the end of the deceleration
which is scheduled to occur at 493
seconds, simultaneously switch the
sample flows from the ‘‘US06 highway’’
bags and samples to the ‘‘US06 city’’
bags and samples, switch off gas flow
measuring device No. 2 (and the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
integrator No. 2 and mark the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon
recorder chart if applicable), and start
gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and
the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 if
applicable). Before the acceleration
which is scheduled to occur at 501
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5480
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
seconds, record the measured roll or
shaft revolutions and the No. 2 gas
meter reading or flow measurement
instrument. As soon as possible transfer
the ‘‘US06 highway’’ exhaust and
dilution air bag samples to the
analytical system and process the
samples according to § 86.140–94
obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag
exhaust sample on all analyzers within
20 minutes of the end of the sample
collection phase of the test.
(xi) Turn the engine off 2 seconds
after the end of the last deceleration
(i.e., engine off at 596 seconds).
(xii) Five seconds after the engine
stops running, simultaneously turn off
gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and
the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark
the petroleum-fueled diesel
hydrocarbon recorder chart if
applicable) and position the sample
selector valves to the ‘‘standby’’
position. Record the measured roll or
shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas
meter reading or flow measurement
instrument.
(xiii) As soon as possible, transfer the
‘‘US06 city’’ exhaust and dilution air
bag samples to the analytical system and
process the samples according to
§ 86.140–94 obtaining a stabilized
reading of the bag exhaust sample on all
analyzers within 20 minutes of the end
of the sample collection phase of the
test.
(xiv) Immediately after the end of the
sample period, turn off the cooling fan,
close the engine compartment cover,
disconnect the exhaust tube from the
vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle
from dynamometer.
(xv) The CVS or CFV may be turned
off, if desired.
4. A new § 86.164–08 is added to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 86.164–08 Supplemental Federal Test
Procedure calculations.
(a) The provisions of § 86.144–94(b)
and (c) are applicable to this section
except that the NOX humidity correction
factor of § 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv) must be
modified when adjusting SC03
environmental test cell NOX results to
100 grains of water (see paragraph (d) of
this section). These provisions provide
the procedures for calculating mass
emission results of each regulated
exhaust pollutant for the test schedules
of FTP, US06, and SC03.
(b) The provisions of § 86.144–94(a)
are applicable to this section. These
provisions provide the procedures for
determining the weighted mass
emissions for the FTP test schedule
(Ywm).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(c)(1) When the test vehicle is
equipped with air conditioning, the
final reported test results for the SFTP
composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional
composite CO standards shall be
computed by the following formulas.
(i) YWSFTP=0.35(YFTP) +
0.37(YSC03)+0.28(YUS06)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for
a particular pollutant weighted in
terms of the contributions from the
FTP, SC03, and US06 schedules.
Values of YWSFTP are obtained for
each of the exhaust emissions of
NMHC, NOX, and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per
mile (Ywm) based on the measured
driving distance of the FTP test
schedule.
(C) YSC03=Calculated mass emissions
per mile based on the measured
driving distance of the SC03 test
schedule.
(D) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions
per mile, using the summed mass
emissions of the ‘‘US06 city’’ phase
(sampled during seconds 1–128 and
seconds 494–600 of the US06
driving schedule) and the ‘‘US06
highway’’ phase (sampled during
seconds 129–493 of the US06
driving schedule), based on the
measured driving distance of the
US06 test schedule.
(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX)
=YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section for NOX.
(2) When the test vehicle is not
equipped with air conditioning, the
relationship of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section is:
(i) YWSFTP=0.72(YFTP)+0.28(YUS06)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for
a particular pollutant weighted in
terms of the contributions from the
FTP and US06 schedules. Values of
YWSFTP are obtained for each of the
exhaust emissions of NMHC, NOX.
and CO.
(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per
mile (Ywm) based on the measured
driving distance of the FTP test
schedule.
(C) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions
per mile, using the summed mass
emissions of the ‘‘US06 city’’ phase
(sampled during seconds 1–128 and
seconds 494–600 of the US06
driving schedule) and the ‘‘US06
highway’’ phase (sampled during
seconds 129–493 of the US06
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
driving schedule), based on the
measured driving distance of the
US06 test schedule.
(ii) Composite (NMHC+NOX)=
YWSFTP(NMHC)+YWSFTP(NOX)
Where:
(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section for NMHC.
(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section for NOX.
(d) The NOX humidity correction
factor for adjusting NOX test results to
the environmental test cell air
conditioning ambient condition of 100
grains of water/pound of dry air is:
KH (100)=0.8825/[1¥0.0047(H¥75)]
Where:
H=measured test humidity in grains of
water/pound of dry air.
PART 600—FUEL ECONOMY OF
VEHICLES
5. The authority citation for part 600
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901–23919q.
Subpart A—[Amended]
6. A new § 600.001–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.001–08
General applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to 2008 and later model year
automobiles.
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce
only electric vehicles are exempt from
the requirement of this subpart, except
with regard to the requirements in those
sections pertaining specifically to
electric vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide
production (excluding electric vehicle
production) of less than 10,000 gasolinefueled and/or diesel powered passenger
automobiles and light trucks may
optionally comply with the electric
vehicle requirements in this subpart.
7. A new § 600.002–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.002–08
Definitions.
3-bag FTP means the Federal Test
Procedure specified in 40 CFR Part 86,
with three sampling portions consisting
of the cold-start transient (‘‘Bag 1’’),
stabilized (‘‘Bag 2’’), and hot-start
transient phases (‘‘Bag 3’’).
4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with
the addition of a sampling portion for
the hot-start stabilized phase (‘‘Bag 4’’).
5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06,
SC03 and cold temperature FTP tests as
described in subpart B of this part.
Administrator means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized
representative.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Alcohol means a mixture containing
85 percent or more by volume methanol,
ethanol, or other alcohols, in any
combination.
Alcohol-fueled automobile means an
automobile designed to operate
exclusively on alcohol.
Alcohol dual fuel automobile means
an automobile:
(1) Which is designed to operate on
alcohol and on gasoline or diesel fuel;
(2) Which provides equal or greater
energy efficiency as calculated in
accordance with § 600.510(g)(1) while
operating on alcohol as it does while
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel;
(3) Which, for model years 1993
through 1995, provides equal or
superior energy efficiency, as
determined in § 600.510(g)(2) while
operating on a mixture of alcohol and
gasoline or diesel fuel containing 50
percent gasoline or diesel fuel as it does
while operating on gasoline or diesel
fuel; and
(4) Which, in the case of passenger
automobiles, meets or exceeds the
minimum driving range established by
the Department of Transportation in 49
CFR part 538.
Automobile means:
(1) Any four-wheel vehicle propelled
by a combustion engine using onboard
fuel, or by an electric motor drawing
current from rechargeable storage
batteries or other portable energy storage
devices (rechargeable using energy from
a source off the vehicle such as
residential electric service);
(2) Which is manufactured primarily
for use on public streets, roads, or
highways (except any vehicle operated
on a rail or rails);
(3) Which is rated at not more than
8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight,
which has a curb weight of not more
than 6,000 pounds, and which has a
basic vehicle frontal area of not more
than 45 square feet; or
(4) Is a type of vehicle which the
Secretary of Transportation determines
is substantially used for the same
purposes.
Auxiliary emission control device
(AECD) means an element of design as
defined in part 86 of this chapter.
Average fuel economy means the
unique fuel economy value as computed
under § 600.510 for a specific class of
automobiles produced by a
manufacturer that is subject to average
fuel economy standards.
Axle ratio means the number of times
the input shaft to the differential (or
equivalent) turns for each turn of the
drive wheels.
Base level means a unique
combination of basic engine, inertia
weight class and transmission class.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Base vehicle means the lowest priced
version of each body style that makes up
a car line.
Basic engine means a unique
combination of manufacturer, engine
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel
system (as distinguished by number of
carburetor barrels or use of fuel
injection), catalyst usage, and other
engine and emission control system
characteristics specified by the
Administrator. For electric vehicles,
basic engine means a unique
combination of manufacturer and
electric traction motor, motor controller,
battery configuration, electrical charging
system, energy storage device, and other
components as specified by the
Administrator.
Battery configuration means the
electrochemical type, voltage, capacity
(in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and
physical characteristics of the battery
used as the tractive energy device.
Body style means a level of
commonality in vehicle construction as
defined by number of doors and roof
treatment (e.g., sedan, convertible,
fastback, hatchback) and number of
seats (i.e., front, second, or third seat)
requiring seat belts pursuant to National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
safety regulations in 49 CFR part 571.
Station wagons and light trucks are
identified as car lines.
Calibration means the set of
specifications, including tolerances,
unique to a particular design, version of
application of a component, or
component assembly capable of
functionally describing its operation
over its working range.
Car line means a name denoting a
group of vehicles within a make or car
division which has a degree of
commonality in construction (e.g., body,
chassis). Car line does not consider any
level of decor or opulence and is not
generally distinguished by
characteristics as roof line, number of
doors, seats, or windows, except for
station wagons or light-duty trucks.
Station wagons and light-duty trucks are
considered to be different car lines than
passenger cars.
Certification vehicle means a vehicle
which is selected under § 86.084–
24(b)(1) of this chapter and used to
determine compliance under § 86.084–
30 of this chapter for issuance of an
original certificate of conformity.
City fuel economy means the fuel
economy determined by operating a
vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving
schedule in the Federal emission test
procedure.
Cold temperature FTP means the test
performed under the provisions of
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 86.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5481
Combined fuel economy means:
(1) For the purpose of determining
manufacturer’s average fuel economy
under Supart F of this part, the term
means fuel economy value determined
for a vehicle (or vehicles) by
harmonically averaging the city and
highway fuel economy values, weighted
0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
(2) For the purpose of determining
estimated annual fuel costs under
§ 86.600–307(f)) the term means the fuel
economy value for a vehicle (or
vehicles) by harmonically averaging the
city and highway fuel economy values,
weighted at .43 and .57 respectively.
(3) For electric vehicles, the term
means the equivalent petroleum-based
fuel economy value as determined by
the calculation procedure promulgated
by the Secretary of Energy.
Dealer means a person who resides or
is located in the United States, any
territory of the United States, or the
District of Columbia and who is engaged
in the sale or distribution of new
automobiles to the ultimate purchaser.
Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means
the 5-cycle fuel economy derived from
the FTP-based city and HFET-based
highway fuel economy by means of the
equation provided in § 600.115–08 of
this part.
Drive system is determined by the
number and location of drive axles (e.g.,
front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four
wheel drive) and any other feature of
the drive system if the Administrator
determines that such other features may
result in a fuel economy difference.
Electrical charging system means a
device to convert 60Hz alternating
electric current, as commonly available
in residential electric service in the
United States, to a proper form for
recharging the energy storage device.
Electric traction motor means an
electrically powered motor which
provides tractive energy to the wheels of
a vehicle.
Energy storage device means a
rechargeable means of storing tractive
energy on board a vehicle such as
storage batteries or a flywheel.
Engine code means a unique
combination, within an engine-system
combination (as defined in part 86 of
this chapter), of displacement,
carburetor (or fuel injection) calibration,
distributor calibration, choke
calibration, auxiliary emission control
devices, and other engine and emission
control system components specified by
the Administrator. For electric vehicles,
engine code means a unique
combination of manufacturer, electric
traction motor, motor configuration,
motor controller, and energy storage
device.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5482
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Federal emission test procedure (FTP)
refers to the dynamometer driving
schedule, dynamometer procedure, and
sampling and analytical procedures
described in part 86 for the respective
model year, which are used to derive
city fuel economy data.
FTP-based city fuel economy means
the fuel economy determined in
§ 600.113–08 of this part, on the basis of
FTP testing.
Fuel means:
(1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for
gasoline- or diesel-powered
automobiles; or
(2) Electrical energy for electrically
powered automobiles; or
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered
automobiles; or
(4) Natural gas for natural gaspowered automobiles.
Fuel economy means:
(1) The average number of miles
traveled by an automobile or group of
automobiles per volume of fuel
consumed as computed in § 600.113 or
§ 600.207; or
(2) The equivalent petroleum-based
fuel economy for an electrically
powered automobile as determined by
the Secretary of Energy.
Fuel economy data vehicle means a
vehicle used for the purpose of
determining fuel economy which is not
a certification vehicle.
Gross vehicle weight rating means the
manufacturer’s gross weight rating for
the individual vehicle.
Hatchback means a passenger
automobile where the conventional
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is
replaced by a cargo area which is open
to the passenger compartment and
accessed vertically by a rear door which
encompasses the rear window.
Highway fuel economy means the fuel
economy determined by operating a
vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving
schedule in the Federal highway fuel
economy test procedure.
Highway fuel economy test procedure
(HFET) refers to the dynamometer
driving schedule, dynamometer
procedure, and sampling and analytical
procedures described in subpart B of
this part and which are used to derive
highway fuel economy data.
HFET-based fuel economy means the
fuel economy determined in § 600.113–
08 of this part, on the basis of HFET
testing.
Inertia weight class means the class,
which is a group of test weights, into
which a vehicle is grouped based on its
loaded vehicle weight in accordance
with the provisions of part 86 of this
chapter.
Label means a sticker that contains
fuel economy information and is affixed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
to new automobiles in accordance with
subpart D of this part.
Light truck means an automobile that
is not a passenger automobile, as
defined by the Secretary of
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This
term is interchangeable with ‘‘nonpassenger automobile’’.
Minivan means an automobile which
is designed primarily to carry no more
than eight passengers having an integral
enclosure fully enclosing the driver,
passenger, and load-carrying
compartments, with a total interior
volume at or below 180 cubic feet, and
rear seats readily removed or folded to
floor level to facilitate cargo carrying.
Model type means a unique
combination of car line, basic engine,
and transmission class.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual production period (as
determined by the Administrator) which
includes January 1 of such calendar
year. If a manufacturer has no annual
production period, the term ‘‘model
year’’ means the calendar year.
Motor controller means an electronic
or electro-mechanical device to convert
energy stored in an energy storage
device into a form suitable to power the
traction motor.
Natural gas-fueled automobile means
an automobile designed to operate
exclusively on natural gas.
Natural gas dual fuel automobile
means an automobile:
(1) Which is designed to operate on
natural gas and on gasoline or diesel
fuel;
(2) Which provides equal or greater
energy efficiency as calculated in
§ 600.510(g)(1) while operating on
natural gas as it does while operating on
gasoline or diesel fuel; and
(3) Which, in the case of passenger
automobiles, meets or exceeds the
minimum driving range established by
the Department of Transportation in 49
CFR part 538.
Nonpassenger automobile means a
light truck.
Passenger automobile means any
automobile which the Secretary of
Transportation determines is
manufactured primarily for use in the
transportation of no more than 10
individuals.
Pickup truck means a nonpassenger
automobile which has a passenger
compartment and an open cargo bed.
Production volume means, for a
domestic manufacturer, the number of
vehicle units domestically produced in
a particular model year but not
exported, and for a foreign
manufacturer, means the number of
vehicle units of a particular model
imported into the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rounded means a number shortened
to the specific number of decimal places
in accordance with the ‘‘Round Off
Method’’ specified in ASTM E 29
(Incorporated by reference as specified
in § 600.011–93).
SC03 means the test procedure
specified in 40 CFR 86.160–00.
Secretary of Transportation means the
Secretary of Transportation or his
authorized representative.
Secretary of Energy means the
Secretary of Energy or his authorized
representative.
Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a
light truck with an extended roof line to
increase cargo or passenger capacity,
cargo compartment open to the
passenger compartment, and one or
more rear seats readily removed or
folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Station wagon means a passenger
automobile with an extended roof line
to increase cargo or passenger capacity,
cargo compartment open to the
passenger compartment, a tailgate, and
one or more rear seats readily removed
or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
Subconfiguration means a unique
combination within a vehicle
configuration of equivalent test weight,
road-load horsepower, and any other
operational characteristics or parameters
which the Administrator determines
may significantly affect fuel economy
within a vehicle configuration.
Transmission class means a group of
transmissions having the following
common features: Basic transmission
type (manual, automatic, or semiautomatic); number of forward gears
used in fuel economy testing (e.g.,
manual four-speed, three-speed
automatic, two-speed semi-automatic);
drive system (e.g., front wheel drive,
rear wheel drive; four wheel drive), type
of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate
overdrive unit); torque converter type, if
applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup,
variable ratio); and other transmission
characteristics that may be determined
to be significant by the Administrator.
Transmission configuration means the
Administrator may further subdivide
within a transmission class if the
Administrator determines that sufficient
fuel economy differences exist. Features
such as gear ratios, torque converter
multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift
calibration, or shift speed may be used
to further distinguish characteristics
within a transmission class.
Test weight means the weight within
an inertia weight class which is used in
the dynamometer testing of a vehicle,
and which is based on its loaded vehicle
weight in accordance with the
provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Ultimate consumer means the first
person who purchases an automobile for
purposes other than resale or leases an
automobile.
US06 means the test procedure as
described in 40 CFR 86.159–08.
Van means any light truck having an
integral enclosure fully enclosing the
driver compartment and load carrying
device, and having no body sections
protruding more than 30 inches ahead
of the leading edge of the windshield.
Vehicle configuration means a unique
combination of basic engine, engine
code, inertia weight class, transmission
configuration, and axle ratio within a
base level.
Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel economy
means the fuel economy calculated
according to the procedures in
§ 600.114–08 of this part.
8. A new § 600.006–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.006–08 Data and information
requirements for fuel economy vehicles.
(a) For certification vehicles with less
than 10,000 miles, the requirements of
this section are considered to have been
met except as noted in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer shall submit
the following information for each fuel
economy data vehicle:
(i) A description of the vehicle,
exhaust emission test results, applicable
deterioration factors, adjusted exhaust
emission levels, and test fuel property
values as specified in § 600.113–93
except as specified in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(ii) A statement of the origin of the
vehicle including total mileage
accumulation, and modification (if any)
form the vehicle configuration in which
the mileage was accumulated. (For
modifications requiring advance
approval by the Administrator, the
name of the Administrator’s
representative approving the
modification and date of approval are
required.) If the vehicle was previously
used for testing for compliance with
part 86 of this chapter or previously
accepted by the Administrator as a fuel
economy data vehicle in a different
configuration, the requirements of this
paragraph may be satisfied by reference
to the vehicle number and previous
configuration.
(iii) A statement that the fuel
economy data vehicle, with respect to
which data are submitted:
(A) Has been tested in accordance
with applicable test procedures,
(B) Is, to the best of the
manufacturer’s knowledge,
representative of the vehicle
configuration listed, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(C) Is in compliance with applicable
exhaust emission standards.
(2) The manufacturer shall retain the
following information for each fuel
economy data vehicle, and make it
available to the Administrator upon
request:
(i) A description of all maintenance to
engine, emission control system, or fuel
system, or fuel system components
performed within 2,000 miles prior to
fuel economy testing.
(ii) In the case of electric vehicles, a
description of all maintenance to
electric motor, motor controller, battery
configuration, or other components
performed within 2,000 miles prior to
fuel economy testing.
(iii) A copy of calibrations for engine,
fuel system, and emission control
devices, showing the calibration of the
actual components on the test vehicle as
well as the design tolerances.
(iv) In the case of electric vehicles, a
copy of calibrations for the electric
motor, motor controller, battery
configuration, or other components on
the test vehicle as well as the design
tolerances.
(v) If calibrations for components
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) or (iv)
of this section were submitted
previously as part of the description of
another vehicle or configuration, the
original submittal may be referenced.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the
following fuel economy data:
(1) For vehicles tested to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 86 (other
than those chosen in accordance with
40 CFR 86.1829–01(a) or 40 CFR
86.1845, the FTP, highway, US06, SC03
and cold temperature FTP fuel economy
results, as applicable, from all tests on
that vehicle, and the test results
adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(g) of this section.
(2) For each fuel economy data
vehicle, all individual test results
(excluding results of invalid and zero
mile tests) and these test results
adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(g) of this section.
(3) For diesel vehicles tested to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR part 86, data
from a cold temperature FTP, performed
in accordance with 600.111–08(e), using
the fuel specified in 600.107–08(c).
(d) The manufacturer shall submit an
indication of the intended purpose of
the data (e.g., data required by the
general labeling program or voluntarily
submitted for specific labeling).
(e) In lieu of submitting actual data
from a test vehicle, a manufacturer may
provide fuel economy values derived
from an analytical expression, e.g.,
regression analysis. In order for fuel
economy values derived from analytical
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5483
methods to be accepted, the expression
(form and coefficients) must have been
approved by the Administrator.
(f) If, in conducting tests required or
authorized by this part, the
manufacturer utilizes procedures,
equipment, or facilities not described in
the Application for Certification
required in 40 CFR 86.087–21 or 40 CFR
86.1844–01 as applicable, the
manufacturer shall submit to the
Administrator a description of such
procedures, equipment, and facilities.
(g)(1) The manufacturer shall adjust
all test data used for fuel economy label
calculations in subpart D and average
fuel economy calculations in subpart F
for the classes of automobiles within the
categories identified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of § 600.510. The test data
shall be adjusted in accordance with
paragraph (g)(3) or (4) as applicable.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) The manufacturer shall adjust all
test data generated by vehicles with
engine-drive system combinations with
more than 6,200 miles by using the
following equation:
FE4,000mi=FE
¥6(mi)]¥1
T[0.979+5.25×10
Where:
FE4,000mi=Fuel economy data adjusted to
4,000-mile test point rounded to the
nearest 0.1 mpg.
FET=Tested fuel economy value
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
mi=System miles accumulated at the
start of the test rounded to the
nearest whole mile.
(4) For vehicles with 6,200 miles or
less accumulated, the manufacturer is
not required to adjust the data.
9. A new § 600.007–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.007–08
Vehicle acceptability.
(a) All certification vehicles and other
vehicles tested to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR part 86 (other than those
chosen per 40 CFR 86.080–24(c) or 40
CFR 86.1829–01(a) as applicable, are
considered to have met the
requirements of this section.
(b) Any vehicle not meeting the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section must be judged acceptable by
the Administrator under this section in
order for the test results to be reviewed
for use in subpart C or F of this part. The
Administrator will judge the
acceptability of a fuel economy data
vehicle on the basis of the information
supplied by the manufacturer under
§ 600.006(b). The criteria to be met are:
(1) A fuel economy data vehicle may
have accumulated not more than 10,000
miles. A vehicle will be considered to
have met this requirement if the engine
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5484
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and drivetrain have accumulated 10,000
or fewer miles. The components
installed for a fuel economy test are not
required to be the ones with which the
mileage was accumulated, e.g., axles,
transmission types, and tire sizes may
be changed. The Administrator will
determine if vehicle/engine component
changes are acceptable.
(2) A vehicle may be tested in
different vehicle configurations by
change of vehicle components, as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, or by testing in different inertia
weight classes. Also, a single vehicle
may be tested under different test
conditions, i.e., test weight and/or road
load horsepower, to generate fuel
economy data representing various
situations within a vehicle
configuration. For purposes of this part,
data generated by a single vehicle tested
in various test conditions will be treated
as if the data were generated by the
testing of multiple vehicles.
(3) The mileage on a fuel economy
data vehicle must be, to the extent
possible, accumulated according to 40
CFR 86.1831.
(4) Each fuel economy data vehicle
must meet the same exhaust emission
standards as certification vehicles of the
respective engine-system combination
during the test in which the city fuel
economy test results are generated. The
deterioration factors established for the
respective engine-system combination
per § 86.1841–01 as applicable will be
used.
(5) The calibration information
submitted under § 600.006(b) must be
representative of the vehicle
configuration for which the fuel
economy data were submitted.
(6) Any vehicle tested for fuel
economy purposes must be
representative of a vehicle which the
manufacturer intends to produce under
the provisions of a certificate of
conformity.
(7) For vehicles imported under
§ 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4),
(c)(2), (c)(4), or (e)(2) (when applicable)
only the following requirements must be
met:
(i) For vehicles imported under
§ 85.1509, a highway fuel economy
value must be generated
contemporaneously with the emission
tests used for purposes of demonstrating
compliance with § 85.1509. No
modifications or adjustments should be
made to the vehicles between the
highway fuel economy, FTP, US06,
SC03 and Cold temperature FTP tests.
(ii) For vehicles imported under
§ 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4),
(c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable)
with over 10,000 miles, the equation in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 600.006–86(g)(1) shall be used as
though only 10,000 miles had been
accumulated.
(iii) Any required fuel economy
testing must take place after any safety
modifications are completed for each
vehicle as required by regulations of the
Department of Transportation.
(iv) Every vehicle imported under
§ 85.1509 or § 85.1511(b)(2), (b)(4),
(c)(2), (c)(4) or (e)(2) (when applicable)
shall be considered a separate type for
the purposes of calculating a fuel
economy label for a manufacturer’s
average fuel economy.
(c) If, based on review of the
information submitted under
§ 600.006(b), the Administrator
determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle meets the requirements of this
section, the fuel economy data vehicle
will be judged to be acceptable and fuel
economy data from that fuel economy
data vehicle will be reviewed pursuant
to § 600.008.
(d) If, based on the review of the
information submitted under
§ 600.006(b), the Administrator
determines that a fuel economy data
vehicle does not meet the requirements
of this section, the Administrator will
reject that fuel economy data vehicle
and inform the manufacturer of the
rejection in writing.
(e) If, based on a review of the
emission data for a fuel economy data
vehicle, submitted under § 600.006(b),
or emission data generated by a vehicle
tested under § 600.008(e), the
Administrator finds an indication of
non-compliance with section 202 of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq. of
the regulation thereunder, he may take
such investigative actions as are
appropriate to determine to what extent
emission non-compliance actually
exists.
(1) The Administrator may, under the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.079–37(a) or 40
CFR 86.1830–01 as applicable, request
the manufacturer to submit production
vehicles of the configuration(s) specified
by the Administrator for testing to
determine to what extent emission
noncompliance of a production vehicle
configuration or of a group of
production vehicle configurations may
actually exist.
(2) If the Administrator determines, as
a result of his investigation, that
substantial emission non-compliance is
exhibited by a production vehicle
configuration or group of production
vehicle configurations, he may proceed
with respect to the vehicle
configuration(s) as provided under
section 206(b)(2) or section 207(c)(1), as
applicable of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(f) All vehicles used to generate fuel
economy data, and for which emission
standards apply, must be covered by a
certificate of conformity under part 86
of this chapter before:
(1) The data may be used in the
calculation of any approved general or
specific label value, or
(2) The data will be used in any
calculations under subpart F, except
that vehicles imported under §§ 85.1509
and 85.1511 need not be covered by a
certificate of conformity.
10. A new § 600.008–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.008–08 Review of fuel economy data,
testing by the Administrator.
(a) Testing by the Administrator. (1)
The Administrator may require that any
one or more of the test vehicles be
submitted to the Agency, at such place
or places as the Agency may designate,
for the purposes of conducting fuel
economy tests. The Administrator may
specify that such testing be conducted at
the manufacturer’s facility, in which
case instrumentation and equipment
specified by the Administrator shall be
made available by the manufacturer for
test operations. The tests to be
performed may comprise the FTP,
highway fuel economy test, US06, SC03,
or Cold temperature FTP or any
combination of those tests. Any testing
conducted at a manufacturer’s facility
pursuant to this paragraph shall be
scheduled by the manufacturer as
promptly as possible.
(2) Retesting and official data
determination. For any vehicles selected
for confirmatory testing under the
provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the Administrator will follow
this procedure:
(i) The manufacturer’s data (or
harmonically averaged data if more than
one test was conducted) will be
compared with the results of the
Administrator’s test.
(ii) If, in the Administrator’s
judgment, the comparison in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section indicates a
disparity in the data, the Administrator
will repeat the test or tests as applicable.
(A) The manufacturer’s average test
results and the results of the
Administrator’s first test will be
compared with the results of the
Administrator’s second test as in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(B) If, in the Administrator’s
judgment, both comparisons in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section,
indicate a disparity in the data, the
Administrator will repeat the applicable
test or tests until:
(i) In the Administrator’s judgment no
disparity in the data is indicated by
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
comparison of two tests by the
Administrator or by comparison of the
manufacturer’s average test results and
a test by the Administrator; or
(ii) Four tests of a single test type are
conducted by the Administrator in
which a disparity in the data is
indicated when compared as in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iii) If there is, in the Administrator’s
judgment, no disparity indicated by
comparison of manufacturer’s average
test results with a test by the
Administrator, the test values generated
by the Administrator will be used to
represent the vehicle.
(iv) If there is, in the Administrator’s
judgment, no disparity indicated by
comparison of two tests by the
Administrator, the harmonic averages of
the fuel economy results from those
tests will be used to represent the
vehicle.
(v) If the situation in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(B)(ii) of this section occurs, the
Administrator will notify the
manufacturer, in writing, that the
Administrator rejects that fuel economy
data vehicle.
(b) Manufacturer-conducted
confirmatory testing. (1) If the
Administrator determines not to
conduct a confirmatory test under the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, manufacturers will conduct a
confirmatory test at their facility after
submitting the original test data to the
Administrator whenever any of the
following conditions exist:
(i) The vehicle configuration has
previously failed an emission standard;
(ii) The test exhibits high emission
levels determined by exceeding a
percentage of the standards specified by
the Administrator for that model year;
(iii) The fuel economy value of the
FTP or HFET test is higher than
expected based on procedures approved
by the Administrator;
(iv) The fuel economy for the FTP or
HFET test is close to a Gas Guzzler Tax
threshold value based on tolerances
established by the Administrator; or
(v) The fuel economy value for the
FTP or highway is a potential fuel
economy leader for a class of vehicles
based on cut points provided by the
Administrator.
(2) If the Administrator selects the
vehicle for confirmatory testing based
on the manufacturer’s original test
results, the testing shall be conducted as
ordered by the Administrator. In this
case, the manufacturer-conducted
confirmatory testing specified under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section would
not be required.
(3) The manufacturer shall conduct a
retest of the FTP or highway test if the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
difference between the fuel economy of
the confirmatory test and the original
manufacturer’s test equals or exceeds
three percent (or such lower percentage
to be applied consistently to all
manufacturer-conducted confirmatory
testing as requested by the manufacturer
and approved by the Administrator).
(i) The manufacturer may, in lieu of
conducting a retest, accept the lower of
the original and confirmatory test fuel
economy results for use in subpart C or
F of this part.
(ii) The manufacturer shall conduct a
second retest of the FTP or highway test
if the fuel economy difference between
the second confirmatory test and the
original manufacturer test equals or
exceeds three percent (or such lower
percentage as requested by the
manufacturer and approved by the
Administrator) and the fuel economy
difference between the second
confirmatory test and the first
confirmatory test equals or exceeds
three percent (or such lower percentage
as requested by the manufacturer and
approved by the Administrator). The
manufacturer may, in lieu of conducting
a second retest, accept the lowest of the
original test, the first confirmatory test,
and the second confirmatory test fuel
economy results for use in subpart C or
F of this part.
(4) The Administrator may request the
manufacturer to conduct a retest of the
US06, SC03 or Cold Temperature FTP
on the basis of fuel economy that is
higher than expected as specified in
criteria provided by the Administrator.
Such retests shall not be required before
the 2011 model year.
(c) Review of fuel economy data. (1)
Fuel economy data must be judged
reasonable and representative by the
Administrator in order for the test
results to be used for the purposes of
subpart C or F of this part. In making
this determination, the Administrator
will, when possible, compare the results
of a test vehicle to those of other similar
test vehicles.
(2) If testing was conducted by the
Administrator under the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel
economy data determined by the
Administrator under paragraph (a) of
this section, together with all other fuel
economy data submitted for that vehicle
under § 600.006(c) or (e) will be
evaluated for reasonableness and
representativeness per paragraph (c)(1)
of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are
determined to best meet the criteria of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be
accepted for use in subpart C or F of this
part.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5485
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP test data will be
considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was
conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the
harmonic average of selected test results
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) If confirmatory testing was not
conducted by the Administrator but
confirmatory testing was conducted by
the manufacturer under the provisions
of paragraph (b) of this section, the fuel
economy data determined by the
Administrator under paragraph (b) of
this section, will be evaluated for
reasonableness and representativeness
per paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(i) The fuel economy data which are
determined to best meet the criteria of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be
accepted for use in subpart C or F of this
part.
(ii) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP test data will be
considered separately.
(iii) If more than one test was
conducted, the Administrator may
select an individual test result or the
harmonic average of selected test results
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section.
(4) If no confirmatory testing was
conducted by either the Administrator
or the manufacturer under the
provisions of paragraph (a) and (b) of
this section, respectively, then the data
submitted under the provisions of
§ 600.006(c) or (e) shall be accepted for
use in subpart C or F of this part.
(i) City, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP test data will be
considered separately.
(ii) If more than one test was
conducted, the harmonic average of the
test results shall be accepted for use in
subpart C or F of this part.
(d) If, based on a review of the fuel
economy data generated by testing
under paragraph (a) of this section, the
Administrator determines that an
unacceptable level of correlation exists
between fuel economy data generated by
a manufacturer and fuel economy data
generated by the Administrator, he/she
may reject all fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer until the
cause of the discrepancy is determined
and the validity of the data is
established by the manufacturer.
(e)(1) If, based on the results of an
inspection conducted under
§ 600.005(b) or any other information,
the Administrator has reason to believe
that the manufacturer has not followed
proper testing procedures or that the
testing equipment is faulty or
improperly calibrated, or if records do
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5486
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
not exist that will enable him to make
a finding of proper testing, the
Administrator may notify the
manufacturer in writing of his finding
and require the manufacturer to:
(i) Submit the test vehicle(s) upon
which the data are based or additional
test vehicle(s) at a place he may
designate for the purpose of fuel
economy testing.
(ii) Conduct such additional fuel
economy testing as may be required to
demonstrate that prior fuel economy test
data are reasonable and representative.
(2) Previous acceptance by the
Administrator of any fuel economy test
data submitted by the manufacturer
shall not limit the Administrator’s right
to require additional testing under
paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(3) If, based on tests required under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the
Administrator determines that any fuel
economy data submitted by the
manufacturer and used to calculate the
manufacturer’s fuel economy average
was unrepresentative, the Administrator
may recalculate the manufacturer’s fuel
economy average based on fuel
economy data that he/she deems
representative.
(4) A manufacturer may request a
hearing as provided in § 600.009 if the
Administrator decides to recalculate the
manufacturer’s average pursuant to
determinations made relative to this
section.
11. A new § 600.010–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.010–08 Vehicle test requirements
and minimum data requirements.
(a) For each certification vehicle
defined in this part, and for each vehicle
tested according to the emission test
procedures in 40 CFR part 86 for
addition of a model after certification or
approval of a running change (40 CFR
86.079–32, 86.079–33 and 86.082–34 or
40 CFR 86.1842–01 as applicable):
(1) The manufacturer shall generate
FTP fuel economy data by testing
according to the applicable procedures.
(2) The manufacturer shall generate
highway fuel economy data by:
(i) Testing according to applicable
procedures, or
(ii) Using an analytical technique, as
described in § 600.006(e).
(3) The manufacturer shall generate
US06 fuel economy data by testing
according to the applicable procedures.
Alternative fueled vehicles or dual
fueled vehicles operating on alternative
fuel may optionally generate this data
using the alternative fuel.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(4) The manufacturer shall generate
SC03 fuel economy data by testing
according to the applicable procedures.
Alternative fueled vehicles or dual
fueled vehicles operating on alternative
fuel may optionally generate this data
using the alternative fuel.
(5) The manufacturer shall generate
Cold temperature FTP fuel economy
data by testing according to the
applicable procedures. Alternative
fueled vehicles or dual fueled vehicles
operating on alternative fuel may
optionally generate this data using the
alternative fuel.
(6) The data generated in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (5) of this section, shall be
submitted to the Administrator in
combination with other data for the
vehicle required to be submitted in part
86.
(b) For each fuel economy data
vehicle:
(1) The manufacturer shall generate
city and FTP fuel economy data by:
(i) Testing according to applicable
procedures, or
(ii) Use of an analytical technique as
described in § 600.006(e), in addition to
testing (e.g., city fuel economy data by
testing, highway fuel economy data by
analytical technique).
(2) The data generated shall be
submitted to the Administrator
according to the procedures in
§ 600.006.
(c) Minimum data requirements for
labeling. (1) In order to establish fuel
economy label values under § 600.306,
the manufacturer shall use only test data
accepted in accordance with
§ 600.008(b) and (f) and meeting the
minimum coverage of:
(i) Data required for emission
certification under 40 CFR 86.084–24,
86.079–32, 86.079–33, and 86.082–34 or
40 CFR 86.1828–01 and 86.1842–01 as
applicable.
(ii)(A) FTP and HFET data from the
highest projected model year sales
subconfiguration within the highest
projected model year sales configuration
for each base level, and
(B) If required under § 600.116–08,
US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP
data from the highest projected model
year sales subconfiguration within the
highest projected model year sales
configuration for each base level.
(C) Optionally, the manufacturer may
generate US06, SC03 and cold
temperature FTP fuel economy data for
the highest projected model year sales
subconfiguration within the highest
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
projected model year sales configuration
for each base level.
(iii) For additional model types
established under § 600.208(a)(2) or
600.209(a)(2), FTP and HFET data, and
if required under § 600.116–08, US06,
SC03 and Cold temperature FTP data
from each subconfiguration included
within the model type.
(2) For the purpose of recalculating
fuel economy label values as required
under § 600.314(b), the manufacturer
shall submit data required under
§ 600.507.
(d) Minimum data requirements for
the manufacturer’s average fuel
economy. For the purpose of calculating
the manufacturer’s average fuel
economy under § 600.510, the
manufacturer shall submit data
representing at least 90 percent of the
manufacturer’s actual model year
production, by configuration, for each
category identified for calculation under
§ 600.510(a).
12. A new § 600.011–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.011–08
Reference materials.
(a) Incorporation by reference. The
documents in paragraph (b) of this
section have been incorporated by
reference. The incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be inspected at USEPA,
OAR, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) The following paragraphs and
tables set forth the material that has
been incorporated by reference in this
part.
(1) ASTM material. The following
table sets forth material from the
American Society for Testing and
Materials which has been incorporated
by reference. The first column lists the
number and name of the material. The
second column lists the section(s) of
this part, other than § 600.011, in which
the matter is referenced. Copies of these
materials may be obtained from the
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Document number and name
40 CFR part 600 reference
ASTM E 29–67 (Reapproved 1973) Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
Places of Figures Are To Be Considered Significant in Specified Limiting Values..
ASTM D 1298–85 (Reapproved 1990) Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific
Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer
Method.
ASTM D 3343–90 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels
ASTM D 3338–92 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation
Fuels.
ASTM D 240–92 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels
by Bomb Calorimeter.
ASTM D975–04c ‘‘Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’ ....................................................
ASTM D 1945–91 Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart B—[Amended]
13. A new § 600.106–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.106–08
Equipment requirements.
The requirements for test equipment
to be used for all fuel economy testing
are given in Subparts B and C of part 86
of this chapter.
14. A new § 600.107–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.107–08
Fuel specifications.
(a) The test fuel specifications for
gasoline, diesel, methanol, and
methanol-petroleum fuel mixtures are
given in § 86.113 of this chapter, except
for cold temperature FTP fuel
requirements for diesel vehicles, which
are given in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Diesel test fuel used for cold
temperature FTP testing must comprise
a winter-grade diesel fuel as specified in
ASTM D975–04c ‘‘Standard
Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’ and
that complies with 40 CFR part 80.
Alternatively, EPA may approve the use
of a different diesel fuel, provided that
the level of kerosene added shall not
exceed 20 percent.
15. A new § 600.109–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.109–08
EPA driving cycles.
(a) The FTP driving cycle is
prescribed in § 86.115 of this chapter.
(b) The highway fuel economy driving
cycle is specified in this paragraph.
(1) The Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule is set forth in
appendix I to this part. The driving
schedule is defined by a smooth trace
drawn through the specified speed
versus time relationships.
(2) The speed tolerance at any given
time on the dynamometer driving
schedule specified in appendix I, or as
printed on a driver’s aid chart approved
by the Administrator, when conducted
to meet the requirements of paragraph
(b) of § 600.111 is defined by upper and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
lower limits. The upper limit is 2 mph
higher than the highest point on trace
within 1 second of the given time. The
lower limit is 2 mph lower than the
lowest point on the trace within 1
second of the given time. Speed
variations greater than the tolerances
(such as may occur during gear changes)
are acceptable provided they occur for
less than 2 seconds on any occasion.
Speeds lower than those prescribed are
acceptable provided the vehicle is
operated at maximum available power
during such occurrences.
(3) A graphic representation of the
range of acceptable speed tolerances is
found in § 86.115 (c) of this chapter.
(4) The US06 driving cycle is set forth
in Appendix I of part 86 of this chapter.
(5) The SC03 driving cycle is set forth
in Appendix I of part 86 of this chapter.
16. A new § 600.110–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.110–08
Equipment calibration.
The equipment used for fuel economy
testing must be calibrated according to
the provisions of § 86.116 and 86.216 of
this chapter.
17. A new § 600.111–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.111–08
Test procedures.
(a) FTP testing procedures. The test
procedures to be followed for
conducting the FTP test are those
prescribed in §§ 86.127 through 86.138
of this chapter, as applicable, except as
provided for in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section. (The evaporative loss portion of
the test procedure may be omitted
unless specifically required by the
Administrator.)
(b) Highway fuel economy testing
procedures. (1) The Highway Fuel
Economy Dynamometer Procedure
(HFET) consists of preconditioning
highway driving sequence and a
measured highway driving sequence.
(2) The HFET is designated to
simulate non-metropolitan driving with
an average speed of 48.6 mph and a
maximum speed of 60 mph. The cycle
is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stop per mile
PO 00000
Frm 00063
5487
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
600.002–08.
600.113–08(f)(1)(i),
(f)(2)(i)(A),
(f)(2)(i)(B),
(f)(2)(ii); 600.510–08(g)(1)(ii)(B), (g)(2)(ii)(B).
600.113–08(f)(1)(ii), (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii).
600.113–08(f)(1)(iii).
600.113–08(f)(2)(iii);
600.510–93(g)(1)(ii)(A),
(g)(2)(ii)(A).
600.107–08(b), 600.113–08(c)(1).
600.113–08(f)(3), (k).
and consists of warmed-up vehicle
operation on a chassis dynamometer
through a specified driving cycle. A
proportional part of the diluted exhaust
emission is collected continuously for
subsequent analysis of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide using
a constant volume (variable dilution)
sampler. Diesel dilute exhaust is
continuously analyzed for hydrocarbons
using a heated sample line and analyzer.
Methanol and formaldehyde samples
are collected and individually analyzed
for methanol-fueled vehicles
(measurement of methanol and
formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993
through 1994 model year methanolfueled vehicles provided a HFID
calibrated on methanol is used for
measuring HC plus methanol).
(3) Except in cases of component
malfunction or failure, all emission
control systems installed on or
incorporated in a new motor vehicle
must be functioning during all
procedures in this subpart. The
Administrator may authorize
maintenance to correct component
malfunction or failure.
(4) Transmission. The provisions of
§ 86.128 of this chapter apply for
vehicle transmission operation during
highway fuel economy testing under
this subpart.
(5) Road load power and test weight
determination. Section 86.129 of this
chapter applies for determination of
road load power and test weight for
highway fuel economy testing. The test
weight for the testing of a certification
vehicle will be that test weight specified
by the Administrator under the
provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
The test weight for a fuel economy data
vehicle will be that test weight specified
by the Administrator from the test
weights covered by that vehicle
configuration. The Administrator will
base his selection of a test weight on the
relative projected sales volumes of the
various test weights within the vehicle
configuration.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5488
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(6) Vehicle preconditioning. The
HFET is designed to be performed
immediately following the Federal
Emission Test Procedure, §§ 86.127
through 86.138 of this chapter. When
conditions allow, the tests should be
scheduled in this sequence. In the event
the tests cannot be scheduled within
three hours of the Federal Emission Test
Procedure (including one hour hot soak
evaporative loss test, if applicable) the
vehicle should be preconditioned as in
paragraph (b)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section,
as applicable.
(i) If the vehicle has experienced more
than three hours of soak (68 °F–86 °F)
since the completion of the Federal
Emission Test Procedure, or has
experienced periods of storage outdoors,
or in environments where soak
temperature is not controlled to 68 °F–
86 °F, the vehicle must be
preconditioned by operation on a
dynamometer through one cycle of the
EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, § 86.115 of this chapter.
(ii) In unusual circumstances where
additional preconditioning is desired by
the manufacturer, the provisions of
§ 86.132(a)(3) of this chapter apply.
(7) Highway fuel economy
dynamometer procedure. (1) The
dynamometer procedure consists of two
cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule (§ 600.109(b))
separated by 15 seconds of idle. The
first cycle of the Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule is driven to
precondition the test vehicle and the
second is driven for the fuel economy
measurement.
(8) The provisions of paragraphs (b),
(c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of § 86.135
Dynamometer procedure of this chapter,
apply for highway fuel economy testing.
(9) Only one exhaust sample and one
background sample are collected and
analyzed for hydrocarbons (except
diesel hydrocarbons which are analyzed
continuously), carbon monoxide, and
carbon dioxide. Methanol and
formaldehyde samples (exhaust and
dilution air) are collected and analyzed
for methanol-fueled vehicles
(measurement of methanol and
formaldehyde may be omitted for 1993
through 1994 model year methanolfueled vehicles provided a HFID
calibrated on methanol is used for
measuring HC plus methanol).
(10) The fuel economy measurement
cycle of the test includes two seconds of
idle indexed at the beginning of the
second cycle and two seconds of idle
indexed at the end of the second cycle.
(11) Engine starting and restarting. (i)
If the engine is not running at the
initiation of the highway fuel economy
test (preconditioning cycle), the start-up
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
procedure must be according to the
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures.
(ii) False starts and stalls during the
preconditioning cycle must be treated as
in 40 CFR 86.136(d) and (e). If the
vehicle stalls during the measurement
cycle of the highway fuel economy test,
the test is voided, corrective action may
be taken according to 40 CFR 86.1834–
01 as applicable, and the vehicle may be
rescheduled for test. The person taking
the corrective action shall report the
action so that the test records for the
vehicle contain a record of the action.
(12) Dynamometer test run. The
following steps must be taken for each
test:
(i) Place the drive wheels of the
vehicle on the dynamometer. The
vehicle may be driven onto the
dynamometer.
(ii) Open the vehicle engine
compartment cover and position the
cooling fan(s) required. Manufacturers
may request the use of additional
cooling fans for additional engine
compartment or under-vehicle cooling
and for controlling high tire or brake
temperatures during dynamometer
operation.
(iii) Preparation of the CVS must be
performed before the measurement
highway driving cycle.
(iv) Equipment preparation. The
provisions of § 86.137(b)(3) through (6)
of this chapter apply for highway fuel
economy test except that only one
exhaust sample collection bag and one
dilution air sample collection bag need
be connected to the sample collection
systems.
(v) Operate the vehicle over one
Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the
dynamometer driving schedule
specified in § 600.109(b).
(vi) When the vehicle reaches zero
speed at the end of the preconditioning
cycle, the driver has 17 seconds to
prepare for the emission measurement
cycle of the test.
(vii) Operate the vehicle over one
Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule cycle according to the
dynamometer driving schedule
specified in § 600.109(b) while sampling
the exhaust gas.
(viii) Sampling must begin two
seconds before beginning the first
acceleration of the fuel economy
measurement cycle and must end two
seconds after the end of the deceleration
to zero. At the end of the deceleration
to zero speed, the roll or shaft
revolutions must be recorded.
(ix) For methanol dual fuel
automobiles, the procedures of
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 600.111(a) and (b) shall be performed
for each of the required test fuels:
(A) Gasoline or diesel fuel as specified
in § 600.107(a) and (b); and
(B) Methanol fuel as specified in
§ 600.107(c) and (d); and
(C) [Reserved.]
(D) In lieu of testing using the mixture
containing 50% gasoline or diesel and
50% methanol by volume, the
manufacturer must provide a written
statement attesting that the equal or
superior energy efficiency is attained
while using the 50% gasoline or diesel
and 50% methanol mixture compared to
using gasoline.
(c) US06 testing procedures. The test
procedure to be followed for conducting
the US06 test are prescribed in
§§ 86.158 through 86.159 of this
chapter, as applicable.
(d) SC03 testing procedures. The test
procedures to be followed for
conducting the SC03 test are prescribed
in §§ 86.158 and 86.160 through 164 of
this chapter, as applicable.
(e) Cold temperature FTP procedures.
The test procedures to be followed for
conducting the cold temperature FTP
test are prescribed in §§ 86.227 through
86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
18. A new § 600.112–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.112–08
Exhaust sample analysis.
The exhaust sample analysis must be
performed according to § 86.140, or
§ 86.240 of this chapter, as applicable.
19. A new § 600.113–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.113–08 Fuel economy calculations
for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and Cold
Temperature FTP tests.
The Administrator will use the
calculation procedure set forth in this
paragraph for all official EPA testing of
vehicles fueled with gasoline, diesel,
methanol or natural gas fuel. The
calculations of the weighted fuel
economy values require input of the
weighted grams/mile values for total
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide
(CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2); and,
additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, methanol (CH3 OH) and
formaldehyde (HCHO); and additionally
for natural gas-fueled vehicles nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and
methane (CH4) for the FTP, HFET,
US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP
tests. Additionally, the specific gravity,
carbon weight fraction and net heating
value of the test fuel must be
determined. The FTP, HFET, US06,
SC03 and cold temperature FTP fuel
economy values shall be calculated as
specified in this section. An example
appears in appendix II to this part.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(a) Calculate the FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile
values for the FTP test for HC, CO and
CO2; and, additionally for methanolfueled automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO;
and additionally for natural gas-fueled
automobiles NMHC and CH4 as
specified in § 86.144 of this chapter.
Measure and record the test fuel’s
properties as specified in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/
mile values for the cold transient phase,
stabilized phase and hot transient phase
of the FTP test. For vehicles with more
than one source of propulsion energy,
one of which is a rechargeable energy
storage system, or vehicles with special
features that the Administrator
determines may have a reachargeable
energy source, whose charge can vary
during the test, calculate separately the
grams/mile values for the cold transient
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient
phase and hot stabilized phase of the
FTP test.
(b)(1) Calculate the mass values for
the highway fuel economy test for HC,
CO and CO2, and where applicable CH3
OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH4 as specified
in § 86.144(b) of this chapter. Measure
and record the test fuel’s properties as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate the grams/mile values
for the highway fuel economy test for
HC, CO and CO2, and where applicable
CH3 OH, HCHO, NMHC and CH4 by
dividing the mass values obtained in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, by the
actual distance traveled, measured in
miles, as specified in § 86.135(h) of this
chapter.
(c) Calculate the cold temperature
FTP fuel economy.
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile
values for the cold temperature FTP test
for HC, CO and CO2; and, additionally
for methanol-fueled automobiles, CH3
OH and HCHO; and additionally for
natural gas-fueled automobiles NMHC
and CH4 as specified in § 86.244 of this
chapter. Measure and record the test
fuel’s properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/
mile values for the cold transient phase,
stabilized phase and hot transient phase
of the cold temperature FTP test in § 40
CFR 86.244. For vehicles with more
than one source of propulsion energy,
one of which is a rechargeable energy
storage system, or vehicles with special
features that the Administrator
determines may have a reachargeable
energy source, whose charge can vary
during the test, calculate separately the
grams/mile values for the cold transient
phase, stabilized phase, hot transient
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
phase and hot stabilized phase of the
cold temperature FTP test.
(3) Measure and record the test fuel’s
properties as specified in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(d) Calculate separately the first and
second phase grams/mile values for the
US06 test for HC, CO and CO2; and
additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and
additionally for natural gas-fueled
automobiles NMHC and CH4 as
specified in 86.144 of this chapter.
Measure and record the test fuel’s
properties as specified in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(e) Calculate the grams/mile values for
the SC03 test for HC, CO and CO2; and
additionally for methanol-fueled
automobiles, CH3 OH and HCHO; and
additionally for natural gas-fueled
automobiles NMHC and CH4 as
specified in 86.144 of this chapter.
Measure and record the test fuel’s
properties as specified in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(f)(1) Gasoline test fuel properties
shall be determined by analysis of a fuel
sample taken from the fuel supply. A
sample shall be taken after each
addition of fresh fuel to the fuel supply.
Additionally, the fuel shall be
resampled once a month to account for
any fuel property changes during
storage. Less frequent resampling may
be permitted if EPA concludes, on the
basis of manufacturer-supplied data,
that the properties of test fuel in the
manufacturer’s storage facility will
remain stable for a period longer than
one month. The fuel samples shall be
analyzed to determine the following fuel
properties:
(i) Specific gravity per ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as specified
in § 600.011–93).
(ii) Carbon weight fraction per ASTM
D 3343 (Incorporated by reference as
specified in § 600.011–93).
(iii) Net heating value (Btu/lb) per
ASTM D 3338 (Incorporated by
reference as specified in § 600.011–93).
(2) Methanol test fuel shall be
analyzed to determine the following fuel
properties:
(i) Specific gravity using either:
(A) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by
reference as specified in § 600.011–93)
for the blend; or
(B) ASTM D 1298 (incorporated by
reference as specified in § 600.011–93)
for the gasoline fuel component and also
for the methanol fuel component and
combining as follows:
SG=SGg x volume fraction gasoline+SGm
x volume fraction methanol.
(ii)(A) Carbon weight fraction using
the following equation:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5489
CWF=CWFg x MFg+0.375 x MFm
Where:
CWFg=Carbon weight fraction of
gasoline portion of blend per ASTM
D 3343 (incorporated by reference
as specified in § 600.011–93).
MFg=Mass fraction gasoline=(GxSGg)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)
MFm=Mass fraction methanol=(MxSGm)/
(GxSGg+MxSGm)
Where:
G=Volume fraction gasoline
M=Volume fraction methanol
SGg=Specific gravity of gasoline as
measured by ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as
specified in § 600.011–93).
SGm=Specific gravity of methanol as
measured by ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as
specified in § 600.011–93).
(B) Upon the approval of the
Administrator, other procedures to
measure the carbon weight fraction of
the fuel blend may be used if the
manufacturer can show that the
procedures are superior to or equally as
accurate as those specified in this
paragraph (f)(2)(ii).
(iii) Net heating value (BTU/lb) per
ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference
as specified in § 600.011–93).
(3) Natural gas test fuel shall be
analyzed to determine the following fuel
properties:
(i) Fuel composition per ASTM D
1945–91, Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas
Chromatography. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from the
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies may be
inspected at U.S. EPA Headquarters
Library, EPA West Building,
Constitution Avenue and 14th Street,
NW., Room 3340, Washington, DC, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(ii) Specific gravity (based on fuel
composition per ASTM D 1945).
(iii) Carbon weight fraction based on
the carbon contained only in the HC
constituents of the fuel=weight of
carbon in HC constituents divided by
the total weight of fuel.
(iv) Carbon weight fraction of
fuel=total weight of carbon in the fuel
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(i.e., includes carbon contained in HC
and in CO2 divided by total weight of
fuel.
(g) Calculate separate FTP, highway,
US06, SC03 and Cold temperature FTP
fuel economy from the grams/mile
values for total HC, CO, CO2 and, where
applicable, CH3, OH, HCHO, NMHC and
CH4 and, the test fuel’s specific gravity,
carbon weight fraction, net heating
value, and additionally for natural gas,
the test fuel’s composition. The
emission values (obtained per paragraph
(a) through (e) of this section, as
applicable) used in each calculation of
this section shall be rounded in
accordance with 40 CFR 86.084–
26(a)(6)(iii) or 40 CFR 86.1837–01 as
applicable. The CO2 values (obtained
per this section, as applicable) used in
each calculation of this section shall be
rounded to the nearest gram/mile. The
specific gravity and the carbon weight
fraction (obtained per paragraph (f) of
this section) shall be recorded using
three places to the right of the decimal
point. The net heating value (obtained
per paragraph (f) of this section) shall be
recorded to the nearest whole Btu/lb.
(h)(1) For gasoline-fueled
automobiles, the fuel economy in miles
per gallon is to be calculated using the
following equation:
mpg=(5174×104×C×CWF×SG) /
[((CWF×HC) + (0.429×CO) +
mpg e =
(k) For automobiles fueled with
natural gas, the fuel economy in miles
per gallon of natural gas is to be
calculated using the following equation:
kPa)] pressure as obtained in paragraph (g)
of this section.
CH4, NMHC, CO, and CO2=weighted mass
exhaust emissions [grams/mile] for
methane, non-methane HC, carbon
monoxide, and carbon dioxide as
calculated in § 600.113.
CWFNMHC=carbon weight fraction of the nonmethane HC constituents in the fuel as
determined from the speciated fuel
composition per paragraph (f)(3) of this
section.
CO2NG=grams of carbon dioxide in the
natural gas fuel consumed per mile of
travel.
CO2NG=FCNG DNG WFCO2
where:
FCNG=cubic feet of natural gas fuel consumed
per mile
CWFNG D NG
Jkt 208001
20. A new § 600.114–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.114–08 Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel
economy calculations.
(a) For each vehicle tested under sec.
600.010–08(c)(i) and (ii), determine the
5-cycle city fuel economy using the
following equation:
EP01FE06.045
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
CWFexHC=Carbon weight fraction of exhaust
hydrocarbons= CWFg as determined in
(c)(2)(ii) of this section (for M100 fuel,
CWFexHC=0.866).
HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in paragraph
(g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in
paragraph (g) of this section.
CH3OH=Grams/mile CH3OH (methanol) as
obtained in paragraph (d) of this section.
HCHO=Grams/mile HCHO (formaldehyde) as
obtained in paragraph (g) of this section.
( 0.749 ) CH 4 + ( CWFNMHC ) NMHC + ( 0.429 ) CO + ( 0.27 3) ) CO 2 )
where:
CWFNG=the carbon weight fraction of the
natural gas fuel as calculated in paragraph
(f) of this section.
WFCO2=weight fraction carbon dioxide of the
natural gas fuel calculated using the mole
fractions and molecular weights of the
natural gas fuel constituents per ASTM D
1945.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
(j) For methanol-fueled automobiles
and automobiles designed to operate on
mixtures of gasoline and methanol, the
fuel economy in miles per gallon is to
be calculated using the following
equation:
mpg=(CWF×SG×3781.8) /
((CWFexHC×HC) + (0.429×CO) +
(0.273×CO2) + (0.375×CH3OH) +
(0.400×HCHO))
Where:
CWF=Carbon weight fraction of the fuel
as determined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)
of this section.
SG=Specific gravity of the fuel as
determined in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
this section.
CWFHC / NG D NG 121.5
0.749 ) CH 4 + ( CWFNMHC ) + ( 0.429 ) CO + ( 0.273) ( CO 2 − CO 2 NG )
(
Where:
mpge=miles per equivalent gallon of natural
gas.
CWFHC/NG=carbon weight fraction based on
the hydrocarbon constituents in the natural
gas fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of this
section.
DNG=density of the natural gas fuel [grams/
ft3 at 68 °F (20° C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3
=
(0.273×CO2)) ×
((0.6×SG×NHV)+5471)]
Where:
HC=Grams/mile HC as obtained in
paragraph (g) of this section.
CO=Grams/mile CO as obtained in
paragraph (g) of this section.
CO2=Grams/mile CO2 as obtained in
paragraph (g) of this section.
CWF=Carbon weight fraction of test fuel
as obtained in paragraph (g) of this
section.
NHV=Net heating value by mass of test
fuel as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section.
SG=Specific gravity of test fuel as
obtained in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(2) Round the calculated result to the
nearest 0.1 miles per gallon.
(i)(1) For diesel-fueled automobiles,
calculate the fuel economy in miles per
gallon of diesel fuel by dividing 2778 by
the sum of three terms:
(i) 0.866 multiplied by HC (in grams/
miles as obtained in paragraph (g) of
this section);
(ii) 0.429 multiplied by CO (in grams/
mile as obtained in paragraph (g) of this
section); and
(iii) 0.273 multiplied by CO2 (in
grams/mile as obtained in paragraph (g)
of this section).
(2) Round the quotient to the nearest
0.1 mile per gallon.
This section applies to data used for
fuel economy labeling under subpart D
of this part.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.044
5490
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
City FE = 0.89 ×
5491
1
, where
Start FC + Running FC )
(
( 0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20 )
StartFC (gallons per mile) = 0.330 ×
3.5
where,
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a3 − bag FTP =
3.59
3.59
−
Bag 1 FE x Bag 3 FE x
or,
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per
gallon over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in miles per
gallon over the SC03 test.
Highway FE = 0.89 ×
(b) For each vehicle tested under sec.
600.010–08(a) and (c)(1)(ii)(B), determine the
5-cycle highway fuel economy using the
following equation:
1
, where
Start FC + Running FC
( 0.76 × StartFuel75 + 0.24 × StartFuel20 )
StartFC (gallons per mile) = 0.330 ×
, where
60
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a3 − bag FTP =
3.59
3.59
−
, or
Bag 1 FE x Bag 3 FE x
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a4 − bag FTP =
7.5
3.59
3.91
+
Bag 1 FE x Bag 2 FE x
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
−
7.5
3.59
3.91
+
Bag 3 FE x Bag 4 FE x
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
, where
01FEP2
EP01FE06.053
EP01FE06.052
where:
US06 City FE = fuel economy in miles
per gallon over the ‘‘city’’ portion of
the US06 test,
EP01FE06.051
0.48
0.41
0.11
0.5
0.5
Running FC = 0.70 ×
+
+
+
+ 0.30 ×
Bag 275 FE Bag 375 FE US06 City FE
Bag 220 FE Bag 220 FE
21.5
1
0.61
0.39
+ 0.133 ×
×
−
+
19.9 SC03 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE
EP01FE06.050
the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75° or 20 °F.
EP01FE06.054
3.59
3.91
+
Bag 3 FE x Bag 4 FE x
EP01FE06.049
Bag y FEx=the fuel economy in miles per
gallon of fuel during the specified bag of
7.5
EP01FE06.048
3.59
3.91
+
Bag 1 FE x Bag 2 FE x
−
EP01FE06.047
where
7.5
EP01FE06.046
Start Fuel x for vehicles tested over a4 − bag FTP =
5492
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Bag y FEx=the fuel economy in miles per
gallon of fuel during the specified bag of
the FTP test conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75° or 20 °F.
0.79
0.21
Running FC = (1.012 ) ×
+
US06 Highway FE HFET FE
1
0.61
0.39
+ 0.133 × 0.377 ×
−
+
, where
SC06 FE Bag 375 FE Bag 275 FE
This section applies to data used for
fuel economy labeling under subpart D
of this part.
Derived 5-cycle City Fuel Economy =
, where:
City Intercept = Intercept determined by the
Administrator
City Slope = Slope determined by the
Administrator
FTP FE = the city fuel economy determined
under sec. 600.113–08(a), rounded to the
nearest tenth.
(b) For each vehicle tested under
§ 600.010 (a) and (b), determine the
derived 5-cycle highway fuel economy
using the equation in this paragraph (b)
and coefficients determined by the
Administrator. Paragraph (c) of this
section provides coefficients applicable
to 2008 model year vehicles. In the case
of dual fuel vehicles, determine separate
fuel economy values for each fuel type.
To determine the intercept and slope
coefficients, the Administrator will
compile the 5-cycle data collected under
§ 600.010–08(a) for three or more model
years prior to the model year for which
the coefficients are applicable. The
Administrator will perform a least
squares regression in which the vehiclespecific 5-cycle highway fuel
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Derived 5-cycle Highway Fuel Economy =
where:
Highway Intercept = Intercept determined by
the Administrator based on historic 5-cycle
highway fuel economy data
Highway Slope = Slope determined by the
Administrator based on historic 5-cycle
highway fuel economy data
HFET FE = the highway fuel economy
determined under § 600.113–08(b),
rounded to the nearest tenth.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
1
{City Slope}
{City Intercept} +
FTP FE
1
{Highway Slope}
{Highway Intercept} +
FTP FE
(c) For 2008 and later model year
vehicles, unless superseded by written
guidance from the Administrator, the
following values shall be used in the
equations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section:
City Intercept = 0.002549
City Slope = 1.2259
Highway Intercept = 0.000308
Highway Slope = 1.4030
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
consumption (gallons per mile) is the
dependent variable and the HFET fuel
consumption (gallons per mile) is the
independent variable. The resulting
equation will define the slope and
intercept coefficients. The
Administrator will provide the
coefficients for a given model year by
guidance letter issued no later than
January 1 of the calendar year prior to
the model year to which the coefficients
are first applicable.
The equation is:
Sfmt 4702
22. A new § 600.116–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.116–08 Criteria for additional US06,
SC03 and cold temperature FTP testing.
This section applies to 2011 and later
model year vehicles. This section
defines which 2011 and later model
year vehicles must use the vehicle-
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.057
§ 600.115–08 Calculations for derived 5cycle fuel economy.
Administrator will perform a least
squares regression in which the vehiclespecific 5-cycle city fuel consumption
(gallons per mile) is the dependent
variable and the FTP fuel consumption
(gallons per mile) is the independent
variable. The resulting equation will
define the slope and intercept
coefficients. The Administrator will
provide the coefficients to
manufacturers by guidance letter issued
no later than January 1 of the calendar
year prior to the model year to which
the coefficients are first applicable.
The equation is:
EP01FE06.056
21. A new § 600.115–08 is added to
read as follows:
(a) For each vehicle tested under
600.010 (a) and (b), determine the
derived 5-cycle city fuel economy using
the equation in this paragraph (a) and
coefficients determined by the
Administrator. Paragraph (c) of this
section provides coefficients applicable
to 2008 model year vehicles. In the case
of dual fuel vehicles, determine separate
fuel economy values for each fuel type.
To determine the intercept and slope
coefficients, the Administrator will
compile the 5-cycle data collected under
§ 600.010–08(a) for three or more model
years prior to the model year for which
the coefficients are applicable. The
EP01FE06.055
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in mile
per gallon over the highway portion of the
US06 test,
HFET FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon
over the HFET test,
SC03 FE = fuel economy in mile per gallon
over the SC03 test.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
specific 5-cycle fuel economy method
specified in § 600.114–08.
(a) City fuel economy testing. (1) For
each vehicle tested under § 600.010–
08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5-cycle city fuel
economy for that vehicle determined
according to the provisions of
§ 600.114–08(b) and rounded to the
nearest one tenth of a mile per gallon
shall be compared to the following
value calculated for that vehicle:
(i) The Derived 5-Cycle City Fuel
Economy calculated under § 600.115–
08(a) multiplied by 0.96 and rounded to
the nearest one tenth of a mile per
gallon.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) If the 5-cycle city fuel economy
determined in § 600.010–08(a) is less
than the value determined in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section, then the
manufacturer must conduct additional
fuel economy testing according to the
provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
manufacturer shall identify all model
types that are represented by the
certification test group of the emission
data vehicle tested under § 600.010–
08(a). For each of these model types, the
manufacturer shall:
(i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold
temperature FTP tests in addition to the
FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel
economy for each model type according
to the provisions of § 600.114–08;
(iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy for each model type
according to the provisions of
§ 600.114–08;
(b) Highway fuel economy testing. (1)
For each vehicle tested under
§ 600.010–08(a) [cert vehicles], the 5cycle highway fuel economy for that
vehicle determined according to the
provisions of § 600.114–08(c) and
rounded to the nearest one tenth of a
mile per gallon shall be compared to the
following value calculated for that
vehicle:
(i) The Derived 5-Cycle Highway Fuel
Economy calculated under § 600.115–
08(b) multiplied by 0.95 and rounded to
the nearest one tenth of a mile per
gallon.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) If the 5-cycle highway fuel
economy determined in § 600.010–08(a)
is less than the value determined in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, then
the manufacturer must conduct
additional fuel economy testing
according to the provisions of paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
Highway FE = 0.89 ×
StartFC = 0.33 ×
5493
(3) For vehicles meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this
section, the manufacturer shall identify
all model types that are represented by
the certification test group of the
emission data vehicle tested under
§ 600.010–08(a). For each of these model
types, the manufacturer shall:
(i) Perform US06, SC03, and cold
temperature FTP tests in addition to the
FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle city fuel
economy for each model type according
to the provisions of § 600.114–08;
(iii) Determine the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy for each model type
according to the provisions of
§ 600.114–08;
(4) For vehicles meeting the criteria in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but not
meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section, the manufacturer shall
identify all model types that are
represented by the certification test
group of the emission data vehicle
tested under § 600.010–08(a). For each
of these model types, the manufacturer
shall:
(i) Perform a US06 test in addition to
the FTP and HFET tests;
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway
fuel economy according to the following
formula:
1
, where
Start FC + Running FC
( 0.004774 + 1.1377 × StartFuel75 )
60.0
, where
1
1
StartFuel75 = 3.59 ×
−
, and
Bag 1 FE 75 Bag 3 FE 75
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
where,
Subpart C—[Amended]
US06 Highway FE = fuel economy in
miles per gallon over the highway
portion of the US06 test, and
HFET FE = fuel economy in miles per
gallon over the HFET test.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
23. A new § 600.201–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.201–08
General applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to 2008 and later model year
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcoholfueled, natural gas-fueled, alcohol dual
fuel, and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles.
*
*
*
*
*
24. A new § 600.206–08 is added to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.060
0.79
0.21
0.15931
Running FC = 1.0 + ( 0.04 × 0.3) ×
+ 0.377 × 0.133 × 0.004254 +
+
US06 Highway FE HFET FE
US06 FE
EP01FE06.061
conducted at an ambient
temperature of 75°.
EP01FE06.059
Bag y FE75 = the fuel economy in miles
per gallon of fuel during the
specified bag of the FTP test
EP01FE06.058
where,
5494
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.206–08 Calculation and use of FTPbased and HFET-based fuel economy
values for vehicle configurations.
(a) Fuel economy values determined
for each vehicle under § 600.113(a) and
(b) and as approved in § 600.008–08(c),
are used to determine FTP-based city,
HFET-based highway, and combined
FTP/Highway-based fuel economy
values for each vehicle configuration for
which data are available.
(1) If only one set of FTP-based city
and HFET-based highway fuel economy
values is accepted for a vehicle
configuration, these values, rounded to
the nearest tenth of a mile per gallon,
comprise the city and highway fuel
economy values for that configuration.
(2) If more than one FTP-based city or
highway fuel economy value is accepted
for a vehicle configuration:
(i) All data shall be grouped according
to the subconfiguration for which the
data were generated using sales
projections supplied in accordance with
§ 600.208(a)(3).
(ii) Within each group of data, all
values are harmonically averaged and
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile
per gallon in order to determine FTPbased city and HFET-based highway
fuel economy values for each
subconfiguration at which the vehicle
configuration was tested.
(iii) All FTP-based city fuel economy
values and all HFET-based highway fuel
economy values calculated in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section are (separately
for city and highway) averaged in
proportion to the sales fraction (rounded
to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle
configuration (as provided to the
Administrator by the manufacturer) of
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration.
The resultant values, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the
FTP-based city and HFET-based
highway fuel economy values for the
vehicle configuration.
(3) For the purpose of determining
average fuel economy under § 600.510–
93, the combined fuel economy value
for a vehicle configuration is calculated
by harmonically averaging the FTPbased city and HFET-based highway
fuel economy values, as determined in
§ 600.206(a)(1) or (2), weighted 0.55 and
0.45 respectively, and rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon. A
sample of this calculation appears in
Appendix II to this part.
(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of FTPbased city, HFET-based highway, and
combined fuel economy values for each
configuration.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel
test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural
gas test fuel.
(b) If only one equivalent petroleumbased fuel economy value exists for an
electric configuration, that value,
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile
per gallon, will compose the petroleumbased fuel economy for that
configuration.
(c) If more than one equivalent
petroleum-based fuel economy value
exists for an electric vehicle
configuration, all values for that vehicle
configuration are harmonically averaged
and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile
per gallon for that configuration.
25. A new § 600.207–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.207–08 Calculation and use of 5cycle-based fuel economy values for
vehicle configurations.
(a) Fuel economy values determined
for each vehicle, under 600.114–08,
600.115–08, or 600.116–08 as
applicable, and as approved in
§ 600.008–08(c), are used to determine
5-cycle city, highway, and combined
fuel economy values for each vehicle
configuration for which data are
available.
(1) If only one set of 5-cycle city and
highway fuel economy values is
accepted for a vehicle configuration,
these values, rounded to the nearest
tenth of a mile per gallon, comprise the
city and highway fuel economy values
for that configuration.
(2) If more than one 5-cycle city or
highway fuel economy value is accepted
for a vehicle configuration:
(i) All data shall be grouped according
to the subconfiguration for which the
data were generated using sales
projections supplied in accordance with
§ 600.209(a)(3).
(ii) Within each group of data, all
values are harmonically averaged and
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 of a mile
per gallon in order to determine 5-cycle
city and highway fuel economy values
for each subconfiguration at which the
vehicle configuration was tested.
(iii) All 5-cycle city fuel economy
values and all 5-cycle highway fuel
economy values calculated in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section are (separately
for FTP, highway, US06, SC03 and Cold
temperature FTP) averaged in
proportion to the sales fraction (rounded
to the nearest 0.0001) within the vehicle
configuration (as provided to the
Administrator by the manufacturer) of
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
vehicles of each tested subconfiguration.
The resultant values, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mile per gallon, are the
5-cycle city and highway fuel economy
values for the vehicle configuration.
(3) The 5-cycle combined fuel
economy value for a vehicle
configuration is calculated by
harmonically averaging the 5-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values, as
determined in § 600.207(a)(1) or (2),
weighted 0.43 and 0.57 respectively,
and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile
per gallon. An example of this
calculation appears in Appendix II to
this part.
(4) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of 5-cycle
city, highway, and combined fuel
economy values for each configuration.
(i) Calculate the 5-cycle city, highway,
and combined fuel economy values
from the tests performed using gasoline
or diesel test fuel.
(ii)(A) Calculate the 5-cycle city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values from the tests performed using
alcohol or natural gas test fuel, if testing
was performed; or
(B) Calculate the derived 5-cycle city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
according to § 600.115–08, expressed in
terms of gasoline equivalent.
(b) If only one equivalent petroleumbased fuel economy value exists for an
electric configuration, that value,
rounded to the nearest tenth of a mile
per gallon, will compose the petroleumbased 5-cycle fuel economy for that
configuration.
(c) If more than one equivalent
petroleum-based 5-cycle fuel economy
value exists for an electric vehicle
configuration, all values for that vehicle
configuration are harmonically averaged
and rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile
per gallon for that configuration.
26. A new § 600.208–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.208–08 Calculation of FTP-based
and HFET-based fuel economy values for a
model type.
(a) Fuel economy values for a base
level are calculated from vehicle
configuration fuel economy values as
determined in § 600.206–08(a), (b), or (c)
as applicable, for low-altitude tests.
(1) If the Administrator determines
that automobiles intended for sale in the
State of California are likely to exhibit
significant differences in fuel economy
from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy
values for each base level for vehicles
intended for sale in California and for
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
each base level for vehicles intended for
sale in the rest of the states.
(2) In order to highlight the fuel
efficiency of certain designs otherwise
included within a model type, a
manufacturer may wish to subdivide a
model type into one or more additional
model types. This is accomplished by
separating subconfigurations from an
existing base level and placing them
into a new base level. The new base
level is identical to the existing base
level except that it shall be considered,
for the purposes of this paragraph, as
containing a new basic engine. The
manufacturer will be permitted to
designate such new basic engines and
base level(s) if:
(i) Each additional model type
resulting from division of another model
type has a unique car line name and that
name appears on the label and on the
vehicle bearing that label;
(ii) The subconfigurations included in
the new base levels are not included in
any other base level which differs only
by basic engine (i.e., they are not
included in the calculation of the
original base level fuel economy values);
and
(iii) All subconfigurations within the
new base level are represented by test
data in accordance with § 600.010–
08(c)(1)(ii).
(3) The manufacturer shall supply
total model year sales projections for
each car line/vehicle subconfiguration
combination.
(i) Sales projections must be supplied
separately for each car line-vehicle
subconfiguration intended for sale in
California and each car line/vehicle
subconfiguration intended for sale in
the rest of the states if required by the
Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales
projections at the time any model type
value is calculated for a label value.
(iii) The requirements of this
paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by
providing an amended application for
certification, as described in 40 CFR
86.084–21 or 40 CFR 86.1844–01 as
applicable.
(4) Vehicle configuration fuel
economy values, as determined in
§ 600.206–08(a), (b) or (c), as applicable,
are grouped according to base level.
(i) If only one vehicle configuration
within a base level has been tested, the
fuel economy value from that vehicle
configuration constitutes the fuel
economy for that base level.
(ii) If more than one vehicle
configuration within a base level has
been tested, the vehicle configuration
fuel economy values are harmonically
averaged in proportion to the respective
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
sales fraction (rounded to the nearest
0.0001) of each vehicle configuration
and the resultant fuel economy value
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per
gallon.
(5) The procedure specified in
§ 600.208–08(a) will be repeated for
each base level, thus establishing city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each base level.
(6) For the purposes of calculating a
base level fuel economy value, if the
only vehicle configuration(s) within the
base level are vehicle configuration(s)
which are intended for sale at high
altitude, the Administrator may use fuel
economy data from tests conducted on
these vehicle configuration(s) at high
altitude to calculate the fuel economy
for the base level.
(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each base level.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel
test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural
gas test fuel.
(b) For each model type, as
determined by the Administrator, a city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
value will be calculated by using the
projected sales and fuel economy values
for each base level within the model
type. Separate model type calculations
will be done based on the vehicle
configuration fuel economy values as
determined in § 600.206–08(a), (b) or (c),
as applicable.
(1) If the Administrator determines
that automobiles intended for sale in the
State of California are likely to exhibit
significant differences in fuel economy
from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy
values for each model type for vehicles
intended for sale in California and for
each model type for vehicles intended
for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) The sales fraction for each base
level is calculated by dividing the
projected sales of the base level within
the model type by the projected sales of
the model type and rounding the
quotient to the nearest 0.0001.
(3) The FTP-based city fuel economy
values of the model type (calculated to
the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined
by dividing one by a sum of terms, each
of which corresponds to a base level and
which is a fraction determined by
dividing:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5495
(i) The sales fraction of a base level;
by
(ii) The FTP-based city fuel economy
value for the respective base level.
(4) The procedure specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section is
repeated in an analogous manner to
determine the highway and combined
fuel economy values for the model type.
(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each model type.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel
test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural
gas test fuel.
27. A new § 600.209–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.209–08 Calculation of 5-cycle fuel
economy values for a model type.
(a) 5-cycle fuel economy values for a
base level are calculated from vehicle
configuration 5-cycle fuel economy
values as determined in § 600.207–08
for low-altitude tests.
(1) If the Administrator determines
that automobiles intended for sale in the
State of California are likely to exhibit
significant differences in fuel economy
from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy
values for each base level for vehicles
intended for sale in California and for
each base level for vehicles intended for
sale in the rest of the states.
(2) In order to highlight the fuel
efficiency of certain designs otherwise
included within a model type, a
manufacturer may wish to subdivide a
model type into one or more additional
model types. This is accomplished by
separating subconfigurations from an
existing base level and placing them
into a new base level. The new base
level is identical to the existing base
level except that it shall be considered,
for the purposes of this paragraph, as
containing a new basic engine. The
manufacturer will be permitted to
designate such new basic engines and
base level(s) if:
(i) Each additional model type
resulting from division of another model
type has a unique car line name and that
name appears on the label and on the
vehicle bearing that label;
(ii) The subconfigurations included in
the new base levels are not included in
any other base level which differs only
by basic engine (i.e., they are not
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5496
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
included in the calculation of the
original base level fuel economy values);
and
(iii) All subconfigurations within the
new base level are represented by test
data in accordance with § 600.010–
08(c)(ii).
(3) The manufacturer shall supply
total model year sales projections for
each car line/vehicle subconfiguration
combination.
(i) Sales projections must be supplied
separately for each car line-vehicle
subconfiguration intended for sale in
California and each car line/vehicle
subconfiguration intended for sale in
the rest of the states if required by the
Administrator under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
(ii) Manufacturers shall update sales
projections at the time any model type
value is calculated for a label value.
(iii) The requirements of this
paragraph (a)(3) may be satisfied by
providing an amended application for
certification, as described in 40 CFR
86.084–21 or 40 CFR 86.1844–01 as
applicable.
(4) 5-cycle vehicle configuration fuel
economy values, as determined in
§ 600.207–08 are grouped according to
base level.
(i) If only one vehicle configuration
within a base level has been tested, the
fuel economy value from that vehicle
configuration constitutes the fuel
economy for that base level.
(ii) If more than one vehicle
configuration within a base level has
been tested, the vehicle configuration
fuel economy values are harmonically
averaged in proportion to the respective
sales fraction (rounded to the nearest
0.0001) of each vehicle configuration
and the resultant fuel economy value
rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mile per
gallon.
(5) The procedure specified in
§ 600.209–08(a) will be repeated for
each base level, thus establishing city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each base level.
(6) For the purposes of calculating a
base level fuel economy value, if the
only vehicle configuration(s) within the
base level are vehicle configuration(s)
which are intended for sale at high
altitude, the Administrator may use fuel
economy data from tests conducted on
these vehicle configuration(s) at high
altitude to calculate the fuel economy
for the base level.
(7) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each base level.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel
test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural
gas test fuel.
(b) For each model type, as
determined by the Administrator, a city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
value will be calculated by using the
projected sales and fuel economy values
for each base level within the model
type. Separate model type calculations
will be done based on the vehicle
configuration fuel economy values as
determined in § 600.207–08, as
applicable.
(1) If the Administrator determines
that automobiles intended for sale in the
State of California are likely to exhibit
significant differences in fuel economy
from those intended for sale in other
states, he will calculate fuel economy
values for each model type for vehicles
intended for sale in California and for
each model type for vehicles intended
for sale in the rest of the states.
(2) The sales fraction for each base
level is calculated by dividing the
projected sales of the base level within
the model type by the projected sales of
the model type and rounding the
quotient to the nearest 0.0001.
(3) The 5-cycle city fuel economy
values of the model type (calculated to
the nearest 0.0001 mpg) are determined
by dividing one by a sum of terms, each
of which corresponds to a base level and
which is a fraction determined by
dividing:
(i) The sales fraction of a base level;
by
(ii) The 5-cycle city fuel economy
value for the respective base level.
(4) The procedure specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section is
repeated in an analogous manner to
determine the highway and combined
fuel economy values for the model type.
(5) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
the procedures of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section shall be used
to calculate two separate sets of city,
highway, and combined fuel economy
values for each model type.
(i) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using gasoline or diesel
test fuel.
(ii) Calculate the city, highway, and
combined fuel economy values from the
tests performed using alcohol or natural
gas test fuel.
28. A new § 600.210–08 is added to
read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 600.210–08 Calculation of 5-cycle-based
fuel economy values for labeling.
(a) General Labels. The city and
highway model type fuel economy
determined in § 600.209–08 (b),
rounded to the nearest mpg, comprise
the fuel economy values for general fuel
economy labels. If the manufacturer
determines that the resulting label
values are not representative of the fuel
economy for that model type, they may
voluntarily lower these values.
(b) Specific Labels. (1) The 5-cycle
city model type fuel economy value
determined in § 600.207–08(a), rounded
to the nearest mpg, comprises the city
fuel economy value for specific fuel
economy labels. If the manufacturer
determines that the resulting city label
value is not representative of the fuel
economy for that specific vehicle, they
may voluntarily lower this value.
(2) The 5-cycle highway model type
fuel economy value determined in
§ 600.207–08(a) rounded to the nearest
mpg, comprises the highway fuel
economy value for specific fuel
economy labels. If the manufacturer
determines that the resulting highway
label value is not representative of the
fuel economy for that specific vehicle,
they may voluntarily lower this value.
(c) If the city value exceeds the
highway value for a model type under
(a) or (b) of this section, the city value
will be set equal to the highway value.
In cases where special vehicle design
features may result in city values that
exceed highway values, the
manufacturer may request
Administrator approval to waive this
requirement. Such a request must be
accompanied by on-road fuel economy
data which demonstrates that the fuel
economy during city-type driving is
higher than fuel economy during
highway-type driving.
(d) For the purposes of calculating the
combined fuel economy for a model
type, to be used in determining annual
fuel costs under § 600.307–08, the
manufacturer shall (except as provided
for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section):
(1)(i) For gasoline-fueled, dieselfueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural gasfueled automobiles, harmonically
average the unrounded city and
highway values, determined in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i), or
(a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of this section
weighted 0.43 and 0.57 respectively,
and round to the nearest whole mpg.
(An example of this calculation
procedure appears in appendix II of this
part); or
(ii) For alcohol dual fuel and natural
gas dual fuel automobiles, harmonically
average the unrounded city and
highway values from the tests
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
performed using gasoline or diesel test
fuel as determined in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(1)(ii)(A), or
(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section.
(2) If the resulting city value
determined in paragraph (a) of this
section exceeds the resulting highway
value determined in paragraph (b) of
this section, the combined fuel economy
will be set equal to the highway value,
rounded to the nearest whole mpg,
unless as otherwise approved by the
Administrator under paragraph (c) of
this section.
Subpart D—[Amended]
29. A new § 600.301–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.301–08
General applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to 2008 and later model year
gasoline-fueled, diesel-fueled, alcoholfueled, natural gas-fueled, alcohol dual
fuel, and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles.
(b)(1) Manufacturers that produce
only electric vehicles are exempt from
the requirement of this subpart, except
with regard to the requirements in those
sections pertaining specifically to
electric vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers with worldwide
production (excluding electric vehicle
production) of less than 10,000 gasolinefueled and/or diesel powered passenger
automobiles and light trucks may
optionally comply with the electric
vehicle requirements in this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
30. A new § 600.306–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.306–08
Labeling requirements.
(a) Prior to being offered for sale, each
manufacturer shall affix or cause to be
affixed and each dealer shall maintain
or cause to be maintained on each
automobile:
(1) A general fuel economy label
(initial, or updated as required in
§ 600.314) as described in § 600.307(c)
or:
(2) A specific label, as described in
§ 600.307(d), for those automobiles
manufactured or imported before the
date that occurs 15 days after general
labels have been determined by the
manufacturer.
(i) If the manufacturer elects to use a
specific label within a model type (as
defined in § 600.002–08, he shall also
affix specific labels on all automobiles
within this model type, except on those
automobiles manufactured or imported
before the date that labels are required
to bear range values as required by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
paragraph (b) of this section, or
determined by the Administrator, or as
permitted under § 600.310–08.
(ii) If a manufacturer elects to change
from general to specific labels or vice
versa within a model type, the
manufacturer shall, within five calendar
days, initiate or discontinue as
applicable, the use of specific labels on
all vehicles within a model type at all
facilities where labels are affixed.
(3) For any vehicle for which a
specific label is requested which has a
combined FTP/HFET-based fuel
economy value, as determined in
§ 600.206–08(a)(3), at or below the
minimum tax-free value, the following
statement must appear on the specific
label:
‘‘[Manufacturer’s name] may have to
pay IRS a Gas Guzzler Tax on this
vehicle because of the low fuel
economy.’’ (4)(i) At the time a general
fuel economy value is determined for a
model type, a manufacturer shall,
except as provided in paragraph
(a)(4)(ii) of this section, relabel, or cause
to be relabeled, vehicles which:
(A) Have not been delivered to the
ultimate purchaser, and
(B) Have a combined FTP/HFETbased model type fuel economy value
(as determined in § 600.208–08(b) of 0.1
mpg or more below the lowest fuel
economy value at which a Gas Guzzler
Tax of $0 is to be assessed.
(ii) The manufacturer has the option
of relabeling vehicles during the first
five working days after the general label
value is known.
(iii) For those vehicle model types
which have been issued a specific label
and are subsequently found to have tax
liability, the manufacturer is responsible
for the tax liability regardless of whether
the vehicle has been sold or not or
whether the vehicle has been relabeled
or not.
(b) FE range of comparable vehicles.
The manufacturer shall include the
current range of fuel economy of
comparable automobiles (as described
in §§ 600.311 and 600.314) in the label
of each vehicle manufactured or
imported more than 15 calendar days
after the current range is made available
by the Administrator.
(1) Automobiles manufactured before
a date 16 or more calendar days after the
initial label range is made available
under § 600.311–08(c) may be labeled
without a range of fuel economy of
comparable automobiles. In place of the
range of fuel economy of comparable
automobiles, the label must contain the
statement ‘‘Fuel economy for
comparable vehicles not available at this
time. See www.fueleconomy.gov for
comparisons.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5497
(2) Automobiles manufactured more
than 15 calendar days after the initial or
updated label range is made available
under § 600.311–08(c) or (d) will be
labeled with the current range of fuel
economy of comparable automobiles as
approved for that label.
(c) The fuel economy label must be
readily visible from the exterior of the
automobile and remain affixed until the
time the automobile is delivered to the
ultimate consumer.
(1) It is preferable that the fuel
economy label information be included
with the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label, provided that the
prominence and legibility of the fuel
economy label is maintained. For this
purpose, all fuel economy label
information must be placed on a
separate section in the label and may
not be intermixed with the Automobile
Information Disclosure Act label
information, except for vehicle
descriptions as noted in § 600.307–
08(c).
(2) The fuel economy label must be
located on a side window. If the
window is not large enough to contain
both the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label and the fuel
economy label, the manufacturer shall
have the fuel economy label affixed on
another window and as close as possible
to the Automobile Information
Disclosure Act label.
(3) The manufacturer shall have the
fuel economy label affixed in such a
manner that appearance and legibility
are maintained until after the vehicle is
delivered to the ultimate consumer.
31. A new § 600.307–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.307–08 Fuel economy label format
requirements.
[Note: Proposed rule offers 4 label formats.
One will be selected based on comments
received. Precise font sizes and locations are
to be determined based on the final format
chosen].
(a)(1) Fuel economy labels must be:
(i) Rectangular in shape with a
minimum height of 4.5 inches (114 mm)
and a minimum length of 7.0 inches
(178 mm) as depicted in Appendix VIII.
(ii) Printed in a color which contrasts
with the paper color.
(iii) The label shall have a contrasting
border. The top border shall be at least
[TBD] inches wide and the bottom
border shall be at least [TBD] wide. The
side borders shall be no more than
[TBD] wide.
(2) The top [TBD] percent of the fuel
economy label area shall contain only
the following information and in the
same format depicted in the label format
in Appendix VIII:
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5498
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(i) The titles ‘‘CITY MPG’’ and
‘‘HIGHWAY MPG’’, centered over the
applicable fuel economy estimates, in
bold caps [TBD] points in size,
(ii)(A) For gasoline-fueled, dieselfueled, alcohol-fueled, and natural gasfueled automobiles, the city and
highway fuel economy estimates
calculated in accordance with
§ 600.209(a) and (b),
(B) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles,
the city and highway fuel economy
estimates for operation on gasoline or
diesel fuel as calculated in § 600.210–
08(a) and (b),
(iii) The fuel pump logo,
(iv) The following phrase is centered,
full justification, underneath the fuel
pump logo, in bold print: ‘‘Your actual
mileage can vary significantly according
to how you drive and maintain your
vehicle and other factors.
(v) The statement: ‘‘Expected range for
most drivers:l to l mpg’’, placed
underneath both the city and highway
estimates, centered to the estimate
numbers. The range values for this
statement are to be calculated in
accordance with the following:
(A) The lower range values shall be
determined by multiplying the city and
highway estimates by 0.83, then
rounding to the next lower integer
value.
(B) The upper range values shall be
determined by multiplying the city and
highway estimates by 1.17 and rounding
to the next higher integer value.
(vi) The top border shall contain a
‘‘dropped out’’ centered title ‘‘EPA
FUEL ECONOMY ESTIMATES’’ in bold
caps [TBD] points in size. At the far left
of the top border, the official EPA logo
shall appear and at the far right of the
top border, the official DOE logo shall
appear. The logos shall be [TBD] inches
in diameter.
(vii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled
automobiles, the title A(insert
appropriate fuel (example ‘‘METHANOL
‘‘(M85))’’)’’. The title shall be positioned
[TBD] and shall be in upper case in a
bold condensed type and no smaller
than [TBD] points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled
automobiles, the title ‘‘NATURAL
GAS*’’. The title shall be positioned
[TBD] and shall be in uppercase in a
bold condensed type and no smaller
than [TBD] points in size.
(C) For dedicated alcohol dual fuel
automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles, the title ‘‘DUAL FUEL*’’.
The title shall be positioned [TBD] and
shall be in upper case in a bold
condensed type and no smaller than
[TBD] points in size.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(viii)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled
automobiles, the title ‘‘(insert
appropriate fuel (example ‘‘M85’’))’’
centered above the title ‘‘CITY MPG’’
and above the title ‘‘HIGHWAY MPG’’
in bold caps [TBD] points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled
automobile, the title AGASOLINE
EQUIVALENT’’ centered above the title
‘‘CITY MPG’’ and above the title
‘‘HIGHWAY MPG’’ in bold caps [TBD]
points in size.
(C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles,
the title ‘‘GASOLINE’’ centered above
the title ‘‘CITY MPG’’ and above the title
‘‘HIGHWAY MPG’’ in bold caps [TBD]
in size.
(3) The bottom [TBD] percent of the
label shall contain the following
information: (i) The bottom border shall
contain the following ‘‘dropped out’’
centered text in [TBD] font print: ‘‘For
more information see the FREE FUEL
ECONOMY GUIDE available at dealers
or on line at www.fueleconomy.gov’’.
(ii) If the label is separate from the
Automobile Information Disclosure Act
label, the [vehicle/truck] description, as
described in paragraph (c) or (d) of this
section, when applicable.
(iii)(A) A statement: ‘‘For comparison
shopping, the range of fuel economy for
all [VEHICLE CLASS]s is l to l mpg
city andl to lmpg highway.’’ (The
range values are those determined in
accordance with § 600.311.) Or, when
applicable, [Alternative: (A) A graphic
representation of combined FE range as
shown in Appendix IV. Format TBD.]
(B) A statement: ‘‘A range of fuel
economy values for other [VEHICLE
CLASS]s is not available at this time.’’
(iv) The statement: ‘‘Estimated
Annual Fuel Cost:’’ followed by the
appropriate value calculated in
accordance with paragraph (f) or (g) of
this section and the statement ‘‘based on
ll miles at [the EPA-provided cost per
gallon of the required fuel for that
vehicle.’’ The estimated annual fuel cost
value for alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel vehicles to
appear on the fuel economy label shall
be that calculated based on operating
the vehicle on gasoline or diesel fuel as
determined in § 600.307(g) and (h)
[check cites]. At the manufacturer’s
option, the label may also contain the
estimated annual fuel cost value based
on operating the vehicle on the
alternative fuel.
(v)(A) The Gas Guzzler statement,
when applicable (see paragraph (e) of
this section), must be centered on a
separate line between the bottom border
and the Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
statements. The words ‘‘Gas Guzzler’’
shall be highlighted.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(B) The type size shall be at least as
large as the largest type size in the
bottom [TBD] percent of the label.
(vi)(A) For dedicated alcohol-fueled,
and natural gas-fueled automobiles, the
statement: ‘‘*This vehicle operates on
[insert appropriate fuel(s)] only.’’ shall
appear [TBD]. The phrase shall be in
lower case in a medium condensed type
except for the fuels listed which shall be
capitalized in a bold condensed type no
smaller than [TBD] points in size.
(B) For dedicated natural gas-fueled
automobiles, the statements: ‘‘All fuel
economy values on this label pertain to
gasoline equivalent fuel economy. To
convert these values into units of miles
per 100 cubic feet of natural gas,
multiply by 0.823.’’ At the
manufacturers option, the statement ‘‘To
convert these values into units of miles
per 100 cubic feet of natural gas,
multiply by 0.823.’’ may be replaced by
the statement ‘‘The fuel economy in
units of miles per (insert units used in
retail) is estimated to be (insert city fuel
economy value) in the city, and (insert
highway fuel economy value) on the
highway.’’
(C) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles,
the statement: ‘‘This vehicle operates on
[insert gasoline or diesel as appropriate]
and [insert other fuel(s) as
appropriate].’’ shall appear above the
bottom border. The phrase shall be in
lower case in a medium condensed type
except for the words ‘‘gasoline’’ or
‘‘diesel’’ (as appropriate) and the other
fuels listed, which shall be capitalized
in a bold condensed type no smaller
than [TBD] points in size.
(vii) For alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles,
the statement: ‘‘All fuel economy values
on this label pertain to [insert gasoline
or diesel as appropriate] fuel usage.
[insert other fuel(s) as appropriate]
fuel(s) usage will yield different values.
See the FREE FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE
for information on [insert other fuel(s)].’’
At the manufacturers option, the above
statements may be replaced by the
statement ‘‘The fuel economy while
using [insert appropriate fuel (example
‘‘M85)] is estimated to be [insert city
fuel economy value and appropriate
units] in the city and [insert highway
fuel economy value and appropriate
units] on the highway. See the FREE
FUEL ECONOMY GUIDE for other
information on [insert appropriate
fuel].’’
(4) The maximum type size for the
statements located in the lower [TBD]
percent of the label shall not exceed
[TBD] points in size.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(b) The city mpg number shall be
displayed on the [TBD] and the highway
mpg number displayed on the [TBD].
(1) Except for the digit ‘‘one,’’ each
mpg digit shall measure at least [TBD]
inches by [TBD inches ([TBD × TBD]
mm) in width and height respectively.
(2) The digit ‘‘one,’’ shall measure at
least [TBD] mm by [TBD] mm width and
height respectively.
(3)(i) MPG digits not printed as a
single character shall be made of a
matrix of smaller characters. This matrix
shall be at least four characters wide by
five characters high (with the exception
of three characters wide for the
numerical character denoting ‘‘one’’.)
(ii) The small characters shall be
made of successive overstrikes to form
a reasonably dark and continuous line
that approximates a single large
character.
(4)(i) If manufacturer chooses to
enlarge the label from that depicted in
Appendix IV, the logo and the fuel
economy label values, including the
titles ‘‘CITY MPG’’ and ‘‘HIGHWAY
MPG’’, must be increased in the same
proportion.
(ii) The area bounded by the bottom
of the fuel pump logo to the top of the
border must continue to represent at
least [TBD] percent of the available label
area.
(c) Vehicle description information for
general and specific labels. (1) Where
the fuel economy label is physically
incorporated with the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act label,
the applicable vehicle description, as set
forth in this paragraph, does not have to
be repeated if the information is readily
found on this label.
(2) For fuel economy labels which are
physically separate from the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act label, the vehicle description on
general labels will be as follows:
(i) Model year;
(ii) Vehicle car line;
(iii) Engine displacement, in cubic
inches, cubic centimeters, or liters
whichever is consistent with the
customary description of that engine;
(iv) Number of engine cylinders or
rotors;
(v) Additional engine description, if
necessary to distinguish otherwise
identical model types, as approved by
the Administrator; and
(vi) Transmission class.
(3) For fuel economy labels which are
physically separate from the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act label, the vehicle description on
specific labels will be as follows:
(i) The descriptions of paragraph (c) of
this section, and
(ii) Inertia weight class;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(iii) Axle ratio; and
(iv) Other engine or vehicle
parameters, if approved by the
Administrator.
(d) [Reserved]
(e)(1) For fuel economy labels of
passenger automobile model types
requiring a tax statement under
§ 600.513, the phrase ‘‘* * * Gas
Guzzler Tax: $ll * * *’’.
(2) The tax value required by this
paragraph shall be based on the
combined fuel economy value for the
model type calculated in accordance
with § 600.208–08 and rounded to the
nearest 0.1 mpg.
(f) Estimated annual fuel cost—
general labels. The annual fuel cost
estimate for operating an automobile
included in a model type shall be
computed by using values for the fuel
cost per gallon of the required fuel as
specified in the owner’s manual and
average annual mileage, predetermined
by the Administrator, and the combined
fuel economy determined in
§ 600.210(d).
(1) The annual fuel cost estimate for
a model type is computed by
multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas
must be expressed in units of cost per
equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823
equivalent gallons) expressed in dollars
to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage,
expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The average, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile (natural
gas must be expressed in units of
gallons equivalent per mile where 100
SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the
combined fuel economy value
determined in § 600.210(d) for a model
type.
(2) The product computed in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year
will comprise the annual fuel cost
estimate that appears on general labels
for the model type.
(g) Estimated annual fuel cost—
specific labels. The annual fuel cost
estimate for operating an automobile
included in a vehicle configuration will
be computed by using the values for the
fuel cost per volume (gallon for liquid
fuels, cubic feet for gaseous fuels) and
average mileage and the fuel economy
determined in paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(1) The annual fuel cost estimate for
vehicle configuration is computed by
multiplying:
(i) Fuel cost per gallon (natural gas
must be expressed in units of cost per
equivalent gallon, where 100 SCF=0.823
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5499
equivalent gallons) expressed in dollars
to the nearest 0.05 dollar; by
(ii) Average annual mileage,
expressed in miles per year to the
nearest 1,000 miles per year, by
(iii) The inverse, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 gallons per mile (natural
gas must be expressed in units of gallon
equivalent per mile, where 100
SCF=0.823 equivalent gallons) of the
fuel economy value determined in
§ 600.207–08(a)(2)(iii) for a vehicle
configuration.
(2) The product computed in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section and
rounded to the nearest dollar per year
will comprise the annual fuel cost
estimate that appears on specific labels
for that vehicle configuration.
*
*
*
*
*
32. A new § 600.311–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.311–08 Range of fuel economy for
comparable automobiles.
(a) The Administrator will determine
the range of city and the range of
highway fuel economy values for each
class of comparable automobiles.
[Alternative proposal for graphic
depiction of comparable fuel economy]
(a) The Administrator will determine
the range of combined fuel economy
values for each class of comparable
automobiles. The range of combined
fuel economy values within a class is
the maximum and minimum combined
fuel economy values for all general
labels as determined in § 600.210–08(d).
(b) The range of city fuel economy
values within a class is the maximum
city and the minimum city fuel
economy value for all general labels as
determined in § 600.210–08(a)
regardless of manufacturer. The range of
highway values is determined in the
same manner.
(c) The initial range will be made
available on a date specified by the
Administrator that closely coincides to
the date of the general model
introduction for the industry.
(d) The ranges of comparable fuel
economy values for a class of
automobiles will be updated
periodically and will be derived from
the latest available label values reported
to the Administrator for that class of
automobiles.
(e) If the Administrator determines
that automobiles intended for sale in
California are likely to exhibit
significant differences in fuel economy
from those intended for sale in other
states, he/she will compute separate
ranges of fuel economy values for each
class of automobiles for California and
for the other states.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5500
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(f) For high altitude vehicles
determined under § 600.310, both
general and specific labels will contain
the range of comparable fuel economy
computed in this section.
(g) The manufacturer shall include the
appropriate range of fuel economy
determined by the Administrator in
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, on
each label affixed to an automobile
within the class, except as provided in
§ 600.306(b)(1).
33. A new § 600.314–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.314–01 Updating label values,
annual fuel cost, Gas Guzzler Tax, and
range of fuel economies for comparable
automobiles.
(a) The label values established in
§ 600.312 shall remain in effect for the
model year unless updated in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b)(1) The manufacturer shall
recalculate the model type fuel economy
values for any model type containing
base levels affected by running changes
specified in § 600.507(a).
(2) For separate model types created
in § 600.209–08(a)(2), the manufacturer
shall recalculate the model type values
for any additions or deletions of
subconfigurations to the model type.
Minimum data requirements specified
in § 600.010(c) shall be met prior to
recalculation.
(3) Label value recalculations shall be
performed to read as follows:
(i) The manufacturer shall use
updated total model year projected sales
for label value recalculations.
(ii) All model year data approved by
the Administrator at the time of the
recalculation for that model type shall
be included in the recalculation.
(iii) Using the additional data under
paragraph (b) of this section, the
manufacturer shall calculate new 5cycle model type city and highway
values in accordance with §§ 600.209–
08 and 600.210–08 except that the
values shall be rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg.
(iv) The existing label values,
calculated in accordance with
§§ 600.209–08 and 600.210–08, shall be
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(4)(i) If the recalculated city or
highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is
less than the respective city or highway
value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this
section by 1.0 mpg or more, the
manufacturer shall affix labels with the
recalculated 5-cycle model type values
(rounded to whole mpg’’) to all new
vehicles of that model type beginning
on the day of implementation of the
running change.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(ii) If the recalculated city or highway
fuel economy value in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section is higher than
the respective city or highway value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section by 1.0
mpg or more, then the manufacturer has
the option to use the recalculated values
for labeling the entire model type
beginning on the day of implementation
of the running change.
(c) For fuel economy labels updated
using recalculated fuel economy values
determined in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section, the
manufacturer shall concurrently update
all other label information (e.g., the
annual fuel cost, range of comparable
vehicles and the applicability of the Gas
Guzzler Tax as needed).
(d) The Administrator shall
periodically update the range of fuel
economies of comparable automobiles
based upon all label data supplied to the
Administrator.
(e) The manufacturer may request
permission from the Administrator to
calculate and use label values based on
test data from vehicles which have not
completed the Administrator ordered
confirmatory testing required under the
provisions of § 600.008–08(c). If the
Administrator approves such a
calculation the following procedures
shall be used to determine if relabeling
is required after the confirmatory testing
is completed.
(1) The Administrator-ordered
confirmatory testing shall be completed
as quickly as possible.
(2) Using the additional data under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the
manufacturer shall calculate new model
type city and highway values in
accordance with §§ 600.207–08 and
600.210–08 except that the values shall
be rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(3) The existing label values,
calculated in accordance with
§§ 600.209–08 and 600.210–08, shall be
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg.
(4) Relabeling. (i) If the recalculated
city or highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is
less than the respective city or highway
value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this
section by 0.5 mpg or more, the
manufacturer shall affix labels with the
recalculated 5-cycle model type values
(rounded to whole mpg) to all new
vehicles of that model type beginning 15
days after the completion of the
confirmatory test.
(ii) If both the recalculated city or
highway fuel economy value in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section is
less than the respective city or highway
value in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this
section by 0.1 mpg or more and the
recalculated gas guzzler tax rate
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determined under the provisions of
§ 600.513–91 is larger, the manufacturer
shall affix labels with the recalculated
model type values (rounded to whole
mpg) and gas guzzler tax statement and
rates to all new vehicles of that model
type beginning 15 days after the
completion of the confirmatory test.
(5) For fuel economy labels updated
using recalculated fuel economy values
determined in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the
manufacturer shall concurrently update
all other label information (e.g., the
annual fuel cost, range of comparable
vehicles and the applicability of the Gas
Guzzler Tax if required by Department
of Treasury regulations).
34. A new § 600.315–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.315–08 Classes of comparable
automobiles.
(a) The Secretary will classify
automobiles as passenger automobiles
or light trucks (nonpassenger
automobiles) in accordance with 49 CFR
part 523.
(1) The Administrator will classify
passenger automobiles by car line into
one of the following classes based on
interior volume index or seating
capacity except for those passenger
automobiles which the Administrator
determines are most appropriately
placed in a different classification or
classed as special purpose vehicles as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(i) Two seaters. A car line shall be
classed as ‘‘Two Seater’’ if the majority
of the vehicles in that car line have no
more than two designated seating
positions as such term is defined in the
regulations of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation (DOT), 49
CFR 571.3.
(ii) Minicompact cars. Interior volume
index less than 85 cubic feet.
(iii) Subcompact cars. Interior volume
index greater than or equal to 85 cubic
feet but less than 100 cubic feet.
(iv) Compact cars. Interior volume
index greater than or equal to 100 cubic
feet but less than 110 cubic feet.
(v) Midsize cars. Interior volume
index greater than or equal to 110 cubic
feet but less than 120 cubic feet.
(vi) Large cars. Interior volume index
greater than or equal to 120 cubic feet.
(vii) Small station wagons. Station
wagons with interior volume index less
than 130 cubic feet.
(viii) Midsize station wagons. Station
wagons with interior volume index
greater than or equal to 130 cubic feet
but less than 160 cubic feet.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(ix) Large station wagons. Station
wagons with interior volume index
greater than or equal to 160 cubic feet.
(2) The Administrator will classify
nonpassenger automobiles into the
following categories: Small pickup
trucks, standard pickup trucks, vans,
minivans, SUVS and special purpose
vehicles. Pickup trucks will be
separated by car line on the basis of
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). For
pickup truck car lines with more than
one GVWR, the GVWR of the pickup
truck car line is the arithmetic average
of all distinct GVWR’s less than or equal
to 8,500 pounds available for that car
line.
(i) Small pickup trucks. Pickup trucks
with a GVWR less than 6000 pounds.
(ii) Standard pickup trucks. Pickup
trucks with a GVWR of 6000 pounds up
to and including 8,500 pounds.
(iii) Vans.
(iv) Minivans.
(v) Sport utility vehicles.
(3)(i) Special purpose vehicles. All
automobiles with GVWR less than or
equal to 8,500 pounds which possess
special features and which the
Administrator determines are more
appropriately classified separately from
typical automobiles or which do not
meet the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section will be
classified as special purpose vehicles.
(ii) All automobiles with GVWR less
than or equal to 8,500 pounds which
possess features that could apply to two
classes will be classified by the
Administrator based on the
Administrator’s judgment on which
class of vehicles consumers are more
likely to make comparisons.
(4) Once a certain car line is classified
by the Administrator, the classification
will remain in effect for the model year.
(b) Interior volume index-passenger
automobiles. (1) The interior volume
index shall be calculated for each car
line which is not a ‘‘two seater’’ car line,
in cubic feet rounded to the nearest 0.1
cubic foot. For car lines with more than
one body style, the interior volume
index for the car line is the arithmetic
average of the interior volume indexes
of each body style in the car line.
(2) For all body styles except station
wagons, minivans and hatchbacks with
more than one seat (e.g., with a second
or third seat) equipped with seatbelts as
required by DOT safety regulations,
interior volume index is the sum,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of
the front seat volume, the rear seat
volume, if applicable, and the luggage
capacity.
(3) For all station wagons, minivans
and hatchbacks with more than one seat
(e.g., with a second or third seat)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
equipped with seatbelts as required by
DOT safety regulations, interior volume
index is the sum, rounded to the nearest
0.1 cubic feet, of the front seat volume,
the rear seat volume, and the cargo
volume index.
(c) All interior and cargo dimensions
are measured in inches to the nearest
0.1 inch. All dimensions and volumes
shall be determined from the base
vehicles of each body style in each car
line, and do not include optional
equipment. The dimensions H61, W3,
W5, L34, H63, W4, W6, L51, H201,
L205, L210, L211, H198, and volume V1
are to be determined in accordance with
the procedures outlined in Motor
Vehicle Dimensions SAE J1100a (Report
of Human Factors Engineering
Committee, Society of Automotive
Engineers, approved September 1973
and last revised September 1975) except
as noted herein:
(1) SAE J1100a(2.3).—Cargo
dimensions. All dimensions measured
with the front seat positioned the same
as for the interior dimensions and the
second seat, for the station wagons,
minivans and hatchbacks, in the upright
position. All head restraints shall be in
the stowed position and considered part
of the seat.
(2) SAE J1100a(8)—Luggage capacity.
Total of columns of individual pieces of
standard luggage set plus H boxes
stowed in the luggage compartment in
accordance with the procedure
described in 8.2. For passenger
automobiles with no rear seat or with
two rear seats with no rear seatbelts, the
luggage compartment shall include the
area to the rear of the front seat, with the
rear seat (if applicable) folded, to the
height of a horizontal plane tangent to
the top of the front seatback.
(3) SAE J1100a(7)—Cargo dimensions.
(i) L210—Cargo length at second
seatback height-hatchback. The
minimum horizontal dimension from
the ‘‘X’’ plane tangent to the rearmost
surface of the second seatback to the
inside limiting interference of the
hatchback door on the zero ‘‘Y’’ plane.
(ii) L211—Cargo length at floor—
second-hatchback. The minimum
horizontal dimensions at floor level
from the rear of the second seatback to
the normal limiting interference of the
hatchback door on the vehicle zero ‘‘Y’’
plane.
(iii) H198—Second seatback to load
floor height. The dimension measured
vertically from the horizontal tangent to
the top of the second seatback to the
undepressed floor covering.
(d) The front seat volume is calculated
in cubic feet by dividing 1,728 into the
product of three terms listed below and
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5501
rounding the quotient to the nearest
0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H61—Effective head room—front.
(In inches, obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W3+W5+5)/2—Average of
shoulder and hip room—front, if hip
room is more than 5 inches less than
shoulder room. (In inches, W3 and W5
are obtained according to paragraph (c)
of this section), or
(ii) W3—Shoulder room—front, if hip
room is not more than 5 inches less than
shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is
obtained according to paragraph (c) of
this section), and
(3) L34—Maximum effective leg
room—accelerator. (In inches, obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this
section.) Round the quotient to the
nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(e) The rear seat volume is calculated
in cubic feet, for vehicles within a rear
seat equipped with rear seat belts (as
required by DOT), by dividing 1,728
into the product of three terms listed
below and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(1) H63—Effective head room—
second. (Inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section),
(2)(i) (W4+W6+5)/2—Average of
shoulder and hip room—second, if hip
room is more than 5 inches less than
shoulder room. (In inches, W4 and W6
are obtained according to paragraph (c)
of this section), or
(ii) W4—Shoulder room—second, if
hip room is not more than 5 inches less
than shoulder room. (In inches, W3 is
obtained according to paragraph (c) of
this section), and
(3) L51—Minimum effective leg
room—second. (In inches obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this
section.)
(f) The luggage capacity is V1, the
usable luggage capacity obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this
section. For passenger automobiles with
no rear seat or with a rear seat but no
rear seat belts, the area to the rear of the
front seat shall be included in the
determination of V1, usable luggage
capacity, as outlined in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(g) Cargo volume index. (1) For station
wagons and minivans the cargo volume
index V2 is calculated, in cubic feet, by
dividing 1,728 into the product of three
terms and rounding the quotient to the
nearest 0.001 cubic feet:
(i) W4—Shoulder room—second. (In
inches obtained according to paragraph
(c) of this section.)
(ii) H201—Cargo height. (In inches
obtained according to paragraph (c) of
this section.)
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5502
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(iii) L205—Cargo length at belt—
second. (In inches obtained according to
paragraph (c) of this section.)
(2) For hatchbacks, the cargo volume
index V3 is calculated, in cubic feet, by
dividing 1,728 into the product of three
terms:
(i) Average cargo length, which is the
arithmetic average of:
(A) L210—Cargo length at second
seatback height—hatchback. (In inches
obtained according to paragraph (c) of
this section);
(B) L211—Cargo length at floor—
second-hatchback. (In inches obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this
section);
(ii) W4—Shoulder room—second. (In
inches obtained according to paragraph
(c) of this section);
(iii) H198—Second seatback to load
floor height. (In inches obtained
according to paragraph (c) of this
section.) Round the quotient to the
nearest 0.001 cubic foot.
(h) The following data must be
submitted to the Administrator no later
than the time of a general label request.
Data shall be included for each body
style in the car line covered by that
general label.
(1) For all passenger automobiles:
(i) Dimensions H61, W3, L34
determined in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Front seat volume determined in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) Dimensions H63, W4, L51 (if
applicable) determined in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
(iv) Rear seat volume (if applicable)
determined in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section.
(v) The interior volume index
determined in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section for:
(A) Each body style, and
(B) The car line.
(vi) The class of the car line as
determined in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) For all passenger automobiles
except station wagons, minivans and
hatchbacks with more than one seat
(e.g., with a second or third seat)
equipped with seat belts as required by
DOT safety regulations:
(i) The quantity and letter designation
of the pieces of the standard luggage set
installed in the vehicle in the
determination of usable luggage
capacity V1, and
(ii) The usable luggage capacity V1,
determined in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) For station wagons and minivans
with more than one seat (e.g., with a
second or third seat) equipped with seat
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
belts as required by DOT safety
regulations:
(i) The dimensions H201 and L205
determined in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, and
(ii) The cargo volume index V2
determined in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(4) For hatchbacks with more than
one seat (e.g., with a second or third
seat) equipped with seat belts as
required by DOT safety regulations:
(i) The dimensions L210, L211, and
H198 determined in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) The cargo volume index V3
determined in accordance with
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(5) For pickup trucks:
(i) All GVWR’s of less than or equal
to 8,500 pounds available in the car
line.
(ii) The arithmetic average GVWR for
the car line.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart E—[Amended]
*
*
*
*
*
35. A new § 600.405–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.405–08
Dealer requirements.
(a) Each dealer shall prominently
display at each location where new
automobiles are offered for sale a copy
of the annual Fuel Economy Guide
containing the information specified in
§ 600.407. The Fuel Economy Guide
may be made available either in hard
copy or electronically via an on-site
computer available for prospective
purchasers to view and print as desired.
The dealer shall provide this
information without charge. The dealer
will be expected to make this
information available as soon as it is
received by the dealer, but in no case
later than 15 working days after
notification is given of its availability.
The Department of Energy will annually
notify dealers of the availability of the
information with instructions on how to
obtain it either electronically or in hard
copy.
(b) The dealer shall display the Fuel
Economy Guide, or a notice of where
the customer can electronically access
the Fuel Economy Guide, in the same
manner and in each location used to
display brochures describing the
automobiles offered for sale by the
dealer. The notice shall include a link
to the official Web site where this
information is contained
(www.fueleconomy.gov.)
(c) The dealer shall display the
booklet applicable to each model year
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
automobile offered for sale at the
location.
*
*
*
*
*
36. A new § 600.407–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.407–08
dealers.
Booklets displayed by
(a) Booklets displayed by dealers in
order to fulfill the obligations of
§ 600.405 may be either
(1) The printed copy of the annual
Fuel Economy Guide published by the
Department of Energy, or;
(2) Optionally, dealers may display
the Fuel Economy Guide on a computer
that is linked to the electronic version
of the Fuel Economy Guide (available at
www.fueleconomy.gov.), or;
(3) A booklet approved by the
Administrator of EPA containing the
same information, format, and order as
the Fuel Economy Guide published by
the Department of Energy. Such a
booklet may highlight the dealer’s
product line by contrasting color of ink
or boldface type and may include other
supplemental information regarding the
dealer’s product line subject to approval
by the Administrator.
(b) A manufacturer’s name and logo or
a dealer’s name and address or both may
appear on the back cover of the hard
copies of the Fuel Economy Guide.
Subpart F—[Amended]
*
*
*
*
*
37. A new § 600.507–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.507–08 Running change data
requirements.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, the manufacturer
shall submit additional running change
fuel economy data as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for any
running change approved or
implemented under 40 CFR 86.079–32,
86.079–33, or 86.082–34 or 40 CFR
86.1842–01 as applicable, which:
(1) Creates a new base level or,
(2) Affects an existing base level by:
(i) Adding an axle ratio which is at
least 10 percent larger (or, optionally, 10
percent smaller) than the largest axle
ratio tested.
(ii) Increasing (or, optionally,
decreasing) the road-load horsepower
for a subconfiguration by 10 percent or
more for the individual running change
or, when considered cumulatively, since
original certification (for each
cumulative 10 percent increase using
the originally certified road-load
horsepower as a base).
(iii) Adding a new subconfiguration
by increasing (or, optionally,
decreasing) the equivalent test weight
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
for any previously tested
subconfiguration in the base level.
(b)(1) The additional running change
fuel economy data requirement in
paragraph (a) of this section will be
determined based on the sales of the
vehicle configurations in the created or
affected base level(s) as updated at the
time of running change approval.
(2) Within each newly created base
level as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, the manufacturer shall
submit data from the highest projected
total model year sales subconfiguration
within the highest projected total model
year sales configuration in the base
level.
(3) Within each base level affected by
a running change as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, fuel
economy data shall be submitted for the
vehicle configuration created or affected
by the running change which has the
highest total model year sales. The test
vehicle shall be of the subconfiguration
created by the running change which
has the highest projected total model
year sales within the applicable vehicle
configuration.
(c) The manufacturer shall submit the
fuel economy data required by this
section to the Administrator in
accordance with § 600.314(b).
(d) For those model types created
under § 600.208–08(a)(2), the
manufacturer shall submit data for each
subconfiguration added by a running
change.
*
*
*
*
*
38. A new § 600.510–08 is added to
read as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 600.510–08
economy.
Calculation of average fuel
(a) Average fuel economy will be
calculated to the nearest 0.1 mpg for the
classes of automobiles identified in this
section, and the results of such
calculations will be reported to the
Secretary of Transportation for use in
determining compliance with the
applicable fuel economy standards.
(1) An average fuel economy
calculation will be made for the
category of passenger automobiles that
is domestically manufactured as defined
in § 600.511(d)(1).
(2) An average fuel economy
calculation will be made for the
category of passenger automobiles that
is not domestically manufactured as
defined in § 600.511(d)(2).
(3) An average fuel economy
calculation will be made for the
category of light trucks that is
domestically manufactured as defined
in § 600.511(e)(1).
(4) An average fuel economy
calculation will be made for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
category of light trucks that is not
domestically manufactured as defined
in § 600.511(e)(2).
(b) For the purpose of calculating
average fuel economy under paragraph
(c), of this section:
(1) All fuel economy data submitted
in accordance with § 600.006(e) or
§ 600.512(c) shall be used.
(2) The combined city/highway fuel
economy will be calculated for each
model type in accordance with
§ 600.208–08 of this section except that:
(i) Separate fuel economy values will
be calculated for model types and base
levels associated with car lines that are:
(A) Domestically produced; and
(B) Nondomestically produced and
imported;
(ii) Total model year production data,
as required by this subpart, will be used
instead of sales projections;
(iii) The fuel economy value of dieselpowered model types will be multiplied
by the factor 1.0 to correct gallons of
diesel fuel to equivalent gallons of
gasoline;
(iv) The fuel economy value will be
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg; and
(v) At the manufacturer’s option,
those vehicle configurations that are
self-compensating to altitude changes
may be separated by sales into highaltitude sales categories and lowaltitude sales categories. These separate
sales categories may then be treated
(only for the purpose of this section) as
separate configurations in accordance
with the procedure of § 600.208–
08(a)(4)(ii).
(3) The fuel economy value for each
vehicle configuration is the combined
fuel economy calculated according to
§ 600.206–08(a)(3) except that:
(i) Separate fuel economy values will
be calculated for vehicle configurations
associated with car lines that are:
(A) Domestically produced; and
(B) Nondomestically produced and
imported;
(ii) Total model year production data,
as required by this subpart will be used
instead of sales projections; and
(iii) The fuel economy value of dieselpowered model types will be multiplied
by the factor 1.0 to convert gallons of
diesel fuel to equivalent gallons of
gasoline.
(c) Except as permitted in paragraph
(d) of this section, the average fuel
economy will be calculated individually
for each category identified in paragraph
(a) of this section as follows:
(1) Divide the total production
volume of that category of automobiles;
by
(2) A sum of terms, each of which
corresponds to a model type within that
category of automobiles and is a fraction
determined by dividing:
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5503
(i) The number of automobiles of that
model type produced by the
manufacturer in the model year; by
(ii) For gasoline-fueled and dieselfueled model types, the fuel economy
calculated for that model type in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section; or
(iii) For alcohol-fueled model types,
the fuel economy value calculated for
that model type in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of this section divided
by 0.15 and rounded to the nearest 0.1
mpg; or
(iv) For natural gas-fueled model
types, the fuel economy value
calculated for that model type in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section divided by 0.15 and rounded to
the nearest 0.1 mpg; or
(v) For alcohol dual fuel model types,
for model years 1993 through 2004, the
harmonic average of the following two
terms; the result rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg:
(A) The combined model type fuel
economy value for operation on gasoline
or diesel fuel as determined in
§ 600.208(b)(5)(i); and
(B) The combined model type fuel
economy value for operation on alcohol
fuel as determined in § 600.208(b)(5)(ii)
divided by 0.15 provided the
requirements of § 600.510 (g) are met; or
(vi) For natural gas dual fuel model
types, for model years 1993 through
2004, the harmonic average of the
following two terms; the result rounded
to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
(A) The combined model type fuel
economy value for operation on gasoline
or diesel as determined in
§ 600.208(b)(5)(i); and
(B) The combined model type fuel
economy value for operation on natural
gas as determined in § 600.208(b)(5)(ii)
divided by 0.15 provided the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this
section are met.
(d) The Administrator may approve
alternative calculation methods if they
are part of an approved credit plan
under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 2003.
(e) For passenger categories identified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section, the average fuel economy
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section shall be adjusted using
the following equation:
AFEadj=AFE[((0.55 × a × c) + (0.45 × c)
+ (0.5556 × a) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 ×
a) + 0.45)] + IW
Where:
AFEadj=Adjusted average combined fuel
economy, rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg.
AFE=Average combined fuel economy
as calculated in paragraph (c) of this
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5504
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
section, rounded to the nearest
0.0001 mpg.
a=Sales-weight average (rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mpg) of all model
type highway fuel economy values
(rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg)
divided by the sales-weighted
average (rounded to the nearest
0.0001 mpg) of all model type city
fuel economy values (rounded to
the nearest 0.1 mpg). The quotient
shall be rounded to 4 decimal
places. These average fuel
economies shall be determined
using the methodology of paragraph
(c) of this section.
c=0.0022 for the 1986 model year.
c=A constant value, fixed by model
year. For 1987, the Administrator
will specify the c value after the
necessary laboratory humidity and
test fuel data become available. For
1988 and later model years, the
Administrator will specify the c
value after the necessary laboratory
humidity and test fuel data become
available.
IW=(9.2917 × 10¥3 × SF3IWC × FE3IWC)
¥(3.5123 × 10¥3 × H SF4ETW ×
FE4IWC)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Note: Any calculated value of IW less than
zero shall be set equal to zero.
SF3IWC=The 3000 lb. inertia weight class
sales divided by total sales. The
quotient shall be rounded to 4
decimal places.
SF4ETW=The 4000 lb. equivalent test
weight category sales divided by
total sales. The quotient shall be
rounded to 4 decimal places.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average
combined fuel economy of all 3000
lb. inertia weight class base levels
in the compliance category. Round
the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWC=The sales-weighted average
combined fuel economy of all 4000
lb. inertia weight class base levels
in the compliance category. Round
the result to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
(f) The Administrator shall calculate
and apply additional average fuel
economy adjustments if, after notice and
opportunity for comment, the
Administrator determines that, as a
result of test procedure changes not
previously considered, such correction
is necessary to yield fuel economy test
results that are comparable to those
obtained under the 1975 test
procedures. In making such
determinations, the Administrator must
find that:
(1) A directional change in measured
fuel economy of an average vehicle can
be predicted from a revision to the test
procedures;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(2) The magnitude of the change in
measured fuel economy for any vehicle
or fleet of vehicles caused by a revision
to the test procedures is quantifiable
from theoretical calculations or best
available test data;
(3) The impact of a change on average
fuel economy is not due to eliminating
the ability of manufacturers to take
advantage of flexibility within the
existing test procedures to gain
measured improvements in fuel
economy which are not the result of
actual improvements in the fuel
economy of production vehicles;
(4) The impact of a change on average
fuel economy is not solely due to a
greater ability of manufacturers to
reflect in average fuel economy those
design changes expected to have
comparable effects on in-use fuel
economy;
(5) The test procedure change is
required by EPA or is a change initiated
by EPA in its laboratory and is not a
change implemented solely by a
manufacturer in its own laboratory.
(g)(1) Alcohol dual fuel automobiles
and natural gas dual fuel automobiles
must provide equal or greater energy
efficiency while operating on alcohol or
natural gas as while operating on
gasoline or diesel fuel to obtain the
CAFE credit determined in paragraphs
(c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section. The
following equation must hold true:
Ealt/Epet> or = 1
Where:
Ealt=[FEalt/(NHValt × Dalt)] × 106=energy
efficiency while operating on
alternative fuel rounded to the
nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Epet=[FEpet/(NHVpet × Dpet)] × 106 =
energy efficiency while operating
on gasoline or diesel (petroleum)
fuel rounded to the nearest 0.01
miles/million BTU.
FEalt is the fuel economy [miles/gallon
for liquid fuels or miles/100
standard cubic feet for gaseous
fuels] while operated on the
alternative fuel as determined in
§ 600.113–08(a) and (b);
FEpet is the fuel economy [miles/gallon]
while operated on petroleum fuel
(gasoline or diesel) as determined in
§ 600.113(a) and (b);
NHValt is the net (lower) heating value
[BTU/lb] of the alternative fuel;
NHVpet is the net (lower) heating value
[BTU/lb] of the petroleum fuel;
Dalt is the density [lb/gallon for liquid
fuels or lb/100 standard cubic feet
for gaseous fuels] of the alternative
fuel;
Dpet is the density [lb/gallon] of the
petroleum fuel.
(i) The equation must hold true for
both the FTP city and HFET highway
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fuel economy values for each test of
each test vehicle.
(ii)(A) The net heating value for
alcohol fuels shall be determined per
ASTM D 240 (Incorporated by reference
as specified in § 600.011–93).
(B) The density for alcohol fuels shall
be determined per ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as specified
in § 600.011–93).
(iii) The net heating value and density
of gasoline are to be determined by the
manufacturer in accordance with
§ 600.113(f).
(2) For model years 1993 through
1995, alcohol dual fuel automobiles
designed to operate on mixtures of
alcohol and gasoline must, in addition
to paragraph (g)(1) of this section, to
obtain the CAFE credit determined in
paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) of this
section, provide equal or superior
energy efficiency while operating on a
mixture of 50% alcohol, 50% gasoline
by volume, as while operating on
gasoline fuel. The following equation
must hold true:
E50/Eg> or = 1
Where:
E50=[FE50/(NHV50 × D50)] × 106 = energy
efficiency while operating on 50%
alcohol, 50% gasoline rounded to
the nearest 0.01 miles/million BTU.
Eg=[FEg/(NHVg × Dg)] × 106 = energy
efficiency while operating on
gasoline fuel rounded to the nearest
0.01 miles/million BTU.
FE50 is the fuel economy [miles/gallon]
while operated on 50% alcohol,
50% gasoline as determined in
§ 600.113(a) and (b);
FEg is the fuel economy [miles/gallon]
while operated on gasoline as
determined in § 600.113(a) and (b);
NHV5. is the net (lower) heating value
[BTU/lb] of the 50/50 blend;
NHVg is the net (lower) heating value
[BTU/lb] of gasoline;
D50 is the density [lb/gallon] of the 50/
50 blend;
Dg is the density [lb/gallon] of the
gasoline.
(i) To demonstrate that the equation
holds true for each engine family, the
manufacturer will:
(A) Test one test vehicle in each
engine family on both the FTP city and
HFET highway cycles; or
(B) In lieu of testing, provide a written
statement attesting that equal or
superior energy efficiency is attained
while using a 50% alcohol, 50%
gasoline mixture compared to using
100% gasoline.
(ii)(A) The net heating value for the
50% alcohol, 50% gasoline mixture
shall be determined by ASTM D 240
(Incorporated by reference as specified
in § 600.011–93).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(B) The density for the 50% alcohol,
50% gasoline mixture shall be
determined per ASTM D 1298
(Incorporated by reference as specified
in § 600.011–93).
(iii) The net heating value and density
of gasoline are to be determined by the
manufacturer in accordance with
§ 600.113(f).
(3) Alcohol dual fuel passenger
automobiles and natural gas dual fuel
passenger automobiles manufactured
during model years 1993 through 2004
must meet the minimum driving range
requirements established by the
Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR part
538) to obtain the CAFE credit
determined in paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and
(vi) of this section.
(h) For each of the model years 1993
through 2004, and for each category of
automobile identified in paragraph (a) of
this section, the maximum increase in
average fuel economy determined in
paragraph (c) of this section attributable
to alcohol dual fuel automobiles and
natural gas dual fuel automobiles shall
be 1.2 miles per gallon or as provided
for in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) The Administrator shall calculate
the increase in average fuel economy to
determine if the maximum increase
provided in paragraph (h) of this section
has been reached. The Administrator
shall calculate the average fuel economy
for each category of automobiles
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
by subtracting the average fuel economy
values calculated in accordance with
this section by assuming all alcohol
dual fuel and natural gas dual fuel
automobiles are operated exclusively on
gasoline (or diesel) fuel from the average
fuel economy values determined in
paragraphs (b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and (c)
of this section. The difference is limited
to the maximum increase specified in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(i) In the event that the Secretary of
Transportation lowers the corporate
average fuel economy standard
applicable to passenger automobiles
below 27.5 miles per gallon for any
model year during 1993 through 2004,
the maximum increase of 1.2 mpg per
year specified in paragraph (h) of this
section shall be reduced by the amount
the standard was lowered, but not
reduced below 0.7 mpg per year.
39. A new § 600.510–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.510–08
Model year report.
(a) For each model year, the
manufacturer shall submit to the
Administrator a report, known as the
model year report, containing all
information necessary for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
calculation of the manufacturer’s
average fuel economy. The results of the
manufacturer calculations and summary
information of model type fuel economy
values which are contained in the
average calculation shall be submitted
to the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation, National Highway and
Traffic Safety Administration. (b)(1) The
model year report shall be in writing,
signed by the authorized representative
of the manufacturer and shall be
submitted no later than 90 days after the
end of the model year.
(2) The Administrator may waive the
requirement that the model year report
be submitted no later than 90 days after
the end of the model year. Based upon
a request by the manufacturer, if the
Administrator determines that 90 days
is insufficient time for the manufacturer
to provide all additional data required
as determined in § 600.507, the
Administrator shall establish a date by
which the model year report must be
submitted.
(3) Separate reports shall be submitted
for passenger automobiles and light
trucks (as identified in § 600.510).
(c) The model year report must
include the following information:
(1) All fuel economy data used in the
FTP/HFET-based model type
calculations under § 600.208–08, and
subsequently required by the
Administrator in accordance with
§ 600.507;
(2) All fuel economy data for
certification vehicles and for vehicles
tested for running changes approved
under 40 CFR 86.1842–01;
(3) Any additional fuel economy data
submitted by the manufacturer under
§ 600.509;
(4) A fuel economy value for each
model type of the manufacturer’s
product line calculated according to
§ 600.510(b)(2);
(5) The manufacturer’s average fuel
economy value calculated according to
§ 600.510(c);
(6) A listing of both domestically and
nondomestically produced car lines as
determined in § 600.511 and the cost
information upon which the
determination was made; and
(7) The authenticity and accuracy of
production data must be attested to by
the corporation, and shall bear the
signature of an officer (a corporate
executive of at least the rank of vicepresident) designated by the
corporation. Such attestation shall
constitute a representation by the
manufacturer that the manufacturer has
established reasonable, prudent
procedures to ascertain and provide
production data that are accurate and
authentic in all material respects and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5505
that these procedures have been
followed by employees of the
manufacturer involved in the reporting
process. The signature of the designated
officer shall constitute a representation
by the required attestation.
40. A new § 600.513–08 is added to
read as follows:
§ 600.513–08
Gas Guzzler Tax.
(a) This section applies only to
passenger automobiles sold after
December 27, 1991, regardless of the
model year of those vehicles. For
alcohol dual fuel and natural gas dual
fuel automobiles, the fuel economy
while such automobiles are operated on
gasoline will be used for Gas Guzzler
Tax assessments.
(1) The provisions of this section do
not apply to passenger automobiles
exempted for Gas Guzzler Tax
assessments by applicable federal law
and regulations. However, the
manufacturer of an exempted passenger
automobile may, in its discretion, label
such vehicles in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
(2) For 1991 and later model year
passenger automobiles, the combined
FTP/HFET-based model type fuel
economy value determined in
§ 600.208–08 used for Gas Guzzler Tax
assessments shall be calculated in
accordance with the following equation,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
FEadj=FE[((0.55 × ag × c) + (0.45 × c) +
(0.5556 × ag) + 0.4487) / ((0.55 × ag)
+ 0.45)] + IWg
Where:
FEadj=Fuel economy value to be used for
determination of gas guzzler tax
assessment rounded to the nearest
0.1 mpg.
FE=Combined model type fuel economy
calculated in accordance with
§ 600.208–08, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mpg.
ag=Model type highway fuel economy,
calculated in accordance with
§ 600.208–08, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mpg divided by the
model type city fuel economy
calculated in accordance with
§ 600.208–08, rounded to the
nearest 0.0001 mpg. The quotient
shall be rounded to 4 decimal
places.
c=gas guzzler adjustment factor=1.300 ×
10¥3 for the 1986 and later model
years.
IWg=(9.2917 × 10¥3 × SF3IWCG ×
FE3IWCG) ¥ (3.5123 × 10¥3 ×
SF4ETWG × FE4IWCG)
Note: Any calculated value of IW less than
zero shall be set equal to zero.
SF3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertia weight
class sales in the model type
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5506
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(xi) At least 12.5 mpg, but less than
13.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $6,400.
(xii) Less than 12.5 mpg, the Gas
Guzzler Tax statement shall show a tax
of $7,700.
41. Appendix II to Part 600 is
amended by revising paragraph (b) and
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Appendix II to Part 600—Sample Fuel
Economy Calculations
MPG c = ( 5174 × 104 × 0.868 × 0.745 ) / ( 0.868 × .139 × 0.429 × 1.59 + 0.273 × 317 ) ( 0.6 × 0.745 × 18478 + 5471)
MPG c = 27.9
(4) Assume that the same vehicle was
tested by the Federal Highway Fuel Economy
Test Procedure and a calculation similar to
that shown in (b)(3) resulted in a highway
fuel economy of MPGh of 36.9. According to
the procedure in § 600.113, the combined
fuel economy (called MPGc/h) for the vehicle
may be calculated by substituting the city
and highway fuel economy values into the
following equation:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
MPG c / h =
(c) For 2008 and later model year vehicles,
the combined fuel economy for the purpose
of determining annual fuel costs under
§ 600.307–08(g) is determined by substituting
the city and highway fuel economy into the
following equation:
MPG c / h =
1
0.55
0.45
+
MPG c MPG h
MPG c / h =
1
0.55 0.45
+
27.9 36.9
1
0.43
0.57
+
MPG c MPG h
MPG c / h =
1
0.43 0.57
+
27.9 36.9
MPG c / h = 32.4
42. Appendix III to Part 600 is revised to
read as follows:
MPG c / h = 31.3
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Appendix III to Part 600—Sample Fuel
Economy Label Calculation
Suppose that a manufacturer called Mizer
Motors has a product line composed of eight
car lines. Of these eight, four are available
with the 3 liter, 6 cylinder and 3-way catalyst
engine. These four car lines are:
Ajax
Boredom III
Dodo
Castor (Station Wagon)
A car line is defined in subpart A as a
group of vehicles within a make or division
which has a degree of commonality in
construction. Car line does not consider any
level of decor or opulence and is not
generally distinguished by such
characteristics as roofline, number of doors,
seats, or windows. Station wagons and light
duty trucks are, however, identified
separately from the remainder of each car
line. In other words, a Castor station wagon
would be considered a different car line than
the normal Castor car line made up of sedans,
coupes, etc.
The engine considered here is defined as
a basic engine in subpart A of this part. A
basic engine is a unique combination of fuel
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.069
)
EP01FE06.068
(
MPG c = ( 5174 × 104 × CWF × SG ) / ( CWF × HC ) + ( 0.429 × CO + ( 0.273 × CO 2 ) ) ( ( 0.6 × SG × NHV ) + 5471)
EP01FE06.070
*
EP01FE06.067
*
EP01FE06.066
*
EP01FE06.065
*
(b) This sample fuel economy calculation
is applicable to 1988 and later model year
automobiles.
(1) Assume that a gasoline-fueled vehicle
was tested by the Federal Emission Test
Procedure and the following results were
calculated:
HC = .139 grams/mile
CO = 1.59 grams/mile
CO2 = 317 grams/mile
(2) Assume that the test fuel used for this
test had the following properties:
SG=0.745
CWF=0.868
NHV=18,478 Btu/lb.
(3) According to the procedure in
§ 600.113–88, the city fuel economy or MPGc,
for the vehicle may be calculated by
substituting the HC, CO, and CO2 gram/mile
values and the SG, CWF, and NHV values
into the following equation:
EP01FE06.064
*
EP01FE06.063
(b)(1) For passenger automobiles sold
after December 31, 1990, with a
combined FTP/HFET-based model type
fuel economy value of less than 22.5
mpg (as determined in sec. 600.208–08),
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(a)(2) of this section and rounded to the
nearest 0.1 mpg, each vehicle fuel
economy label shall include a Gas
Guzzler Tax statement pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(E). The tax amount
stated shall be as specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) For passenger automobiles with a
combined general label model type fuel
economy value of:
(i) At least 22.5 mpg, no Gas Guzzler
Tax statement is required.
(ii) At least 21.5 mpg, but less than
22.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,000.
(iii) At least 20.5 mpg, but less than
21.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,300.
(iv) At least 19.5 mpg, but less than
20.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $1,700.
(v) At least 18.5 mpg; but less than
19.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,100.
(vi) At least 17.5 mpg, but less than
18.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $2,600.
(vii) At least 16.5 mpg, but less than
17.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $3,000.
(viii) At least 15.5 mpg, but less than
16.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $3,700.
(ix) At least 14.5 mpg, but less than
15.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $4,500.
(x) At least 13.5 mpg, but less than
14.5 mpg, the Gas Guzzler Tax
statement shall show a tax of $5,400.
EP01FE06.062
divided by the total model type
sales; the quotient shall be rounded
to 4 decimal places.
SF4ETWG=The 4000 lb. equivalent test
weight sales in the model type
divided by the total model type
sales, the quotient shall be rounded
to 4 decimal places.
FE3IWCG=The 3000 lb. inertial weight
class base level combined fuel
economy used to calculate the
model type fuel economy rounded
to the nearest 0.0001 mpg.
FE4IWCG=The 4000 lb. inertial weight
class base level combined fuel
economy used to calculate the
model type fuel economy f/rounded
to the nearest 0.001 mpg.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
system, number of cylinders, catalyst usage
and engine displacement. A model type is a
unique combination of car line, basic engine,
and transmission class. Thus Ajax is a car
line but Ajax 3 liter, 6 cylinder manual
transmission is a model type whereas Ajax 3
liter, 6 cylinder automatic transmission is a
different model type.
Test vehicle
carline
Engine
code
Ajax ................
Ajax ................
Boredom III ....
Ajax ................
Boredom III ....
Boredom III ....
Castor .............
The following calculations provide an
example of the procedures described in
subpart C of this part for the calculation of
vehicle configuration and model type fuel
economy values. In order to simplify the
presentation, only city fuel economy values
are included. The procedure is identical for
highway and combined fuel economy values.
Transmission
1
2
4
3
8
5
5
Inertia
weight
M–3
A–3
M–3
M–4
A–3
A–3
A–3
Axle ratio
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4500
5000
2.73
2.56
3.08
3.36
2.56
3.08
3.08
5507
Step I. Input data as supplied by the
manufacturer or as determined from testing
conducted by the Administrator.
Manufacturer—Mizer Motors.
Basic Engine: (3 liter, 6 cylinder, 3-way
catalyst).
Label MPG 1
Avg. MPG
16.1001
15.9020
14.2343
15.0000
13.8138
13.2203
10.6006
16
16
14
15
14
13
11
Veh
config.
sales
15,000
35,000
10,000
15,000
25,000
20,000
40,000
1 The vehicle 5-cycle configuration fuel economy values, rounded to the nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel economy values that would be
used on specific labels for that vehicle configuration.
Step II. Group vehicle fuel economy and
sales data according to base level
combinations within this basic engine.
Inertia
weight
Base level
Transmission
A ...................................................................
B ...................................................................
C ..................................................................
C ..................................................................
D ..................................................................
E ...................................................................
F ...................................................................
Manual—3 ...................................................
Automatic .....................................................
Manual—3 ...................................................
Manual—4 ...................................................
Automatic .....................................................
Automatic .....................................................
Automatic .....................................................
Step III. Determine base level fuel economy
values.
3,500
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
A. For all the base levels except the base
level which includes 4,000 pound, manual
transmission data, the base level fuel
Miles per
gallon
3,500
3,500
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,500
5,000
16.1001
15.9020
14.2343
15.0000
13.8138
13.2203
10.6006
fuel economy is harmonically averaged in
proportion to the percentage of total sales of
all vehicle configurations tested within that
15,000
35,000
10,000
15,000
25,000
20,000
40,000
economy is as noted in Step II since only one
vehicle configuration was tested within each
of these base levels.
lb/manual transmission ...............................................................................................................................................................
lb/automatic transmission ...........................................................................................................................................................
lb/automatic transmission ...........................................................................................................................................................
lb/automatic transmission ...........................................................................................................................................................
lb/automatic transmission ...........................................................................................................................................................
B. Since data from more than one vehicle
configuration are included in the 4,000pound, manual transmission base level, this
Projected
veh. config.
sales
16.1001
15.9020
13.8138
13.2203
10.6006
mpg.
mpg.
mpg.
mpg.
mpg.
base level represented by each vehicle
configuration tested within that base level.
Base level fuel economy =
o
Fraction of total sales
Fraction of total sales of configurations
of configurations tested
1
1
tested represented by
Configuration represented by configuration Configuration
o
configuration No. 1 sales
No. 1 fuel economy
No. 2 sales
No. 2 fuel economy
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.071
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1
5508
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Base level: Manual transmission, 4000
pounds:
1
= 14.6840 miles per gallon
1
1
10000
15.000
25000 14.2343 + 250000 15.0000
Therefore, the 4000 pound, manual
transmission fuel economy is 14.6840 miles
per gallon.
Ajax ...................
Manual ..............
Automatic ..........
Dodo .................
Manual ..............
Automatic ..........
Boredom III .......
Manual ..............
Automatic ..........
Castor ...............
Automatic ..........
1.0000
0.3000
0.7000
0.4000
0.6000
0.3000
0.7000
1.0000
0.2500
0.7500
0.2000
0.8000
Note that the car line of the test vehicle
using a given engine makes no difference—
only the weight and transmission do.
Step IV. For each model type offered by the
manufacturer with that basic engine,
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
3,500
3,500
4,000
3,500
4,000
3,500
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,500
4,500
5,000
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
determine the sales fraction represented by
each inertia weight/transmission class
combination and the corresponding fuel
economy.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
16.1001
15.9020
13.8138
16.1001
14.6840
15.9020
13.8138
14.6840
13.8138
13.2203
13.2203
10.6006
Step V. Determine fuel economy for each
model type (that is, car line/basic engine/
transmission class combination).
Ajax , 3 liter, 6 cylinder, automatic MPG
1
=
The fraction of Ajax
vehicles using the 3 liter, 6 cylinder
The fraction of Ajax vehicles using the
3 liter, 6 cylinder engine which fall in the 4000 lb
engine which fall in the 3500 lb inertia
l
e
weight class with an automatic transmission inertia weight class with an automatic transmission
r
i
+
Fuel economy for 3 liter, 6 cylinder 3500 lb Fuel economy for 3 liter 6 cylinder 4000 lb automatic
transmission base level
automatic transmission base level
t
r
1
= 14.3803 mpg
=
0.3000 0.7000
+
15.9020 13.8138
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
EP01FE06.073
1 The 5-cycle model type fuel economy values,
rounded to the nearest mile per gallon, are the fuel
1
= 15.2185 = 15 MPG1
.
0.4000 0.6000
16.1001 + 14.6840
economy values as used on general labels for that
model year.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.072
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Dodo 3 liter, 6 cylinder manual MPG =
EP01FE06.074
Similarly,
Ajax 3 liter, 6 cylinder, manual MPG =
16.16 MPG 1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dodo 3 liter, 6 cylinder automatic MPG =
5509
1
= 15.2185 = 15 MPG1
0.3000 0.7000
15.9020 + 13.8138
Boredom III 6 liter 6 cylinder manual
MPG=14.6840=15 mi./gal.7 1
Boredom III 6 liter, 6 cylinder automatic MPG =
Castor 3 liter, 6 cylinder automatic MPG =
Note that even though no Dodo was
actually tested, this approach permits its
fuel economy figure to be estimated,
based on the inertia weight distribution
1
= 13.3638 = 13 MPG1
0.2500 0.7500
13.8138 + 13.2203
3
1
= 11.0381 = 11 MPG1
0.2000 0.8000
13.2203 + 10.6006
of projected Dodo sales within a specific
engine and transmission grouping.
43. A new Appendix IV is added to
read as follows:
Appendix IV to Part 600—Fuel
Economy Label Formats for 2008 and
Later Model Year Vehicles
Gasoline-fueled vehicle label
EP01FE06.077
EP01FE06.076
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.075
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.078
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5510
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5511
EP01FE06.079
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.080
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5512
5513
[FR Doc. 06–451 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:12 Jan 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
EP01FE06.081
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5426-5513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-451]
[[Page 5425]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5426]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86 and 600
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169; FRL-8021-8]
RIN 2060-AN14
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve
Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes
to the test methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates that
are posted on window stickers of all new cars and light trucks sold in
the United States. A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy
estimates is that the underlying test procedures do not fully represent
real-world driving conditions. Although no single test or set of tests
can ever account for the wide variety of conditions experienced by
every driver, the new fuel economy estimates would more accurately
reflect a number of important factors that drivers are likely to
experience on the road. These changes will take effect starting with
2008 model year vehicles. Under the new methods, the City MPG estimates
for most vehicles would drop 10 percent to 20 percent from today's
labels, depending on the vehicle. The Highway MPG estimates would
generally drop 5 percent to 15 percent for most vehicles. Although
today's proposed fuel economy test methods would provide more accurate
estimates for many consumers, there will always continue to be drivers
who get higher or lower fuel economy than the window sticker numbers.
Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window sticker
estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE). However, this
proposal would not alter the test procedures, driving cycles,
measurement techniques, or the calculation methods used to determine
CAFE.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2006.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before March 3,
2006. See Section VII.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
more information about written comments.
Hearings: We will hold a public hearing in Romulus, Michigan, on
March 3, 2006. See Section VII.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for more information about public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0169, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.''
Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR-2005-0169. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0169. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section VII of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be at the Crowne Plaza
Hotel, Detroit--Metro Airport, 8000 Merriman Road, Romulus, Michigan.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center
telephone number is (202) 566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob French, U.S. EPA, Voice-mail (734)
214-4636; E-mail: french.roberts@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or
sell new light-duty motor vehicles. Regulated categories and entities
include:
[[Page 5427]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS codes \A\ regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 336111, 336112............................... Motor vehicle manufacturers.
Industry........................ 811112, 811198, 541514....................... Commercial Importers of
Vehicles and Vehicle
Components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To
determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the proposed regulations. You may
direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements
B. Why is Today's Action Warranted?
C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?
D. Today's Proposal Does Not Impact or Change CAFE Test
Procedures
E. When Will the New Fuel Economy Estimates Take Effect?
F. How Will EPA Communicate to the Public the Transition Between
the Old Label Values and New?
G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
II. Description of the Proposed Fuel Economy Label Methodology
A. Proposed Fuel Economy Label Formulae
B. Application of the Formulae To Develop Fuel Economy Labels
for Specific Vehicles
C. Derivation of the Proposed 5-Cycle Fuel Economy Formulae
D. Derivation of the MPG-Based Approach
E. Effect of the New Formulae on Fuel Economy Label Values
F. Comparison to Other Onroad Fuel Economy Estimates
III. What Major Alternatives Were Considered?
IV. Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Format and Content
A. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost
B. Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles
C. ``Your mileage will vary * * *'' Range of Expected Fuel
Economy Information
D. Other Format Changes
V. Other Related Proposals
A. Comparable Class Categories
B. Electronic Distribution of Dealer-Supplied Fuel Economy
Booklet
C. Testing Provisions
D. Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling for Vehicles Exceeding 8500
Pounds GVWR
E. Consideration of Fuel Consumption vs. Fuel Economy as a
Metric
F. Environmental Information on Fuel Economy Labels
VI. Projected Impacts of the Proposed Requirements
A. Information and Reporting Burden
B. Fees
C. Aggregate Costs
VII. Public Participation
A. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
The EPA fuel economy estimates have appeared on the window stickers
of all new cars and light trucks since the late 1970's and are well-
recognized by consumers. The fuel economy estimates essentially serve
two purposes: to provide consumers with a basis on which to compare the
fuel economy of different vehicles, and to provide consumers with a
reasonable estimate of the range of fuel economy they can expect to
achieve. While the estimates historically have been a valuable tool for
comparison shopping purposes, attention has been focused recently on
how closely the EPA estimates approximate consumers' real-world fuel
economy experience.
Today, we are proposing changes to EPA's fuel economy test methods
to bring the estimates closer to the fuel economy consumers are
achieving in the real-world. We believe these estimates will provide
car buyers with useful information when comparing the fuel economy of
different vehicles. It is important to emphasize that fuel economy
varies from driver to driver for a wide variety of reasons, such as
different driving styles, climates, traffic patterns, use of
accessories, loads, weather, and vehicle maintenance. Even different
drivers of the same vehicle will experience different fuel economy as
these and other factors vary. Therefore, it is impossible to design a
``perfect'' fuel economy test that will provide accurate real-world
fuel economy estimates for every consumer. With any estimate, there
will always be consumers that get better or worse actual fuel economy.
The EPA estimates are meant to be a general guideline for consumers,
particularly to compare the relative fuel economy of one vehicle to
another. Nevertheless, we do believe that today's new fuel economy test
methods will do a better job of giving consumers a more accurate
estimate of the fuel economy they can achieve in the real-world.
It is essential that our fuel economy estimates continue to be
derived from controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests. However, the
inputs to our estimates are based on data from actual real-world
driving behavior and conditions. Because the test is controlled and
repeatable, an EPA fuel economy test result can be used for comparison
of different vehicle models and types. EPA and manufacturers test over
1,250 vehicle models annually and every test is run under identical
conditions and under a precise driver's trace, which assures that the
result will be the same for an individual vehicle model no matter when
and where the laboratory test is performed. Variations in temperature,
road grade, driving patterns, and other variables do not impact the
result of the test. While such external conditions impact fuel economy
on a trip-to-trip basis, they do not change the laboratory test result.
Therefore, a repeatable test provides a level playing field for all
vehicles, which is essential for comparing the fuel economy of one
vehicle to another. Finally, EPA must preserve the ability to confirm
the values achieved by the manufacturers' testing, and this can only be
achieved with a highly repeatable test or set of tests. No other fuel
economy test program provides the level of repeatability as the EPA
program.
However, the EPA fuel economy test methods need to reflect real
world conditions as well as being a repeatable test. While some
organizations have issued their own fuel economy numbers based on on-
road driving, this approach introduces a wide number of variables--
different drivers, driving patterns, weather conditions, temperatures,
etc.--that make repeatability impossible. Our proposed fuel economy
test methods are more representative of real-world
[[Page 5428]]
conditions than the current fuel economy tests--yet we would retain our
practice of relying on controlled, repeatable, laboratory tests.
The methods used today for calculating the city and highway mpg
estimates were established in the 1970's, and were adjusted in the mid-
1980's. Since these adjustments were made, America's driving behavior
has changed. In the past 20 years, speed limits have increased and
vehicles have been designed for higher power--as a result, Americans
are driving faster and more aggressively than ever before. Vehicle
technology has changed markedly, and many more vehicles are equipped
with energy-consuming accessories like air conditioning. These and
other factors are not accounted for in the current test procedures used
to determine the city and highway mpg estimates. Our analyses indicate
that if these factors were better accounted for, the city and highway
fuel economy label estimates would be generally lower and closer to the
average real-world experience of consumers.
A fundamental issue with today's fuel economy estimates is that the
underlying test procedures do not fully represent real-world driving
conditions. Some of the key limitations are that the highway test has a
top speed of only 60 miles per hour, both the city and highway tests
are run at mild climatic conditions (75 deg. F), both tests have mild
acceleration rates, and neither test is run with the use of
accessories, such as air conditioning. However, since the time of the
last fuel economy labeling revisions in the mid-1980's, EPA has
established several additional test procedures, used for emissions
compliance purposes, which capture a much broader range of real-world
driving conditions. Specifically, these emissions test cycles capture
the effects of higher speeds, more aggressive driving (i.e., higher
acceleration rates), the use of air conditioning at higher ambient
temperatures, and colder temperature operation. Our analysis indicates
that these factors can have a significant impact on fuel economy, and
that the impacts can vary widely across different vehicles.
Today, we are proposing that three additional emission tests,
already used by manufacturers, could be utilized to derive more
accurate fuel economy estimates. These three test procedures encompass
a much broader range of real-world driving, as they incorporate the
effects of higher speeds, more rapid accelerations, air conditioning
use, and cold temperatures. Our proposed approach would utilize these
additional emission tests, together with the current two fuel economy
tests, so that our fuel economy test methods reflect a much broader
range of driving conditions.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress required EPA to update
or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world
factors that affect fuel economy. Section 774 of the Act directs EPA to
``* * * update or revise the adjustment factors in [certain sections of
the fuel economy labeling regulations] to take into consideration
higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations in
temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test cycle lengths,
current reference fuels, and the use of other fuel depleting
features.'' \1\ Today's proposal does take into account these
conditions and would address this statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 835 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past few years, there have been several independent
studies comparing EPA's fuel economy estimates to the real-world
experience of consumers. These studies confirm that there is
considerable variation in real-world fuel economy, and provide further
evidence that EPA's mileage ratings often overestimate real-world fuel
economy. Although these studies differ in a number of variables,
including their test methods, driving conditions, and fuel economy
measurement techniques, they indicate that EPA's approach to estimating
fuel economy needs to be improved to better represent some key real-
world fuel economy impacts.
Currently the same test procedures are used for both the window
sticker estimates and the fuel economy values used to determine a
manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE), although the
label estimates are adjusted downward. This proposal would not alter
the test procedures, driving cycles, measurement techniques, or the
calculation methods used to determine CAFE. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 requires that CAFE values be determined from
the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975 (or procedures that give
comparable results), meaning that whatever action we take to improve
the window sticker estimates must leave in place the existing tests
used for CAFE determination. The proposed test methods for determining
the new fuel economy label estimates would be incorporated in sections
of the regulations that are entirely separate from the CAFE
regulations.
This section begins with a history of EPA's involvement in fuel
economy programs. Then we discuss why we are taking action, including
discussions of the limitations of the current tests, various data
sources of real-world fuel economy, the additional real-world driving
conditions captured by other emissions tests procedures, and the impact
of these factors on fuel economy. We then provide an overview of our
proposed new fuel economy test methods (which are discussed in detail
in Section II), and conclude with a discussion of the relevant Federal
statutes and how they bear on this proposal.
A. History of Federal Fuel Economy Requirements
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established
two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information,
designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on
window stickers of all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an
annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to
the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's
average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this
compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program). The responsibilities for these requirements were split
between EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department
of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods
and procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates to be
posted on the window stickers and in the annual booklet, and for the
calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT is
responsible for administering the CAFE compliance program, including
establishing standards for non-passenger automobiles and determining if
manufacturers were complying with the applicable CAFE standards, and
assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible for publishing
and distributing the annual fuel economy information booklet.
EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute
in 1976.\2\ The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977
model year, established procedures to calculate fuel economy values for
labeling and CAFE purposes that used the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or
``city'' test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway''
test) data as the basis for the calculations. At that time, the
fundamental process for determining fuel economy was the same for
labeling as for CAFE, except that the
[[Page 5429]]
CAFE calculations combined the city and highway fuel economy into a
single number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 41 FR 38685, which is promulgated at 40 CFR Part 600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates
on the window stickers of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that
drivers were disappointed that they were not often achieving these
estimates on the road and that they expected them to be as accurate as
possible. In 1978, Congress recognized the concern about differences
between EPA estimated fuel economy values and actual consumer
experience and mandated a study under section 404 of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978.\3\ In February, 1980, a set of
hearings were conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and National Resources. One of the
recommendations in the subsequent report by the Subcommittee was that
``EPA devise a new MPG system for labeling new cars and for the Gas
Mileage Guide that provides fuel economy values, or a range of values,
that most drivers can reasonably expect to experience.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. 95-619, Title IV, 404 (November 9, 1978).
\4\ See House Committee on Government Operations, ``Automobile
Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,'' Report 96-948, May 13, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel
economy labeling procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel
economy data.\5\ In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling
procedures that were applicable to 1985 and later model year
vehicles.\6\ The decision was made to retain the FTP and highway test
procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used for other
purposes--emissions certification and CAFE determination. Based on the
in-use fuel economy data, however, it was evident that the final fuel
economy values put on the labels needed to be adjusted downward in
order to more accurately reflect consumers' average fuel economy
experience. The final rule, therefore, included downward adjustment
factors for both the city and highway label fuel economy estimates. The
city values (based on the raw FTP test data) were adjusted downward by
10 percent and the highway values (likewise based on the raw highway
test data) were adjusted downward by 22 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 460/3-80-010,
September, 1980, and ``Technical Support Report for Rulemaking
Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE-81-6,
October, 1980.
\6\ See 49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December
10, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA projected at the time that these adjustments would put the
average city and highway MPG values in the middle of the range of fuel
economy values experienced by consumers.\7\ During the rulemaking
process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expressed concern
that fuel economy estimates based on the average experience would
result in a significant number of drivers failing to achieve that fuel
economy. They requested that EPA provide a range of values on the label
that would encompass the expected fuel economy of about 75 percent of
the driving population.\8\ To address this concern, in the final rule,
EPA required the label to contain the range of city and highway fuel
economy that most drivers should expect. Based on our understanding of
the frequency distribution of in-use fuel economy data at the time, the
range was set at plus or minus 15 percent of the stated city and
highway estimates, and appears on fuel economy labels today as small
print text. Further in this section, we discuss, in the context of
today's proposal, similar issues regarding how best to communicate to
the public the level of the city and highway mpg estimates, as well as
the range of drivers' fuel economy experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 49 FR 13832, April 16, 1984.
\8\ See 49 FR 13835, April 16, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why Is Today's Action Warranted?
The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is
that the test procedures on which they are based do not reflect a broad
enough range of in-use driving conditions. The current test procedures
omit several critical factors that are prevalent in the real-world and
that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Key among these are
higher speeds, faster accelerations, the use of air conditioning, and
colder temperatures. The impact of these factors on fuel economy can
vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. However, for emissions compliance,
we have already developed additional test procedures to account for
these factors, and these test procedures are already being regularly
used by the auto companies. Today, we are proposing to use these tests,
in conjunction with the existing fuel economy tests, as an input into
the calculation of fuel economy estimates. In doing so, the fuel
economy test methods would reflect a much broader range of real-world
conditions than they do today.
There is broad-based support among automobile manufacturers and
other stakeholders proposing changes to current fuel economy estimates.
Congress recognized the need for action by including a provision in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring EPA to revise its fuel economy
estimates. EPA has worked closely with auto manufacturers, states, and
other organizations in developing this proposed rule.
Bluewater Network petitioned EPA to revise the fuel economy
labeling test procedures.\9\ EPA published a Federal Register notice
requesting comments on the petition, and received over 33,000
comments.\10\ Nearly all of these comments support the revision of
EPA's fuel economy estimates to better reflect real world driving.
Today's proposal is responsive to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Bluewater Network petition was submitted to EPA on June
7, 2002.
\10\ See 69 FR 16188, March 29, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fuel Economy Labels Could Be Improved To Better Reflect Real-World
Driving
First, it is important to stress that the EPA city and highway mpg
ratings are estimates--they are not intended to give consumers an exact
indication of the fuel economy they will achieve. The complete range of
consumer fuel economy experience can not be represented perfectly by
any one estimate. Fuel economy varies based on a wide range of factors,
which we have discussed above. There will always be consumers that
achieve real-world fuel economy both better and worse than a given
estimate.
In the past few years, there have been a number of studies,
conducted by a variety of sources, suggesting that there is often a
shortfall between the EPA estimates and real-world fuel economy.
Several organizations have provided consumers with their own fuel
economy estimates, which in some cases vary from EPA's estimates. For
example, Consumer Reports utilizes on-road driving to measure fuel
economy under a variety of conditions. They derive city, highway, and
overall fuel economy estimates, and their methods clearly demonstrate
the large degree of variation across vehicles. While their city fuel
economy estimates fall on average below the EPA label values, their
highway estimates are, on average, higher than the EPA label values.
Consumer Reports' overall fuel economy estimates range from 27 percent
below to 20 percent above the EPA overall rating. The Automobile
Association of America (AAA) likewise publishes the
[[Page 5430]]
fuel economy results they achieve in their annual auto guide for new
cars and trucks. In their 2004 auto guide, about half of their
estimates were below the EPA combined city/highway value, and about one
half were above the EPA city/highway combined value. Their estimates
ranged from 40 percent lower than EPA's to 22 percent higher, again
reflecting a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle variation. Other sources
of fuel economy data include Edmunds.com, the Department of Energy's
(DOE) ``Your MPG'' database on the fueleconomy.gov Web site, and DOE's
FreedomCar program.
Each of these studies differs in its test methods, driving cycles,
sampling of vehicles, and methods of measuring fuel economy. There are
strengths and weaknesses of each study, which we discuss further in
Section II and in the Draft Technical Support Document. Collectively,
these studies indicate there are many cases where real-world fuel
economy falls below the EPA estimates. The studies also indicate that
real-world fuel economy varies significantly depending on the
conditions under which it is evaluated. Nevertheless, taken as a whole,
these studies reflect a wide range of real-world driving conditions,
and show that fuel economy can be much lower than EPA's estimates if
more real-world conditions are considered.
The fundamental problem with the current fuel economy estimates is
that the test procedures on which they are based are missing a number
of critical factors that exist in real-world driving and have a
significant impact on fuel economy. The following section discusses the
limitations of our existing fuel economy test procedures.
2. Today's Fuel Economy Tests Do Not Represent the Full Range of
Driving Conditions
The current city and highway fuel economy tests do not represent
the full range of real-world driving conditions. The 1985 adjustment
factors were designed to ensure that the fuel economy estimates across
the vehicle fleet reflected the average impacts of a number of
conditions not represented on the tests. However, as we noted earlier,
many changes have occurred since then that make it once again a
reasonable time to reevaluate the fuel economy test methods. Given the
significant degree of variation that is apparent across vehicles, we
believe it is important to reconsider the approach of ``one-size-fits-
all'' adjustment factors and instead move to an approach that more
directly reflects the impacts of fuel economy on individual vehicle
models.
The city fuel economy estimate is based on the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), which was designed to measure a vehicle's tailpipe
emissions under urban driving conditions. The driving cycle used for
the FTP is called the LA-4, which was developed in the mid-1960's to
represent home-to-work commuting in Los Angeles. The FTP is also one of
the tests used to determine emissions compliance today. The FTP
includes a series of accelerations, decelerations, and idling (such as
at stop lights). It also includes starting the vehicle after it has
been parked for an extended period of time (called a ``cold start''),
as well as a start on a warmed-up engine (called a ``hot start''). The
total distance covered by the FTP is about 11 miles and the average
speed is about 21 mph, with a maximum speed of about 56 mph.
The highway fuel economy estimate is based on the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET), which was developed by EPA in 1974 and was
designed to represent a mix of interstate highway and rural driving. It
consists of relatively constant higher-speed driving, with no engine
starts or idling time. The HFET covers a distance of about 10 miles, at
an average speed of 49 mph and a top speed of about 60 mph.
There are several key limitations in the FTP and HFET tests that
cause them to not adequately reflect real-world driving today. First,
most consumers understandably think ``highway'' fuel economy means the
fuel economy you can expect under freeway driving conditions. In fact,
the highway test has a top speed of only 60 mph, since the test was
developed more than 20 years ago to represent more rural driving
conditions at a time when the national speed limit was 55 miles per
hour. The national speed limit since has been eliminated, states have
established speed limits of 65 to 70 miles per hour, and much driving
is at even higher speeds. Recent real-world driving studies indicate
that about 28 percent of driving (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) is at
speeds of greater than 60 mph. (This analysis is detailed in the Draft
Technical Support Document). These studies also show that 33 percent of
real-world driving VMT falls outside the FTP/HFET speed and
acceleration activity region. Thus, a substantial amount of high speed
driving is not captured at all in today's FTP or HFET tests. This is a
critical weakness in our current fuel economy test procedures. Since
higher speed driving has a negative impact on fuel economy,
incorporating these higher speed driving conditions into the fuel
economy tests would lower the fuel economy estimates.
Second, the maximum acceleration rates of both the FTP and HFET
tests are a relatively mild 3.3 miles-per-hour per second, considerably
lower than the maximum acceleration rates seen in real-world driving.
Recent real-world driving studies indicate that maximum acceleration
rates are as high as 11 to 12 mph/sec and significant activity occurs
beyond 3.3 mph/sec. Even at the time these tests were first developed,
the real-world accelerations were higher than 3.3 mph/sec, but the test
cycle's acceleration rates needed to be constrained to the mechanical
limitation of the dynamometer test equipment. These constraints no
longer exist with today's dynamometers, so we now have the ability to
incorporate higher maximum acceleration rates that more closely reflect
those of actual driving. In fact, we have incorporated higher
acceleration rates into a test recently developed for emissions
compliance, which we discuss in the next section. As with high speed
driving, higher acceleration rates have a negative impact on fuel
economy; thus, if these higher accelerations were factored into our
fuel economy methods, the estimates would be lower.
The maximum deceleration rate of the FTP and HFET tests is
important to consider as well, because it relates to the regenerative
breaking effect of hybrid electric vehicles. The FTP and HFET tests
include a mild maximum deceleration rate of -3.3 mph/sec; yet in recent
real-world driving rates as high as -11 to -17 mph/sec were recorded.
Under higher deceleration rates, the effects of regenerative breaking
for hybrid electric vehicles are diminished, thereby lowering fuel
economy. In this regard, today's FTP and HFET tests result in better
fuel economy, which is seldom achieved under actual driving conditions.
Third, both tests are run at mild ambient conditions (approximately
75 degrees Fahrenheit), while real-world driving occurs at a wide range
of ambient temperatures. Fuel economy is lower at temperatures colder
or warmer than the 75 degree F test temperature. Only about 20 percent
of VMT occurs between 70 and 80 degrees F--approximately 15 percent of
VMT occurs at temperatures above 80 degrees F, and 65 percent occurs
below 70 degrees F. Moreover, neither the FTP nor HFET tests are run
with accessories operating, such as air conditioners, heaters, or
defrosters. These accessories, most notably air conditioning, can have
a significant impact on a vehicle's fuel economy.
[[Page 5431]]
Finally, there are many factors that affect fuel economy that
cannot be replicated on dynamometer test cycles in a laboratory. These
include road grade, wind, vehicle maintenance (e.g., tire pressure),
snow/ice, precipitation, fuel effects, and others. It is not possible
to develop a test cycle that captures the full range of factors
impacting fuel economy. However, it is clear that the FTP and HFET
tests alone are missing some critical elements of real-world driving.
All of these factors have a negative impact on fuel economy. This
largely explains why our current estimates often do not reflect
consumers' real-world fuel economy experience. However, since the 1985
adjustment factors were established, EPA has adopted several new test
cycles for emission compliance purposes, which collectively represent a
much broader range of in-use driving conditions than those captured by
the FTP and HFET tests. These additional emission tests, discussed
below, can be brought into the fuel economy estimate calculations.
3. Additional Emissions Tests Reflect a Broader Range of Real-World
Driving Conditions
Since 1984 when we last updated the fuel economy estimate
methodology, EPA has established several new test cycles for emissions
certification. EPA was concerned that the FTP omitted many critical
driving modes and conditions that existed in actual use, and that
emissions could be substantially higher during these driving modes
compared to the FTP. Manufacturers were frequently designing their
vehicles' emission control systems to meet the specified FTP test
conditions, and actual emission levels could be quite different under
the broader range of real-world ``off-cycle'' conditions.
The need for these actions was recognized by Congress, in the
passage of Sections 206(h) and 202(j) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (CAAA).\11\ Section 206(h) required EPA to study and revise as
necessary the test procedures used to measure emissions, taking into
consideration the actual current driving conditions under which motor
vehicles are used, including conditions relating to fuel, temperature,
acceleration, and altitude. Section 202(j) of the CAAA required EPA to
establish emission standards for carbon monoxide under cold (20 deg. F)
temperature conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 42 U.S.C. 7525(h), 42 U.S.C. 7521(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, EPA published rules implementing the 202(j) cold
temperature testing requirement, acknowledging that the ambient
temperature conditions of the FTP test (run between 68 and 86 [deg]F)
do not represent the full range of ambient temperature conditions that
exist across the United States and that cold temperature had different
emissions effects on different vehicle designs.\12\ EPA's cold
temperature emission regulations required manufacturers to conduct FTP
testing at 20 [deg]F. By promulgating this new test procedure and
associated emission standard, EPA sought to encourage manufacturers to
employ better emission control strategies that would improve ambient
air quality across a wider range of in-use conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 57 FR 31888, July 17, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fulfillment of the 206(h) CAAA requirement, EPA published a
report in 1993 which concluded that the FTP cycle did not represent the
full range of urban driving conditions that could impact the in-use
driving emission levels.\13\ Consequently, EPA promulgated a rule in
1996 that established two new test procedures, with associated emission
standards, that addressed certain shortcomings with the current
FTP.\14\ Known as the ``Supplemental FTP,'' or ``SFTP,'' these
procedures, similar to the cold temperature FTP, encouraged the use of
the better emission controls across a wider range of in-use driving
conditions in order to improve ambient air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
Website: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\14\ See 61 FR 54854 published on October 22, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the new test cycles, the US06, was designed to address high
speed, aggressive driving behavior (with more severe acceleration rates
and speeds) as well as rapid and frequent speed fluctuations. The US06
test contains both lower-speed city driving and higher-speed highway
driving modes.\15\ Its top speed is 80 mph, and average speed is 48
mph. The top acceleration rate exceeds eight mph per second. The other
new SFTP test, the SC03, was designed to address air-conditioner
operation under a full simulation of high temperature (95 [deg]F), high
sun-load, and high humidity. The SC03 drive cycle was designed to
represent driving immediately following a vehicle startup, and rapid
and frequent speed fluctuations.\16\ Its top speed is about 55 mph and
average speed is 22 mph. The top acceleration rate is about five mph
per second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (g).
\16\ Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix I (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the SFTP rulemaking was a study of real-world driving
in four cities, Baltimore, Spokane, Atlanta and Los Angeles, where
driving activity was measured on instrumented vehicles as well as by
chase cars.17 18 At that time, it was found that 18 percent
of the driving (in Baltimore) occurred outside of the speed/
acceleration distribution of the FTP drive schedule. More recent real-
world driving activity data indicates that driving has become even more
aggressive than it was in 1992. Recent real-world activity data
collected in California and Kansas City found that about 28 percent of
driving (vehicle miles traveled) is at speeds greater than 60 mph.
Further, about 33 percent of recent real-world driving falls outside of
the FTP/HFET speed and acceleration activity
region.19 20 21 22 This is based on extensive chase car
studies in California and instrumented vehicle studies in Kansas City.
Our assessment of these recent real-world driving activity studies is
described in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Final Technical Report on Aggressive Driving Behavior for
the Revised Federal Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
1995. Website: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Test
Procedure Review Project: Preliminary Technical Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. EPA420-R-93-007, May 1993.
Website: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
\19\ Sierra Research, Inc., ``Task Order No. 2 SCF Improvement--
Field Data Collection,'' Sierra Report No. SR02-07-04, July, 2002.
\20\ U.S. EPA Draft Technical Support Document ``Fuel Economy
Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel
Economy Estimates,'' December, 2005.
\21\ Brzezinski, D., E. Nam, J. Koupal, G. Hoffman. Changes in
Real World Driving Behavior: Analysis of Recent Driving Activity
Data. Proceedings of the 15th Coordinating Research Council On Road
Vehicle Emissions Workshop, 2005.
\22\ Eastern Research Group. Late Model Vehicle Emissions and
Fuel Economy Characterization Study: Addendum to the Kansas City
Exhaust Characterization Study-Draft Report. ERG No.
0133.18.004.001, September 26, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the FTP and HFET tests alone do not fully capture the
broad range of real-world driving conditions. In order for EPA's fuel
economy tests to be more representative of key aspects of real-world
driving, it is critical that we consider the test conditions
represented by these additional emission tests.
4. Fuel Economy on Driving Modes Represented by Additional Emissions
Tests is Lower for Many Vehicles
As discussed above, there are several key conditions missing from
the current fuel economy test procedures that are prevalent in real-
world driving. These conditions--higher speeds, faster
[[Page 5432]]
accelerations, air conditioning operation, and cold temperatures--have
already been incorporated into our test procedures for emissions
compliance, as a result of our finding in the 1990's that they have a
significant impact on emissions. Our analysis below demonstrates that
these additional driving conditions can also have a significant impact
on fuel economy--and that these impacts vary widely from vehicle to
vehicle. Thus, we believe that these factors need to be included in our
fuel economy test methods.
We analyzed fuel economy data collected by manufacturers for
emissions certification purposes in the 2003, 2004 and 2005 model
years. This analysis included data from all five tests used for
emissions compliance today, including the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and
Cold Temperature FTP. The fuel economy measured on the standard fuel
economy tests (FTP and HFET) was compared to the fuel economy on the
other emissions certification tests (US06, SC03, and Cold FTP) in order
to assess the impact of these factors on fuel economy. The analysis
includes data from more than 400 vehicles. Comparisons were made to the
unadjusted city and highway fuel economy test results, and the findings
are summarized below. Because so many other factors bear on real-world
consumer experience, it is important to point out that these
comparisons are not intended to indicate the exact impact of a given
factor on real-world fuel economy. However, comparing these different
test results is informative because we establish the relative magnitude
of the impacts and of the variation across vehicles. The entire report
of this analysis is in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, ``Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling and
The Effect of Cold Temperature, Air-Conditioning Usage and
Aggressive Driving on Fuel Economy,'' Draft Staff Report, August
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Cold Temperature Operation. To assess the impact of cold
temperature operation on fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy
measured over the Cold FTP test directly to that over the standard FTP
test. The driving cycles in these two tests are identical (i.e., the
LA4 cycle). Both tests include both cold and hot starts at their
respective ambient temperatures, and both tests are generally run with
accessories turned off. The difference in fuel economy should therefore
be entirely due to the difference in ambient temperature: 20 [deg]F
versus 75 [deg]F.
On average, fuel economy over the Cold FTP was about 12 percent
lower than over the standard FTP. There was wide vehicle-to-vehicle
variation, with the loss in fuel economy due to the cold conditions as
much as 40 percent. Figure I.B-1 below shows the range of cold
temperature impacts. Hybrid vehicles tended to show the greatest
sensitivity to cold temperature. Of the six vehicles showing a cold
temperature impact of greater than 30 percent, five are hybrids.
Overall, conventional gasoline vehicles averaged a cold temperature
effect of about -11 percent, while the impact on hybrid vehicles
averaged about -32 percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.000
b. Air Conditioning. To assess the impact of air conditioning on
fuel economy, we compared the fuel economy measured over the SC03 test
to a comparable portion of the FTP. The SC03 test is run with the air-
conditioning turned onto its maximum setting in a test cell set at 95
[deg]F with strong sun load and moderate humidity. On average, air
conditioner operation at 95 [deg]F reduced fuel economy by about 21
percent. The impact of air conditioning ranged from -41 percent to -25
percent for more than a third of the vehicles. Similar to the cold
temperature impacts, there was a great deal of vehicle-to-vehicle
variation in the impact of air conditioning on fuel economy. Figure
I.B-2 shows the distribution of the percentage differences (negative
numbers indicate lower fuel economy over SC03). As can be seen in the
figure, the vast majority of vehicles show an impact of -27.5
[[Page 5433]]
percent to -7.5 percent. Hybrid vehicles tended to show greater
sensitivity to air conditioning operation than conventional vehicles.
The effect of air conditioning operation reduced hybrid fuel economy by
31 percent, 50 percent greater than the 20 percent impact on
conventional vehicle fuel economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.001
c. Aggressive and High-Speed Driving. The US06 test was designed to
address aggressive driving behavior, such as high acceleration rates
and high speeds. The US06 test contains both lower-speed but aggressive
urban driving and higher-speed highway driving modes. Because of the
different driving modes contained on the US06 test, for the purpose of
assessing the impacts of high speed and aggressive driving we developed
a combination of the city and highway tests which is roughly comparable
to that contained in the US06 cycle.
On average, the fuel economy over the US06 cycle was almost 30
percent lower than over the composite FTP and HFET fuel economy. The
observed impacts ranged from -44 percent to -25 percent for more than
80 percent of the vehicles. Figure I.B-3 shows the distribution of per
vehicle impacts due to the aggressive driving of the US06 cycle. Hybrid
vehicles showed a slightly greater impact of aggressive driving on fuel
economy than conventional gasoline vehicles (33 percent versus 29
percent, respectively).
[[Page 5434]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE06.002
d. Conclusions. Many of the vehicles whose fuel economies were most
affected by these driving conditions were hybrids and other high mile-
per-gallon vehicles. In general, high mpg vehicles will be more
sensitive to changes in driving conditions for two reasons. One,
because they use relatively little fuel in the first place, any
increase in fuel consumption will show up as a relatively larger
percentage fuel consumption increase. Two, because of the non-linearity
of fuel economy with respect to fuel consumption, an increase in fuel
consumption will lower the fuel economy of a high mpg vehicle much more
than it will lower the fuel economy of a low mpg vehicle. For example,
the fuel consumption increase associated with a 35 mpg rating that
actually achieves 30 mpg in the real-world is the same as a 15 mpg
rating that actually achieves 14 mpg.
Hybrids, most of which achieve relatively high mpg and therefore
share the issues discussed above, also face some additional challenges.
Hybrids may well be the most significant powertrain technology
innovation driven to market commercialization primarily because of its
fuel economy potential. In addition, the nature of hybrid technology
(the addition of a battery as a second source of on-board power,
sophisticated control systems, sometimes a smaller engine) suggests
that fuel economy will likely be more sensitive to certain conditions
such as high acceleration and deceleration rates, cold ambient
temperatures, etc. Finally, by industry standards, hybrids are a
relatively young technology, and there is every reason to believe that
as the technology matures, hybrid vehicle fuel economy will become much
more robust over a broader range of driver behavior and climate
conditions.
This analysis clearly shows that the driving conditions represented
by US06, SC03 and Cold FTP tests can have substantial, measurable
negative impact on fuel economy. There also is a large amount of
vehicle-to-vehicle variation--that is, different vehicles are impacted
differently by these factors. These findings call into question the
appropriateness of the continued use of the current ``one-size-fits-
all'' 10 and 22 percent adjustment factors applied, respectively, to
FTP and HFET fuel economy test results. The FTP and HFET tests clearly
do not adequately reflect the broad range of conditions that exist in
today's real-world driving. The additional emission test cycles
incorporate several critical factors that are present in real-world
driving, and that can have a significant impact on fuel economy. Thus,
these additional emission test cycles need to be brought into the fuel
economy test methods, so that the estimates themselves will be more
representative of the fuel economy consumers can expect to achieve in
the real-world.
C. What New Requirements Are We Proposing?
We are proposing to revise and improve the methods used to
determine the city and highway fuel economy estimates by incorporating
fuel economy results over a broader range of driving conditions. An
overview of this proposal is provided below. Section II provides a
detailed explanation of the proposed new test methods, as well as the
data and analysis upon which it is based.
In addition, we are proposing minor changes to revise the format
and content of the fuel economy label to make the information more
useful to consumers. We also are proposing minor changes related to the
fuel economy information program, including revising the comparable
vehicle classes and adding a new provision for the electronic
distribution of the annual Fuel Economy Guide. An overview of each of
these proposals follows.
1. Revised Test Methods for Calculating City and Highway Fuel Economy
Estimates
Today's proposal would revise the test methods by which the city
and highway fuel economy estimates are calculated. We are proposing to
replace the current method of adjusting the city (FTP) test result
downward by 10 percent and the highway (HFET) test result downward by
22 percent. Instead, we are proposing a new approach that incorporates
additional test methods that address factors that impact fuel economy,
but are missing from today's tests--specifically, higher speeds, more
aggressive driving (e.g., higher acceleration rates), the use of air
conditioning, and the effect of cold temperature. The proposed test
methods
[[Page 5435]]
would bring into the fuel economy estimates the test results from the
five emissions tests in place today: FTP, HFET, US06, SC03, and Cold
FTP. Thus, we refer to this as the ``5-cycle'' method. Under our
proposal, rather than basing the city mpg estimate solely on the
adjusted FTP test result, and the highway mpg estimate solely on the
adjusted HFET test result, each estimate would be based on a
``composite'' calculation of all five tests, weighting each
appropriately to arrive at new city and highway mpg estimates. The new
city and highway estimates would each be calculated according to
separate city and highway ``5-cycle'' formulae that are based on fuel
economy results over these five tests. The conditions represented by
each test would be ``weighted'' according to how much they occur over
average real-world city or highway driving. For example, we have
derived weightings to represent driving cycle effects, trip length, air
conditioner compressor-on usage, and operation over various
temperatures. This methodology is described in detail in Section II.
We also are proposing a downward adjustment to account for effects
that are not reflected in our existing five test cycles. There are many
factors that impact fuel economy, but are difficult to account for in
the test cell on the dynamometer. These include roadway roughness, road
grade (hills), wind, tire pressure, heavier loads, hills, snow/ice,
effects of ethanol in gasoline, larger vehicle loads (e.g., trailers,
cargo, multiple passengers), and others. Current data indicates that
these impacts can lower fuel economy from 9 to 13 percent. Thus, we
need to account for these factors in our new test methods, as they will
lower a driver's fuel economy beyond those factors we are accounting
for from our existing test cycles. We are proposing an 11 percent
downward adjustment to account for these non-dynamometer effects. Our
basis for this downward adjustment factor is detailed in Section II.C.3
and the Draft Technical Support Document.
The 5-cycle approach, including this 11 percent downward adjustment
factor to account for non-dynamometer effects, will result in city and
highway estimates that reflect average fuel economy. We are proposing
to continue to set the city and highway mpg estimates at the average,
or mean, level. However, we understand that many drivers expect to
achieve or exceed the fuel economy indicated by these mpg estimates. By
continuing to set the estimates at the average level, by definition,
half of drivers will get worse fuel economy than the label values. We
seek comment on whether the city and highway estimates should be set a
level that is lower than average--for example, to ensure that 75
percent, or even more, of drivers achieve or exceed the label values.
Because the 5-cycle method is inherently vehicle-specific, the
difference between today's values and the new fuel economy estimates
could vary widely from vehicle to vehicle. Today's proposed approach
would result in city fuel economy estimates that are between 10 to 20
percent lower than today's labels for the majority of conventional
vehicles. For vehicles that achieve generally better fuel economy, such
as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, new city estimates would be about
20 to 30 percent lower than today's labels. The new highway fuel
economy estimates would be 5 to 15 percent lower for the majority of
vehicles, including hybrids.
Today's proposal would greatly improve the EPA fuel economy
estimates, so that they come closer to the fuel economy that consumers
achieve in the real-world. However, as discussed previously in this
notice, these are still estimates. Even with the improved fuel economy
test methods proposed today, some consumers will continue to get fuel
economy that is higher or lower than the new estimates.
Under this new 5-cycle approach, some auto manufacturers have
expressed concern about the potential for increased test burden. The
three additional emission tests that we propose to include in the fuel
economy calculation are run today on a much more limited number of
vehicle groups than are the FTP and HFET tests. Typically, for every 3-
4 FTP and HFET tests conducted, only one US06 or SC03 test is run, and
cold FTP testing is even more limited. If we were to require full 5-
cycle testing across all vehicle types, the testing demands for the
auto industry could increase dramatically, and could trigger the need
for a major expansion of their testing facilities.
Thus, we are proposing to implement the new fuel economy test
methods in a way that gives the auto industry sufficient lead time to
plan for their increased testing needs. This enables us to implement an
improved fuel economy label methodology as soon as possible--in the
2008 model year. We also are implementing an approach that mitigates
the testing burden where warranted. We have done this in two key ways.
First, for the first three model years (2008 through 2010), we
would provide manufacturers with the option of using a scale of
adjustments based on an analysis of data developed from the 5-cycle
method. This approach, called the mpg-based approach, incorporates the
effects of higher speed/aggressive driving, air conditioning use, and
colder temperatures, but less directly than the 5-cycle vehicle-
specific method. The mpg-based adjustments were derived by applying the
5-cycle formulae to a data set of recent fuel economy test data, and
developing a regression line through the data. (See Section II for a
full description of this approach). These adjustments differ based on
the mpg a vehicle obtains over the FTP (City) or HFET (Highway) tests.
In other words, every vehicle with the same mpg on the FTP test would
receive the same adjustment for its city fuel economy label. Likewise,
every vehicle with the same mpg on the HFET test would receive the same
adjustment for its highway fuel economy label. This method of
adjustment would not require any testing beyond the FTP/HFET tests
already performed today, thus, it can be implemented sooner than the 5-
cycle approach as an interim improvement to our fuel economy test
methods. However, during this timeframe, manufacturers may choose to
run full 5-cycle testing for any of their vehicle models. This approach
would provide consumers with more accurate estimates, while allowing
the industry the necessary lead time to prepare for the necessary
testing under the 5-cycle approach.
Second, when we move to the 5-cycle vehicle-specific approach in
model years 2011 and beyond, we are proposing criteria that would
select specific vehicle groups for full 5-cycle testing, rather than
requiring complete 5-cycle data generation for every vehicle. We
believe this approach would result in fuel economy estimates that are
generally as accurate as they would be under full 5-cycle testing. In
other words, we are only requiring full 5-cycle testing where we can
predict with reasonable certainty that the fuel economy results under
the 5-cycle method would yield a significantly different result than
the mpg-based adjustments.
We propose to establish a tolerance band around the mpg-based city
and highway adjustment lines. Manufacturers would be required to
calculate a 5-cycle fuel e