proposed that ``other emissions'' include those tailpipe emissions,
other than CO2, for which vehicles are required to meet
current emission standards. These emissions include criteria emissions
regulated under EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and air
toxics and include the following smog-forming and other air pollutants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NMOG--non-methane organic gases;
     NOX--oxides of nitrogen;
     PM--particulate matter;
     CO--carbon monoxide; and
     HCHO--formaldehyde.
    The agencies proposed and requested comment on a one-to-ten rating
for ``other emissions'' in which each rating is associated with a bin
from the Federal Tier 2 emissions standards,\73\ or the comparable
California emissions standard,\74\ based on the fact that it was
impossible to provide a single aggregated rating reflecting an absolute
scale, and that separate absolute rating scales would have been unduly
cumbersome to present on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
    \74\ The California Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles, Title
13, California Code of Regulations (last amended March 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of comments received were supportive of the proposed
option, indicating that it was a reasonable approach to distilling
complex information and was consistent with the approach used on the
EPA Green Vehicle Guide Web site and the California Environmental
Performance Label. Several commenters advocated changing the name on
the label from ``other air pollutants'' to the term ``smog,'' which
they felt was more meaningful for the general public and would be even
more directly consistent with the California Environmental Performance
Label. Finally, a few comments suggested that ``other air pollutants''
should be disaggregated and displayed separately for each air
pollutant.
    The agencies are requiring, as proposed and as supported by most
comments, a label that displays a relative one-to-ten rating based on
Federal vehicle emission standards or comparable California emissions
standards. We are also requiring the suggested name change, as
consumers are already familiar with the connection between vehicle
emissions and smog, whereas ``other air pollutants'' is not currently
as meaningful. This will have the added benefit of promoting label
harmonization by better aligning with the California Environmental
Performance Label ``Smog Score'' that has been in existence for many
years.
    Despite the fact that the EPCA and EISA language could be
interpreted to allow multiple ``other emissions'' rating scales on the
label, the agencies were not persuaded that having disaggregated
pollutant information on the label would benefit consumers. Based on
our consumer research,\75\ it appears that consumers do not currently
want more specificity when it comes to these air pollutants and, in
fact, could not make meaningful distinctions among these pollutants. In
addition, we do not believe that there is sufficient space on the label
to incorporate emissions information on the five pollutants addressed
through this rating scale without cluttering the label and risking
information overload. However, to address some consumers' interest in
more information, consumers will be able to access more detailed
information on the specific smog-forming pollutants that are covered
collectively on the label on fueleconomy.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies acknowledge that this rating will multiply the number
of distinct labels relative to current labeling because of the
interaction between model types and test groups. Current labels are
based only on model types and present only fuel economy information.
However, emissions are based on test groups, and there may be multiple
test groups within a given model type. For example, a manufacturer with
two otherwise identical vehicles within a model type, where one is
certified to EPA emission standards and the other to more stringent
California standards, would only need one label today for all the
vehicles in that model type. This final rule would require that--
despite identical fuel economy results--the different vehicles have
different smog ratings and thus different label information. Any
incremental costs associated with this increase in distinct labels have
been addressed; as discussed in Section VI.A., the agencies received
comment from auto makers on the startup costs of the new labels,
including estimates of the IT needs to address new label requirements,
and incorporated their comments into the cost estimates.
    The Smog Rating System for model year 2013 vehicles is shown in
Table F-1. The proposal discussed ratings based on current emission
standards; however, if those standards were to change in the future,
the ratings would no longer have a basis on which to be assigned.
Therefore, we clarify here that we intend to update the scoring
thresholds in the future to reflect the prevailing Federal and
California emissions standards. Any updates to the Smog Rating will be
included in the annual label manufacturer guidance document or in the
regulations via rulemaking.

            Table F-1--Rating System for ``Other Emissions''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  EPA Tier 2          California Air
         Smog  rating              emissions     Resources Board  LEV II
                                   standard        emissions  standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10...........................  Bin 1...........  ZEV
9............................  N/A.............  PZEV
8............................  Bin 2...........  SULEV II
7............................  Bin 3...........  N/A
6............................  Bin 4...........  ULEV II
5............................  Bin 5...........  LEV II
4............................  Bin 6...........  LEV II opt 1
3............................  Bin 7...........  N/A
2............................  Bin 8...........  SULEV II large trucks
1............................  N/A.............  ULEV & LEV II large
                                                  trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Fuel Costs and Savings

    As described in Section II.A, EPCA requires that labels shall
contain ``the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.''
In addition EPCA states that the labels shall contain other information
required or authorized by the EPA Administrator that is related to the
required information,\76\ such as the annual fuel cost. EPA proposed to
include annual fuel cost on all labels, and proposed a five year fuel
cost or savings compared to the average vehicle value on label 1, but
indicated that any label required could include the five year cost or
savings value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Annual Fuel Cost
    Focus groups conducted prior to the proposal provided mixed
feedback on the value of annual fuel cost. When asked, participants
were skeptical of the

use of estimated annual fuel cost, even when asked to consider whether
it could be a useful comparative metric across other vehicles of the
same model year. This skepticism arose from the recognition that the
value was based on assumptions of fuel prices and annual miles driven,
which many felt would not be personally applicable to their own driving
patterns. Nevertheless, participants consistently employed the annual
fuel cost (along with MPG) when asked to compare the efficiency of
conventional vehicles with that of advanced technology vehicles, like
PHEVs and EVs, with their less familiar set of energy metrics.\77\
Focus group participants involved in the previous update to the fuel
economy label were clearly interested in the annual fuel cost
figure.\78\ Recognizing the EPCA statutory requirement to display the
estimated annual fuel cost, EPA requested comment on whether it is a
useful comparative tool across technologies and, if so, how to best
communicate on the label that it is valid for this purpose. EPA also
sought comment on whether there might be an additional or alternative
way to display fuel cost information that might be more useful or have
a greater impact on consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p.37.
    \78\ 71 FR 5466, February 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on annual fuel cost generally acknowledged the statutory
requirement under EPCA and agreed that it provides a useful comparison
metric. Several commenters indicated that it was the most important
metric on the current fuel economy label, after MPG. The majority of
those who commented on it agreed that annual fuel cost should be
retained. Several commenters suggested that the $2.80 per gallon cost
figure shown on the example labels be made more realistic. Comments on
electric operation indicated that 15,000 miles per year is not
attainable for an EV unless it were to recharge more than once a day,
and suggested cents per mile as a useful metric; they did acknowledge,
however, that the annual cost could be used as a comparative tool. One
comment regarding PHEVs noted that annual fuel cost will vary
significantly depending on the relative use of gasoline and
electricity.
    EPA is requiring the retention of annual fuel cost and its
underlying assumptions on the label. This satisfies the EPCA
requirement and provides continuity with the historical approach to
annual fuel cost, which is used by some consumers as a comparative
tool. EPA agrees that, as vehicle technologies diverge and it becomes
increasingly challenging to find comparative metrics, fuel cost is a
useful point of comparison. Consumers may compare the annual fuel cost
of various vehicles and consider that cost to be part of the ``price''
of the vehicle. Because of the importance of annual fuel cost, the
required label will make that cost quite prominent and conspicuous. EPA
will continue its practice of issuing annual guidance updating the
mileage and fuel cost assumptions, in consultation with the U.S.
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Sample labels in the package use projections for the second
and third quarter of 2012, based on the EIA Short Term Energy
Outlook, May 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Five Year Fuel Savings or Sending Compared to the Average Vehicle
    EPA also proposed and requested comment on another approach to
presenting fuel cost information: Focusing on the savings attainable by
purchasing a vehicle that is relatively more fuel efficient or the
spending incurred when purchasing a vehicle that is relatively less
fuel efficient. This approach was specifically recommended by the
expert panel discussed in Section I.D, which noted that savings is a
more powerful message than annual cost.\80\ Although savings and
spending calculations would necessarily also rely on assumptions, EPA
believes that the value of the information to consumers is significant
enough to overcome these drawbacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Expert
Panel Report, EPA420-R-10-908, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, EPA explored a number of methods for calculating
savings and spending, and proposed a method that calculated the
difference in fuel costs of a vehicle over five years compared to the
projected median new vehicle for that model year. EPA proposed that
some vehicles would show a savings, while others would show consumers
spending more for fuel over five years compared to the reference
vehicle; these values would increase in magnitude the further the
vehicle is from the average vehicle in terms of fuel consumption. The
proposed approach appropriately reflects the fact that fuel cost
savings become larger as the fuel efficiency of a vehicle improves, and
conversely that fuel costs increase as fuel efficiency decreases
compared to the reference vehicle.
    As with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system and
comparable class information, EPA proposed to provide annual guidance
indicating the reference against which the fuel cost savings would be
measured, as well as the prices for all fuels.\81\ EPA proposed to
compare each labeled vehicle to a median vehicle, but to use
``average'' on the label as a more accessible term than ``median.'' EPA
anticipated updating the reference vehicle MPG value as the fleet fuel
efficiency changes in response to regulations and market forces.
Finally, EPA proposed to round the relative fuel cost or savings values
used on the label to the nearest one hundred dollars, to avoid implying
more precision than is warranted and for ease of recall. Vehicles that
are within fifty dollars of the reference vehicle fuel cost would be
designated as saving zero dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ We proposed that the reference five-year fuel cost be
calculated by applying the gasoline fuel price to the average miles
driven over the first five years of the reference vehicle's life,
assuming a particular fuel economy. The fuel economy value for the
reference vehicle would be based on the projected fuel economy value
of the median vehicle model type for sale the previous model year,
not sales-weighted, and adjusted based on projections regarding the
upcoming model year. The appropriate values would be provided in
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA sought comment on this and alternative approaches to conveying
fuel cost and savings information. EPA also sought comment on whether
there is a potential for consumer confusion caused by two different
dollar figures: the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the vehicle
and the five-year relative fuel savings/spending value compared to a
reference vehicle.
    Many individual consumers, consumer advocacy groups, and
environmental advocacy groups expressed strong support for a five year
save or spend value compared to the average vehicle. These commenters
stated that clearly communicated operating costs or savings based on
fuel efficiency would be a useful comparison metric, and that the five
year save or spend value is a more powerful metric than annual fuel
cost. They suggested that, for those consumers considering advanced
technology vehicles with a higher sticker price but also a higher fuel
economy than conventional vehicles, the five year save or spend value
would be a valuable piece of information that would allow them to weigh
the impact of fuel savings over time against the up-front vehicle
purchase price.
    Several industry organizations commented that a fuel cost or
savings value should be limited to a within class comparison.
Automotive manufacturers were primarily opposed to including the five
year save or spend value on the label, suggesting that the statutorily-

required annual cost is sufficient and the additional five year
information would be confusing. Many of these commenters noted that the
reference vehicle could be ambiguous or confusing, and some raised a
concern that the median vehicle and the average vehicle are not the
same. Some commenters said that five year save or spend value was
incomplete because it does not account for the time value of money nor
include up-front vehicle costs. A few commenters suggested that the
agencies use five-year fuel costs (annual fuel cost multiplied by five
years) rather than a comparison to the average vehicle costs; other
commenters suggested that a relative five year save or spend value
should be calculated based on a reference vehicle in the same class.
Several commenters noted that the value of a dollar and the cost of
fuel will undoubtedly vary during the five year period.
    EPA believes that the utility of the five year save or spend value
compared to the average vehicle outweighs the concerns expressed by
commenters. Although the literature is mixed, many studies have
indicated that consumers may significantly undervalue (or overvalue)
potential fuel savings when deciding which vehicle to purchase.\82\ One
reason may be that consumers have difficulty accurately estimating fuel
costs and savings over time.\83\ Another reason may be that unless
relevant information is provided, those costs or savings, even if
significant, may not be sufficiently salient to consumers at the time
of purchase. The five-year fuel savings or spending value clearly
demonstrates the total comparative fuel costs and savings over a
timeframe that many vehicles are owned. Including it on the label will
help consumers to more easily weigh the long-term payback benefits of
purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle or a vehicle that operates on
a less expensive fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Greene, David L. ``How Consumers Value Fuel Economy: A
Literature Review,'' EPA Report EPA-420-R-10-008, March 2010, p.vi-
ix.
    \83\ For evidence that consumers may make mistakes estimating
the fuel savings associated with higher fuel economy, see:
Turrentine, Thomas S. and Kurani, Kenneth S. ``Car buyers and fuel
economy?'' Energy Policy 35:1213-1223 (2007) and Larrick, R.P. and
J.B. Soll, ``The MPG illusion,'' Science 320:1593-1594 (2008). For a
more complete discussion of reasons consumers may undervalue future
fuel savings, see 75 F.R. 25510-25513; and Helfand, Gloria, and
Wolverton, Ann, ``Evaluating the Consumer Response to Fuel Economy:
A Review of the Literature, '' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper 09-04
(2009), p.23-30, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumber/2009-04?OpenDocument (last accessed 3/18/11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a concern that the median vehicle and the average
vehicle are not the same, EPA is requiring a simple change to the
proposed algorithm for estimating the reference vehicle for fuel costs
over five years. For consistency, EPA will use the same reference point
that is used to define the break between a rating of 5 and a rating of
6 on the fuel economy and greenhouse gas scale (see Section III.D).
This addresses the concerns expressed in comment, as the term
``average'' now is represented by the label MPG value that corresponds
with the projected achieved CAFE level for the fleet on a sales-
weighted basis for that same model year. That is, the vehicles
indicated on the label as ``you save'' in fuel costs over five years
will have a fuel economy that is better than the projected average
level for the fleet for that model year, while those indicating ``you
spend'' will be below the projected average. The five-year average cost
will be calculated for this average vehicle, using the same annual
mileage and gasoline fuel cost assumptions used for the annual cost
estimate, multiplied by five years. As proposed, this reference five-
year cost value representing the average vehicle will be published in
EPA guidance, along with the upcoming projected fuel costs and annual
mileage assumptions.
    While EPA agrees that some consumers may not fully understand the
reference point for the five year save or spend value, EPA nevertheless
believes that showing relative costs or savings has significant value
in helping consumers understand that fuel efficiency can substantially
affect the relative operating costs among vehicles. In particular, EPA
believes that communicating to consumers a vehicle's fuel costs
relative to the costs of the average new model offered for sale, and
over a timeframe commensurate with vehicle ownership, will highlight
the importance of future fuel costs and allow them to be more readily
factored into the buying decision. To clarify the average vehicle
reference point, the ``Compared to the average vehicle'' text is being
increased in prominence. In addition, explanatory text is being added
to the label which says ``The average new vehicle gets X MPG and costs
$Y to fuel over 5 years.'' The agencies believe that this additional
text should aid consumer understanding about the reference point.
    EPA considered using five-year fuel cost (annual fuel cost
multiplied by five-years) instead of the comparative five year save or
spend value. However, as discussed above, EPA concluded that showing
the relative costs or savings has additional merit that is not
immediately gleaned from a five-year cost value. EPA and the Department
of Energy provide similar information online for appliances as part of
their Energy Star program.\84\ In addition, since annual fuel cost is
also on the label, consumers can easily use the information on the
label to calculate their own five-year fuel costs, if desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ For example see ``Savings Calculator'' at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=CW (last accessed 3/17/11). This
spreadsheet allows users to estimate the potential savings from
using Energy Star-qualified clothes washers instead of conventional
clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also considered using economic projections of future dollar
values and fuel costs to calculate the five year save or spend value,
but concluded that doing so would make the calculations unnecessarily
confusing to the consumer while providing limited additional value.
Many people in the public think in terms of simple calculations or
payback periods when considering long-term costs or savings. As EPA
learned from the focus groups, consumers are skeptical of any
calculations involving fuel costs, because the price of fuel fluctuates
greatly, and personal driving habits also vary. Adding additional
complexities to the calculation would probably further confuse
consumers and thus contribute to their skepticism. Our hope is that
consumers will recognize that this value is most useful for comparison
purposes, and not as an exact measure of actual fuel costs.
    EPA does not agree with comments suggesting that the five year save
or spend value should be based on a within class comparison, because
EPA's research demonstrated that most shoppers search for vehicles that
fall into more than one class. In addition, having multiple reference
vehicles--one for each class--would create unnecessary confusion for
the consumer. Therefore, the relative five year save or spend value
will be compared to one reference vehicle, as described above.
    EPA acknowledges that there is some potential for confusion created
by having both annual fuel costs and the relative five year save or
spend values on the label. It believes, however, that for many
consumers, the two figures may prove complementary: Consumers are able
both to see absolute cost on an annual basis and to learn how much they
will save or spend compared to the average vehicle over a relevant
period. To reduce the risk of confusion, the label will display the
five year save or spend value and the annual fuel cost in distinct
locations on the label, with

prominent differentiating text (see Figure I-1).

H. Range and Charge Time

1. Range
    Vehicle cruising range--the calculated distance that a vehicle can
travel given its fuel economy and fuel tank capacity--has not
historically been provided on the fuel economy label. However, in the
focus groups conducted for this rulemaking, it became clear that many
people were interested in this piece of information, but only for
advanced technology vehicles, with which there is little familiarity.
Accordingly, EPA proposed that vehicle range be included on the label
for vehicles that use electricity, proposed that it not be included on
labels for vehicles that operate on liquid fuels, and sought comment on
whether range should be included on labels for vehicles that operate on
non-petroleum fuels other than electricity.
    EPA did not receive a large number of comments on range. Of the
comments that were received, nearly all supported including range for
some or all alternative fuel vehicles. Several commenters supported the
inclusion of range for all alternative fuel vehicles, with the goal of
harmonizing with the Federal Trade Commission \85\ so that its separate
label would no longer be necessary. One commenter opposed the inclusion
of range on an already ``crowded'' label, but did state that if range
were included on EV and PHEV labels, then it should also be included on
CNG labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The Federal Trade Commission requires a label that displays
cruising range for all alternative fuel vehicles and vehicles
capable of utilizing alternative fuels. See 16 CFR part 309, Subpart
C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requiring the inclusion of range on all non-petroleum and
advanced technology vehicle labels, e.g., for CNG, EV, PHEV, and
hydrogen FCV vehicles. As supported by commenters, EPA continues to
believe that range is an important piece of information for potential
purchasers of these vehicles, since they typically cannot travel as far
on a refueling as can a conventional gasoline vehicle, and the
refueling infrastructure for non-liquid fuels is currently limited. EPA
also agrees with several commenters that including range on the new
fuel economy and environment label may set the stage for possible
future action by the Federal Trade Commission to withdraw its separate
cruising range label for alternative fuel vehicles. In response to some
commenters' concern about the ability to generate meaningful range
estimates for PHEV labels, EPA recognizes that the real-world
variability in PHEV range values, particularly in the all-electric or
battery assist mode, will be much higher than with conventional
vehicles. Nevertheless, a laboratory-based repeatable test gives a
basis for comparison, despite real-world variability, and the final
label requires an all electric range value for all PHEVs. EPA's market
research suggests that many consumers want an objective comparative
metric for range that they can use to determine whether an advanced
technology vehicle might be right for them.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2
Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also finalizing an option for vehicle manufacturers to
voluntarily include E85 range information on the labels for ethanol
flexible fuel vehicles. The potential benefit to a manufacturer is
that, should it take advantage of this option, the Federal Trade
Commission might decide that a separate driving range label is no
longer required. The final regulations provide templates that
illustrate how labels with this optional information should appear, and
any company choosing to provide driving range information must display
that information according to the regulations. EPA encourages
manufacturers to provide this optional E85 driving range information,
particularly in cases where refueling opportunities may be limited and/
or the driving range is substantially less than what consumers are used
to experiencing with typical conventional fuel vehicles.
2. Battery Charging Information
    Battery charging information was included on two of the three EV
and PHEV label designs in the proposed rule. As noted in the proposal,
EPA believes that the amount of time it takes to charge an EV or PHEV
battery is important to consumers. This was widely supported by the
focus groups, where participants often expressed a strong interest in
seeing battery charging information on the EV and PHEV labels. EPA
proposed that the label include battery charging time using a standard
wall outlet supplying 120 volts, with an option for the manufacturer to
alternatively specify a 240 volt charge time if the higher voltage is
recommended or required by the manufacturer.
    A majority of commenters on the subject, including automotive
manufacturers and consumer groups, supported including charge time
information on the label. Some of these commenters suggested that
charge time should be based on 240V, as this would be consistent with
the recommendation in the owner's manual and would reflect the manner
in which EVs and PHEVs are likely to be typically charged. Several
comments suggested that a range of charge times should be provided,
given the possible use of different voltage levels. A minority of
commenters, largely comprised of electric vehicle manufactures and
advocacy organizations, suggested that charging information should not
be on the label, largely because of concerns of oversimplification of
the range of possible charge times given charging conditions, as well
as label overcrowding. These commenters suggested that the charging
information could be provided on EPA's Web site instead.
    EPA is requiring charging time information on the label of EVs and
PHEVs, with one key difference from the proposal. The final regulations
require that manufacturers display charging time based on the use of a
dedicated 240 volt charging system, with the option of displaying
charging time based on the use of a standard 120 volt wall outlet. It
is our belief that the owners of these vehicles will, in a significant
majority of cases, install dedicated 240 volt outlets to use for
charging their vehicles.\87\ Doing so will dramatically decrease the
amount of time it takes to charge the battery, thus minimizing one of
the perceived limitations of vehicles that use electricity and
maximizing the utility and availability of the vehicle. However, to
address the possibility that not all EV/PHEV owners will install
dedicated 240 volt outlets, a manufacturer may instead report the 120
volt charging time on the label if, for example, their vehicle is not
capable of receiving 240 volts, or if the manufacturer believes that
their buyers will typically use 120 volt and will prefer that
information instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of
Transportation, California Air Resources Board Interim Joint
Technical Assessment Report: Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for
Model Years 2017-2025. Chapter 4. September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Web Site and QR Code

    EPA proposed and requested comment on adding a new, prominent URL
on the label that would direct consumers to a detailed, interactive
consumer Web site. EPA also proposed including a QR Code[supreg] that
could be scanned by a device such as a smartphone and reach the same
Web site.

    All those who commented on the topic supported the development of a
comprehensive Web site, indicating that it is crucial to achieving a
simpler label while also providing consumers with access to detailed
information. Commenters also liked the idea of having a Web site that
can more accurately reflect their likely personal experience with a
vehicle. The majority of comments received also supported the inclusion
of the QR Code[supreg] on the label. EPA evaluated other two-
dimensional bar codes suggested by commenters and found that the
advantages of the QR Code[supreg] significantly outweighed the
potential advantages of other options. The QR Code[supreg] is free to
use, in the public domain, does not require entering into a business
relationship with private industry, and perhaps most significantly, is
described in an ISO standard which is incorporated by reference in the
final regulations. The ISO standard allows the agencies to clearly and
completely describe in regulatory language the process for generating a
QR Code[supreg], a necessity of the structure of our program.
    EPA is moving forward with developing new Web site content on the
existing fueleconomy.gov site. New content will be available prior to
the date that labels are required to appear on vehicles (MY 2013), and
will further explain the label's content, metrics, and methodologies.
In addition to the label-specific information, consumers can use
fueleconomy.gov's tools to compare and personalize fuel economy and
environmental values across vehicles. New content on this Web site will
include an enhanced emissions calculator that will allow consumers to
determine an EV's or PHEV's potential upstream greenhouse gas
emissions, based on the vehicle's efficiency and regional electricity
emissions rates. This functionality will give consumers more accurate,
regional-specific upstream emissions information than is possible on a
static, national label. The Web calculator may also allow consumers to
estimate the upstream GHG emissions associated with the operation of
gasoline, diesel, and CNG vehicles using national averages.
    In order to address consumers' growing interest in having
information accessible via smartphones, EPA is including a QR
Code[supreg] on the new label.\88\ When a smartphone user scans the QR
Code[supreg] on the label, information on that particular vehicle from
the EPA Web site will be displayed on the handheld device. Though
several commenters suggested linking to the auto manufacturers'
vehicle-specific Web sites from the QR Code[supreg], EPA determined
that linking to a government Web site was the best way to provide
consumers with ``just the facts.'' The content will be similar to what
will be available on the label Web site, but geared to a smartphone
platform. The user can then take advantage of many of the Web site's
tools and vehicle comparisons from his/her phone while shopping at a
dealership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ QR (or ``quick response'') Codes are simply two-dimensional
bar codes used to store information. In this case the information is
a Web site URL. The term QR Code[supreg] is a registered trademark
of Denso Wave Incorporated, which owns the patent rights to the QR
Code. However, the patent right is not exercised, allowing the
specification of the QR Code[supreg] to be disclosed and open for
widespread use. For more information, see http://www.denso-wave.com/en/adcd/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Color

    All of the proposed labels utilized color to draw attention and
highlight information for consumers. However, each of the two proposed
label options used color in different ways. The color on Label 1 was
assigned based on the letter grade rating of the vehicle, using color
as a comparison tool, whereas the color on Label 2 was determined by
the vehicle technology and fuel type, using color as a vehicle
identifier.
    NHTSA and EPA received comments from a wide variety of
organizations supporting the use of color on the label. These
commenters noted that color draws attention and results in a more
influential label than black and white, and that the incremental cost
of achieving color would be worthwhile. These comments especially
supported using colors to differentiate important information for the
consumer, such as vehicle ratings or five-year fuel costs. On the other
hand, automobile manufacturers were concerned about the use of color on
the label, especially any label design that would require color
printing at the point of vehicle assembly or port of entry. In
addition, they expressed concern that colors in the labels might fade,
that they might be difficult to see through tinted windows, that the
increased complexity of these labels would lead to compliance concerns,
and that some colors might deter consumers from considering some
vehicles. The manufactures were specifically concerned with the
``warning'' connotation that the colors red, orange, and yellow convey.
    Currently, several manufacturers use color on their Monroney
labels; however, most of those manufactures utilize a standard,
preprinted color background (for example, a company logo in color) for
all vehicles and then print with black ink on top of the preprinted
background. The proposed labels would require either printing the
entire label in color, or managing several preprinted color backgrounds
and printing with black ink on top of the preprinted and collated
backgrounds. Either of these methods would increase the amount of lead
time required by manufacturers and would add cost and complexity to the
printing process. These concerns ultimately led the agencies to
simplify the color scheme on the final label.
    The final label will use one color, blue, for all vehicles to
highlight important aspects of the label. The agencies chose not to use
red as the primary color on the label due to the perceived ``warning''
message that it can convey. Conversely, we decided not to use green on
all of the labels because we did not want to imply that all vehicles
are green (i.e. clean) vehicles. The agencies were also advised that
the color blue does not fade to a different color (green for example,
can fade into yellow). The label has been designed to facilitate
printing with black ink on a preprinted background. In addition, the
color on the label satisfies the requirements of California to have
``at least one color ink * * * in addition to black.''\89\ As discussed
in Section III.L.2, this allows for harmonization of labels, which was
a key request the agencies received from the automakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ California Air Pollution Control Laws, Health and Safety
Code, Division 26, Part 5, Chapter 2, Section 43200.1 (b)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Lead Time

    The agencies proposed that the new label take effect for the 2012
model year, in anticipation of advanced technology vehicles entering
the market that would require labels which addressed their particular
attributes. For those advanced technology vehicles expected to enter
the market in model year 2011, EPA indicated that we would work with
individual manufacturers to develop interim labels that would be
consistent with the proposal on a case by case basis, using our current
authority. The proposed timing would also coincide with the recent
joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized Federal
GHG emissions and CAFE standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles,
minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.\90\ We
also proposed to provide 30 days of lead-time for automobile
manufacturers and importers to update the label template and upgrade
printing

capabilities in order to implement these new requirements in the 2012
model year. This timing, given rule finalization in December 2010, was
projected to capture the majority of the 2012 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automakers commented that they would need significantly more lead-
time to adopt a revised label, explaining that the implementation
process was much more complex than buying off-the shelf colors
printers. Specifically, these commenters referenced (1) a detailed
process of integrating multiple Information Technology systems in order
to properly assign the new label elements to the correct vehicle, (2)
redesign of the vehicle Monroney label if the footprint for the fuel
economy and environment label changed from that of the current fuel
economy label, and (3) the need to print new label stock or acquire and
integrate new printers in order to launch a new label. Automakers
typically expected that implementing these procedures would take on the
order of six to ten months, although comments suggested lead-times from
a low end of 19 weeks to a high end of the model year following the one
year anniversary of the final rule. Several automotive commenters
suggested making the new label requirements effective with the 2013
model year, assuming that sufficient lead-time was also allotted.
    Some commenters supported the proposal to implement the new label
at the start of a model year, noting that this would dovetail with the
changeover in manufacturing processes. Implementing the label at the
beginning of the model year would thus allow for a change in the
labeling procedure when the production line was idle, minimizing costs
and the chances of mislabeling. Doing so would also minimize public
confusion that could arise from two different label designs appearing
on two vehicles of the same model and model year. However, not all
those who commented on lead-time felt that a change at the start of a
model year was important, given their particular manufacturing
procedures, and requested the flexibility for voluntary early adoption,
which could prevent having duplicate systems in place.
    The detailed description of the required procedural steps persuaded
EPA and NHTSA that additional lead-time is necessary for automakers to
properly implement the revised label without undue burden and error.
NHTSA and EPA also agree that, for many manufacturers, switching at the
start of the model year would be the least burdensome and most logical
approach. Finally, the rulemaking is being completed several months
beyond when originally planned, which would capture only a portion of
the 2012 model year. An EPA analysis of the timeframe of vehicle
certifications over the past several years, using confidential
information submitted by automotive manufacturers, revealed that fewer
than 20% of the total labels for the model year are typically issued by
the end of May, 40% by the end of June, and 60-70% by mid-August. We do
not think it would enhance public understanding for a new label to be
required on less than half of the vehicle models in that model year.
    Thus, the agencies are requiring that the revised label be applied
to all model year 2013 and later vehicles. The rule will be effective
30 days after publication, and manufacturers may optionally adopt the
label for the remaining portion of the 2012 model year after that date.
This approach provides the manufacturers with the most flexibility and
several extra months of lead-time prior to the start of the 2013 model
year, while providing consistency across the entire 2013 model year to
minimize public confusion. We acknowledge that this lead-time, while
significantly longer than that proposed, is less than that requested by
certain commenters. However, the final label designs address many of
the considerations that manufacturers raised as necessitating
additional lead-time. Specifically, the minimum footprint of the
current fuel economy label has been retained, thus eliminating the need
for redesign of the Monroney label layout. In addition, the labels have
been designed to eliminate the need for color printers on the line and,
for the most part, to use a single pre-printed card stock, thus
removing the lead-time steps that would have been needed to integrate
either color printers or multiple card stocks in continuous use. We
therefore believe that it will be possible for manufacturers to make
the necessary changes in their labeling processes in the lead-time
allotted.

L. Harmonization With Other Labels

    As noted previously, Executive Order 13563, section 3, specifically
draws attention to the importance of avoiding redundant, inconsistent,
or overlapping requirements, and directs agencies to take steps to
reduce ``costs by simplifying and harmonizing rules.''
1. Federal Trade Commission
    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires that
alternative fuel vehicles display a label that reports the driving
range of the vehicle.\91\ The dedicated alternative fuel vehicle label
displays the estimated city and highway driving ranges on the
alternative fuel, and the label for dual fuel vehicles (e.g., flexible
fuel vehicles, or FFVs) displays the estimated city and highway driving
ranges on both fuels.\92\ Alternative fuels (especially non-petroleum
alternative fuels) may have lower energy densities, thus resulting in
potentially reduced driving ranges relative to conventional fuels, and
it is important for consumers to be able to understand this when
considering the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle. Among the
vehicles currently labeled by EPA, the FTC label applies to vehicles
that operate on electricity, ethanol, compressed natural gas, hydrogen,
or on combinations of these fuels and conventional gasoline or diesel
fuel (e.g., FFVs and PHEVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 16 CFR Part 309.
    \92\ Note that while EPA does not currently require any
comparative fuel information on FFV labels, EPA regulations have
allowed manufacturers to optionally include the ethanol MPG and
annual cost values since 2007. See 40 CFR 600.307-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not specifically propose to harmonize with the FTC
regulations such that a single label would satisfy the multiple and
sometimes overlapping EPA, DOT, and FTC requirements. However, EPA did
recognize in the proposal that there could be an opportunity for such
harmonization that would depend on whether or not the FTC ultimately
could conclude that the EPA/DOT label could satisfy their statutory
requirements.\93\ The relevant FTC statute specifically allows for the
information to appear on labels placed on vehicles as the result of
other Federal requirements.\94\ Labels that were proposed to include
range information and that are required to include this information
(e.g., EVs, PHEVs, hydrogen FCV, and CNG-fueled vehicles) may in fact
meet the FTC's statutory requirements, although the FTC will ultimately
need to make a formal decision as to whether vehicles with these labels
meet the FTC label requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 75 FR 58112 (Sept. 23, 2010).
    \94\ 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) states that the FTC labels ``shall be
simple and, where appropriate, consolidated with other labels
providing information to the consumer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies are requiring a label for ethanol flexible fuel
vehicles that is consistent with the principles of the current policy:
all label metrics are based on gasoline operation, a statement is
provided so that the consumer knows that the values are based on
gasoline

operation,\95\ and manufacturers may voluntarily include fuel economy
estimates on E85 (which would be based on miles per gallon of E85,
given that E85 is a liquid fuel). In addition, manufactures may
optionally include the driving range on gasoline and on E85. As with
the required range information on non-petroleum and advanced technology
vehicles, the FTC will need to make a formal decision as to whether
vehicles with these labels meet the FTC label requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The slightly revised statement is ``Values are based on
gasoline and do not reflect performance and ratings based on E85.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC has indicated that they will evaluate the labels in this
final rule and ultimately make a determination as to whether or not the
labels for alternative fuel vehicles that include range information are
sufficient to meet the FTC statutory requirements.
2. California Air Resources Board
    To provide vehicle emissions information to consumers, the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) has required new vehicles to have
a Smog Index label since the 1998 model year, and an Environmental
Performance Label (EPL), with both the Smog Index and a Global Warming
Index, for all vehicles produced since Jan 1, 2009.\96\ These labels,
which must be displayed in all new vehicles sold and registered in the
state of California,\97\ depict relative emissions of smog-forming
pollutants and, separately gases that contribute to global warming. In
the proposal, the agencies acknowledged that the EPL required similar
information to the proposed labels, but did not suggest harmonizing
with the EPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ State of California Air Resources Board, ``California
Environmental Performance Label Specifications for 2009 and
Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles.'' Adopted May 2, 2008.
    \97\ And those Clean Air Act Section 177 states that have chosen
to adopt the California Environmental Performance Label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, many auto manufacturers and their associations
commented about the desirability of a single, unified national label.
These comments stated that it would be a cost-saving measure, increase
clear space on the window, and reduce the potential for consumer
confusion that could occur with two different labels presenting vehicle
emissions information. Notably, the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) commented that it believed that two labels with environmental
information would be confusing and that its goal is to accept a
national fuel economy and environment label that would meet its
statutory obligations under the California Assembly Bill 1229 of
2005.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ California Air Pollution Control Laws, Health and Safety
Code, Division 26 Air Resources, Part 5 Vehicular Air Pollution
Control, Chapter 2 New Motor Vehicles, Sections 43200 and 43200.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the possibility of harmonization, the California Air
Resources Board commented specifically that it is obligated to address
upstream emissions of greenhouse gases, stating that, ``One suggested
solution, should EPA and NHTSA decide not to include upstream emissions
on the label nationally, would be to set aside a blank space for
automakers to include upstream emissions for California. This may be a
workable compromise that would allow us to adopt the National Label.''
\99\ ARB also commented that its statute requires that the label
include a statement that motor vehicles are a primary contributor to
global warming and smog, either in conjunction with any upstream
language or in the border of the label, and that ARB adopt either an
``index that provides quantitative information in a continuous, easy-to
read scale'' \100\ or an alternative graphical representation if input
from a public workshop indicates that it will be a more effective way
to convey the information. ARB also stated that its label must also
represent emissions relative to all new vehicles, and explained that
after a public workshop, ARB had adopted a one-to-ten scale for both
the smog and global warming indexes. Finally, according to their
comments, under ARB's controlling statute,\101\ the label must include
at least one ink color other than black.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7527.1.
    \100\ Id.
    \101\ California Air Pollution Control Laws, Health and Safety
Code, Division 26, Part 5, Chapter 2, Section 43200.1 (b)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to try to facilitate label harmonization to reduce OEM
costs associated with labeling and potential consumer confusion at the
possibility of two environment-related labels on new vehicles, NHTSA
and EPA are adopting label provisions that the agencies believe will
address California's requirements. Specifically, the label includes
both ``smog'' (``other emissions,'' as discussed above) and greenhouse
gas ratings relative to all new vehicles, using a one-to-ten format
that is consistent with ARB's historical approach. In response to ARB's
request to address upstream emissions, the label will include language
pointing the public to a Web site that will provide upstream emissions
values, including regional-specific values for electricity generation.
EVs will include the statement, ``Does not include emissions from
producing electricity.'' Vehicles fueled without grid electricity will
include the statement, ``Producing and distributing fuel also create
emissions; learn more at fueleconomy.gov.'' For PHEVs, the text ``&
electricity'' will be added after the word ``fuel.'' The label will
also address California's requirement for additional consumer language
by including this statement, ``Vehicle emissions are a significant
cause of climate change and smog.''
    The agencies have worked closely with ARB in developing a label
that will meet their needs. We believe that ARB will evaluate the
labels in this final rule with the intention of making a positive
determination that the labels can serve to meet their statutory
requirements as an alternative to the California Environmental
Performance Label.

M. Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test Procedures

1. Electric Vehicles
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that, for fuel economy and emissions
certification testing of electric vehicles, manufacturers continue to
use the Society of Automotive Engineers recommended practice SAE J1634,
Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, as
published in October 2002. EPA also proposed that the reissued SAE
J1634 may be referenced by the EPA after the reissued SAE J1634 is
published.
    Comments in regard to the continued use of the procedures in SAE
J1634 and EPA's continued involvement with SAE, ARB, and industry were
generally positive. Some commenters were concerned with the potential
length of test time required to follow SAE J1634, as EV range is
expected to increase throughout the industry. Other commenters were
concerned over the complexity associated with new test procedures and
recommended that EPA and NHTSA consider a flexible regulatory mechanism
to address any technical or procedural issues in the future.
    In the final rule EPA will continue to require the same procedures
as described in SAE J1634 as published in October 2002. The EPA will
review SAE J1634 after revision. Manufacturers may use alternate
methods of testing to the procedures described in SAE J1634 with prior
Administrator approval. In addition, EPA will no longer reference the
ARB document entitled ``California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for 2003 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and
2001

and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car,
Light Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes'' as currently
referenced in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n). This reference change is in
response to some commenters' concern over all electric vehicles not
necessarily meeting the ARB definition of a Zero-Emission Vehicle and
the inability to locate the exact document as referenced.
    EPA may add additional allowable test procedures in the future. As
electric vehicle testing experience develops, technical or procedural
changes may also be addressed in the future.
    Fuel economy and electric range estimates are measured during
``city'' and ``highway'' operation. Electric vehicles are tested to
fulfill several requirements including Corporate Average Fuel Economy,
fuel economy label values, and other compliance programs. Beginning in
the 2008 model year,\102\ all vehicles tested for fuel economy labeling
purposes had to use the new ``5-cycle'' fuel economy methodology which
either required testing all vehicles over five test cycles or applying
an equivalent 5-cycle correction, referred to as the derived MPG-based
approach, to 2-cycle testing. This 5-cycle method was meant to correct
test laboratory values to ``real world'' estimates. For alternative
fueled vehicles, including electric vehicles, manufacturers will
continue to have the option of fuel economy testing over all five test
cycles or applying a derived MPG-based approach to 2-cycle testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2-cycle testing includes the Federal test procedure (FTP) and
the highway fuel economy dynamometer procedure. The FTP, or ``city'',
and HFED, or ``highway'', procedures are used for calculating CAFE and
can be used to calculate appropriate fuel economy label values and
other compliance requirements.
    The 5-cycle testing methodology for electric vehicles is still
under development at the time of this final rule. This final rule will
address 2-cycle and the derived adjustments to the 2-cycle testing, for
electric vehicles. As 5-cycle testing methodology develops, EPA may
address alternate test procedures. EPA regulations allow test methods
alternate to the 2-cycle and derived 5-cycle to be used with
Administrator approval.
(a) FTP or ``City'' Test
    The proposed procedure for testing and measuring fuel economy and
vehicle driving range for electric vehicles was similar to the process
used by the average consumer to calculate the fuel economy of their
personal vehicle, using the distance the vehicle can operate until the
battery would be discharged to the point where it could no longer
provide sufficient propulsive energy. For range testing, the distance
used to calculate electrical consumption is defined as the point at
which an electric vehicle cannot maintain the speed tolerances as
expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-78. This distance would be measured and
divided by the total amount of electrical energy necessary to fully
recharge the battery. The resulting electrical consumption and range
would be the raw test values used in calculating CAFE city and
calculating fuel economy label city values.
    Several commenters voiced concern over the test procedures
associated with electric vehicles and the ongoing efforts in industry,
specifically in SAE taskgroup SAE J1634, to address electric vehicle
testing issues. SAE J1634 efforts include not only abbreviating the
repetitive nature of the currently referenced version of SAE J1634 but
also addressing the ``cold, fully charged start'' portion of EV testing
and how this portion affects the range and fuel consumption. EPA may
allow future SAE practices. Manufacturers may use test procedures other
than the procedures described with prior Administrator approval.
    The final stage of the electric vehicle FTP test procedure is the
measurement of the electrical energy used to operate the vehicle. The
end of test recharging procedure is intended to return the rechargeable
energy storage system (RESS) to the full charge equivalent of the pre-
test conditions. The recharging procedure must start within three hours
after completing the EV testing. The vehicle will remain on charge for
a minimum of 12 hours to a maximum of 36 hours. After reaching full
charge and the minimum soak time of 12 hours, the manufacturer may
physically disconnect the RESS from the grid. The alternating current
(AC) watt-hours must be recorded throughout the charge time. It is
important that the vehicle soak conditions must not be violated. The
measured AC watt-hours must include the efficiency of the charging
system. The measured AC watt hours are intended to reflect all
applicable electricity consumption including charger losses, battery
and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and soak, and the
electricity consumption during the drive cycles. The AC integrated amp-
hours are to be measured between the outlet and the Electric Vehicle
Service Equipment. If there is no EVSE, for example in 120V charging,
the amperage is to be measured between the outlet and the charger.
Manufacturers may use voltage stabilizing equipment with prior
Administrator approval.
    The raw electricity consumption rate is calculated by dividing the
above recharge AC watt-hours by the distance traveled before the end of
the test criteria is reached. For electric vehicles that are not low
powered, the end of test criteria is the point at which the vehicle can
no longer maintain the speed tolerances as expressed in 40 CFR 86.115-
78. Both the city consumption and city range procedures are as proposed
in the NPRM with the above additions.
(b) Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure or ``Highway'' Test
    The Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure or ``Highway'' Test
actually consists of 2 cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (HFEDS). Similar to the FTP test procedure, the ``highway''
test will require procedures as described in SAE J1634 as published
October 2002. The dynamometer procedures will be conducted pursuant to
40 CFR 600.111 with the exceptions that electric vehicles will run
consecutive cycles of the HFEDS until the end of test criteria is
reached. Subsequent HFEDS pairs may require up to 30 minutes of soak
time between HFEDS pairs due to facility limitations. Between cycle
pairs, the vehicle hood is to be closed and the cooling fans shut off.
Between starts, the RESS is not to be charged.
    Comments, specific to electric vehicle highway testing, included
concern over the ``cold'' highway test. Conventional vehicles have no
equivalent requirement to highway test from a ``cold start''. As with
the FTP or ``city'' test, alternate ``highway'' test method procedures
as described in SAE J1634 may be used with prior Administrator
approval. The Administrator may approve alternative methods or test
procedures to account for ``cold'' highway losses.
    Both the highway consumption and highway range procedures are as
proposed in the NPRM with the above additions. The recharging
procedures following the highway testing are as proposed in the NPRM
with the above additions from the recharging event following the
``city'' testing.
(c) Other EV Test Procedures
    Commenters expressed concern over possible testing and measurement
issues that may be of issue with emergent EV technologies. Due to the
unforeseeable nature of possible issues of yet-to-be-

developed EV technologies, the Agency requires a method of addressing
possible future concerns in a timely manner. To address the rapidly
evolving nature of some EV technologies, the Administrator may approve
additional EV test procedures including SAE J1634 published after this
notice.
(d) Charge Time
    Several commenters voiced concern over the need for a procedure for
measuring charge time. Charge time is meant to estimate the required
time needed to bring the EV from ``empty'' or minimum usable battery
energy to ``full'' or maximum usable battery energy. The ``empty'' or
minimum usable battery energy would be the battery state of charge at
the end of the range test. A vehicle that has completed the range and
consumption test would be considered ``empty'' until it was recharged,
provided no regenerative braking or other charging was allowed before
the actual recharge procedure.
    Defining the ``full'' or maximum usable battery energy state is
required for charge time measurement. The ``full'' charge is the energy
battery state of charge required to achieve the range as measured
during the range tests above. Since vehicles may have electrical
parasitic losses after the ``full'' charge is met, end of charge for
the purposes of charge time may be less than the recharge and soak time
associated with range and consumption testing. EPA may define charge
time procedures as experience allows.
2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(a) PHEV Test Procedure Rationale
    Test procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) are
required to quantify some operation unique to plug-in hybrids. The PHEV
test procedures in this rule use existing test cycles and test
procedures where applicable. PHEV operation can be generally classified
into two modes of operation, charge-depleting and charge-sustaining
operation. Charge-depleting operation can be described as vehicle
operation where the rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), commonly
batteries, is being depleted of its ``wall'' charge. Charge-sustaining
operation can best be described as conventional hybrid operation, where
the energy from consumption of fuel by the internal combustion engine
is directly or indirectly the source of charge or recharging of the
RESS.
    EPA has largely referenced SAE recommended practice SAE J1711,
Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel
Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles,
as published June 2010. EPA worked with stakeholders in developing SAE
J1711 including manufacturers, Department of Energy, and the California
Air Resources Board. EPA involvement in SAE J1711 was to help develop
testing procedures that could be used as ``building blocks'' from which
regulatory requirements could be determined.
    Several commenters requested EPA expand the SAE J1711 references
beyond just sections 3 and 4. EPA will reference additional sections
for SAE J1711 but will refrain from referencing SAE J1711 in total. EPA
has referenced SAE J1711 test procedures as required to fulfill
regulatory requirements. For conditions not specifically addressed in
this rule, where conflicts exist between SAE J1711 and 40 CFR Part 86,
Part 86 shall apply.
    As described above, charge-sustaining operation can best be
described as conventional hybrid operation. Commenters to the proposed
rule expressed concern in having different procedures for plug-in
hybrid charge-sustaining testing than for conventional hybrid electric
vehicles (HEV). The intent of the proposed rule was to test PHEVs in
charge-sustaining mode the same as equivalent HEVs. Major differences
in proposed PHEV charge-sustaining testing and HEV testing included
RESS state of charge tolerances and RESS state of charge correction.
This rule establishes the same exhaust test procedures for both HEVs
and PHEVs while in charge-sustaining operation. This includes
referencing Appendix C of SAE J1711 for net energy change correction.
Manufacturers intending to use net energy correction methods will need
prior Administrator approval. EPA may adopt state of charge (SOC)
tolerances and net energy change (NEC) correction methods as testing
experience develops.
    For the purposes of fuel economy label values, PHEVs may continue
to use the derived 5-cycle adjustment while in charge-depleting mode.
Commenters voiced concern and asked for clarification over the method
of applying the derived 5-cycle correction to charge-depleting label
values. As clarification, the derived 5-cycle adjustment will be
applied to the total city and total highway fuel economies, separately.
The total fuel economies in charge-depleting mode include all of the
fuels consumed, typically gas and electricity, as expressed in a miles
per gallon of gasoline equivalent unit. Applying the derived 5-cycle
correction to the gasoline and electricity consumption, in charge
depleting mode, separately could lead to a larger adjustment than other
single fueled vehicles since the 5-cycle correction is not linear with
respect to fuel economy.
    While in charge-sustaining mode, PHEV label value testing is
subject to the same test procedures as conventional hybrid electric
vehicles. This includes all the 5-cycle implications.
    PHEVs must meet all applicable emissions standards regardless of
RESS state of charge. Some commenters wanted EPA to average criteria
pollutants over multiple modes of operation based upon projected
fractions of driving in each respective mode. While this may be
acceptable for CO2 and fuel economy, averaging criteria
pollutants over all modes of operation is not consistent with current
emissions regulations. EPA will continue to consider the state of
charge of a RESS as an adjustable parameter for the sake of emissions
testing. EPA typically allows good engineering judgment in applying
worse case emission testing criteria. This worse case testing insures
all modes of vehicle operation are emissions compliant. It is the
manufacturer's responsibility to insure vehicles are emissions
compliant in all modes of operation. EPA may confirmatory test or
request the manufacturer to provide test data for any required test
cycle at any state of charge. For the purposes of emissions testing,
EPA will start with the general assumption that charge-sustaining
operation is worse case. Evaluation of fuel economy testing emissions
may be used to change worse case emissions assumptions, including the
assumption that worse case for emissions testing is charge-sustaining
operation.
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, along with several of its
members, expressed concern over the possibility of a ``double cold''
penalty while transitioning from charge-depleting to charge-sustaining
operation during FTP testing. The concern was that the ``cold penalty''
could be the result of two circumstances.
    One ``cold penalty'' could be shifting the cold engine start to the
hot restart portion of the FTP. Currently, for the FTP, the hot start
portion is weighted 57% and the cold start is weighted 43% of
calculating the final emissions result. By shifting the cold start or
multiple cold starts to the hot start phase, the Alliance argues that
PHEVs are potentially held to a higher standard than conventional
vehicles or conventional hybrids. EPA does not agree with this line of
reasoning. The cold and hot start phases of the FTP are not only engine
but also vehicle

conditions. By virtue of how PHEVs may operate, an engine cold start
could indeed be moved to the hot start portion of the FTP or to any
portion of any test cycle during mode transition. It is the
manufacturer's responsibility to ensure the vehicle can pass the FTP
emissions tests. One method manufacturers could employ would be to
monitor the RESS SOC and idle the engine in order to light off the
catalysts before any load is applied to the engine. A blended mode PHEV
could potentially cycle the engine so little that the exhaust system
could cool. Multiple cold starts, within one phase, and starts at
vehicle speed represent real world concerns. Furthermore, an engine
cold start in the hot start portion of the test would mean that the
cold start portion of the test had no emissions. Zero emissions in the
cold start phase would mitigate the cold start/hot start weighting of
the FTP results.
    The second ``cold penalty'' could be cold starting the engine at
the very end of the stabilized portion of the cold start phase and then
starting the engine again in the hot start phase with a nearly cold
engine. Commenters had the similar concerns that a ``double cold''
start would hold PHEVs to a higher standard than other vehicles.
Commenters argued that current conventional vehicle ``drive through''
their cold starts whereas a PHEV that starts late in the cold start
phase would be similar to a conventional or conventional hybrid vehicle
that was driven a very short distance and turned off, only to be
restarted soon afterward. These commenters believed PHEVs would only
undergo one cold start per trip, much like conventional vehicles, just
that the test procedure technicalities may force a ``double cold'' that
will likely not exist in the real world anymore than conventional
vehicle ``double cold'' starts. EPA agrees that PHEVs would normally
have only one cold start during typical continuous driving of 12 miles,
which the FTP represents. To remedy this concern of PHEVs being held to
driving cycle than results in more than the one typical cold start,
this rule will allow manufacturers to substitute the charge-sustaining
data for the second Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), or the
hot start test, for the second UDDS of charge-depleting ftp for
emissions other than CO2. Holding PHEVs to a ``double cold''
start may be increasing the stringency of the current emissions
standard just as requiring conventional vehicles to pass current
standards without an idle period or inserting a cold restart in the ftp
to represent driveway or valet maneuvers would increase the stringency
of the current emissions standard.
    (b) PHEV Test Procedure and Calculations
(1) Charge-Depleting Operation--FTP or ``City'' Test and HFET or
``Highway'' Test
    The EPA has incorporated by reference SAE J1711, as published in
June 2010, chapters 3 and 4 for definitions and test procedures, where
appropriate. For conditions not specifically addressed in this rule,
where conflicts exist between SAE J1711 and 40 CFR Part 86, Part 86
shall apply. In this rule, where SAE J1711 is referenced, the June 2010
revision is assumed to be the referenced version. Commenters were
concerned over an increased void rate of charge-depleting tests due to
the length of repetitive cycles needed to finish the charge-depleting
testing. To address this concern, this rule will adopt the speed
tolerance violation section, 3.6.2, in SAEJ1711. Additional speed
tolerance violations may be approved by the Administrator. The
Administrator may also approve deviations outside of currently allowed
ambient vehicle soak conditions to reduce the likelihood of voiding
extended testing.
    For the purposes of charge-depleting CO2 and fuel
economy testing, manufacturers may elect to report one measurement per
phase (one bag per UDDS). Exhaust emissions need not be reported or
measured in phases where the engine does not operate. Requiring exhaust
emissions sampling during test cycles where the engine does not operate
would increase void rate and possibly slow testing.
    End of test recharging procedure is intended to return the
rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) to a full charge equivalent
to pre test conditions. The recharge AC watt-hours must be recorded
throughout the charge time. The measured AC watt-hours are intended to
reflect all applicable electricity consumption including charger
losses, battery and vehicle conditioning during the recharge and soak,
and the electricity consumption during the drive cycles. To capture all
the losses, the AC amp-hours and voltage would be measured between the
``wall'' and the Electric Vehicle Service Equipment. Alternate recharge
measurements may be approved by the Administrator.
    Net Energy Change (NEC) tolerance is to be applied to the RESS to
confirm charge-sustaining operation. The EPA is adopting the 1% of fuel
energy NEC state of charge criteria as expressed in SAE J1711. The
Administrator may approve alternate NEC tolerances and or state of
charge correction factors.
    Preconditioning special procedures are optional for traditional
``warm'' test cycles that are now required to test starting at full
RESS charge due to charge-depleting range testing. If the vehicle is
equipped with a charge-sustaining switch, the preconditioning cycle may
be conducted per 600.111 provided that the RESS is not charged. Exhaust
emission measurements are not required in preconditioning drives.
Alternate vehicle warm up strategies may be approved by the
Administrator. This will allow a method for starting ``warm'' test
cycles with a fully charged battery.
(2) Hybrid Charge-Sustaining Operation--FTP or ``City'' Test and HFET
or ``Highway'' Test
    The EPA has incorporated by reference SAE J1711 Chapters 3 and 4
for definitions and test procedures, where appropriate. For conditions
not specifically addressed in this rule, where conflicts exist between
SAE J1711 and 40 CFR Part 86, Part 86 shall apply.
    Commenters expressed the need for aligning test procedures between
hybrids and PHEVs, while in charge-sustaining operation. The intent of
this rule is to test hybrid and plug-in hybrids, while in charge-
sustaining operation, in the same manner. This will in effect negate
the requirement in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(n) that manufacturers must use ARB
procedures in the document entitled California Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission
Vehicles and 2001 and Subsequent Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the
Passenger Car, Light Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes.
Therefore, this requirement will be deleted from the regulation.
    NECtolerance, is to be applied to the RESS to confirm charge-
sustaining operation. The EPA is adopting the 1% of fuel energy NEC
state of charge criteria as expressed in SAE J1711. The Administrator
may approve alternate NEC tolerances and or state of charge correction
factors.
(3) Charge-Depleting Range Determination
    Commenters were concerned that the charge-depleting range
determination as proposed was not specific enough and could be prone to
variation from ``false trigger'' electrical noise. To address commenter
concern and due to recent testing experience, this rule references
sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of SAE J1711

for Actual Charge-Depleting Range (RCDA) calculation.
    Calculation of RCDA using the referenced methods implies
that there is no charge-depleting range for vehicles that cannot
complete one test cycle in charge-depleting mode. This is consistent
throughout this rule. There is no requirement or need, by EPA, to
calculate charge-depleting ranges below one UDDS or one HFET for either
blended mode or all-electric capable PHEVs.
3. Other Test Cycles
    Several commenters voiced concern over applying SAE J1711 to test
cycles other than the FTP and HFED. PHEV and electric vehicle testing
over the SC03, US06, or Cold CO test cycles follow the same general
procedure as the FTP and HFED. Applying possible 5-cycle calculations
to produce charge-depleting fuel economy and CO2 emissions
is not required as the derived 5-cycle is allowed during charge-
depleting mode. Methods to apply the 5-cycle calculation to PHEV
charge-depleting testing require Administrator approval.
4. Test Tolerances
    Commenters supported the flexibility of allowing increased state of
charge tolerances and correction factors. As proposed, state of charge
tolerance correction factors may be approved by the Administrator. RESS
state of charge tolerances beyond the 1% of fuel energy as specified in
SAE J1711 may be approved by the Administrator.
5. Mileage and Service Accumulation
    Several commenters expressed concern over the minimum and maximum
allowable test vehicle accumulated mileage for both EVs and PHEVs.
Manufacturers claimed that, due to the nature of PHEV and EV operation,
testing may require many more vehicle miles than conventional vehicles.
Furthermore, electric motors may not receive the same benefit of
vehicle mileage to fuel consumption. This rule will allow manufacturers
to subtract non-engine operating miles from the vehicle mileage, with
prior Administrator approval. The EV maximum accumulated mileage may
also be extended with prior Administrator approval. The Administrator
may approve additional or alternate maximum mileage and fuel economy
correction.
6. Test Fuels
    As proposed, electric vehicles and PHEVs are to be recharged using
the supplied manufacturer method provided that the methods are
available to consumers. This method could include the electricity
service requirements such as service amperage, voltage, and phase.
Commenters were supportive of the allowance for manufacturers to employ
voltage regulators in order to reduce test to test variability with
prior Administrator approval. Therefore, this rule will allow voltage
regulators with prior Administrator approval, as proposed.
7. Charge Time
    Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and electric vehicles share many of
the same requirements and concerns. This rule will use the same general
charge time procedure for PHEVs as expressed above for electric
vehicles.

N. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background
    Current PHEV designs use two types of energy sources: (1) An
onboard battery, charged by plugging the vehicle into the electrical
grid, that powers an electric motor, as well as (2) a conventional
engine. Depending on how these vehicles are operated, they could, in
any particular mode of operation, use ``wall'' or grid electricity
exclusively, operate like a conventional hybrid, or operate in some
combination of these two modes. For those metrics where a single,
overall value is desired, a method is required to combine metrics from
multiple modes of operation into a single value. The agencies proposed
to use a utility factor (UF) approach for calculating these overall
metrics. Most commenters agreed with the general approach of using UFs.
    The new labels require overall metrics for 5-year fuel savings,
annual fuel cost, CO2 emissions, and the fuel economy and
greenhouse gas rating. EPA has chosen to use the UF approach to
calculate the overall values for these metrics.
    EPA has worked closely with stakeholders including vehicle
manufacturers, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the State of
California, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others to develop an
approach for calculating and applying UFs. UFs were developed using
data from the 2001 Department of Transportation ``National Household
Travel Survey.'' A detailed method of UF development can be found in
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2841 ``Utility Factor
Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Using Travel Survey
Data,'' as published in September 2010. Where SAEJ2841 is referenced in
this rule, the 2010 revision is assumed to be the referenced version.
SAE documents can be obtained at http://www.SAE.org. By using a UF, it
is possible to determine a weighted average of the multiple modes. For
example, a vehicle that had a charge-depleting range that corresponded
to a UF of 0.8 would indicate that an all-electric capable PHEV
operates in an all electric mode 80% of the time and operates in hybrid
mode using an engine the other 20% of the time. In this example, the
weighted average fuel economy value and cost would be influenced more
by the electricity use than the engine operation.
    For the purposes of PHEVs, UF development makes several
assumptions. Assumptions include: The first mode of operation is always
electric assist or all electric drive, vehicles will be charged once
per day, and future PHEV drivers will follow drive patterns exhibited
by the drivers in the surveys used in SAE J2841. EPA acknowledges that
current understanding of the above assumptions and the data upon which
UFs were developed may change. Some commenters believed that these
assumptions may change quickly; therefore, EPA may change the
application of UFs in the light of new data.
2. General Application of Utility Factors
    Utility factors can be applied cycle-specific (urban/highway) and
with respect to fleet miles or to an individual's expected driving
behavior.
    Cycle-specific UFs portray the different driving behaviors of
highway versus urban driving. This is to say that typical highway
driving is generally at greater speeds and for greater distances than
urban driving.
    Fleet UFs weight driving behavior based upon miles traveled over a
fleet of vehicles. The data used to develop fleet UFs are distance
weighted. Distance weighting allows for a truer reflection in
CO2 inventories and corporate average fuel economies than an
individual UF.
    The data used in developing individual UFs equally weight driver
behavior data regardless of distance travelled over several days.
Individual UFs would be used to project an ``average consumer's'' fuel
economy or vehicle CO2 emissions, whereas the fleet UF would
project the fuel economy or vehicle CO2 emissions of the
average mile travelled. In summary, fleet utility UFs are better for
estimating fleet fuel economy and CO2 inventories, and
individual UFs are better for estimating an individual's expectation of
fuel economy.

    Since cycle-specific fleet UFs best predict fleet CO2
emission inventories, cycle-specific fleet UFs will be used in
calculating PHEV CO2 emissions for compliance and non-dual
fueled PHEVs CAFE calculations. CAFE dual fueled calculations and
definitions are described in Title 49 United States Code, chapter 329.
In chapter 329, a dual fueled vehicle fuel economy is the 50/50
harmonic average of the fuel economy from each mode of operation.
    Since individual UFs best predict an individual's experience,
individual UFs, specifically multi-day individual UFs, will be used in
calculating the combined MPGe label value reflected in the fuel economy
and greenhouse gas rating on the label. Some commenters preferred the
use of cycle-specific individual multi-day UFs for this purpose.
However, EPA could not mathematically justify applying the multi-day
data to both the cycle-specific approach and the 55/45 city/highway
average used in calculating combined label MPGe values; individual UFs
do not lend themselves to the 55/45 city/highway split. In addition,
the multi-day individual utility factors (MDIUFs) are listed in
SAEJ2841, whereas only a calculation method for the cycle-specific
MDIUF is listed in SAEJ2841. The fact that only combined MPGe values
will be reflected on the label also limits the differences between
MDIUFs and cycle-specific MDIUFs. This assessment was shared by some
commenters. Therefore, MDIUFs will be used for all FE label
applications that require the use of UFs.
3. Using Cycle-Specific Utility Factors
    Commenters requested that UFs and examples of their use be in the
final rule. This rule contains the calculated UFs for each application.
As proposed, cycle distance is used in calculating UFs rather than
distance driven. In the case of derived 5-cycle adjusted values, UFs
are adjusted appropriately to reflect the increased fuel consumption
and decreased charge-depleting range. Detailed calculation examples and
work sheets for each required value may follow this rule in guidance.
4. Low-Powered Vehicles
    Since PHEVs shall use UFs assigned by test cycle length, a
provision is needed for low-powered vehicles that cannot drive the
entire test cycle distance. Using assigned UFs for low powered vehicles
could over-estimate UFs. Due to the possible significant difference in
cycle versus driven distances, PHEVs using the low-powered vehicle
provision in 40 CFR 86.115-78(b)(4) shall use the provisions for low-
powered vehicles as written in this rule.

IV. Final Label Designs and Format

    This section addresses the agencies' final decisions on the fuel
economy and environment label designs, describing the relative
placement of the elements on the label and discussing how the agencies
have chosen to incorporate the decisions described in Section III. We
show designs for gasoline, diesel, and flexible-fuel vehicles and for
CNG, electric, plug-in electric hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles. We note
that, if vehicle technologies come onto the market that are not
addressed by any of these final labels, the agencies will use their
existing authority to develop labels as needed and, to the extent
possible, will make those labels consistent with those being finalized
today.
    All descriptions in this section are meant to reflect the label
designs as illustrated; if in question, please refer to the illustrated
labels for clarification. All label designs are specific as shown; that
is, labels in use on actual vehicles are to reflect the label elements,
colors, shape, size, wording, and graphics, as shown and without
change, unless otherwise noted. It is important to note that although
all of the label designs shown in this section make use of color, this
Federal Register notice is capable of only displaying gray-scale
versions. Full color versions can be viewed and/or downloaded from the
docket (search for docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865141 or docket
number NHTSA-2010-0087 at http://www.regulations.gov) or from the
agencies' Web sites where all information related to this action will
be posted (http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/regulations.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). To the extent possible this section will
describe the use of color on the labels, but interested parties should
view the color versions to understand the full effect of the label
designs. In addition, the labels published below may be smaller than
the minimum size required by the final regulations.

A. Label Size and Border

    Each label will have a minimum size requirement of 4.5 inches tall
by 7 inches wide, identical to the minimum size requirements for the
current fuel economy label. Labels will have a black border that is
consistent in relative size across all labels. This content includes,
in the upper border, elements that identify the label and the vehicle
type: from left to right, the acronyms ``EPA'' and ``DOT'', stacked as
shown; the label title, ``Fuel Economy and Environment'' and a
descriptor of the vehicle fuel type, using both an icon and specific
wording--e.g., a fuel pump icon and the words ``Gasoline Vehicle.''
This latter element--the vehicle fuel type icon and descriptor--will
have a blue rather than black background, to draw attention to this
variable element for the viewer.
    The lower border includes, starting at the left, the statement,
``Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving
conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle,'' thus
continuing a tradition of having a statement on the label informing the
buyer that the values on the label are not guaranteed, and reasons why
they might vary. This is followed by a statement about the mileage and
fuel price assumptions used to make the cost estimates on the label;
the fuel price assumptions will be specific to the fuel type(s) and to
the model year.\103\ The next sentence gives the mileage and 5-year
fuel cost for the average vehicle, which is important context for the
5-year savings or cost value shown in the right-hand corner of the
label. For those vehicles that are classified as dual-fuel vehicles for
the purposes of CAFE, the fact that they are dual-fuel will also be
stated in this portion of the label. The next sentence defines MPGe.
The final sentence states, ``Vehicle emissions are a significant source
of climate change and smog.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ As with the current fuel economy label, EPA will obtain
the projected prices for all fuels from the Energy Information
Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook prior to the start of the
model year, and will issue the values to be used on the label via
manufacturer guidance. Values on the sample labels in this document
are for illustrative purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beneath this text, the label border prominently displays
``fueleconomy.gov,'' the government Web site that consumers can visit
to obtain more information about the values on the label and to compare
those values among vehicles, and a brief statement describing the
function of the Web site, ``Calculate personalized estimates and
compare vehicles.'' This Web site name and statement takes the place of
and serves the same purpose as the former statement on the label, which
informed the public where they could obtain copies of the Fuel Economy
Guide to compare vehicles.\104\ The right end of the lower border
includes the vehicle-specific QR code for use with smartphones, which,
when scanned, will reach the same Web site. Finally,

the lower border includes the seals of the agencies involved in
providing this information to the public: EPA, DOT, and DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(D) requires that the label have ``a
statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in
making a comparison of fuel economy * * *'' This booklet is now made
available primarily through online access, where it can be used
directly or downloaded and printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Upper Box

    The upper box of the label contains the information the agencies
have determined have the most meaning to and importance for the public.
Key elements from the current label are grouped together on the left,
and new elements are primarily on the right.
    Specifically, the upper left position displays fuel economy \105\;
based on our consumer research, the agencies believe that this
statutorily required metric is the most sought after and used by the
public and, thus, have chosen to place it in the most prominent
position on the label. In a departure from the current fuel economy
label--which emphasizes separate city and highway fuel economy values--
this label emphasizes the combined city/highway value, in recognition
of the additional information on the label which is competing for both
physical and cognitive space. The label retains the city and highway
fuel economy values in smaller font near the larger combined value, to
provide continuity with the current label and in recognition of
consumer feedback that separate city and highway fuel economy values
may be useful if the consumer believes their driving is more weighted
toward one or the other. Text shows the range of fuel economy values of
the vehicle's comparable fuel economy class, in accordance with the
EPCA requirement, as well as the highest fuel economy value among all
vehicles.\106\ Labels for FFVs will include the clarifying statement,
``Values are based on gasoline and do not reflect performance and
ratings based on E85.'' The upper left corner also provides a new but
related metric, the fuel consumption value. We chose to situate fuel
consumption near fuel economy to emphasize the relationship between
these two values and help consumers begin to understand this new fuel
consumption metric. Those vehicles that are subject to the gas guzzler
tax \107\ will include the dollar value of that tax and the words ``gas
guzzler tax'' next to fuel consumption value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Fuel economy is displayed as MPG for liquid fuels and MPGe
for non-liquid fuels.
    \106\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
    \107\ 40 CFR 600.314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This portion of the label has a different format for vehicles that
have two modes of consuming energy, such as plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. For these vehicles, the energy use of the first (charge-
depleting) mode is conveyed separately from the energy use of the
second (charge-sustaining) mode. These values are coupled with the
likely cruising range of the first mode on a full charge, displayed on
the driving range bar just below these values. Each mode contains the
combined city/highway MPG or MPGe value, the fuel consumption value(s),
and a title describing the fuel type (e.g., ``Electricity,''
``Electricity + Gasoline,'' ``Gasoline Only'') and the appropriate fuel
type icons. We believe that this combination of information conveys in
the most succinct and accurate way both the energy use that the
consumer can expect, the fuels needed to achieve those values, and
comparative MPG and MPGe metrics. Finally, the time needed for a full
charge will be displayed near the MPGe for the first (charge-depleting)
mode, since charging is linked directly to the energy consumption in
the first mode.
    For those labels displaying driving range, the range bar graphics
will be placed directly below the fuel economy and fuel consumption
values. This placement was chosen because of the correlation between
range and energy use and in recognition of the significant public
interest in range for advanced technology vehicles. All PHEV labels
show an all electric range value. For those PHEVs with no blended
operation (i.e., electricity plus gasoline operation), the phrase all
electric range is on the driving range bar and the all electric range
numerical value is just below the appropriate point on the driving
range bar. For those PHEVs with blended operation, the phrase ``All
electric range = ---- miles'' is just below the driving range bar, and
the total range for electricity plus gasoline operation is shown on the
driving range bar. For vehicles that utilize electricity, charge time
is also placed in the left portion of the upper box.
    The right side of the upper box contains the five-year fuel cost
saving value, in a relatively large size, to introduce this new metric
in a way that will maximize the opportunity for it to be recognized and
used.

C. Lower Box

    The lower left portion of the label provides the annual fuel cost
estimate, which, like fuel economy, is contained on the current label
as required by EPCA.
    The lower right portion of the label contains the slider bars that
consumers can use to determine the relative fuel economy and
environmental ratings of a vehicle. The fuel economy and greenhouse gas
rating slider bar, discussed above in Section III.C., is placed on the
left.. This slider bar conveys the estimated fuel economy and tailpipe
greenhouse gas emissions of the vehicle relative to all new vehicles,
in accordance with the EISA requirement.\108\ The fuel economy and
greenhouse gas ratings are grouped on a single slider bar because they
are closely related to each other and the agencies believe that fewer
slider bars reduce the risk of confusion and information overload.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For most vehicles, including all gasoline vehicles, the fuel
economy and greenhouse gas ratings will be the same and will share a
single marker on the slider bar. Some non-gasoline vehicles may have
slightly different fuel economy and greenhouse gas ratings, and in
these cases two different markers will be used. Immediately below the
fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating will be text giving the grams
CO2 per mile tailpipe value for the vehicle, the lowest
tailpipe CO2 gram per mile value among all vehicles. EVs will also
include the statement, ``Does not include emissions from producing
electricity.'' Vehicles fueled without grid electricity will include
the statement, ``Producing and distributing fuel also create emissions;
learn more at fueleconomy.gov.'' For PHEVs, the text ``& electricity''
will be added after the word ``fuel.''. This statement was added in
response to comments that consumers may be interested in learning more
about vehicle upstream emissions impacts, and in order to facilitate
potential harmonization with the California Air Resources Board's
Environmental Performance Label.
    The right portion of the lower part of the label contains the
relative one-to-ten slider bar for tailpipe emissions of smog-forming
``other emissions'' pollutants.

D. Example Labels

    Note: Example labels do not represent real vehicles or the
numerical values to be included on any specific label.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY11.010

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

V. Additional Related EPA Actions

A. Comparable Class Categories

    EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy of
comparable vehicles of all manufacturers.\109\ EPA's comparable class
structure provides a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel

economy to that of other vehicles in its class.\110\ The definitions of
vehicle classes were last revised by EPA's 2006 labeling final rule.
That action required two specific changes to the vehicle class
structure. Separate new classes were added for sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) and minivans (these were previously included in the Special
Purpose Vehicle category), and the weight limit for Small Pickup Trucks
was increased from 4,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to
6,000 pounds GVWR. These were non-controversial changes that were
generally seen as a move to keep the class structure as current as
possible given the changing vehicle market. The resulting structure is
one that contains nine car categories, five truck categories, and a
``special purpose vehicle'' category. It should also be noted that the
EPA-defined vehicle classes are used only to provide consumer
information about fuel economy and serve no other regulatory purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
    \110\ 40 CFR 600.315-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the distinction currently made between small and
large pickup trucks, EPA proposed to divide the SUV class into small
and large SUVs. We do not believe that it is appropriate, for example,
to include a Toyota RAV4 in the same class as a Toyota Sequoia, or a
Ford Escape in the same class as a Ford Expedition. Starting with the
2013 model year the single SUV category currently described in the
regulations is replaced by the two following proposed categories:
     Small sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles with
a gross vehicle weight rating less than 6,000 pounds.
     Standard sport utility vehicles: Sport utility vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds up to 10,000 pounds.

Although the standard pickup truck class only goes up to 8,500 pounds
GVWR, SUVs between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds GVWR are defined as medium-
duty passenger vehicles, and they are subject to fuel economy labeling
starting with the 2011 model year.

    EPA received generally favorable comments regarding this proposed
change to the class structure and is finalizing these provisions as
proposed.

B. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

    EPA proposed a number of non-controversial amendments and
corrections to the existing regulations. These received essentially no
attention in the public comments. EPA is thus finalizing these
provisions essentially as proposed.
    First, we are making a number of corrections to the recently
required regulations for controlling automobile greenhouse gas
emissions.\111\ These changes include correcting typographical errors,
correcting some regulatory references, and adding some simple
clarifications. Some of these changes are made to regulatory sections
in 40 CFR Part 86, which does not include provisions related to
labeling. For convenience we have included the table below identifying
those changes made in 40 CFR Part 86. Similar corrections were also
made throughout sections in 40 CFR Part 600, but many of these sections
are integrated with the labeling calculations and provisions and less
amenable to calling out in a table. For example, errors in the 5-cycle
carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) calculations were corrected in
600.114, but at the same time, for labeling purposes, this section of
the regulations was revised to enable the calculation of 5-cycle
CO2 values. Similarly, a rounding error is corrected in
600.207 while that section is also revised to include requirements for
5-cycle CO2 calculations. The calculations in 40 CFR Part
600 have increased dramatically in complexity recently, and for that
reason manufacturers should carefully evaluate the equations and
calculations and ensure that they are using the appropriate and
corrected versions. In addition to calculating model type MPG values
for CAFE (two cycle) and labeling (five cycle), the same must now be
done for CREE (two cycle) and label CO2 (five cycle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.

    Table V-1--Table of Non-Substantive Amendments to 40 CFR Part 86
                         Greenhouse Gas Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulatory Reference        What was changed      Reason for change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 85:
    85.1902(b)(2)...........  Inserted the words    To clarify the
                               ``greenhouse gas''.   applicability of
                                                     the provisions of
                                                     the paragraph.
Part 86:
    86.165-12(d)(4).........  Inserted a sentence   This is a recognized
                               allowing the use of   and viable option
                               a constant velocity   for CO2 measurement
                               sampling system to    that was not
                               measure CO2.          included in the GHG
                                                     final rule.
    86.1818-12(b)(3)........  Inserted language     To ensure that
                               aligning the EPA      manufacturers are
                               definition of         treated identically
                               ``manufacturer''      by EPA and NHTSA
                               with the NHTSA        programs.
                               definition.
    86.1818-12(c)(1)........  Inserted the words    To clarify that CO2
                               ``full useful         fleet average
                               life'' in three       standards are full
                               locations.            useful life
                                                     standards.
    86.1818-12(d)...........  Changed ``600.113-    Reference was
                               08(g)(4)'' to         incorrect.
                               ``600.113-12(g)(4)'
                               '.
    86.1823-08(m)(2)(iii)     Inserted the          Resolves a problem
     and (m)(3).               parenthetical ``(or   where the existing
                               derived from)'' in    regulations require
                               three locations.      the use of
                                                     potentially
                                                     inappropriate DFs
                                                     (e.g., where an
                                                     additive NO2 DF
                                                     might be greater in
                                                     magnitude than the
                                                     N2O test result to
                                                     which it is
                                                     applied).
    86.1841-01(a)(3)........  Inserted the words    To clarify that CO2
                               ``full useful         certification
                               life''.               standards are full
                                                     useful life
                                                     standards.
    86.1848-10(c)(9)(i).....  Changed reference     Reference was
                               ``86.1865-12(k)(7)'   incorrect.
                               ' to ``86.1865-
                               12(k)(8)''.
    86.1865-12(a)(1) and (d)  Changed ``86.1801-    Reference was
                               12(j)'' to            incomplete.
                               ``86.1801-12(j) or
                               (k)''.
    86.1865-12(k)(7)(i).....  Changed ``(k)(4)''    Reference was
                               to ``(k)(4) and       incomplete.
                               (k)(5)''.
    86.1865-12(k)(8)(iii)...  Changed references    Reference was
                               to paragraph (k)(7)   incorrect.
                               to refer to
                               paragraph (k)(8).

    86.1867-12(a)(1)(iii)(A)  Removed and reserved  Requirement to use
                               the contents of       actual sales is not
                               this paragraph.       required under
                                                     Pathway 1, and in
                                                     all other cases the
                                                     manufacturer should
                                                     track vehicles
                                                     produced and
                                                     delivered for sale.
    86.1867-12(a)(3)(iv)(A).  Inserted the words    Statement should
                               ``California and''    refer to California
                               before the text       and the section 177
                               ``the section 177     states, not just
                               states''.             the section 177
                                                     states.
    86.1867-12(a)(3)(iv)(F).  Deleted the sentence  Statement was not
                               ``Section 600.510-    valid and
                               12(j)(3) of this      referenced a non-
                               chapter shall not     existent paragraph.
                               apply.''.
    86.1867-12(a)(3)(vi)....  In the definition     Reference was
                               for CO2 Credit        incorrect.
                               Threshold changed
                               the reference to
                               ``(a)(3)(vi)'' to
                               ``(a)(3)(iv)''.
                              In the definition of  Reference was
                               Manufacturers Sales   incorrect.
                               Weighted Fleet
                               Average CO2
                               Emissions changed
                               the reference to
                               ``(a)(3)(vii)'' to
                               ``(a)(3)(v)''.
                              Inserted the words    Statement should
                               ``California and''    refer to California
                               before the text       and the section 177
                               ``the section 177     states, not just
                               states * * *''.       the section 177
                                                     states.
    86.1867-12(a)(4)........  Inserted the words    Statement should
                               ``California and''    refer to California
                               before the text       and the section 177
                               ``the section 177     states, not just
                               states * * *''.       the section 177
                                                     states.
    86.1867-12(b)(2)........  Struck existing text  Corrected an error
                               in paragraph (b)(2)   where the GHG final
                               and replaced with     rule inadvertently
                               new text.             finalized incorrect
                                                     language that was
                                                     inconsistent with
                                                     the proposal and
                                                     the intent stated
                                                     in the preamble to
                                                     the final rule.
    86.1867-12(d)(1)........  Changed               Misspelled word.
                               ``Administratory''
                               to
                               ``Administrator''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are correcting an oversight from the 2006 labeling rule
regarding the applicability of testing requirements to independent
commercial importers (ICIs). Currently several vehicle categories
(dedicated alternative fuel, dual fuel while operating on alternative
fuel, and MDPVs) are exempted from having to perform full 5-cycle fuel
economy testing.\112\ These categories are allowed to use the ``derived
5-cycle'' method, whereas other vehicles must use data from all five
test cycles at certification to perform an evaluation that determines
whether the test group can use the derived 5-cycle method or whether
they must complete full 5-cycle testing. The reason for exempting these
vehicles is that the evaluation required at emissions certification
requires the use of all 5 cycles as run for emissions certification,
but these categories are not subject to the SFTP requirements, and thus
such vehicles do not perform two of the five test procedures (the US06
high speed/acceleration test and the SC03 air conditioning test). Thus
when EPA required the 2006 label rule we recognized that these
categories would not have the data required to perform the 5-cycle fuel
economy evaluation, and we decided to exempt them from 5-cycle fuel
economy testing. However, this same exemption should have been applied
to ICIs. Like the vehicle categories noted above, vehicles imported by
ICIs are not required to perform the SFTP emission tests and thus also
will not have the necessary data to perform the 5-cycle fuel economy
evaluation. Therefore, we are extending the allowance to use the
derived 5-cycle method to ICIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See 40 CFR 600.115-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, we are clarifying the altitude applicability of evaporative
emission standards. This clarification is needed in part because of an
error that was made in the rulemaking requiring greenhouse gas emission
standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks, and in part because the
original language was found to lack sufficient clarity. Revisions to
the regulations in 86.1810-09 to accommodate greenhouse gas provisions
unintentionally eliminated a phrase regarding the high altitude
applicability of the ``Tier 2'' evaporative emission standards.\113\
The omission of this phrase was pointed out by auto manufacturers after
the greenhouse gas rulemaking was finalized. Upon further review of the
issue, EPA concluded that simply re-inserting the omitted language did
not sufficiently improve clarity, since the original structure of the
regulatory language as required in the 2007 rulemaking was unclear as
well.\114\ Simply stated, the intent of the language finalized in the
2007 rulemaking (before clarity was further confounded by the 2010
greenhouse gas rulemaking) was to state that the evaporative standards
in 86.2011-09(e) apply at low altitude only, and the ``Tier 2''
standards in 86.2011-04(e) continue to apply at high altitude for the
2009 and later model years. Unfortunately, because of the construction
of the regulations and the way the model year applicability of section
references work (see 40 CFR 600.004-77), it is unclear whether the
reference in the deleted statement to 86.1811-04(e) is static or
dynamic. In most cases, when a section has been superseded (as is the
case for 86.1811-04) we expect that the more recent section (i.e.,
86.1811-09) is the one that should be used. However, in this case the
intent was that the reference remain static, referring not to the
evaporative emission standards that took effect in the 2009 model year,
but to the standards that took effect in the 2004 model year. Basically
the 2004 ``Tier 2'' standards were promulgated as ``all-altitude''
standards, but were superseded at low altitude by the 2009 standards,
thus leaving the 2004 standards in place at high altitude. We believe
we have appropriately clarified the regulations to reflect the original
intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ The phrase, which reads``Tier 2 evaporative emission
standards apply at high altitude conditions as specified in Sec.
86.1810-01(f) and (j), and Sec.  86.1811-04(e).'', can be found in
the originally promulgated regulations at 72 FR 8562 (February 26,
2007). The language as modified by the light-duty greenhouse gas
rulemaking can be found at 75 FR 25686 (May 7, 2010) and in the Code
of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 86.1810-09(f).
    \114\ 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, we are taking steps to further clarify the regulatory
language. This involves removing several sections that apply only for
model years before 2008 and moving or combining several of the
remaining sections to provide a clearer organization. We are also being
more careful with regulatory references pointing to other sections
within 40 CFR Part 600 and to sections in 40 CFR Part 86. This largely
addresses the concern that regulatory sections numbered for

certain model years can cause references to be incorrect or misleading
over time. We are relying on the rounding convention as specified for
engine testing in 40 CFR Part 1065. Similarly, we are relying on the
hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 1068. These changes allow
us to centralize provisions that have general applicability to support
our effort to have a consistent approach across programs. The
regulations also include a streamlined set of references to outside
standards (such as SAE standards). We are also including the most
recent updates for the ASTM standards we reference in 40 CFR Part 600.
We are not intending to make any substantive changes to the regulatory
provisions affected by these administrative changes and are not
reopening the prior rules for any of those provisions.

VI. Impacts of Label Requirements

    Vehicle manufacturers have been required to provide fuel economy
labels on vehicles since 1977. The costs and benefits of label
revisions would be those associated with changes to the current label,
not the costs and benefits associated with production of the label
itself. The change in cost from this proposed rule comes in the
physical revisions to the label itself and the possible efficiencies
achieved by meeting EPCA and EISA labeling requirements in one label,
as well as proposed modified vehicle testing procedures. The benefits
of the rule come from providing labels for mass-market advanced
technology vehicles for the first time and from any improvements in the
effectiveness of labels for conventional vehicles in providing accurate
and useful consumer information on fuel consumption and environmental
performance.

A. Costs Associated With This Rule

1. Testing Costs
    Testing requirements for vehicles are not new. Advanced technology
and alternative fuel vehicles have been required to undergo testing
requirements in the past. For advanced technology vehicles, though, the
test procedures have not previously been standardized; they have been
handled on a case-by-case basis. Because the agencies expect more
advanced technology vehicles to come to market, this rule codifies
testing procedures, as discussed in sections III.M. and III.N. of this
preamble. The testing costs described here therefore are not completely
new costs for manufacturers, since they would have to test the vehicles
even in the absence of this rule, but the procedures have not
previously been established. The cost estimates are included here
because they have previously not been presented. The agencies received
no comments on the cost estimates for the vehicle testing to support
the label program.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the analysis of the projected costs of
this rule follows conceptually the approach in the 2006 (``five-
cycle'') fuel economy labeling rule. Increased on-going operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs and labor hours result from increases in
testing costs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs)
specified in this rule. We also allow for the costs of increased
facility capacity to accommodate the increased testing time involved
for these two categories of vehicles. Startup costs are treated as
capital costs and are amortized over ten years at 3% and 7% interest.
Startup costs for this rule include testing equipment for those
manufacturers subject to new testing. As an aid to the analysis and to
help articulate the range of uncertainty, we include both low and high
cost estimates for each of these cost and labor hour elements. The cost
estimates, excluding potential cost savings from harmonization of label
requirements with California and the Federal Trade Commission, are $0.7
million per year for the low estimate and $5.5 million per year for the
high estimate. For details of this analysis, see the ``Final Supporting
Statement for Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of
Motor Vehicles'', in the docket.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. ``Final Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor
Vehicles (Final Rule), EPA ICR 2392.02.'' Compliance and Innovative
Strategies Division, Transportation and Climate Change Division, and
Assessment and Standards Division, April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles
    To date, EPA has performed some fuel economy testing connected with
certification applications for electric vehicles using the procedures
developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), specifically
SAE J1634, as published October 2002. The proposal spelled out EV
testing requirements that are similar to SAE J1634. This rule finalizes
the test procedures.
    In estimating the costs of this action, there is no clear baseline
cost that manufacturers of EVs would have incurred in satisfying
Federal requirements, because fuel economy measurements were either
optional \116\ or not specific as to method (except to satisfy FTC
requirements). For purposes of the analysis, we assume these EV costs
are entirely new costs rather than increments to pre-existing costs.
Here and in the facility costs section, this also means we assume no
carry-over applications for EVs. Both these assumptions are more likely
to lead to an overstatement of costs than an understatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Although fuel economy labels are statutorily required for
all vehicles, the regulations have, prior to model year 2012,
included a de minimus exemption for very small numbers of EVs
(except those built by large manufacturers). See 40 CFR 600.001-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM described the use of SAE J1634 as the basis for the costs
of testing procedures for EVs, based on range testing requirements of
the Federal Trade Commission for ``alternative fueled vehicles.''
Preparation costs were estimated to be $3,163 and 30 hours per vehicle,
per Information Collection Request (ICR) 0783.54 (OMB 2060-0104), the
certification ICR for conventional vehicles. The low and high EV test
distances for Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET) tests are estimated as 50 to 250 miles. For purposes of
this estimate, the cost of an FTP/HFET pair is $1,860, allocated 70% to
the FTP and 30% to the HFET and incremented either by 50 or 250 divided
by 7.45 (the distance of a normal FTP), or by 50 or 250 divided by 10.3
(the distance of the normal HFET). These increases are applied to an
estimated five to eight EV families in the years through MY2013. Labor
hours, estimated at 30 hours per FTP/HFET pair, are allocated and
incremented in a similar manner. The bottom line is a cost between
$75,300 and $486,784 and 1,073 to 7,625 hours, per year for the EV
industry. With the cost of labor estimated to be $61.49 per hour, labor
costs would add between $65,988 and $468,871 in annual costs. No
comments were received on these estimates.
(b) Testing Requirements for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
    As explained in Section III.M., the proposed EPA test procedure for
PHEVs is an extension of the existing test procedure for hybrid
vehicles. Off-cycle tests are already required for test groups that do
not meet the ``litmus test;'' others would use the derived five-cycle