The EPA is seeking comment on modifying the minimum and maximum
allowable test vehicle accumulated mileage for both EVs and PHEVs. Due
to the nature of PHEV and EV operation, testing may require many more
vehicle miles than conventional vehicles. Furthermore, EVs and PHEVs
either do not have engines or may use the engine for only a fraction of
the miles driven.
f. Test Fuels
    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.
Manufacturers may employ the use of voltage regulators in order to
reduce test to test variability with prior Administrator approval.

B. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background
    Utility Factors are a method of combining CO2 emissions,
fuel consumption, or other metrics from multiple modes of operation
into one value. The extent to which utility factors are used on a fuel
economy label is completely dependent upon label format. That is to
say, some PHEV label formats may not require utility factors at all or
possibly only for CO2. This discussion on utility factor is
required to understand the different PHEV label formats within this
proposal.
    As discussed previously, PHEVs can use two types of energy sources:
(1) An onboard battery charged by plugging the vehicle into the
electrical grid possibly via a conventional wall outlet to power an
electric motor, as well as (2) a gas or diesel-powered engine to propel
the vehicle or power a generator used to provide electricity to the
electric motor. Depending on how these vehicles are operated, they can
use electricity exclusively, never use electricity and operate like a
conventional hybrid, or operate in some combination of these two modes.
This can make it difficult to estimate fuel economy, fuel consumption,
annual cost, or CO2 emissions from these vehicles.
    The 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 estimating fuel economy, fuel consumption, cost,
CO2 emission, or any other metric for vehicles that can
operate using more than one energy source. EPA believes the appropriate
method for combining the operation of vehicles that can operate with
more than one fuel would be a weighted average of the appropriate
metric for the two modes of operation. A methodology developed by SAE
and DOE to predict the fractions of total distance driven in each mode
of operation (electricity and gas) uses a term known as a utility
factor (UF). UF's 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''. At the time of this proposal,
SAEJ2841 was in the process of balloting prior to publishing. SAE
reference documents can be obtained at http://www.SAE.org. By using a
utility factor, it is possible to determine a weighted average of the
electric and gasoline modes. For example, a UF of 0.8 would indicate
that an all-electric capable PHEV operates in an all electric mode 80%
of the time and uses the engine the other 20% of the time. In this
example, the weighted average fuel economy value would be influenced
more by the electrical operation 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 that future PHEV
drivers will follow drive patterns exhibited by the drivers in the
surveys used in SAEJ2841. EPA acknowledges that current understanding
of the above assumptions and that the data upon which utility factors
were developed may change. Therefore, EPA may change the calculation of
future utility factors in light of new data in a future rulemaking.
2. General Application of Utility Factors
    While acknowledging the assumptions above, a UF could be assigned
to each successive test or phase of testing until the battery charge
was depleted to the point where the PHEV sole source of power was from
the gasoline or diesel engine. One minus the sum of all the utility
factors would then represent the fraction of driving performed in this
``gasoline or diesel mode.'' Carbon dioxide emissions could then be
expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.024

Where:

Ym is the Utility Factor averaged mass of carbon dioxide
for a specific drive cycle.
Yi are the CO2 mass emissions or
CO2 equivalent mass emissions for each phase or test
cycle. For electricity, a carbon dioxide equivalent may be used as
determined by the Administrator.
Ycs is the charge sustain carbon dioxide mass emissions
and for hybrids in the case of the FTP can be expressed as
Ycs= 0.43* Yc + 0.57* YH., where
Yc is the charge sustain cold start test and
YH is the charge sustain hot start mass emissions of
carbon dioxide.
UFi is the driving cycle and sequentially specific
utility factor.

    Likewise, the electrical consumption would be expressed by adding
the electricity consumption from each mode. Since there is no
electrical consumption in hybrid mode, or charge sustain mode, the
equation for electricity consumption would be as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.025

    Where Em is the utility factor averaged electricity
consumption, Ei is the electricity consumption
proportioned to each successive drive cycle, and UFi is
the driving cycle and sequentially specific utility factor.
3. Calculating Combined Values Using Cycle Specific Utility Factors
    Utility factors could be cycle specific not only due to different
battery ranges on different test cycles but also due to the fact that
``highway'' type driving may imply longer trips than urban driving.
This would lead to different utility factors for urban and highway
driving. The following section explains the EPA proposal of assigning a
utility factor to each successive phase or test cycle performed in
charge depleting or ``PHEV'' mode.
    Utility factors can be assigned to each mode of operation according
to the distance driven in each mode for a given powertrain combination.
Rather than calculating a unique UF for each cycle based on measured
distance driven, UF's will be assigned to each successive phase of
consecutive Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedules, and each successive
Highway Fuel Economy Driving schedule of consecutive HFEDs. Composite
city and composite highway CO2 emissions will first be
calculated using test results and UFs from the respective cycles. Final
combined values will then be an averaged 55% city and 45% highway
value. The proposed cycle specific utility factors for UDDS or ``city''
driving are provided in Table VI.B.2-1 and the proposed cycle specific
utility factors for HFEDS or ``highway'' driving are provided in Table
VI.B.2-2. The method used to develop cycle specific utility factors can
be found in SAEJ2841. EPA seeks comment on using utility factors other
than the fleet 55/45 city/highway specific utility factors for labeling
and compliance. Finally, example CO2 calculations are
provided below.

           Table VI.B.2-1--FTP Phase Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Urban driving, ``city''
                                 ---------------------------
              Phase                 Distance,    Cumulative    Seq. UF
                                       mi            UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1..............................          3.59        0.125        0.125
 2..............................          7.45        0.243        0.118
 3..............................         11.04        0.340        0.096
 4..............................         14.9         0.431        0.091
 5..............................         18.49        0.505        0.074
 6..............................         22.35        0.575        0.070
 7..............................         25.94        0.632        0.057
 8..............................         29.8         0.685        0.054
 9..............................         33.39        0.729        0.044
 10.............................         37.25        0.770        0.041
 11.............................         40.84        0.803        0.033
 12.............................         44.7         0.834        0.031
 13.............................         48.29        0.859        0.025
 14.............................         52.15        0.882        0.023
 15.............................         55.74        0.900        0.018
 16.............................         59.6         0.917        0.017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Table VI.B.2-2--HFED Cycle Specific Utility Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Highway driving
                                  --------------------------------------
              HFEDS                 Distance,    Cumulative
                                        mi           UF        Seq. UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................         10.3        0.125        0.125
2................................         20.6        0.252        0.127

3................................         30.9        0.378        0.126
4................................         41.2        0.500        0.121
5................................         51.5        0.610        0.111
6................................         61.8        0.707        0.097
7................................         72.1        0.787        0.080
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example CO2 Calculations
    A PHEV was tested with the following results. The example PHEV
operated over four consecutive UDDS to quantify charge depleting or
``PHEV'' mode and ran the required bag hybrid UDDS test to represent
charge sustaining or ``hybrid'' mode.

                                                 Table VI.B.2-3--Charge Depleting Example CO2 Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cycle                           Dc integrated  Proportioned W     Measured
                 UDDS                      Bag       miles     CO2 g/mi    CO2 g        amp hrs           hrs        distance, mi       UF       Whr/mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................          1       3.59       50.0      180.5               4          705.88            3.61      0.125      195.5
1.....................................          2       7.45       35.0      134.8             3.8          670.59            3.85      0.118      174.2
2.....................................          3      11.04       30.0      107.4             3.7          652.94            3.58      0.096      182.4
2.....................................          4       14.9       37.0      143.2             3.5          617.65            3.87      0.091      159.6
3.....................................          5      18.49       55.7      198.3               2          352.94            3.56      0.074       99.1
3.....................................          6      22.35      232.5      902.2               0            0               3.88       0.07        0.0
4.....................................          7      25.94      249.2      877.3               0            0               3.52      0.057        0.0
4.....................................          8       29.8      230.0      897.0               0            0               3.90      0.054        0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table VI.B.2-4--Charge Sustaining Example CO2 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Measured
              UDDS                      Bag         Cycle miles      CO2 g/mi          CO2 g       distance, mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................               1            3.59           251.4             910            3.62
1...............................               2            7.45           233.8             900            3.85
2...............................               3           11.04           251.4             890            3.54
2...............................               4           14.9            228.1             885            3.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the above data for the example PHEV to the General UF
formula in Equation VI.B.2-1 using Table VI.B.2-1 will yield the City
CO2 value. Ym=50 CO2 g/mi x 0.125 + 35
CO2 g/mi x 0.118 + 30g CO2 g/mi + 0.096 + 37g
CO2 g/mi x 0.091 + 55.7 CO2 g/mi x 0.074 + 232.5
CO2 g/mi + 0.070 + 249.2 CO2 g/mi x 0.057 + 230
CO2 g/mi x 0.054 + (1-(0.125 + 0.118 + 0.096 + 0.091 + 0.074
+ 0.070 + 0.057 + 0.054) x (Ycs). Where Ycs = 0.43 x (910 + 900)/(3.62
+ 3.85) + 0.57 x (890 + 885)/(3.54 + 3.88) = 241g CO2 g/mi.
The total CO2 g/mi, Ym, excluding any electricity
CO2 equivalence would then be 139 g/mi.
    To determine electricity consumption one would apply utility
factors in a similar fashion using equation VI.B.2-2 and Table VI.B.2-
1. Em= 195.5 W hr/mi x 0.125 + 174.2 W hr/mi x 0.118 + 182.4 W hr/mi +
0.096 + 159.6 W hr/mi x 0.091 + 99.1 W hr/mi x 0.074 = 84.4 W hr/mi
    The combined CO2 from engine operation and the
CO2 from the electrical consumption could be calculated by
summing the two values, given a CO2 equivalency for
electricity. For example, if the Watt hour CO2 equivalent
was 0.26g CO2 per Watt hour, the total CO2
emissions could then be expressed as the sum of the CO2 and
CO2-equivalent emissions from both modes of operation. From
the example above, the overall CO2 emissions would be 139
gCO2 per mile + (84.4 W hr/mi) 22gCO2equiv per
mile = 161g CO2 per mile.
    Utility factors can also be used to calculate a miles per gallon
equivalent measurement similar to the CO2 example above.
Additional assumptions are required, however, when applying utility
factors to a Corporate Average Fuel Economy and possibly a fuel economy
labeling miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent measure.
    Previously, when calculating PHEV CO2 emissions, the
CO2 emissions were part of a manufacturer fleet average. The
same is true of Corporate Average Fuel Economy. CAFE is a fleet
average. Except where explicitly noted for dual fueled vehicles, both
CAF[Eacute] and CO2 fleet calculations would use the cycle
specific fleet utility factors. For the purposes of a possible label
fuel economy, a fleet average is not the aim, but rather what the
average driver would likely experience or expect. For this reason, the
EPA is proposing the use of the cycle specific Multiday Individual
Utility Factors. The individual utility factors do not weight vehicle
miles traveled towards the longer trips like fleet utility factors. For
a detailed explanation on utility factor development see SAEJ2841.
    Similar to determining a total CO2 emissions value for
PHEVs, calculating a miles per gallon total for PHEVs will require an
electricity to gasoline conversion. This miles per gallon equivalent of
gasoline would be calculated differently for CAF[Eacute] and label. For
a FE label number, EPA would use a miles per gallon of gasoline
equivalent energy factor for electricity of

33,705 watt hours per gallon.\182\ This same gasoline equivalency would
be used for CAF[Eacute] calculation, if the PHEV did not meet the
minimum distance requirements of a dual fueled vehicle.\183\ In the
case of PHEVs with diesel engines, EPA proposes to similarly require
calculation of a miles per gallon equivalent for battery operation, but
specifying instead to rely on a conversion using the energy content of
diesel fuel. We propose to specify an energy content of 36,700 Watt
hours per gallon of diesel fuel. This is based on the approximately 9
percent higher energy density for diesel fuel relative to gasoline. We
request comment on this approach to calculating fuel economy values for
diesel-fueled hybrid electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ 65 FR 36990, June 12, 2000.
    \183\ 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) and 49 CFR 538.5 Minimum Driving Range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the PHEV met the dual fuel range minimums for electricity a
Petroleum Equivalency Factor would be used instead of the gasoline
equivalent energy factor. For a PHEV without fuel fired accessories,
the PEF would be 82,049 watt hours per gallon of gasoline. For details
on PEF and gasoline equivalent energy content see 10 CFR 474.3. Using
the procedure for calculating a dual fueled vehicle FE for CAF[Eacute]
the fuel economy of both modes of operation would be harmonically
averaged 50/50 and a utility factor would not be necessary.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 49 U.S.C. 32905(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Low Powered Vehicles
    Vehicles using the low powered vehicle provision in 40 CFR 86.115-
78(b)(4) shall use the actual distance driven in calculating cycle
specific utility factors. The coefficients used in determining UF shall
be as follows in table VI.B.2-5

    Table VI.B.2-5--City/Highway Specific Utility Factor Coefficients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     City         Hwy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm--dist......................................      399         399
C1..............................................       14.86        4.80
C2..............................................        2.97       13.00
C3..............................................      -84.05      -65.00
C4..............................................      153.70      120.00
C5..............................................      -43.59     -100.00
C6..............................................      -96.94       31.00
C7..............................................       14.47  ..........
C8..............................................       91.70  ..........
C9..............................................      -46.36  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.026

    Where ND is the normalized distance (399), j is the coefficient
index, k is the number of coefficients for city (9) and for highway
(6), C are the coefficients listed in Table VI.B.2-5, d is distance
driven in each cycle or phase, i is a counter representing each
cycle or phase, and n is the number of cycles or phases needed to
reach the end-of-test criterion.

    The calculated cycle specific utility factors for low powered
vehicles would be applied in the same manner as paragraph B.3, except
that the utility factors would be calculated based on measured distance
and not assigned based on phase or cycle distance.

C. Comparable Class Categories

    EPCA requires that the label include the range of fuel economy of
comparable vehicles of all manufacturers.\185\ EPA's comparable class
structure provides a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel economy to
that of other vehicles in its class.\186\ The definitions of vehicle
classes were last revised by EPA's 2006 labeling final rule. That
action finalized 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).
    \186\ 40 CFR 600.315-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing one modification to the class categories.
Consistent with the distinction currently made between small and large
pickup trucks, EPA is proposing 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. The single SUV category
currently described in the regulations would be 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 will be subject to fuel economy
labeling starting with the 2011 model year. EPA requests comment on
whether this is an appropriate way to distinguish the SUV classes.
    Although EPA received many comments on the 2006 rule regarding the
class structure, some of its inherent problems, and how people may or
may not shop within classes, there were no specific suggestions on how
to revise the structure to resolve the issues that were raised. We
believe that with the refinement to the SUV category we are proposing,
the comparable class structure would generally represent the physical
distinctions between vehicle types offered in the fleet today. However,
there may be other distinctions between vehicles not captured in these
categories, such as the luxury vehicle segment. The DOE/EPA Web site
(http://www.fueleconomy.gov) incorporates vehicle cost into the sedan
category, for example, dividing sedans into ``family,'' ``upscale,''
and ``luxury.'' EPA requests comment on incorporating such an approach
into the comparable class categories, and specifically, how it might be
done given the changing nature of vehicles and vehicle prices. We
welcome interested parties to

continue working with EPA in the future on how to ensure that the
comparable classes are kept current with the dynamic vehicle fleet. If
it becomes necessary in the future to further modify the comparable
class structure, EPA would do so through a rulemaking. EPA requests
general comments on the proposed modifications to comparable classes,
and also welcomes comments on other possible ways to classify vehicles
for comparison purposes. Comments should address how the
classifications will be useful for the consumer who is comparison
shopping.

D. Using Smartphone QR Codes[supreg] To Link to Fuel Economy
Information

    For all the label designs being considered, EPA is proposing that
manufacturers place a QR Code on the label that will link the web
browser of a properly configured smartphone to the mobile version of
the EPA/DOE fuel economy information Web site, or alternatively, to the
vehicle-specific information located on the EPA/DOE Web site.\187\
(Note that although the proposed Label 1 design incorporates a
different Web site URL, the intent would remain the same: to use the QR
Code to directly link the users smartphone to vehicle-specific
information while providing additional tools for making vehicle
comparisons, learning more about the vehicle, etc.) Many focus group
participants expressed excitement and interest in the prospects of
being able to access information in this way using their mobile
devices, and EPA believes it is a potentially useful and valuable tool
for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ The term QR Code 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 to be disclosed and open for widespread use. For more
information, see http://www.denso-wave.com/en/adcd/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QR Codes, like other two-dimensional bar codes, are simply used to
store information. QR Codes were originally developed for use in
tracking parts in vehicle manufacturing, and are now being used for
other purposes, such as storing a Web site URL into an encoded graphic
that can be scanned. These codes--the use of which is growing in
popularity in the U.S.--are two-dimensional black and white codes (like
a bar code) that eliminate the need to type a Web link into a mobile
phone (an action that can be cumbersome and that many mobile users
might prefer avoiding). Reading a QR Code requires that scanning
software be installed on the mobile phone. Many smartphone
manufacturers have begun to pre-install QR Code readers, but for those
that do not, the readers are very easy to download, and many are
available for free for nearly every type of mobile device. Once
equipped with the correct scanning application, consumers can point and
scan to instantly connect to information they actually want, versus
information pushed to them.
    For example, scanning the proposed code would link the phone's web
browser to the mobile version of the DOE/EPA Web site. At that point
the user could view additional information about the efficiency and
environmental impacts of the vehicle, with available options such as
creating customized estimates based on the user's personal driving
habits and distances. The user could also look up other vehicles and
compare those to the vehicle they are viewing.
    EPA is proposing that the manufacturer place one of two QR Codes on
the fuel economy label. These QR Codes would be determined based on an
international standard that would be incorporated by reference in the
regulations.\188\ The default option would be to insert the QR Code
that would take the user's web browser to the mobile version of the
DOE/EPA fuel economy information Web site. The QR Code for this site,
including the text that EPA proposes accompanies it, would look like
this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC
18004:2006, Information technology--automatic identification and
data capture techniques--QR Code 2005 bar code symbology
specification, August 31, 2006.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE10.027

    Alternatively and preferably, the manufacturer would use the QR
Code that represents the URL where information for the specific labeled
vehicle is available. However, this would depend upon resolving some
specific data issues. For example, the manufacturer would have to know
the vehicle-specific URL at the time the label is printed. This could
require that EPA issue more frequent updates to the web site throughout
the year, or that EPA assign a vehicle identification parameter early
in the process. It may be the case that even if the vehicle is not yet
included on the DOE/EPA Web site that a URL, and thus a QR Code, could
be easily assigned or determined. EPA is confident that we can work
with DOE to resolve any potential implementation issues prior to the
2012 model year.

E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the ``Monroney'' Sticker

    As noted in Section VIII, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act
(AIDA) requires the affixing of a retail price sticker to the
windshield or side window of new automobiles indicating the
Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of the vehicle and other required
vehicle information. AIDA is more commonly known as the Monroney Act
(Senator Mike Monroney was the chief sponsor of AIDA) or Price Sticker
Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. This sticker is commonly called the
``Monroney'' label. EPCA states that EPA ``may allow'' a manufacturer
to comply with the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel
economy information on the label required by AIDA, a practice that has
been used by most manufacturers. See 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2). In fact,
EPA regulations express a specific preference that manufacturers do
this, ``provided that the prominence and legibility of the fuel economy
label is maintained.'' See 40 CFR 600.306-08(c).
    In the third phase of focus groups we had participants consider the
placement of the fuel economy on the Monroney label, and whether
participants had a specific preference for where to locate the fuel
economy information. Although participants expressed a variety of
opinions, a slight preference emerged for displaying the fuel economy

information in the upper right portion of the Monroney label.
    The agencies recognize that EPCA does not require that the fuel
economy information be on the Monroney label, and that there are
instances when auto manufacturers may want to display the fuel economy
information separately (e.g., if window space is limited on a small
vehicle and/or the Monroney label size needs to be reduced). EPA does
not intend to preclude the option of placing the new label in any
appropriate and prominent location on the vehicle. However, the
agencies request comment on whether we should require that the fuel
economy information be placed in a specific location on the Monroney
label (such as the upper right corner, or on the right side) as a
condition of allowing the information to be included on that
label.\189\ Although consumer preference for a specific location on the
Monroney was vague, the agencies believe that consumers would be able
to locate the new label information on the vehicle more easily if it
appeared in a consistent location within the Monroney sticker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Based on 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2), EPA currently conditions
placement of the fuel economy label in the Monroney label on a
general requirement that the prominence and legibility of the label
be maintained. EPA is inviting comment on expanding the conditions
for placement in the Monroney label through addition of more
specific requirements related to the location of the fuel economy
label in the Monroney label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies also seek comment concerning the potential for the new
label information to create confusion about other information found on
the Monroney Label, in particular, the star safety ratings.
Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether consumers might
interpret the large letter grade on Label 1 as applying to other
aspects of the vehicle's performance (such as safety) besides fuel
economy and environmental impacts. To mitigate this concern, the
agencies have created a prominent black border and title indicating the
purpose of the information. Nevertheless the agencies seek comment on
whether additional measures should be required under 32908(b) and (g)
to address this potential confusion.
    The agencies also seek comment on whether the co-proposed labels,
in particular Label 1 with its use of color and large font for the
overall letter grade, might inadvertently distract consumers from the
black-and-white star safety ratings. As one way of addressing this
potential issue, NHTSA proposes to require under 49 CFR 575.301 that
the star safety ratings be located as close as physically possible to
the new fuel economy and environmental label to help ensure that the
star safety ratings do not get ``lost'' on the Monroney Label.
Similarly, the agencies seek comment on whether their regulations for
the new fuel economy and environmental label should require that it be
located as close as physically possible to the star safety ratings.
    Another way of addressing this potential issue is by re-visiting
the minimum size requirements for the safety rating label and the font
of information on it. In a final rule\190\ implementing the requirement
in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for placing safety rating
information on the Monroney vehicle price label, the agency interpreted
that Act's specification of a minimum size for the label as indicating
the agency did not have any discretion regarding minimum size, instead
of interpreting the specification as merely establishing a floor on the
discretion of the agency to specify a minimum size. In comments made in
response to a subsequent proposal\191\ to place an overall safety
rating on the safety rating label, the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety questioned that interpretation. In a recent meeting with Bosch,
representatives of that company also questioned that interpretation. In
light of the issues in this rulemaking and those questions, the agency
is re-examining that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 71 FR 53572, 53576, September 12, 2006.
    \191\ 75 FR 10740, March 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

    EPA is also proposing a number of non-controversial amendments and
corrections to the existing regulations.
    First, we are making a number of corrections to the recently
finalized regulations for controlling automobile greenhouse gas
emissions.\192\ These changes include correcting typographical errors,
correcting some regulatory references, and adding some simple
clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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 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 finalized the 2006 label rule we recognized that these categories
would not have the data required to perform the certification
evaluation, and we decided to exempt them from five cycle 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 won't have
the necessary data to perform the 5-cycle certification evaluation.
Therefore, we are proposing to extend the allowance to use the derived
5-cycle method to ICIs.
    Third, we are taking steps to further clean up 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 proposing to rely on the rounding convention as specified
for engine testing in 40 CFR part 1065. Similarly, we are proposing to
rely 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 proposed regulations also include a streamlined
set of references to outside standards (such as SAE standards). For the
final rule, we also intend to include the most recent updates for the
ASTM standards we reference in 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 rule for any of those
provisions. Nevertheless, we request comment on these changes and on
any further steps that would be

appropriate for maintaining clear and concise regulatory provisions.

VII. Projected Impacts of the Proposed 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, and any
revisions of currently provided information that consumers find useful
in informing their purchase decisions. 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

    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 EPA expects more advanced
technology vehicles to come to market, we propose to codify testing
procedures in a public process and are requesting comment on them. See
section VI of this preamble. The testing costs described here therefore
are not really new costs for manufacturers, since they would have to
test the vehicles even in the absence of this rule. The cost estimates
are provided here because they have previously not been presented, and
EPA seeks comment on the analysis of costs presented here.
    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 the costs of printing the labels and
increases in testing costs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in
hybrids (PHEVs). 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 7% interest. Startup costs for this
rule include some one-time graphic design work for each manufacturer
subject to the rule and updating information systems and 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 are $649,000 per year for the
low estimate, and $2.8 million per year for the high estimate. For
details of this analysis, see the ``Draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles
(Proposed Rule),'' in the docket.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. ``Draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request, Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor
Vehicles (Proposed Rule), EPA ICR 2392.01.'' Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division and Assessment and Standards
Division, July, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours
a. New Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
i. Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles
    As explained in Section VI of this Preamble, EPA currently has no
federal test procedure for measuring fuel economy for electric vehicles
(EVs). 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 cancelled in October 2002. This proposal
spells out EV testing requirements that are similar to SAE J1634, as
cancelled in October 2002, and allows continued use of that procedure.
    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 existing fuel economy measurements are
entirely specified in terms of exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions.
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.
    In 2004 the Federal Trade Commission promulgated a rule requiring
``alternative fueled vehicles'' to include a consumer label indicating
their estimated cruising ranges (69 FR 26926, April 9, 2004; 16 CFR
part 309, subpart C). The covered vehicles include EVs but not plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Estimated cruising range for an EV is
the range determined according to SAE J1634 (16 CFR 309.22(a)(2)).
Consequently, EV manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States
have already been subject to the same SAE J1634 testing requirements
allowed in this rulemaking for several years. However, for purposes of
the analysis below we treat the costs of compliance for manufacturers
subject to the proposed rule as new costs in order to insure that they
are fully considered in this rulemaking,
    The salient feature of SAE J1634 for cost purposes is that it
requires, similar to a conventional vehicle, the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP or City Test), preceded by vehicle preparation; this is followed
by the Highway Test (HFET). The off-cycle tests (USO6, SCO3, cold FTP)
are optional under EPA's proposal. Furthermore, cruising range
determination requires that the FTP be repeated until the battery
system is no longer able to maintain the FTP speed tolerances; the FTP
in question is the full four-phase FTP, repeated as cold and hot start
``UDDS'' or ``LA-4'' cycles until that point is reached.
    Preparation costs are 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. Preparation
includes several coast downs, a UDDS, and a soak period. The low and
high EV test distances for FTP and 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.

ii. Testing Requirements for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
    As explained in Section VI, 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
adjustment. Hybrid vehicles already do FTP and HFET tests for fuel
economy determination. The new FTP procedure would essentially run
repeated FTPs until the charge is depleted. This is the ``charge-
depleting'' operation, when the vehicle is mainly running on its
battery. The battery would then be recharged, and a single additional
four-phase FTP would be conducted in what is denominated as the
``charge-sustain'' operation. Following this, the vehicle will be
recharged, if necessary, by running any appropriate test cycle followed
by HFET cycles in charge-depleting operation, followed by a cycle in
charge-sustain operation.
    For purposes of this cost analysis, the charge-sustain FTP and HFET
cycles along with potential other cycles mandated by emissions and fuel
economy testing requirements are considered to be continuations of
existing requirements. The cost increment due to this proposal
consequently derives entirely from the increased testing time in
depleting mode. The duration of the depleting modes is estimated as
7.45 to 50 miles over the repeated 7.45 mile FTP or 10.3 mile HFET test
cycles. These together, applied to 5 to 8 families with no carryovers,
add an estimated $8,528 to $80,564 in operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs and 138 to 923 labor hours to existing hybrid testing costs.
b. Printing Costs for New Labels
    The primary variable cost for the new label design is the
difference in cost between black-and-white and color printing. To
estimate this cost difference, the agencies note two sources. First, in
2007 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) examined the effects of
requiring an environmental label that included color printing. It
estimated the combined capital and operating costs of color labels to
be as low as $0.02 per vehicle for large manufacturers;\194\ CARB
expected small-scale manufacturers to switch to pre-printed color
labels at an incremental cost of $0.05 per label, for a 4-by-6-inch
label. Secondly, in 2006 Hewlett-Packard estimated the per-page cost of
color printing on its HP Color LaserJet 4700n printer as $0.09 per
letter-sized page, and black-and-white printing on a dedicated black-
and-white printer as $0.015, for a cost difference of $0.075 per
page.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ State of California, Air Resources Board. ``Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Proposed Amendments to
the Smog Index Vehicle Emissions Label,'' May 4, 2007, http://
www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/arb/2007-06-21_isor.pdf,
(last accessed May 3, 2010).
    \195\ Hewlett-Packard, ``Head to head comparison: color versus
black-and-white printing,'' http://www.officeproductnews.net/files/
hpc2447wpcolorvsbwgov.pdf, (last accessed May 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing fuel economy label measures 4.5 by 7 inches, slightly
larger than the CARB label but about \1/3\ the size of a standard page.
For the cost estimates developed here, the agencies consider a low
estimate of $0.03 per label in additional printing costs (based on the
CARB label, adjusted for size), and a high estimate of $0.08 per label
(based on the HP estimate, which may overestimate the cost based on
page size). For the number of labels, we estimate the subject fleet
from the April 20, 2010, U.S. Department of Transportation's Summary of
Fuel Economy Performance,\196\ taking MY2009's 9.83 million as the low
and MY2005's 15.9 million as the high estimate. This yields a new
printing cost of $294,690 to $1,274,634 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, ``Summary of Fuel Economy
Performance,'' http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/
CAFE_Performance_Report_April_2010.pdf, accessed June 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The O&M costs and labor hours discussed above can be summarized as
follows:

                                                             Table VII.A.1-1--Testing Costs
                                                       [Labor and O&M costs for running the Tests]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Increase in number of tests                          Increase in hours
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Vehicle type/test cycle                                     Min cost                        Max cost
                                                             Min tests       increase        Max tests       increase           Min             Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV:
    Prep................................................             5.0         $18,065             8.0         $28,904             150             240
    FTP.................................................             5.0          43,691             8.0         349,530             705           5,638
    HFET................................................             5.0          13,544             8.0         108,350             218           1,748
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EV Total........................................  ..............          75,300  ..............         486,784           1,073           7,625
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHEV:
    FTP.................................................             5.0           6,510             8.0          50,563             105             705
    HFET................................................             5.0           2,018             8.0          30,001              33             218
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PHEV Total......................................  ..............           8,528  ..............          80,564             138             923
                                                         ===============================================================================================
            Total.......................................  ..............          83,828  ..............         567,348           1,211           8,548
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 PRINTING COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number vehicles<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Number vehicles<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color Labels............................        9, 832,000          $294,690        15,932,920        $1,274,634
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total O&M...........................  ................           378,518  ................         1,841,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Facility Costs
    In addition to new equipment (treated as a startup cost, below),
the new testing requirements for EVs and PHEVs will in theory require
expanded testing facilities for those manufacturers choosing to produce
and sell them in the U.S. Because the cost of new facility capacity is
highly dependent on manufacturer-specific factors (the costs of
capital, the availability of land, the structure of work shifts, the
existing excess capacity, etc.), we use the approximation of unitizing
increased test costs by assuming that a facility capable of performing
750 FTP/HFET pairs would cost $4 million. Here, the new tests are
deemed to require these facilities in proportion to the increases in
test time, and the costs are then annualized over ten years and
amortized at 7% interest compounded monthly. This assumption is more
likely to produce an overestimate of costs rather than an
underestimate, since it does not attempt to account for the current
excess capacity that exists in manufacturers' current test facilities.
We assume that there is no excess capacity in our analysis. Note that
other features of the EV and PHEV test cycles, such as recharging
times, have been harmonized with existing test protocols. Furthermore,
consistent with other information burden analyses for the emissions and
fuel economy programs, we consider these as ongoing rather than startup
costs (i.e., as the facilities depreciate they are continually being
replaced), another conservative assumption. Applying these costs to a
low and high estimate of 5 to 8 EV families and 5 to 8 PHEV families
per year yields an annualized facilities cost between $25,278 and
$210,779 per year.
    Facility costs can be summarized as in Table VII.A.2-1:

              Table VII.A.2-1--Increase in Test Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Undepreciated capital costs           Minimum           Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV test distance increase...........          $154,210        $1,233,683
PHEV test distance increase.........            22,977           246,737
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................           177,188         1,480,420
                                                       -----------------
    Amortized, 10yrs @ 7%...........            25,278           210,779
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Startup Costs
    Startup costs are counted as one-time costs that are amortized or
discounted at an interest rate of 7% over ten years.
a. Updating Information Systems and Testing Equipment
    The estimate includes the cost of upgrading information systems for
the estimated 8 to 10 manufacturers who will need to comply with the
new EV and PHEV testing requirements, such as recording multiple tests,
recording battery charge data, and communicating the resulting data to
the information system that gets it to EPA and the label. Both low and
high estimates use 4 weeks for four IT staff for analysis and code, and
4 weeks for two IT staff for testing, at $100 per hour, for each
manufacturer, resulting in an industry cost of $768,000 to $960,000. In
addition, each manufacturer who has not previously produced hybrid-
electric vehicles is assumed to need new testing equipment costing
$25,000 for an ammeter and $50,000 for voltage stabilizers; we estimate
that 5-8 manufacturers will fall in this category.
b. Label Redesign
    The proposed label designs are presented in Section III. The
changes being proposed in this rule would not affect either the
existence or size of the label. Auto companies currently have
significant flexibility in whether fuel economy label should be a
stand-alone label or included in the ``Monroney label'' (which provides
information on the price and options included for a specific vehicle),
or where it is placed on the Monroney label. The agencies are not
proposing any changes to this flexibility. The agencies estimate 16 to
24 hours at $100 per hour for this work, assuming at this time that no
specific location or size within the Monroney label is required. This
cost is applied to the universe of separate manufacturer entities
subject to the rule. Many specific automotive brands are parts of
marketing groups or are owned and managed by other, parent companies.
Allowing for these relationships, the best guess is that the rule would
apply to 24 manufacturers and 11 independent commercial importers
(ICIs) importing nonconforming vehicles into the U.S. for sale. Applied
to 35 companies, then, the label redesign cost is estimated to be
$56,000 to $84,000.
c. Annualized Startup Costs
    Total startup costs are between $1.2 and $1.6 million. When
annualized and subjected to 7% loan repayment/discounting, the startup
costs total $170,711 to $234,069 per year. These are summarized in
Table VII.A.3-1:

                     Table VII.A.3-1--Startup Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cost
                Item                 -----------------------------------
                                           Minimum           Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updating Information systems........          $768,000          $960,000
Ammeter/stabilizer..................           375,000           600,000
Label redesign......................            56,000            84,000
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................         1,199,000         1,644,000
                                                       -----------------
    Amortized, 10 years at 7%.......           170,711           234,069
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cost Summary
    Table VII.A.4-1 summarizes the costs presented here. The total
costs of this rule, excluding labor, are estimated to be about $575,000
to $2,287,000 per year. Adding the cost of labor (estimated to be
$61.49 per hour overall) to the above estimates brings the total cost
to $648,952 to $2,812,465. Note that startup capital is not budgeted as
labor. EPA and NHTSA request comment on the costs estimates, including
any omitted costs and any other information regarding the costs of
these requirements.

          Table VII.A.4-1--Total Annual Cost and Hours Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Min               Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COST BURDEN:
    O&M: Testing and label..........          $378,518        $1,841,981
    Facility Capital................            25,278           210,779
    Startup: one-time IT, label                170,711           234,069
     redesign, and reg
     familiarization, 10 yrs 7%.....
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total.......................           574,507         2,286,829
                                                       -----------------
HOURS BURDEN:
    O&M: Testing and label..........             1,211             8,548
    Facility Capital................                 0                 0
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total.......................             1,211             8,548
                                     -----------------------------------
    Labor Cost......................            74,446           525,635
                                     ===================================
        Total Costs, Including Labor           648,952         2,812,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact of Proposing One Label To Meet EPCA/EISA

    As discussed in Section I.C., EPCA and EISA create similar but not
identical requirements for labeling vehicles. EPA conducts a labeling
program under EPCA, and NHTSA is required to conduct a labeling program
under EISA, in consultation with EPA. While the agencies could require
that manufacturers produce two separate labels to meet the requirements
of the statutes, much of the information on the two labels would be
duplicative. In addition, two different fuel economy labels might
confuse vehicle purchasers, frustrating the purpose of providing fuel
economy information to purchasers. Requiring that auto makers put two
fuel economy labels on vehicles would also crowd the limited labeling
space on vehicles. For these reasons, EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
combine both the EPCA and the EISA requirements into one label.
    Because NHTSA's labeling under EISA is a new requirement that has
not previously been implemented, there is no cost reduction associated
with the proposal to use a joint label. The use of the joint label
avoids a cost increase that would result from two separate labels. EPA
and NHTSA are not including this cost saving in the cost analysis
because we believe that the benefits of coordinating labeling
requirements outweigh any possible disadvantages.

C. Benefits of Label Changes

    The benefits of this rule would come from improved provision of
information to vehicle buyers, and more informed consumer decisions
resulting from the changes. These benefits are difficult to estimate.
Doing so would require predictions of changes in consumer behavior as a
result of the label modifications. The internet survey discussed in
Section IV.A.2 is intended to provide some insights into the
comprehensibility and usefulness of the labels, but the results are not
available at this time. We caution that insights into comprehensibility
and usefulness may be limited in predicting changes in consumer
behavior due to the proposed label change.
    Improved fuel economy reduces costs of driving a mile, but the
technology to improve fuel economy may increase the cost of a vehicle.
Evaluating this tradeoff requires comparing future fuel savings based
on expectations of future fuel prices and driving patterns with known
and immediate increases in vehicle purchase price. Some evidence
suggests that consumers may not accurately compare future fuel savings
with the up-front costs of fuel-saving technology when buying
vehicles.\197\ As a result, consumers may buy less or more fuel-saving
technology than is financially sensible for them to buy. This problem
may be compounded by the presence of miles per gallon (MPG) as a
primary metric for fuel economy comparison.\198\ As discussed in
Section II.A.2, consumers can save much more fuel by choosing a 1-MPG
improvement in fuel economy for a low-MPG vehicle than by choosing a 1-
MPG improvement for a high-MPG vehicle. However, research on the ``MPG
illusion'' finds that consumers expect a 1-MPG improvement to produce
the same fuel savings regardless of the efficiency of a vehicle.\199\
Thus, the tendency of consumers to use MPG as a primary metric for fuel
economy increases the difficulty of estimating the fuel savings
resulting from increased fuel economy. As a result, consumers may not
be able to find the most cost-effective amount of fuel economy for
their driving habits. For gasoline vehicles, new metrics on the label,
such as gallons per hundred miles, fuel savings over 5 years, or
environmental metrics, may make it easier for consumers to identify the
fuel savings they are likely to receive from a vehicle, and therefore
to judge better between vehicles with different fuel savings, costs,
and environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Turrentine, Thomas S., and Kenneth S. Kurani, ``Car buyers
and fuel economy?'' Energy Policy 35 (2007): 1213-1223.
    \198\ Larrick, Richard P., and Jack B. Soll, ``The MPG
Illusion.'' Science 320 (5883) (June 20, 2008): 1593-94.
    \199\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finding the most cost-effective vehicle may be even more confusing
with the advent of advanced technology vehicles such as EVs or PHEVs.
Most consumers are not accustomed to shopping for vehicles that use
energy sources other than gasoline. In addition, the cost effectiveness
of different technologies depends on a person's driving patterns. A
person with a short commute may have lower per-mile costs with a
vehicle with some all-electric range, but someone with a long commute
may have higher per-mile

costs or insufficient range with such a vehicle and may want to
consider different technologies. For advanced technology vehicles, the
label can help vehicle shoppers to understand the new technologies, and
it can present metrics that allow consumers to make useful comparisons
across different vehicle technologies.
    EPA and NHTSA request comment on the benefits described here, and
on any additional benefits.

D. Summary

    The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule are
associated with improved consumer decision-making resulting from
improved presentation of information. At this time, EPA and NHTSA do
not have data to quantify these impacts.
    The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from
revisions to the fuel economy label and additional testing procedures.
These costs are estimated to be $649,000-$2.8 million per year.
    EPA and NHTSA request comment on this assessment of the benefits
and costs.

VIII. Agencies' Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews

A. Relationship of EPA's Proposed Requirements With Other Statutes and
Regulations

1. Automobile Disclosure Act
    The Automobile Information Disclosure Act (AIDA) requires the
affixing of a retail price sticker to the windshield or side window of
new automobiles indicating the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price,
the ``sticker price.'' \200\ Additional information, such as a list of
any optional equipment offered or transportation charges, is also
required. The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered
prior to sale to a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ More commonly known as the Monroney Act (Senator Mike
Monroney was the chief sponsor of the Act) or Price Sticker Act. See
15 U.S.C. 1231-1233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, EPA may allow manufacturers of new automobiles to
comply with the EPCA labeling requirements by placing the fuel economy
information on the label required by AIDA.\201\ Normally, the price
sticker label and EPA label are combined as one large label. Failure to
maintain the EPA label on the vehicle is considered a violation of
AIDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Internal Revenue Code
    EPCA requires ``Gas Guzzler'' tax information to be included on the
fuel economy label, under 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1). The Internal Revenue
code contains the provisions governing the administration of the Gas
Guzzler Tax. It contains the table of applicable taxes and defines
which vehicles are subject to the taxes. The IRS code specifies that
the fuel economy to be used to assess the amount of tax will be the
combined city and highway fuel economy as determined by using the
procedures in place in 1975, or procedures that give comparable results
(similar to EPCA's requirements for determining CAFE for passenger
automobiles). This proposal would not impact these provisions.
3. Clean Air Act
    EPCA states that fuel economy tests shall, to the extent
practicable, be carried out with the emissions tests required under
Section 206 of the Clean Air Act.\202\ EPA is not proposing additional
emissions tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising
for New Vehicles
    In the mid-1970's when EPCA was passed, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) ``took note of the dramatic increase in the number of
fuel economy claims then being made and of the proliferation of test
procedures then being used as the basis for such claims.'' \203\ They
responded by promulgating regulations in 16 CFR part 259 entitled
``Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Vehicles'' (``Fuel
Guide''). The Fuel Guide, adopted in 1975 and subsequently revised
twice, provides guidance to automobile manufacturers to prevent
deceptive advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy
information in advertising. The Fuel Guide advises vehicle
manufacturers and dealers how to disclose the established fuel economy
of a vehicle, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency's
rules pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C.
2996), in advertisements that make representations regarding the fuel
economy of a new vehicle.\204\ The disclosure is tied to the claim made
in the advertisement. If both city and highway fuel economy claims are
made, both city and highway EPA figures should be disclosed. A claim
regarding either city or highway fuel economy should be accompanied by
the corresponding EPA figure. A general fuel economy claim would
trigger disclosure of the EPA city figure, although the advertiser
would be free to state the highway figure as well. The authority for
the Fuel Guide is tied to the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
41-58) which, briefly stated, makes it illegal for one to engage in
``unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ 40 FR 42003, Sept. 10, 1975.
    \204\ 43 FR 55747, Nov. 29, 1978; and 60 FR 56230, Nov. 8, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. California Environmental Performance Label
    California requires each new and used vehicle offered for sale in
the state to affix a ``Smog Index Number'' and ``Global Warming Index''
decal to the car window which indicates the pollution standard that
applies to that particular car, and its exhaust emissions.\205\ This
proposal would not impact California's regulations. The Global Warming
index on California's label includes emissions from fuel production
(http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/images/ep_label_large.jpg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ SB 2050 (Presley), Chapter 1192, Statutes of 1994, and AB
1229 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (NHTSA Only)
    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because the action
raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented as OMB requests in the docket for
this action.
    NHTSA is also subject to the Department of Transportation's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This proposed rule is also
significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. E.O. 12866 also requires NHTSA to submit this action to OMB
for review and document any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations
    In addition, EPA and NHTSA both prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis
is available in Section VII of this document.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2392.01. Since this is a joint proposal, the
burden associated with these information collection requirements could
be attributed to either agency. However, since a significant portion of
the burden result from new EPA testing requirements, EPA has agreed to
assume responsibility for the complete paperwork burden. Both agencies
will consider the comments submitted regarding these potential costs as
part of their decision in the final rule.
    The information being collected is used by EPA to calculate the
fuel economy estimates that appear on new automobile, light truck and
medium-duty passenger vehicle sticker labels. EPA currently collects
this information annually as part of its vehicle certification and fuel
economy program, and will continue to do so. This proposed rule changes
some of the content of the information submitted. Responses to this
information collection are mandatory to obtain the benefit of vehicle
certification under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et
seq.) and as required under Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). Information submitted by
manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to
which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are
available for purchase, most information associated with the
manufacturer's application is available to the public. Under section
208 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7542(c)), all information, other
than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available.
Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and
class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.
    The projected yearly increased cost within the three-year horizon
of the pending information collection request is $2,812,000 including
$2,286,000 in operations and maintenance costs and $526,000 in labor
costs. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 35.
Responses are submitted annually by engine family, with the number of
responses per respondent varying widely depending on the number of
engine families being certified. Under the current fuel economy
information authorization, an average of 12.2 responses a year are
approved for each of 33 respondents requiring 451.2 hours per response
and 80 hours of recordkeeping at a total cost of $10,012 per response
for an industry total of 184,127 hours and $4,274,932 million annually,
including capital and operations and maintenance costs. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule,
which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865.
Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to
EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after September 23, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by October 25, 2010. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agencies certify that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by category of
business using North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Table VIII.B.3-1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small
business categories included in the light-duty vehicle sector that are
subject to the proposed rule:

            Table VIII.B.3-1--Primary SBA Small Business Categories in the Light-Duty Vehicle Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Defined as small entity by SBA if
                    Industry                            less than or equal to:              NAICS codes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles:
    --vehicle manufacturers.....................  1,000 employees...................                      336111
    --independent commercial importers..........  $7 million annual sales...........      811111, 811112, 811198
                                                  $23 million annual sales..........                      441120
                                                  100 employees.....................                      423110
    --automobile dealers........................  $29 million annual sales..........                      441110
    --stretch limousine manufacturers and hearse  1,000 employees...................                      336211
     manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly

regulated by this proposed rule cover several types of small businesses
including vehicle manufacturers, automobile dealers, limousine and
hearse manufacturers, and independent commercial importers (ICIs). ICIs
are companies that import used vehicles into the U.S. that must be
certified for emissions compliance and labeled for fuel economy
purposes. Small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations as
described above will not be impacted. We have determined that the
estimated effect of the proposed rule is to impact 1 small business
vehicle manufacturer and 11 ICIs who currently certify vehicles with
costs less than one percent of revenues. These 12 companies represent
all of the small businesses impacted by the proposed regulations. The
proposed regulations will have no new impacts on small business
automobile dealers or small business limousine and hearse
manufacturers. An analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on small
businesses has been prepared and placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ ``Screening Analysis: Small Business Impacts from
Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,'' EPA report, August
12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA is proposing to
reduce the testing burden on ICIs that would be needed for the fuel
economy label. Under the proposal, ICIs would be allowed to test over
two driving cycles when determining the fuel economy estimate for the
fuel economy label instead of testing over five driving cycles as
required for vehicle manufacturers.
    Both agencies continue to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on the small
business analysis and other issues related to impacts on small
businesses.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. This rule contains no federal mandates
for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of
Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of
these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule only affects
vehicle manufacturers and the agencies estimate annual costs of less
than $100 million (adjusted for inflation). EPA and NHTSA believe that
the proposal represents the least costly, most cost-effective approach
to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule. The agencies'
estimated costs are provided in section VI. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted above, the
proposed rule only affects vehicle manufacturers.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking would apply to
manufacturers of motor vehicles and not to state or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA
and NHTSA did consult with representatives of state governments in
developing this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the
agencies' policy to promote communications between Federal, State and
local governments, the agencies specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local officials.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule would be implemented at the Federal level and imposes compliance
costs only on vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be
affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The agencies
specifically solicit additional comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
    EPA and NHTSA interpret E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O.
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The proposed regulations do not require
manufacturers to improve or otherwise change the fuel economy of their
vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide
consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle
purchasing decisions. Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is
not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    EPA's portion of this proposed rulemaking involves technical
standards. EPA proposes to use elements of testing standards developed
with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Where possible, EPA
proposes to incorporate by reference portions of SAEJ1711, SAE J2841,
and SAE J1634. At the time of this proposal, all the above SAE
documents are either open for update or in the process of balloting
prior to publishing. SAE reference documents can be obtained at http://
www.SAE.org. In the absence of final published reference documents, EPA
is proposing procedures that may differ from final SAE procedures.
Also, differences between EPA proposed

procedures and final SAE procedures may be due to statutory or existing
regulatory EPA requirements, worst case emissions testing requirements
by EPA, and the need for EPA to address policy concerns and concerns of
manufacturers not involved in developing SAE procedures.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The agencies have determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed regulations do not require manufacturers to
improve or otherwise change the emissions control or fuel economy of
their vehicles. The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide
consumers with better information on which to base their vehicle
purchasing decisions.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

    Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86

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

40 CFR Part 600

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

49 CFR Part 575

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Fuel
economy, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Chapter I

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend parts 85, 86 and 600 of title 40,
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

    1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--[Amended]

    2. Section 85.1902 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  85.1902  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A defect in the design, materials, or workmanship in one or
more emissions control or emission-related parts, components, systems,
software or elements of design which must function properly to ensure
continued compliance with vehicle greenhouse gas emission requirements,
including compliance with CO2, CH4,
N2O, and carbon-related exhaust emission standards;
* * * * *

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

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

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

    4. Section 86.165-12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  86.165-12  Air conditioning idle test procedure.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Measure and record the continuous CO2 concentration
for 600 seconds. Measure the CO2concentration continuously
using raw or dilute sampling procedures. Multiply this concentration by
the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate at the emission sampling
location to determine the CO2 flow rate. Calculate the
CO2 cumulative flow rate continuously over the test
interval. This cumulative value is the total mass of the emitted
CO2. Alternatively, CO2 may be measured and
recorded using a constant velocity sampling system as described in
Sec. Sec.  86.106-96(a)(2) and 86.109-94.
* * * * *

Subpart S--[Amended]

    5. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) and
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1818-12  Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Manufacturer has the meaning given by the Department of
Transportation at 49 CFR 531.4.
    (c) * * *
    (1) For a given individual model year's production of passenger
automobiles and light trucks, manufacturers must comply with a full
useful life fleet average CO2 standard calculated according
to the provisions of this paragraph (c). Manufacturers must calculate
separate full useful life fleet average CO2 standards for
their passenger automobile and light truck fleets, as those terms are
defined in this section. Each manufacturer's fleet average
CO2 standards determined in this paragraph (c) shall be
expressed in whole grams per mile, in the model year specified as
applicable. Manufacturers eligible for and choosing to participate in
the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards for qualifying
manufacturers specified in paragraph (e) of this section shall not
include vehicles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance
Alternative Standards in the calculations of their primary passenger
automobile or light truck standards determined in this paragraph (c).
Manufacturers shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable
standards according to the provisions of Sec.  86.1865-12.
* * * * *
    (d) In-use CO2 exhaust emission standards. The in-use exhaust
CO2 emission standard shall be the combined city/highway
carbon-related exhaust emission value calculated for the appropriate
vehicle carline/subconfiguration according to the provisions of Sec.
600.113-12(g)(4) of this chapter multiplied by 1.1 and rounded

to the nearest whole gram per mile. For in-use vehicle carlines/
subconfigurations for which a combined city/highway carbon-related
exhaust emission value was not determined under Sec.  600.113-12(g)(4)
of this chapter, the in-use exhaust CO2 emission standard
shall be the combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission
value calculated according to the provisions of Sec.  600.208-12 of
this chapter for the vehicle model type (except that total model year
production data shall be used instead of sales projections) multiplied
by 1.1 and rounded to the nearest whole gram per mile. For vehicles
that are capable of operating on multiple fuels, including but not
limited to alcohol dual fuel, natural gas dual fuel and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, a separate in-use standard shall be determined for
each fuel that the vehicle is capable of operating on. These standards
apply to in-use testing performed by the manufacturer pursuant to
regulations at Sec. Sec.  86.1845-04 and 86.1846-01 and to in-use
testing performed by EPA.
* * * * *
    6. Section 86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (m)(2)(iii)
and (m)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1823-08  Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) For the 2012 through 2014 model years only, manufacturers may
use alternative deterioration factors. For N2O, the
alternative deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET
emissions is the additive or multiplicative deterioration factor
determined for (or derived from) NOX emissions according to
the provisions of this section. For CH4, the alternative
deterioration factor to be used to adjust FTP and HFET emissions is the
additive or multiplicative deterioration factor determined for (or
derived from) NMOG or NMHC emissions according to the provisions of
this section.
    (3) Other carbon-related exhaust emissions. Deterioration factors
shall be determined according to the provisions of paragraphs (a)
through (l) of this section. Optionally, in lieu of determining
emission-specific FTP and HFET deterioration factors for
CH3OH (methanol), HCHO (formaldehyde),
C2H5OH (ethanol), and C2H4O
(acetaldehyde), manufacturers may use the additive or multiplicative
deterioration factor determined for (or derived from) NMOG or NMHC
emissions according to the provisions of this section.
* * * * *
    7. Section 86.1841-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  86.1841-01  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Compliance with full useful life CO2 exhaust
emission standards shall be demonstrated at certification by the
certification levels on the FTP and HFET tests for carbon-related
exhaust emissions determined according to Sec.  600.113-12 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
    8. Section 86.1848-10 is amended by revising the section heading
and paragraph (c)(9)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1848-10  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of
certification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) Failure to meet the fleet average CO2 requirements
will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon
which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in
violation of the fleet average CO2 standard will not be
covered by the certificate(s). The vehicles sold in violation will be
determined according to Sec.  86.1865-12(k)(8).
* * * * *
    9. Section 86.1865-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
introductory text, (d), (j)(1), (k)(8)(iii) through (v), and
(k)(9)(iv)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1865-12  How to comply with the fleet average CO2
standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of Sec.
86.1801-12(j) or (k), CO2 fleet average exhaust emission
standards apply to:
* * * * *
    (d) Small volume manufacturer certification procedures.
Certification procedures for small volume manufacturers are provided in
Sec.  86.1838-01. Small businesses meeting certain criteria may be
exempted from the greenhouse gas emission standards in Sec.  86.1818-12
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.1801-12(j) or (k).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Compliance and enforcement requirements are provided in this
section and Sec.  86.1848-10(c)(9).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) EPA will determine the vehicles not covered by a certificate
because the condition on the certificate was not satisfied by
designating vehicles in those test groups with the highest carbon-
related exhaust emission values first and continuing until reaching a
number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of noncomplying
vehicles as determined in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. If this
calculation determines that only a portion of vehicles in a test group
contribute to the debit situation, then EPA will designate actual
vehicles in that test group as not covered by the certificate, starting
with the last vehicle produced and counting backwards.
    (iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases production of passenger cars and
light trucks, the manufacturer continues to be responsible for
offsetting any debits outstanding within the required time period. Any
failure to offset the debits will be considered a violation of
paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to
an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered by a
certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this
section.
    (B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, merges with, or otherwise
combines with another manufacturer, the controlling entity is
responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding within the required
time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a
violation of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the
manufacturer to an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered
by a certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this
section.
    (v) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a
violation of the requirements of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section, a
failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate(s) was
issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered by the certificate, all
occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits
specified in paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section.
    (9) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) Failure to offset the debits within the required time period
will be considered a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which the
certificate(s) was issued and will be addressed pursuant to paragraph
(k)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
    10. Section 86.1867-12 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(3)(iv)(A), (a)(3)(iv)(F), (a)(3)(vi), (a)(4), and (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  86.1867-12  Optional early CO2 credit programs.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) Total model year sales data will be used, instead of production
data, except that vehicles sold in California and the section 177
states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section shall not be
included.
* * * * *
    (F) Electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric model type
carbon-related exhaust emission values shall be included in the fleet
average determined under paragraph (a)(1) of this section only to the
extent that such vehicles are not being used to generate early advanced
technology vehicle credits under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (vi) Credits are earned on the last day of the model year.
Manufacturers must calculate, for a given model year, the number of
credits or debits it has generated according to the following equation,
rounded to the nearest megagram:
CO2 Credits or Debits (Mg) = [(CO2 Credit
Threshold--Manufacturer's Sales Weighted Fleet Average CO2
Emissions) x (Total Number of Vehicles Sold) x (Vehicle Lifetime
Miles)] / 1,000,000

Where:
CO2 Credit Threshold = the applicable credit threshold
value for the model year and vehicle averaging set as determined by
paragraph (a)(3)(vii) of this section; Manufacturer's Sales Weighted
Fleet Average CO2 Emissions = average calculated
according to paragraph (a)(3)(vi) of this section; Total Number of
Vehicles Sold = The number of vehicles domestically sold as defined
in Sec.  600.511-80 of this chapter except that vehicles sold in
California and the section 177 states determined in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section shall not be included; and Vehicle
Lifetime Miles is 195,264 for the LDV/LDT1 averaging set and 225,865
for the LDT2/HLDT/MDPV averaging set.

* * * * *
    (4) Pathway 4. Pathway 4 credits are those credits earned under
Pathway 3 as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in the set
of states that does not include California and the section 177 states
determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section and calculated
according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Credits may only be
generated by vehicles sold in the set of states that does not include
California and the section 177 states determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i)
of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Manufacturers that select Pathway 4 as described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section may not generate early air conditioning credits
for vehicles sold in California and the section 177 states as
determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND CARBON-RELATED EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES

    11. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q, Public Law 109-58.

Subpart A--General Provisions

    12. The heading for subpart A is revised as set forth above.

Sec.  600.001-08, Sec.  600.001-86, Sec.  600.001-93, Sec.  600.002-85,
Sec.  600.002-93, Sec.  600.004-77, Sec.  600.006-86, Sec.  600.006-87,
Sec.  600.006-89, Sec.  600.007-80, Sec.  600.008-01, Sec.  600.008-77,
Sec.  600.010-86  [Removed]

    13. Subpart A is amended by removing the following sections:

Sec.  600.001-08
Sec.  600.001-86
Sec.  600.001-93
Sec.  600.002-85
Sec.  600.002-93
Sec.  600.004-77
Sec.  600.006-86

    14. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  600.001-12 through 600.011-93 as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Sec.   600.001-12                       Sec.   600.001
         Sec.   600.002-08                       Sec.   600.002
         Sec.   600.003-77                       Sec.   600.003
         Sec.   600.005-81                       Sec.   600.005
         Sec.   600.006-08                       Sec.   600.006
         Sec.   600.007-08                       Sec.   600.007
         Sec.   600.008-08                       Sec.   600.008
         Sec.   600.009-85                       Sec.   600.009
         Sec.   600.010-08                       Sec.   600.010
         Sec.   600.011-93                       Sec.   600.011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The redesignated Sec.  600.001 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.001  General applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this part apply for 2008 and later model year
automobiles that are not medium duty passenger vehicles, and to 2011
and later model year automobiles including medium-duty passenger
vehicles.
    (b) The provisions of subparts A, D, and F of this part are
optional through the 2011 model year in the following cases:
    (1) Manufacturers that produce only electric vehicles are exempt
from the requirements of this subpart, except with regard to the
requirements in those sections pertaining specifically to electric
vehicles.
    (2) Manufacturers with worldwide production (excluding electric
vehicle production) of less than 10,000 gasoline-fueled and/or diesel
powered passenger automobiles and light trucks may optionally comply
with the electric vehicle requirements in this subpart.
    (c) Unless stated otherwise, references to fuel economy or fuel
economy data in this part shall also be interpreted to mean the related
exhaust emissions of CO2, HC, and CO, and where applicable
for alternative fuel vehicles, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC
and CH4. References to average fuel economy shall be
interpreted to also mean average carbon-related exhaust emissions.
References to fuel economy data vehicles shall also be meant to refer
to vehicles tested for carbon-related exhaust emissions for the purpose
of demonstrating compliance with fleet average CO2 standards
in Sec.  86.1818 of this chapter.
    (d) The model year of initial applicability for sections in this
part is indicated by the section number. The two digits following the
hyphen designate the first model year for which a section is
applicable. An individual section continues to apply for later model
years until it is replaced by a different section that applies starting
in a later model year. Sections that have no two-digit suffix apply for
all 2008 and later model year vehicles, except as noted in those
sections. If a section has a two-digit suffix but the regulation
references that section without including the two-digit suffix, this
refers to the section applicable for the appropriate model year. This
also applies for references to part 86 of this chapter.

    Example 1 to paragraph (d).  Section 600.113-08 applies to the
2008 and subsequent model years until Sec.  600.113-12 is applicable
beginning with the 2012 model year. Section 600.111-08 would then
apply only for 2008 through 2011 model year vehicles.

    16. The redesignated Sec.  600.002 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.002  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply throughout this part:
    3-bag FTP means the Federal Test Procedure specified in part 86 of
this chapter, with three sampling portions consisting of the cold-start
transient (``Bag 1''), stabilized (``Bag 2''), and hot-start transient
phases (``Bag 3'').
    4-bag FTP means the 3-bag FTP, with the addition of a sampling
portion for the hot-start stabilized phase (``Bag 4'').

    5-cycle means the FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and cold temperature FTP
tests as described in subparts B and C of this part.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
    Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume
methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
    Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate
exclusively on alcohol.
    Alcohol dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on alcohol and on gasoline or
diesel fuel; and
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated
in accordance with Sec.  600.510-08(g)(1) or Sec.  600.510-12(g)(1)
while operating on alcohol as it does while operating on gasoline or
diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds
the minimum driving range established by the Department of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Automobile has the meaning given by the Department of
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.3. This includes ``passenger automobiles''
and ``non-passenger automobiles'' (or ``light trucks'').
    Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) means an element of design
as defined in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    Average fuel economy means the unique fuel economy value as
computed under Sec.  600.510 for a specific class of automobiles
produced by a manufacturer that is subject to average fuel economy
standards.
    Axle ratio means the number of times the input shaft to the
differential (or equivalent) turns for each turn of the drive wheels.
    Base level means a unique combination of basic engine, inertia
weight class and transmission class.
    Base tire means the tire specified as standard equipment by the
manufacturer.
    Base vehicle means the lowest priced version of each body style
that makes up a car line.
    Basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine
displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system (e.g., type of fuel
injection), catalyst usage, and other engine and emission control
system characteristics specified by the Administrator. For electric
vehicles, basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer and
electric traction motor, motor controller, battery configuration,
electrical charging system, energy storage device, and other components
as specified by the Administrator.
    Battery configuration means the electrochemical type, voltage,
capacity (in Watt-hours at the c/3 rate), and physical characteristics
of the battery used as the tractive energy device.
    Body style means a level of commonality in vehicle construction as
defined by number of doors and roof treatment (e.g., sedan,
convertible, fastback, hatchback) and number of seats (i.e., front,
second, or third seat) requiring seat belts pursuant to National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety regulations in 49 CFR part
571. Station wagons and light trucks are identified as car lines.
    Calibration means the set of specifications, including tolerances,
unique to a particular design, version of application of a component,
or component assembly capable of functionally describing its operation
over its working range.
    Carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) means the summation of the
carbon-containing constituents of the exhaust emissions, with each
constituent adjusted by a coefficient representing the carbon weight
fraction of each constituent relative to the CO2 carbon
weight fraction, as specified in Sec.  600.113. For example, carbon-
related exhaust emissions (weighted 55 percent city and 45 percent
highway) are used to demonstrate compliance with fleet average
CO2 emission standards outlined in Sec.  86.1818 of this
chapter.
    Car line means a name denoting a group of vehicles within a make or
car division which has a degree of commonality in construction (e.g.,
body, chassis). Car line does not consider any level of decor or
opulence and is not generally distinguished by characteristics as roof
line, number of doors, seats, or windows, except for station wagons or
light-duty trucks. Station wagons and light-duty trucks are considered
to be different car lines than passenger cars.
    Certification vehicle means a vehicle which is selected under Sec.
86.1828 of this chapter and used to determine compliance under Sec.
86.1848 of this chapter for issuance of an original certificate of
conformity.
    City fuel economy means the city fuel economy determined by
operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule in the
Federal emission test procedure, or determined according to the
vehicle-specific 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle procedures.
    Cold temperature FTP means the test performed under the provisions
of subpart C of part 86 of this chapter.
    Combined fuel economy means:
    (1) The fuel economy value determined for a vehicle (or vehicles)
by harmonically averaging the city and highway fuel economy values,
weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
    (2) For electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent petroleum-
based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation procedure
promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.
    Dealer means a person who resides or is located in the United
States, any territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia
and who is engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to
the ultimate purchaser.
    Derived 5-cycle fuel economy means the 5-cycle fuel economy derived
from the FTP-based city and HFET-based highway fuel economy by means of
the equation provided in Sec.  600.210.
    Diesel equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel
with the energy equivalence of one gallon of diesel fuel. For purposes
of this part, one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 36.7 kilowatt-
hours of electricity.
    Drive system is determined by the number and location of drive
axles (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, four wheel drive) and
any other feature of the drive system if the Administrator determines
that such other features may result in a fuel economy difference.
    Electrical charging system means a device to convert 60 Hz
alternating electric current, as commonly available in residential
electric service in the United States, to a proper form for recharging
the energy storage device.
    Electric traction motor means an electrically powered motor which
provides tractive energy to the wheels of a vehicle.
    Electric vehicle has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this
chapter.
    Energy storage device means a rechargeable means of storing
tractive energy on board a vehicle such as storage batteries or a
flywheel.
    Engine code means a unique combination, within an engine-system
combination (as defined in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter), of
displacement, fuel injection (or carburetion or other fuel delivery
system), calibration, distributor calibration, choke calibration,
auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine and emission
control system components specified by the Administrator. For electric
vehicles, engine code means a unique combination of manufacturer,
electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor controller, and
energy storage device.
    Federal emission test procedure (FTP) refers to the dynamometer
driving

schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and analytical procedures
described in part 86 of this chapter for the respective model year,
which are used to derive city fuel economy data.
    Footprint has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    FTP-based city fuel economy means the fuel economy determined in
Sec.  600.113 of this part, on the basis of FTP testing.
    Fuel means:
    (1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered
automobiles; or
    (2) Electrical energy for electrically powered automobiles; or
    (3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles; or
    (4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles; or
    (5) Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), commonly referred to as
``propane,'' for LPG-powered automobiles; or
    (6) Hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles and for automobiles
equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines.
    Fuel cell has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    Fuel cell vehicle has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this
chapter.
    Fuel economy means:
    (1) The average number of miles traveled by an automobile or group
of automobiles per volume of fuel consumed as calculated in this part;
or
    (2) For the purpose of calculating average fuel economy pursuant to
the provisions of part 600, subpart F, fuel economy for electrically
powered automobiles means the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy
as determined by the Secretary of Energy in accordance with the
provisions of 10 CFR 474.
    Fuel economy data vehicle means a vehicle used for the purpose of
determining fuel economy which is not a certification vehicle.
    Gasoline equivalent gallon means an amount of electricity or fuel
with the energy equivalence of one gallon of gasoline. For purposes of
this part, one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.705 kilowatt-
hours of electricity or 121.5 standard cubic feet of natural gas.
    Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in Sec.  1068.30 of
this chapter. See Sec.  1068.5 of this chapter for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good engineering judgment.
    Gross vehicle weight rating means the manufacturer's gross weight
rating for the individual vehicle.
    Hatchback means a passenger automobile where the conventional
luggage compartment, i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is
open to the passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear
door which encompasses the rear window.
    Highway fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined
either by operating a vehicle (or vehicles) over the driving schedule
in the Federal highway fuel economy test procedure, or determined
according to either the vehicle-specific 5-cycle equation or the
derived 5-cycle equation for highway fuel economy.
    Highway fuel economy test procedure (HFET) refers to the
dynamometer driving schedule, dynamometer procedure, and sampling and
analytical procedures described in subpart B of this part and which are
used to derive highway fuel economy data.
    HFET-based fuel economy means the highway fuel economy determined
in Sec.  600.113 of this part, on the basis of HFET testing.
    Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the meaning given in Sec.
86.1803 of this chapter.
    Independent Commercial Importer has the meaning given in Sec.
85.1502 of this chapter.
    Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.
    Label means a sticker that contains fuel economy information and is
affixed to new automobiles in accordance with subpart D of this part.
    Light truck means an automobile that is not a passenger automobile,
as defined by the Secretary of Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This
term is interchangeable with ``non-passenger automobile.'' The term the
``light truck'' includes medium-duty passenger vehicles which are
manufactured during 2011 and later model years.
    Medium-duty passenger vehicle means a vehicle which would satisfy
the criteria for light trucks as defined by the Secretary of
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5 but for its gross vehicle weight rating
or its curb weight, which is rated at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or has a
vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or has a basic vehicle
frontal area in excess of 45 square feet, and which is designed
primarily to transport passengers, but does not include a vehicle that:
    (1) Is an ``incomplete truck'' as defined in this subpart; or
    (2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
    (3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the
driver's seat; or
    (4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up
truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered
box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be
considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
    Minivan means a light truck which is designed primarily to carry no
more than eight passengers, having an integral enclosure fully
enclosing the driver, passenger, and load-carrying compartments, and
rear seats readily removed, folded, stowed, or pivoted to facilitate
cargo carrying. A minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors
and a rear liftgate. Minivans typically have less total interior volume
or overall height than full sized vans and are commonly advertised and
marketed as ``minivans.''
    Model type means a unique combination of car line, basic engine,
and transmission class.
    Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period (as
determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of such
calendar year. If a manufacturer has no annual production period, the
term ``model year'' means the calendar year.
    Motor controller means an electronic or electro-mechanical device
to convert energy stored in an energy storage device into a form
suitable to power the traction motor.
    Natural gas-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to
operate exclusively on natural gas.
    Natural gas dual fuel automobile means an automobile:
    (1) Which is designed to operate on natural gas and on gasoline or
diesel fuel;
    (2) Which provides equal or greater energy efficiency as calculated
in Sec.  600.510-08(g)(1) while operating on natural gas as it does
while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel; and
    (3) Which, in the case of passenger automobiles, meets or exceeds
the minimum driving range established by the Department of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 538.
    Non-passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.5. This term is synonymous with ``light
truck.''
    Passenger automobile has the meaning given by the Department of
Transportation at 49 CFR 523.4.
    Pickup truck means a nonpassenger automobile which has a passenger
compartment and an open cargo bed.
    Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) has the meaning given in
Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.

    Production volume means, for a domestic manufacturer, the number of
vehicle units domestically produced in a particular model year but not
exported, and for a foreign manufacturer, means the number of vehicle
units of a particular model imported into the United States.
    QR Code means Quick Response Code, which is a registered trademark
of Denso Wave, Incorporated.
    Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless specified
otherwise.
    SC03 means the test procedure specified in Sec.  86.160 of this
chapter.
    Secretary of Energy means the Secretary of Energy or his authorized
representative.
    Secretary of Transportation means the Secretary of Transportation
or his authorized representative.
    Sport utility vehicle (SUV) means a light truck with an extended
roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment
open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily
removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Station wagon means a passenger automobile with an extended roof
line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to
the passenger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats
readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.
    Subconfiguration means a unique combination within a vehicle
configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower, and any
other operational characteristics or parameters which the Administrator
determines may significantly affect fuel economy within a vehicle
configuration.
    Test weight means the weight within an inertia weight class which
is used in the dynamometer testing of a vehicle, and which is based on
its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86
of this chapter.
    Track width has the meaning given in Sec.  86.1803 of this chapter.
    Transmission class means a group of transmissions having the
following common features: Basic transmission type (manual, automatic,
or semi-automatic); number of forward gears used in fuel economy
testing (e.g., manual four-speed, three-speed automatic, two-speed
semi-automatic); drive system (e.g., front wheel drive, rear wheel
drive; four wheel drive), type of overdrive, if applicable (e.g., final
gear ratio less than 1.00, separate overdrive unit); torque converter
type, if applicable (e.g., non-lockup, lockup, variable ratio); and
other transmission characteristics that may be determined to be
significant by the Administrator.
    Transmission configuration means the Administrator may further
subdivide within a transmission class if the Administrator determines
that sufficient fuel economy differences exist. Features such as gear
ratios, torque converter multiplication ratio, stall speed, shift
calibration, or shift speed may be used to further distinguish
characteristics within a transmission class.
    Ultimate consumer means the first person who purchases an
automobile for purposes other than resale or leases an automobile.
    US06 means the test procedure as described in Sec.  86.159 of this
chapter.