Prior to this rulemaking, automakers selling cars in California were required to provide a California specific environmental label, and alternative fueled vehicles were required to have an additional label required by the Federal Trade Commission.  EPA hopes that California and the FTC determine that the final design of the new fuel economy label meets the requirements of both the California and FTC requirements such that separate California and FTC labels are not required.  The result of this rulemaking is that manufacturers may be able to provide all fuel economy information within the existing Monroney label structure without any additional labels.  This was a major request from all of the automakers.  The agencies felt that accommodatingthis request would be beneficial to the manufacturers and would increase the prominence of the fuel economy label since the information previously scattered in up to three labels is now featured in one place on the Monroney label.

9.1. Costs Associated with this Rule
                                                                            326
Organization: General Motors (GM)
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Hyundai Motor Company
Toyota
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
Automotive Global Accounts
Volvo
Suzuki Motor Corporation
Nissan
Honda Motor Company
University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
BMW
Merritt, Kevin
Occidental College
Comment:
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
The Agencies Should Not Require Color Labels. The Alliance opposes the requirement to produce color labels, either as colored ink printing or pre-printed color card stock, because requiring color would add significantly to both labeling costs and compliance complexity without benefiting the customer. Most printers currently used at auto assembly plants and points of entry are black and white. The addition of color not only increases the OEMs' costs, but may increase compliance jeopardy significantly because color will fade in sunlight. A requirement for color labeling would mean replacing most of these large industrial printers and would increase the labor costs associated with maintaining printing machines  -  a waste of money and resources for the luxury of a more eye-catching label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.2]
Color labels would add to the cost of printing and the complexity  -  and associated compliance jeopardy  -  of accurately producing and applying the labels. Printing color in a high-speed industrial environment would be significantly different from today's black and white process. The likely result would be that the printing and application of a correct color label would become a bottleneck in the overall assembly process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.7]
With regard to manufacturer cost, it should be noted that the Agencies' cost calculations are based on a 2006 analysis by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in which it was assumed that vehicle labels would be printed on an HP Color Laser jet 4700n printer, a machine that retails for less than $2000. The printers used at automobile assembly plants and ports of entry are designed for much more demanding usage, and can cost up to $50,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.7]
Most of the industrial printers currently used to print vehicle labels at auto assembly plants and ports of entry are black and white. A requirement for color labeling would mean replacing these printers with at least two industrial printers at each assembly plant and at least two units per company at each port of entry. Color printing would also increase the labor costs associated with maintaining printing machines. Additionally, given the number of assembly plants and port of entry, the ability to obtain enough industrial color printers  -  particularly within the short leadtime suggested by the proposed rule  -  is also questionable. This waste of money and resources for the luxury of a more eye-catching label would come at a time when automobile manufacturers are still struggling to recover from a dramatic drop in vehicle sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.7]
Even the use of preprinted color labels would add unnecessary complexity and cost. Manufacturers currently use pre-printed color label stocks for some purposes (e.g., Monroney Label borders, California Environmental Performance Label). However, these vehicle labels are printed on demand on the assembly floor or at the port, with no model-to-model variation in the color stocks that are used. Under the proposed rule, however, different vehicle models and/or different variations of the same model would require different color stocks. Even with the use of preprinted labels, assembly plant and port personnel would be required to switch from one feed stock to another to match the corresponding label with the specific vehicle that is being assembled or delivered.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.7-8]
MR. MEDFORD: You mentioned a time issue and you mentioned a couple things. One is sort of the print capability and the other is the color capability. Is there some additional information that maybe you can provide in writing, and I'm glad for your comments that you submitted. But can you elaborate any more on how much time in the nature of the work that has to be done to support getting ready with the label on there and how much of an issue is the color and how much is it for just establishing a new label format and printing it? [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 37]
MR. AMBROZAITIS: Yes, we will submit that in our 24 written comments. The main issue is that the requirements will only be finalized in January 2011 which will leave very little time for hybrids to get ready for model year 2012. The issue with color is the printing of color right at the spawn of production, and we will address all these issues in our comments. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 37-38]

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
Color Labels are Problematic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.3]
AIAM has several concerns with the proposed color labels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.3]
Current printers used by auto manufacturers do not accommodate the printing of information in color. Currently, any colored portions of labels must be pre-printed. Several of our members have consulted suppliers and found that there are no heavy-duty, high volume, commercial printers available for color printing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.3]
Changing to laser printers to accommodate color printing is not recommended due to problems with fading, toner handling, expense, maintenance, slow performance, and lack of quality control for large batch printing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.3]
If pre-printed color labels and multiple colors of labels are required for different technologies, then the different colored labels would have to be sequenced at the production or port facility. Such sequencing is logistically very difficult to accomplish and would result in a much higher likelihood of mis-labeling of vehicles. Manufacturers would be required to expend higher levels of oversight to prevent this from occurring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, pp.3-4]
Color labels are difficult to see and read with tinted windows. For these reasons, if color is required, then we recommend a single color which can be preprinted on the label stock. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.4]
We have several concerns with the proposed  color label requirement.  First, current printers do not  accommodate the printing of variable information in  color; instead, color portions of labels must be  preprinted.  Second, changes to laser printers to  accommodate color printing is not recommended due to  problems with fading, toner handling, expense,  maintenance, slow performance, and lack of quality  control for large batch printing.  Third, if preprinted color is used in the  background of labels, multiple labels would be required for various vehicle technologies, which would have to be  sequenced.  Sequencing on the assembly line or in port  facilities is logistically very difficult.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 55-56.]

Automotive Global Accounts
The proposed changes for the Monroney label option 1 and label option 2 with regards to color are not possible using today's printer technologies . Currently we have two technologies that drive color printing which are toner based printer inks and Ink jet color inks . These technologies today DO NOT support fade resistant inking technology (Ultra Light fast Inks). Both ink technologies can fade within days of printing. A significant color variance within the color graphs on Option 1 and 2 will be seen. The large colored circle and solid bar on Option 1 will also have a significant fading issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6285. p. 1]
Due to the technology issues with variable color printing. OEM's will have to preprint all colored labels and manage multiple variations of the colored labels . Monroney labels are printed as an 11 X 17 format. The label size limits the label feeding capabilities through all printers. The printer tray limitation will cause additional issues with the number of printers each OEM will have to deploy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6285, p. 1]
In closing using color in option 1 and 2 is not possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6285, p. 1]

BMW
If these relatively light colors are introduced, current preprinted background images will not be feasible. They have to be redesigned or abandoned. A paper stock change like this is also never an exact science. Therefore, there will be excess stock left in the process. This resulted in high scrapping costs in the past. Again, there will be a need for ample lead time for purchasing, the design agencies, and the paper manufacturer to react. The BMW Group will need at least a 3-4 months lead time for this process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7142.1, pp.2-3]
The BMW Group will submit preliminary cost projections with confidentiality. The projections are based on a two case scenario without knowing the final label design and time for implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7142.1, p.3]

California Air Resources Board (CARB)
MS. CHILADAKIS:  It has to include, for our  requirements, one color, so yours would satisfy that if  you involved more colors, but it has to have one. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 146.]
MR. MEDFORD:  You heard the companies talk  today about having a color in a fixed position so it's  all stock paper. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 146.]
MS. CHILADAKIS:  Yes, that's how they've  worked it out.  We have a green border, but they use  paper with that template. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 146.]
MR. MEDFORD:  Do you have a view about the way  we proposed our color scheme in that label in the  proposal. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 146.]
MS. CHILADAKIS:  I think it's great that  you're going to include a lot of different colors.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 146.]

Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
MR. GILLIS: Let me make two comments in response to this. First of all, these two gentlemen represent one of the most sophisticated, complex industries that has produced vehicles that are absolutely amazing in terms of their technology, in terms of their performance, in terms of their style and their look. And we're hearing that they cannot figure out how to print a color label. I can print color labels in my own house. I realize my color printer won't work in your factory, but, gosh, I can push a button on an OnStar, and have all kinds of technology and radios that are phenomenal, and all kinds of technologies in these vehicles. So I think we need to put that in perspective. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the LA Hearing EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551, PP.50]

Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Color
Ford understands EPA's and NHTSA's reasons for proposing the inclusion of color on labels, however we have assessed the option with our finance and marketing teams and have determined a transition to color labels would add cost and complexity to our label printing process, yet add little to no benefit. One significant issue is that the window labels must be removed when a customer takes delivery and are therefore of relatively short-term value. Our focus group information as well as EPA's indicates consumers will do most of their research for vehicle purchase prior to seeing the vehicle on a dealer lot. For the most part, the labels simply confirm the information that consumers have already gathered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.4]
In Ford's case, economic conditions have required us to leverage our older IT systems to the maximum while we continue to pay down our debt. As a result, our systems are not in a position today to make immediate changes to our fuel economy label formats. In order to produce labels, data must be transferred via multiple IT systems: from the test site to regulatory databases to vehicle invoicing and finally to the label supplier and assembly plant. Fundamental updates will be needed to most of these systems in order to implement the new labels. In addition, it is also our understanding that IT resources for one of the key systems will already be stressed in 2011 to incorporate updates for other new CAFE and GHG reporting requirements and five cycle fuel economy labeling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.8; this comment can also be found at section 7.1 of this comment summary]

General Motors (GM)
Color
GM opposes the addition of color.  Color can be pleasing for some but when comparing facts and figures, a black and white format levels the playing field.  Adding color to the fuel economy label has drawbacks on several levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 4]
A move to color ink would make all current printers obsolete, requiring replacement of all printers at our U.S., Canadian, and Mexican assembly centers, along with our ports and main print center  -  51 in total. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 4]
Assembly centers are focused on throughput and efficiencies.  Printing in color is slower than black and white.  Based on our initial estimates color printing will be at least 20% slower than black and white printing, thus potentially impacting our assembly run rates.  Full testing will be required to determine the impact to the assembly centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 4]
The addition of color can be very expensive for no real consumer benefit.  Initial cost estimates for color printing, setup, development and validation testing exceed $1.5 million and do not include the lost value of the printers currently in use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 4]
Cost
The costs to implement a label change like the ones proposed in this rule are significant.   Several items will drive cost including management time to implement the new process, engineering time for programming and development to show the new data elements required on the label,  as well as testing and validation of the final product and finally procurement, shipping and installation of any new required hardware. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 5]
The initial estimate to modify the existing systems (no color) - $800,000  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 5]
The initial estimate to modify the existing systems (with color) - $1,500,000  [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 5]

Honda Motor Company
Color Printing: Honda's suppliers indicate that color printer inks (other than black) are not sufficiently fade resistant to be outdoors, in the sun for extended periods as some vehicles will be. Honda recommends that single color designs be considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6774.1, p.7]
Pre-Printed Labels: Honda supports a single, pre-printed label stock for all fuel economy labels. OEMs with advanced manufacturing will be in the fortunate situation of producing multiple power-train technologies on the same production lines (e.g. Honda currently produces CNG and gasoline vehicles on the same line). Flexible manufacturing means that frequent label stock change-outs create numerous opportunities for error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6774.1, p.7]
Now to more prosaic and practical  considerations.  Critical to your final rule must be the practicality of implementing these labels.  Our  suppliers tell us that there are no available commercial  color printers that can stand the non-stop operation  required at our production lines.  As it is, we have backup printers and switch  between them regularly in order to cool them down and  prevent jamming.  In some cases we're physically limited  by space and resources to provide additional printers in  the areas.  The simplicity of a single paper stock will  reduce complexity, likelihood of error, and cost.  The  industry needs six month's lead time to program, test,  install new equipment, if necessary, order new paper  stock, deplete existing inventories and launch the new  labels.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 94.]

Hyundai Motor Company
Implementation of label Content [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.8]
Hyundai appreciates the aesthetics and layout of Label 1, and again, the creative thinking this label demonstrates, Unfortunately, there are several potential drawbacks with the implementation of this label, most of which relate to the use of color on the label. The agencies are proposing the addition of color to the labels for static and variable data. As we will explain in the following, use of color for static data will be challenging and cannot be imprinted with variable data of any color. The use of color for variable data is not feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.8]
As EPA and NHTSA are aware, manufacturers recently implemented color on California's new Environmental Performance Label. We were able to meet California's requirements because they required only one pre-printed color in the borders only and provided approximately six months of lead time to implement the new label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.8]
Color Printing: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.8]
First, for static color like background aspects of the proposed labels, pre-printed color stock could be used, but this solution is challenging. Laser printers were never designed to imprint variable data on label stock that has been pre-printed with static color (borders, boxes, etc.) on the removable liner side (for adhesive application to the 'inside' of the vehicle window). Thus, overlaying variable data in black ink could not be done on the color portions of the label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, pp.8-9]
Second, for variable color data like the proposed operating cost shown in Figure 5 [See p.10 of this comment summary for Figure 5 entitled, Label Implementation Concerns] ('spend $9,100'), introduction of variable color imprinting is not possible with current printer hardware. Use of laser printers is not recommended because of drawbacks such as fading within one to two weeks of printing and problems with toner handling, maintenance, slow performance, and lack of quality control for large batch printing. To date, we are not aware of any laser color printer hardware solutions that can provide fade resistant output of color for variable data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.9]
Additionally, current labels are printed in large batches, but to accommodate the proposed addition of four label grade colors, pre-printed labels would have to be sequenced for each vehicle to ensure the correct label stock was being used. Sequencing on the assembly line or in port facilities is logistically very difficult. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.9]
Printer Tolerances: The space provided for the variable text in the lower portion of Label 1, including fuel consumption, MPG city and highway, CO, g/mi and annual fuel cost for gasoline vehicles, is too small to accommodate printing variations. Currently, labels can shift inside printers by up to 1/8 of an inch, and with each data set so close to each other as proposed in Label 1, there is a high possibility for the printer to overlap data. The proposed design changes to Label 1, in Figure 3, streamline this data box and would help prevent concerns about printing overlap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.9]
The implementation concerns for color printing and printer tolerances are depicted in Figure 5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.9]

Merritt, Kevin
Can you confirm if the color on the label will be a requiremet? This will have singnificant implications to the manufactureres if color is a requirement. Either they will have to move to color printers (generally slower, more expensive, less reliable, struggle more with this media, more expensive supplies) or change to pre-printed color media. Some have avoided this in the past by spearating the CA smog sticker. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-3549, p. 1]
The current sliding scales have an opaque numbers in them. Those numbers overlap color on the scale If the sliders were moved up, then the color on these labels could be pre-printed. The current design would require just in time (color laser printers) to replace current mono printers. This could have significant costs implications for hardware and programming.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-4723, p.1; this comment can also be found at section 3.3.1, 3.3.2 & 3.4.2 of this comment summary]
The sliding scale used has white letters. Becuase it overlaps the colored 'slider bar', this would require that the label be printed using a color printer. Preprinted color media would otherwise show through the the lower half of text of the arrow slider. If the arrows were simply placed above the slider, then pre-printed stock could be used. Also is there a specicification for the color used? (There are many shaded of yellow... or could other colors be used... or could grey be used, allowing existing pritnes to be used?) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-3705, p.1; this comment can also be found at section 3.3.1, 3.3.2 & 3.4.2 of this comment summary]

National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
MR. MEDFORD:  I just have a couple. First, for the Alliance.  And this is in regards to your testimony about the time, and specifically, what you had to say about color.  You gave some facts about why you thought the need for additional lead time for the other components. What is it about, and you didn't say how much more lead time you need for color, but can you give us some factual information about that. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 41.]
MR. DOUGLAS:  Do you mean about color in general?  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 41.]
MR. MEDFORD:  Color.  And you said you could do it in 11 months if you didn't do color, but you would need more time if you did.  Can you explain how much more time and why in more detail. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 41.]
MR. DOUGLAS:  I can't really get into the 'how much more time.'  I think it depends on -- but this is not -- you know, these are manufacturing facilities, assembly plants, distribution points, ports of entry. And it's not like Honda can go down to OfficeMax and buy up a bunch of HP color printers. These are industrial printers.  They're an industrial facility.  They have to develop the software for them.  That ads complexity.  The color printer is much slower than that of a black-and-white printer.  And, quite honestly, I don't think there is a color printer used by a single manufacturer, at this point, for labels.  And it's not just, you know, 20-pound paper that they print on.  I mean, their own labels, they're irregular-sized, it's  thicker, it's different. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 41-42.]

Nissan
Black & White vs. Color Labels
Nissan recognizes that a color label improves the appearance and information recognition. However, these advantages should be properly weighed against the notable expense of securing and operating color printers. In addition, procuring color printers will necessitate additional lead time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6922.1, p.4]

Occidental College
MR. MEDFORD:  I just have one question.  It's  about color.  We didn't hear anything about color from  you.  Do you have a view about color? [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 125; this comment can also be found at section 2.3.3 of this comment summary]
MS. ASHENMILLER:  I guess I have the view of,  if the technology is not available at this moment to  print color, then we should give some time.  But I don't  personally think that that should be a criteria in  terms -- whether or not color is important should be  decided on whether or not color is important, not  whether or not people say they can do that.  I think that there are clear incentives.  It's  very hard to know what people can and cannot do until  you actually present them with regulation that enforces  that.  So I think color should be -- if you think it's  important, you should do it. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 125; this comment can also be found at section 2.3.3 of this comment summary]
MR. ECKERLE:  I agree.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 125; this comment can also be found at section 2.3.3 of this comment summary]

Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
SAFE also understood the concerns raised by the auto manufacturers about the use of color. We do not need to be expert printers to appreciate that printing in color costs more and is more complex that printing in black and white. We also understand that there may be issues with respect to color consistency between printers, factories, and auto manufacturers, in addition to concerns about the effects of ultraviolet exposure, which could fade labels when left in the sunlight for a period of weeks or months, undermining the value of the color. Because the color in the proposed labels added little value to the labels and we were able to design black and white labels that could clearly convey all of the information to consumers that we think needs to be conveyed, we do not think it is worth the effort and expense of adding color to the labels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7522.1, pp.12-13]

Suzuki Motor Corporation
Fuel Economy Label Design
Suzuki supports the more traditional Label 2 design with some minor modifications to reduce the implementation costs for manufacturers. Based on Suzuki's estimated cost analysis, all of the current labels proposed will have a significant cost burden that may not have been anticipated by EPA and NHTSA due to the fact that new software and hardware will be required to print the new labels. In order to simplify the label design and facilitate an easy transition without high implementation costs, Suzuki recommends the following design changes be made to Label 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6900.1, p.2]
[Recommended Label 2 design changes can be found on page 2 of this comment.]
1. Delete the color requirements for all vehicle categories so that manufacturers can use their current black-white printers to print black text only on the labels. If the final label requires color, choose only one color such as green for hybrid or electric vehicles which can be pre-printed on paper stock. Pre-printing the color on the labels will significantly reduce cost by eliminating the need to purchase new color printers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6900.1, p.3]
Cost Burden to Adopt New Label Requirements
Suzuki has conducted an estimated cost analysis based on the current label proposal and we believe that our cost to adopt either of the proposed labels which would contain variable colors, special fonts/graphics and a Smartphone code will cost Suzuki over $200,000. Below is a summary of Suzuki's estimated cost to adopt the labels as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6900.1, p.4]
[See table on page 4 of this comment.]
The largest expense in adopting the new label will be in purchasing new color laser printers because Suzuki currently uses black-white ink jet printers to print black text and several symbols (stars, pointers, blocks) on the fuel economy label, NCAP label and the CEPL label, which are all part of the Monroney Label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6900.1, p.4]

Toyota
To help consumers identify the grade of a vehicle on dealer sales lots, EPA is proposing that different colors be used to differentiate between grade families. For example, the circle which surrounds the letter grade would be a different color, green for A grades, yellow for B grades, orange for C grades, and dark orange for D grades. Toyota does not agree that applying color to the labels would be an effective measure to consumers. Experience with current label printing, which incorporates a black printer on color cardstock suggests that use of color is compromised because the label is viewed through a tinted window. Incorporating the color schemes being proposed by EPA would not standout through the window tint, would be subject to fading and thus, its usefulness would be lost. Furthermore, the color changes being proposed by EPA will require color printing capability at all Toyota locations. Expediting color printing capability in the timeframe needed to meet the new label requirements represents a significant capital investment and changes to existing processes and cannot be realistically achieved by 2012 MY. Estimates for changes to the 150 different label printers to accommodate the different formats as well as color are in the range of $3 million dollars and a year plus of lead-time, as well as ongoing increases in operating costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6901.1, p.12]
 University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
However, we acknowledge that there are significant potential difficulties with using color on the final label. Manufacturers will be responsible for printing their own labels to affix to vehicles as they are made, and the agencies have mandated appropriate colors for manufacturers to use, so there will have to be some oversight to ensure that colors are uniform across manufacturers. The potential for color variations between manufacturers and decreased intensity of color due to sun exposure or due to low ink levels could result in violations of the Rule. For these reasons, we propose that EPA and NHTSA also consider using colored paper stock instead of colored ink, which would be easier to enforce and oversee. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, pp.3-4]

Volvo
Challenges
This new regulation would require spot printing of color fill, as well as color text. Volvo currently prints in black and white. This is true, as well, for all carmakers with whom we have spoken. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Cost Basis
Five geographically dispersed Ports of Entry. Fixed costs are influence by the geography of the market more so than by the size of the automaker. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Start-up Cost Comparison
On a per-vehicle cost basis, Volvo start-up costs are an estimated eighty times those of a large volume manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Cost Estimates
On a per-vehicle cost basis, Volvo and other smaller importers, and their customers, are affected disproportionately by the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Requirement for Multiple Labels
If Volvo would need to consider multiple labels to replace a single Monroney, each new label would increase process time to account for additional printing time and follow-up assembly controls to ensure proper application of multiple labels. Paper costs would also increase in multiples. Hardware requirements would expand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Color Cost Comparison
The difference in cost between one-off color page printing and high-volume offset printing are enormous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Recommendations
Volvo recommends avoiding color that must be individually applied at the port of entry or at the end of a factory line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Volvo recommends that color requirements be limited to those that can be accomplished in a high-volume printing process, such as background colors / color bars / color gradients applied generically during offset printing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Volvo recommends that current just-in-time black and white printing processes be preserved, and that black shapes or lines be used to delineate ranges on color backgrounds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7123.1, p.2]
Response:
These comments address cost and lead-time concerns associated with the proposed labels, that used multiple colors and were expected to be finalized for Model Year (MY) 2012.
The label that the agencies are finalizing uses only one color (blue) in addition to black and white, and has designed the label so that the blue can be pre-printed on feedstock.  Some auto makers already pre-print color on their current Monroney labels.  The decision to use only one additional color, in a way that allows it to be pre-printed, is expected to address most of the concerns raised in these comments.  The affected companies will be able to use black-and-white printers.  The feedstock will not change for different vehicles.
Hyundai raises concerns that pre-printing is "challenging.  Laser printers were never designed to imprint variable data on label stock that has been pre-printed with static color (borders, boxes, etc.) on the removable liner side (for adhesive application to the 'inside' of the vehicle window). Thus, overlaying variable data in black ink could not be done on the color portions of the label."  However, comments from others suggest that this approach will not materially affect their costs:  e.g., "Honda supports a single, pre-printed label stock for all fuel economy labels."  Suzuki comments, "If the final label requires color, choose only one color such as green for hybrid or electric vehicles which can be pre-printed on paper stock. Pre-printing the color on the labels will significantly reduce cost by eliminating the need to purchase new color printers." "Volvo recommends that color requirements be limited to those that can be accomplished in a high-volume printing process, such as background colors / color bars / color gradients applied generically during offset printing."  The Alliance of Automobile Manufactures and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers express concerns about sequencing if multiple pre-printed labels are necessary for different kinds of vehicles but do not raise concerns about single-color pre-printed labels.  While the agencies acknowledge Hyundai's concerns, the acceptance of this approach from other auto manufacturers suggests that the addition of color in a manner that allows it to be pre-printed on feedstock does not have a material effect on costs.
The lead time for the label is also extended, with it becoming effective for MY 2013 (optional for the remainder of MY 2012).  This extension will assist with concerns over the time needed to revise IT systems and to use up existing label stock.
The cost estimates for the rule (see Preamble Section VI)  have been revised to reflect the estimates provided in comments to the agencies.  GM's estimate of $800,000 for black-and-white printing is used as an upper bound, and Suzuki's estimate (with the cost of the printer omitted) of $90,250 is used as a lower bound.  That range of costs is then applied to the estimated universe of 35 firms.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
Comment:
Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
As the agencies point out, conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the label designs can be especially challenging. Unlike more traditional regulatory approaches, the impact of the labeling program depends on how consumers in the new car market will respond to the information the labels present. It is difficult to predict with precision if and how behavior may change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.2]
First, the agencies should use their cost-benefit analysis to cabin the uncertain elements of the label designs. The agencies should estimate the effect of an incremental change in consumer behavior on achieving the labeling program's goals. These estimates can provide a rough idea of the possible impact of the label design, and will help the agencies choose which label design to adopt. Because the label is a low-cost, low-burden regulation, the agencies do not need to conduct an extremely detailed cost-benefit analysis before issuing their final rulemaking. Rather, they should borrow heavily from past rulemakings -- especially the 2010 CAFE standards rulemaking -- to estimate the impact of a change in consumer behavior, supplementing that past research with the agencies' own reasoned judgment and whatever lessons can be gleaned from a review of the relevant literature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.2]
Third, the agencies should include in their final rulemaking a plan to test the default choice by conducting field experiments and market research of all of the label designs. It may be feasible to conduct some of these field tests after the agencies issue their final rulemaking but before they implement the rule; otherwise, the agencies can conduct these experiments after implementing the rule and apply any necessary revisions to labels for later model years. These tests should be part of a robust research program designed to advance the state of label-related research. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
EPA and NHTSA Should Conduct an Appropriate Cost-Benefit Analysis [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
The agencies should expand and improve their calculation of the costs and benefits of the labeling program by defining the goals of the program; quantifying, whenever possible, those goals in monetary terms; and then comparing the relative costs and benefits of each label design to achieving those goals. Because the program's impact is inherently difficult to predict with precision, the agencies should use their cost-benefit analysis "to clarify the contours of [their] uncertainty . . . thereby improving [their] ability to make smart choices in the face of the unknown." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
Although administrative law and regulatory best practices require that the agencies conduct a cost-benefit analysis, that analysis does not need to be unduly comprehensive or detailed. The agencies' analysis should be proportional to their best estimate of the magnitude of the fuel economy label program's impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
Executive Order 12,866 Requires Cost-Benefit Analysis of Major Rules [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
Executive Order 12,866 requires agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis for significant regulatory actions. A regulatory action is "significant" if it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, is seriously inconsistent with or interferes with another agency's regulatory action, or raises novel legal or policy issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.3]
Thus the agencies' analysis should endeavor to take into account all major costs and benefits -- direct and indirect, quantifiable and qualitative. However, as discussed below, the agencies' analysis should be roughly proportional to the rule's impact; the agencies should not feel compelled to delay promulgating their final rulemaking in favor of a more detailed cost-benefit analysis. At its base, cost-benefit analysis is about making good decisions, not delaying thoughtfully crafted regulations.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.5; for additional comments pertaining to Executive Order 12,866 Requires Cost-Benefit Analysis of Major Rules, see pp.3-5 of this comment summary]
Best Practices Require Quantification of Benefits Where Possible [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.5]
Cost-benefit analysis of major rules is more than a bureaucratic requirement under the Executive Order; it is also a good idea. Cost-benefit analysis helps agencies transparently choose the best regulatory regime in terms of rationality, efficiency, and clarity. For a proposal like the fuel economy label, where regulators must make choices in the face of uncertainty, cost-benefit analysis can help cabin that uncertainty and guide the agencies towards the most reasonable choices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.5]
The agencies have invested time and resources in a reasonable, thorough label design process. They should also invest time and resources in calculating the costs and benefits in order to better understand how to maximize net benefits. The following section provides guidance on how to conduct the cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.6; for additional comments pertaining to Best Practices Require Quantification of Benefits Where Possible, see pp.5-6 of this comment summary]
The Agencies Should Define and Quantify the Goals of the Labeling Program [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.6]
In order to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed label designs, the agencies must first define the goals of the labeling program. According to the agencies, the labeling program exists to "help consumers select more energy efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles that meet their needs." However, the agencies should be more specific; they should clarify what they hope to achieve with the revised label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.6; for additional comments pertaining to The Agencies Should Define and Quantify the Goals of the Labeling Program, see pp.6-7 of this comment summary]
Identifying, Quantifying, and Valuing Costs and Benefits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.7]
Once the labeling program's goals have been identified and monetized, the agencies can evaluate the relative costs and benefits of each label design. As the agencies note, the real challenge lies in predicting the impact of the revised labels on consumer and producer behaviors, which are difficult to estimate. This does not, however, present an insurmountable obstacle. The agencies can use cost-benefit analysis to identify and cabin the uncertain impact of the label designs, and this can inform the decision of which design to adopt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, pp.7-8; for additional comments pertaining to Identifying, Quantifying, and Valuing Costs and Benefits, see pp.7-9 of this comment summary]
Response:
The agencies have continued to use a qualitative approach to benefits estimation.  Estimating the benefits of the rule would require estimating how consumers might change their vehicle purchasing behavior in response to the change in the label only.  In practice, consumers receive information on vehicles from a variety of sources, often well before they might see the label.  As a result, identifying the effects of the label itself is difficult at best.  And to what are the effects of the label to be compared  -  the effects of the old label?  The effects of no label?  These labels are being implemented as vehicles are changing in response to new fuel economy/greenhouse gas regulations, which leads to difficulties in identifying the effects of the labels compared to effects of other changes.  Another factor is that the labels are being revised to take into account many alternative technologies not addressed in the previous label design, many of which were not available in the mass market.  For these latter technologies, there is not even a theoretical basis for comparing the effect of the label with the effect of a previous label, because neither the technologies nor the labels were readily available.
In their market research, the agencies sought to understand the effects both of individual label elements and of general label design on consumer decisions.  That research suggests consumer interest in the new metrics included on the label design, and consumer use of metrics in making choices about vehicles, but a lack of clarity on the effects of different label designs on actual purchase decisions  -  especially because many consumers do research on vehicles before seeing the labels.  Thus, isolating the effects of a change in label design is extremely difficult in practice.  Additionally, even if it were possible to measure the effect of the label itself separate from other information sources, identifying the benefits associated with that effect is not a simple exercise.  Especially for new technologies (such as the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle), the efficiency of a new technology, and thus its impacts, depend on how the buyer uses the vehicle.  Thus, the effects of a change in the label design on purchase behavior is likely to be very difficult to isolate, and even more difficult to measure in terms of its effects on fuel use and environmental quality.  The agencies continue to believe that quantifying these effects would be highly speculative and thus more detrimental to the rulemaking than supportive. Rather than "cabining" the uncertainties involved in the rulemaking, a quantitative benefits calculation is more likely to stimulate protest over unfounded estimates and therefore detract from the decision-making process.
The agencies do not believe that previous rulemakings can provide useful information on consumer response to the new labels.  CAFE requirements will affect consumer decisions through their effects on vehicle price and fuel economy; this rule has no direct effect on either of those factors.  As discussed in the Market Research section of the preamble (I.D.), the agencies have conducted a great deal of research to help them design a label that will meet the goals identified for it.
Conducting research on label design as the label is rolled out would be a highly complex undertaking.  What is the control, and what is the treatment?  At the same time that the new labels will become effective, new vehicles themselves are changing, and purchase decisions are affected by changes in the state of the economy, fuel prices, and other factors; comparing sales from one year to another would not be good study design, because of the difficulty in controlling relevant factors.  We are finalizing only one label design, which rules out a comparison of two labels in the same time frame (unless some manufacturers voluntarily use the new label before it is required).  We welcome any research that independent parties might seek to conduct on the new label design, and encourage them to inform us of their results.
The agencies conduct benefit-cost analysis for "significant" rules.  We do not consider this rule to be "significant" under E.O. 12866.  First, neither its annual benefits nor its annual costs are expected to exceed $100 million.  The costs, as described in Preamble Section VI, are expected to be well below this threshold.  The benefits, as discussed here, cannot be quantified with any degree of certainty; attempting to quantify them might be more misleading than providing the qualitative discussion in the preamble.  Second, the rule is not seriously inconsistent with nor does it interfere with another agency's regulatory action.  The agencies have consulted with each other, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Energy, and other agencies to minimize any conflicts and achieve as many synergies as possible with other label-related requirements.  Finally, the rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.  This rule represents a modification to an existing label.
The goals of the label are set forth in EPACT and in EISA and are discussed in the preamble, Section I.C.  That section explains the statutory requirements, why the agencies have coordinated their requirements in one label, the usefulness of revising the label to account for increasingly diverse vehicle technologies, and the aim of improving consumer access to information on the fuel economy and environmental impacts of their vehicle purchase decisions.  In designing the labels, the agencies have used these goals as guiding principles.  Consumers nevertheless are free to use the information provided as they see fit.
The agencies considered the costs of requiring multiple colors on labels compared to the costs of designing a label where pre-printed feedstock can be used with black-and-white printers.  In addition, the agencies considered the costs associated with lead time in deciding when to make the rule effective.  Qualitative consideration of benefits were considered sufficient for these decisions.

10.2. Need to Consolidate Labels
                                                                            344
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Hyundai Motor Company
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Sierra Club
Tesla Motors
Suzuki Motor Corporation
Mitsubishi
California New Car Dealers Association
Comment:
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
A Single National Label Is Needed. Over the past few years, automakers have worked closely with the Administration and the California Air Resources Board to bring about a single national program for fuel economy and greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, automakers are still required to apply a separate Federal Trade Commission (FTC) label for alternative fuel vehicles and yet another label, with emissions information, for California vehicles. The single national program for vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions should carry through to the labeling requirements as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p. 2]
A Single National Label Is Needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.10]
Over the past few years, automakers have worked closely with the Administration and the California Air Resources Board to bring about a single national program for fuel economy and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Alliance appreciates the work that EPA and NHTSA have done to develop a joint labeling rule. However, automakers are still required to apply a separate FTC label for alternative fuel vehicles and yet another label for California vehicles, as well as other required labels. As Figure 1 [See p. 10 of this comment summary for Figure 1 entitled, Example of Current New Vehicle Labeling With Fuel Economy Incorporated Into the Monroney Label] below illustrates, this multiplicity of labels creates a clutter of competing materials that may overwhelm consumers and interfere with the ability to test drive vehicles. Ironically, this is even more pronounced for alternative fuel vehicles because of the required additional FTC label. The single national program for vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions should carry through to the Federal and California labeling requirements as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.10]

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
A Single Nationwide Label is Needed.
One of the most serious issues for AIAM members is that EPA, NHTSA, other federal agencies, California, and other states need to harmonize their respective requirements to allow one nationwide label for fuel economy and emissions for new motor vehicles. All of the federal and state labeling requirements share a common goal  -  to provide consumers with the best available information to inform new vehicle purchase decisions. This goal is not achieved with competing and conflicting labels. To inform consumers without confusing and frustrating them, it is essential to have one nationwide new vehicle label. AIAM appreciates the efforts of EPA and NHTSA to harmonize their respective label requirements for emissions and fuel economy, respectively. In addition, we appreciate the efforts made by the agencies to work with the Federal Trade Commission to develop a single label which will meet the FTC requirements as well as those of EPA and NHTSA. We also appreciate the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) stated willingness to work with the agencies to develop a harmonized single nationwide label. We urge EPA and NHTSA to work with other federal agencies and CARB to complete this critical harmonization step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7134.1, p.2]
One of the most serious issues for AIAM  members is that the agencies harmonize their respective  requirements and work with states that have similar  labeling requirements to have one nationwide label for  new motor vehicles.  AIAM believes it is essential to have one  nationwide new vehicle label to meet all federal and  state labeling requirements in order to avoid customer  confusion and frustration.  AIAM appreciates the efforts  that EPA and NHTSA have made to harmonize their  respective label requirements for emissions and fuel  economy, respectively.  In addition, you have done well in working  with the Federal Trade Commission, as well, on their  requirements.  In particular, though, the State of        California, as well as several other states that have  adopted California's emissions standards, currently have  vehicle requirements for what they call 'environmental  performance labels,' that are different from the  proposed federal labels.  Again, we appreciate EPA's and NHTSA's efforts  to develop new federal labels that include the labeling  requirements of these states and your efforts to allow  compliance with the federal requirements to also  constitute compliance with the state requirements.  It is important to note that if California  decides some time later that they can accept the new EPA  label as a substitute for their environmental  performance label, OEMs will need to redesign the label  yet again to eliminate the duplicative CARB label.  And  this kind of inefficiency should be avoided by the  federal agencies in working now collaboratively with  CARB to agree on one national label.  As noted above, such harmonization is  essential to assist consumer understanding and reduce  unnecessary administrative costs for dealers and auto  manufacturers; therefore, we believe it's in the public  interest for all federal and state agencies involved to  agree on one national label before the final rule is  issued.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 52-53.]
MR. CABANISS:  I have one additional thought  about lead time.  And I'm not quite sure, you know,  given that Jonathan mentioned, I think, the statute in  California -- about their label.  And I'm not sure  exactly the legal requirements and how that, you know,  may work out.  But one of the biggest factors that our  members have concerns -- and I emphasized it in our  statement and we'll elaborate on it in our written  comments as well -- is the idea of having one national  label.  You know, I know we can't predict when the legislature might take an action in California or any  other state or even Congress, obviously, but to the  extent that we can find a way through this issue to have  one label, you know, and the sooner the better, of  course, so that we don't have to go through -- the  manufacturers' having to go through and redesign labels.  That's why I emphasized, you know, with the new  requirements for NCAP and these new requirements, and  also the sort of conflicting state requirements because  they use different metrics and so on.  To the extent we can get all of that worked  out at one time, and I know it's tough, but that would  be the best solution, is to try to figure out a way to  do that once so we don't have to redo labels and redo  labels and redo labels. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 81-82.]
MS. OGE:  CARB is testifying today, and  clearly, there are different regulatory requirements.  You know, there is state legislation we have, but  clearly we're committed to working with CARB, and we'll  see what they can do.  We appreciate your comments.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 82.]

California Air Resources Board (CARB)
As mentioned in the cover letter, the Air Resources Board would like to move to one environmental label for consumers to consider when purchasing a new car. AB 1229 requires that upstream emissions are included in the greenhouse gas information provided on the label. Having this information reflected on the label is necessary in order for us to adopt the national label in California. One suggested solution, should EPA and NHTSA decide not to include upstream emissions on the label nationally, would be to set aside a blank space for automakers to include upstream emissions for California. This may be a workable compromise that would allow us to adopt the National Label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7527.1, p.1]
We really do want to move to one national  label but also have to keep in mind our statutory  requirements. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 133.]

California New Car Dealers Association
And as for the joint regulatory proposal, I  would like to offer the following comments.  Now, in general, we think that the label  should be simple but respectful of the buyer's  intelligence.  NHTSA and EPA must consider the fact that  the environmental and fuel economy performance of a  vehicle is one of many factors that consumers take into  account when making a purchase decision.  Other important factors include safety, price,  performance, quality, utility, and passenger and storage  capacity.  Those are all very important for consumers.  The purpose of the label should be to provide pertinent  and easy-to-understand information about fuel economy  and emissions.  Our primary concern with the proposal, even greater than the content or the format of the proposed  label themselves, is the fact that the proposal  specifically provides that the new label will be  required in addition to, and not in lieu of, CARB's own  Environmental Performance Label.  On behalf of our members and their customers,  we strongly urge EPA and NHTSA to work with CARB to  develop a single, uniform federal label that will  supplant the CARB label.  As currently drafted, a  consumer examining a vehicle's Monroney label may see  the CARB Environmental Performance label and the Federal  Fuel Economy and Environmental Comparison label.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 64-65.]

Ford Motor Company (Ford)
One National Fuel Economy and GHG Label: Ford strongly supports efforts to align California, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), EPA and NHTSA to use a single label, which would satisfy overlapping environmental, greenhouse gas and fuel economy regulatory requirements. We believe this rulemaking provides a rare opportunity for the key stakeholders to consolidate and reduce one aspect of today's regulatory complexity for consumers, dealerships, and manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.2]
One National Label [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.10]
Ford strongly supports efforts to agree on one national fuel economy and GHG label that will meet the requirements of EPA, NHTSA, CARB and FTC. Multiple labels are currently being used to meet the requirements. We believe one label could be developed to convey the information that is listed on the FTC and California Environmental Performance Label, as well as the new information that will be required by the fuel economy labeling rule. Usage of one label would benefit the consumer, manufacturers and dealers by reducing complexity and redundancy of information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.10]
To incorporate information required on the FTC label for alternative fuel vehicles into one national label, Ford supports the usage of comparative range data and believes that inclusion of fuel economy results for the alternate fuel should continue to be voluntary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.11]

Hyundai Motor Company
Finally, Hyundai understands that environmental information related to GHG and emissions is now mandated. However, we are concerned that this information will be duplicative of the information that California and other states require on their Environmental Performance label or that the information may not match resulting in consumer confusion. We believe harmonizing the information on these two labels is necessary and that duplication should be avoided. A full discussion of harmonization concerns can be found in Section VI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, pp.5-6]
Relationship of EPA's Proposed Requirements with Other Statutes and Regulations; Harmonization [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.12]
Hyundai believes that it important for the agencies - EPA, NHTSA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the California Air Resources Board, as well as applicable Section 177 States' agencies - to harmonize their respective labeling requirements. A single, national label will be the most effective way to provide relevant and comprehensive information to the consumer, and eliminate any potential confusion due to multiple labels. Hyundai appreciates that EPA and NHTSA are collaborating to harmonize their respective label requirements for emissions and fuel economy, as well as taking separate efforts to work with the FTC to develop a single label which will also meet the FTC requirements. These are important steps to ensuring a national, harmonized label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.12]
As such, it is also necessary for the agencies to collaborate with the State of California and Section 177 States, who have adopted California's emissions standards, to harmonize California's environmental performance labels so that it is not different from the proposed federal labels and/or duplicative without any additional benefit. Since space continues to be a concern for the Monroney Label, where the Fuel Economy Label and California's Environmental Performance Label reside, a single, harmonized label would also have the added benefit of freeing up space. Most importantly, as already noted, harmonization is essential to ensuring consumer understanding and avoiding conflicting and/or duplicative information on multiple labels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.12]

Mitsubishi
A single national label is needed, (Alliance, AIAM) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6934.1, p.1]

National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Harmonization [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6940.1, p.8]
NHTSA, EPA and the California Resources Board (CARB) must work together to ensure that, once the revised federal label is issued, no continuing justification will exist for a separate California emissions or environmental performance label. The ORG and Other Emissions metrics in the federal label effectively duplicate the Global Warming and Smog metrics on the CARB label. Thus, NHTSA, EPA, and CARB should ascertain what procedural steps are necessary to eliminate the CARB label once the federal label is issued. California consumers and dealers do not need two labels with disparate formats presenting largely the same information. As discussed above, NHTSA and EPA should work with the FTC to eliminate the separate FTC label for alternative fueled vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6940.1, p.8]

Sierra Club
Finally, California, as has been mentioned,  has an Environmental Performance label that provides  some of the information EPA and NHTSA are considering  for the national label.  So we urge that the federal  agencies consider the information provided on  California's label and the scales provided.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 102.]

Suzuki Motor Corporation
Harmonizing Emission Label Requirements
Suzuki believes it is essential that the emission label requirement meet all federal and state labeling requirements in order to avoid possible consumer confusion with the mandatory California Environmental Performance Label (CEPL) which the State of California and several other states that have adopted based on California's emission standards. Suzuki sees no benefit in having two different emission labels that could contain significantly different rating systems which will only add to consumer confusion and unnecessary administrative burden for dealers and auto manufacturers. Suzuki strongly recommends that EPA, NHTSA and CARB work together to develop one national emission label that would meet all federal and state requirements in an effort to eliminate the California Environmental Performance Label. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6900.1, p.4]

Tesla Motors
When considering label improvements overall, Tesla would urge EPA and NHTSA to look to existing labeling requirements under other regulatory regimes and utilize those measures to which consumers have become familiar. For example, the state of California and at least fifteen other states have adopted Environmental Performance ("EP") labeling, which rates vehicles based on traditional pollutants as well as greenhouse gases. Because of the widespread application of those labels, consumers in a significant portion of the country have become familiar with the metrics in these labels. Rather than having duplicative labels, EPA and NHTSA may wish to consider incorporating the measures of the EP labeling program on a national level. In the NPRM, the Agencies already have recognized that the proposed revision would not interfere with the EP labeling program. Tesla would endorse that EPA and NHTSA consider incorporating the EP labeling program so as to avoid duplicative requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6933.1, p.4]
Finally, with respect to label amendments, Tesla would urge the Agencies to strive to harmonize labeling requirements across the federal regulatory landscape as well states. Specifically, the requirements at 16 C.F.R. Part 309 as administered by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") require that ATVs provide certain information on separate labels. For EVs, the requirements include a label that publishes the maximum range based on the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule and the Highway Fuel Economy Test procedures. As EPA and NHTSA consider the values to place on the fuel economy label, the Agencies should include involving the FTC so as to avoid confusing and conflicting labels administered by three different agencies of the same federal government. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6933.1, pp.4-5]
Response:
1.        Federal Trade Commission
           The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently requires that alternative fuel vehicles display a label that reports the driving range of the vehicle. [1]  The dedicated alternative fuel vehicle label displays the estimated city and highway driving ranges on the alternative fuel, and the label for dual fuel vehicles (e.g., flexible fuel vehicles, or FFVs) displays the estimated city and highway driving ranges on both fuels.[2]  Alternative fuels (especially non-petroleum alternative fuels) may have lower energy densities, thus resulting in potentially reduced driving ranges relative to conventional fuels, and it is important for consumers to be able to understand this when considering the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle.  Among the vehicles currently labeled by EPA, the FTC label applies to vehicles that operate on electricity, ethanol, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or on combinations of these fuels and conventional gasoline or diesel fuel (e.g., FFVs and PHEVs).
             EPA did not specifically propose to harmonize with the FTC regulations such that a single label would satisfy the multiple and sometimes overlapping EPA, DOT, and FTC requirements.  However, EPA did recognize in the proposal that there could be an opportunity for such harmonization that would depend on whether or not the FTC ultimately could conclude that the EPA/DOT label could satisfy their statutory requirements.[3]  The relevant FTC statute specifically allows for the information to appear on labels placed on vehicles as the result of other federal requirements.[4]  Labels that were proposed to include range information and that are required including this information (e.g., EVs, PHEVs, hydrogen FCV, and CNG-fueled vehicles) may in fact meet the FTC's statutory requirements, although the FTC will ultimately need to make a formal decision as to whether vehicles with these labels meet the FTC label requirements.
 	The agencies are requiring a label for ethanol flexible fuel vehicles that is consistent with the principles of the current policy:  all label metrics are based on gasoline operation, a statement is provided so that the consumer knows that the values are based on gasoline operation,[5] and manufacturers may voluntarily include fuel economy estimates on E85 (which would be based on miles per gallon of E85, given that E85 is a liquid fuel).  In addition, manufactures may optionally include the driving range on gasoline and on E85.  As with the required range information on non-petroleum and advanced technology vehicles, the FTC will need to make a formal decision as to whether vehicles with these labels meet the FTC label requirements.

            The FTC has indicated that they will evaluate the labels in this final rule and ultimately make a determination as to whether or not the labels for alternative fuel vehicles that include range information are sufficient to meet the FTC statutory requirements.
 2.        California Air Resources Board
 	To provide vehicle emissions information to consumers, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has required new vehicles to have a Smog Index label since the 1998 model year, and an Environmental Performance Label (EPL), with both the Smog Index and a Global Warming Index, for all vehicles produced since Jan 1, 2009.[6]   These labels, which must be displayed in all new vehicles sold and registered in the state of California,[7] depict relative emissions of smog-forming pollutants and, separately gases that contribute to global warming.   In the proposal, the agencies acknowledged that the EPL required similar information to the proposed labels, but did not suggest harmonizing with the EPL.
 	Nevertheless, many auto manufacturers and their associations commented about the desirability of a single, unified national label.   These comments stated that it would be a cost-saving measure, increase clear space on the window, and reduce the potential for consumer confusion that could occur with two different labels presenting vehicle emissions information.  Notably, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) commented that it believed that two labels with environmental information would be confusing and that its goal is to accept a national fuel economy and environment label that would meet its statutory obligations under the California Assembly Bill 1229 of 2005.[8]
 	In discussing the possibility of harmonization, the California Air Resources Board commented specifically that it is obligated to address upstream emissions of greenhouse gases, stating that, "One suggested solution, should EPA and NHTSA decide not to include upstream emissions on the label nationally, would be to set aside a blank space for automakers to include upstream emissions for California. This may be a workable compromise that would allow us to adopt the National Label."[9]  ARB also commented that its statute requires that the label include a statement that motor vehicles are a primary contributor to global warming and smog, either in conjunction with any upstream language or in the border of the label, and that ARB adopt either an "index that provides quantitative information in a continuous, easy-to read scale"[10] or an alternative graphical representation if input from a public workshop indicates that it will be a more effective way to convey the information.  ARB also stated that its label must also represent emissions relative to all new vehicles, and explained that after a public workshop, ARB had adopted a one-to-ten scale for both the smog and global warming indexes.  Finally, according to their comments, under ARB's controlling statute, [11] the label must include at least one ink color other than black.
 	In order to try to facilitate label harmonization to reduce OEM costs associated with labeling and potential consumer confusion at the possibility of two environment-related labels on new vehicles, NHTSA and EPA are adopting label provisions that may address California's requirements.  Specifically, the label includes both "smog" ("other emissions," as discussed above) and greenhouse gas ratings relative to all new vehicles, using a one-to-ten format that is consistent with ARB's historical approach.  In response to ARB's request to address upstream emissions, the label will include language pointing the public to a web site that will provide upstream emissions values, including regional-specific values for electricity generation.  This statement, "Producing and distributing fuel also creates emissions; learn more at comparecars.gov," will be placed near the environmental information on the label.  The label will also attempt to address California's requirement for additional consumer language by including this statement, "Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of global warming and smog."
 	The agencies have worked closely with ARB in developing a label that may meet their needs.  We believe that the ARB will evaluate the labels in this final rule with the intention of making a determination of whether the labels can serve to meet their statutory requirements as an alternative to the California Environmental Performance Label.

[1] 16 CFR Part 309.
[2] Note that while EPA does not currently require any comparative fuel information on FFV labels, EPA regulations have allowed manufacturers to optionally include the ethanol MPG and annual cost values since 2007.  See 40 CFR 600.307-08.
[3] 75 FR 58112 (Sept. 23, 2010).
[4] 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) states that the FTC labels "shall be simple and, where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing information to the consumer."
[5] The slightly revised statement is "Values are based on gasoline and do not reflect performance and ratings based on E85."
[6] State of California Air Resources Board, "California Environmental Performance Label Specifications for 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles."  Adopted May 2, 2008.
[7] And  those Clean Air Act Section 177 states that have chosen to adopt the California Environmental Performance Label.
[8] California Air Pollution Control Laws, Health and Safety Code, Division 26 Air Resources, Part 5 Vehicular Air Pollution Control, Chapter 2 New Motor Vehicles, Sections 43200 and 43200.1.
[9] Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7527.1.
[10] Id.
[11] California Air Pollution Control Laws, Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Chapter 2, Section 43200.1 (b)(2)(D).

10.3. Legal Authority under Statutory Provisions EPCA and EISA
                                                                            354
Organization: California New Car Dealers Association
Comment:
California New Car Dealers Association
Now, the federal label contains a zero to 850 range, 'Greenhouse Gas' scale and a 1 to 10 'Other Air  Pollutants' scale, while the CARB label is going to have 1 a 10 to  'Global Warming Score' and a 1 to 10 'Smog  Score.'  Since the scales and scoring formulas differ,  scores may vary widely.  It will be extremely difficult to explain to a  environmentally-conscious consumer why the CARB label  rates a vehicle of 382 grams/C/mile as a 5 out of a 10, while the federal label rates a vehicle  as a B.  This is going to cause confusion for the  customers and will make it very difficult for our  member's sales staff to explain the disparity while maintaining the crucial credibility to be able to make  the sale.  [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Los Angeles hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7551 PP 65-66.]
Response:
The agencies received comments from dealers, automakers, and the state of California about harmonizing the fuel economy and environment labels, especially in the state of California.  During the design process, the agencies worked with both the California Air Resources Board and the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that the final label design would meet the requirements of both CARB and the FTC and allow for the harmonization of labels.  For more detail, see the preamble section III.L.

10.3.1. EPA's Authority under EPCA and EISA
                                                                            355
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
Comment:
Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
The fuel economy label, however, can do more than simply correct a problem of imperfect information about energy efficiency in the new car market. In order to evaluate which label design to adopt, the agencies need to define the purpose of the labeling program with more specificity and clarify what they hope to achieve with the revised label. The program's two enabling statutes, the Energy Policy Conservation Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act, offer guidance, as do the agencies' related rulemakings. Beyond providing consumers with more information, the labeling program's goals include increasing energy independence, promoting alternative fuels, reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions, maximizing consumer welfare, and increasing the net benefit of the agencies' CAFE standards program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.2]
Once the agencies have identified -- and where possible quantified -- the goals of the labeling program, they can assess the relative merits of the proposed designs in meeting those goals. Efficiently achieving the program's goals may require the agencies to make tradeoffs between specific objectives; for example it may be that focusing on emissions reductions will not lead to improvements in consumer welfare, and the agencies may need to decide which is the more important goal. These tradeoffs will be reflected in the agencies' design decisions, and those decisions affect the net social impact of the labeling program. Evaluating the relative merits of the label designs requires cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.2]

University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
A. Standard of Review
First, citizens have the right to challenge any final agency action under the APA. Additionally, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides a right for parties to challenge regulations promulgated under EPCA. The main challenges to the proposed labels will likely fall under the APA, which requires agency actions to be set aside if they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." This phrase has been interpreted as a requirement of reasoned decision making that is based on the information before the agency at the time of the decision  -  in other words, the agency must "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.8]
Courts are likely to find an agency rule arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, did not consider an important aspect of the issue, offered an explanation that conflicts with the evidence before the agency, or offered an explanation that is wholly implausible. If the statute at issue is clear, courts will follow clear congressional intent. If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, however, courts will defer to agency interpretation as long as it is "based on a permissible construction of the statute." The overall picture, then, is one of deferential review, where an agency's action can withstand judicial review absent an impermissible, implausible, or irrational interpretation of the underlying statute or a similarly unreasonable action on the merits given the evidence, including public comments, before the agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, pp.8-9]
B. Statutory Authority
The current rulemaking derives authority from two statutes. ECPA requires NHTSA and EPA to develop labels for new vehicles displaying information relative to their environmental performance, fuel economy, and emissions. EPCA was modified by the 2007 passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which added new requirements for vehicle labels, including a mandate to establish "a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare" fuel economy and other elements of their prospective automobile purchases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.9]
Under EPCA, an automobile label must include: (a) the automobile's fuel economy, (b) its estimated annual fuel cost, (c) the range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers, (d) a statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in fuel economy comparison, (e) the amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the sale under IRS Code, and (f) any other information required or authorized by the EPA Administrator that is related to (a)-(d).36 This last requirement of "other information" grants the Administrator discretion to include various disclaimer statements, similar to those seen on the current label. "Dual fuel" automobiles, which are capable of operating on an alternative fuel that provide equal or superior energy efficiency than when operating on gasoline or diesel fuel, are required to have labels that: (a) indicate the fuel economy when operated on gasoline or diesel, (b) clearly identify the automobile as capable of dual fuel operation, (c) clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile can operate, and (d) contain a statement informing the consumer that additional information is published by the Secretary of Energy. No specific label requirements are mentioned for "dedicated automobiles," which operate only on alternative fuel. EPCA includes natural gas and electricity as "alternative fuels." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.9]
Within EPCA, "fuel economy" is defined as the "average number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator." The Administrator "shall decide on the quantity of other fuel that is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline," which for electric vehicles equals 33.7 kilowatt-hours per gallon of gasoline. For dedicated and dual fuel automobiles, the labels list the automobile's fuel "gallons per 100 miles" on the labels, measured in either MPG for operation on gasoline or diesel and MPGe for operation on an alternative fuel, relies on the Administrator's discretionary authority to include "other information" related to the label requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, pp.9-10]
The statute also requires developing a rule requiring manufacturers to label new cars with information reflecting performance on fuel economy and greenhouse gas and "other emissions," as well as "a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase." This language may be interpreted to facilitate comparisons between automobiles in the same class. However, as argued previously, the agency's objective to provide consumers with a true incentive to purchase the most environmentally-friendly automobile is best served by utilizing a uniform rating system for all automobile classes. As such, this system is also required to designate cars with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and those with the highest fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.10]
C. Merits of Challenges
First, challengers could question the agencies' failure to include information that is required under the statute, or challenge the manner in which such mandatory information is displayed or calculated. The mandatory information, as noted above, is: fuel economy; annual fuel cost; range of fuel economy of "comparable automobiles of all manufacturers;" booklet availability and tax information; and discretionary "other information" authorized by the Administrator. Further, the statute mandates creation of a rating system designed for simple consumer consumption, as well as an indication of which vehicles are the best performers in terms of emissions and fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.10]
All of the proposed label options, including our proposed amended label, include the mandatory categories of information. The discretionary grant to include "other information" can be reasonably interpreted as allowing inclusion of other relevant information, so a challenge arguing that included information goes beyond the mandatory requirements will likely fail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.10]
Second, challengers could contend that the rating system the agencies developed is arbitrary and capricious because it does not make it "easy" enough for consumers to compare the required information. The mandated rating system must include a designation of automobiles with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicle and the highest fuel economy. No requirement is given that the rating system must discriminate between automobiles that operate only on gasoline or diesel fuels and dedicated or dual fuel automobiles that can operate on alternative fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.10]
The broad mandate to "make it easy" for consumers to compare information, coupled with the lack of required discrimination among gasoline, dedicated alternative, and dual fuel automobiles, gives broad discretion to NHTSA and EPA to propose the letter grade rating system to compare automobiles across fuel classes. Moreover, the "make it easy" requirement likely also supports the particular color scheme that our amended label and Label 1 use, as the agencies could cogently argue that colors, letter grades, and other innovations on the new labels support consumer comprehension, which seems to be a clear a goal of the statutes. This conclusion could be bolstered during the rulemaking process in the agencies' statement of basis and purpose by explicitly linking the decision to incorporate visual manifestations of the rating system (colors and grades) to the statutory directive to "make it easy" for consumers to digest information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, pp.10-11]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the comments from New York University and University of Pennsylvania law schools.  The preamble to this rule explains in detail the purpose and objectives of the labeling rule.  Additionally, the preamble discusses kthe statutory and legal authority as interpreted by the agencies:
A.  Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
Under EPCA, EPA is responsible for developing the fuel economy labels that are posted on all new automobiles.  Medium-duty passenger vehicles are a subset of vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight that includes large sport utility vehicles and vans, but not pickup trucks.[1]  EPCA requires the manufacturers of automobiles to attach the fuel economy label in a prominent place on each automobile manufactured in a model year and also requires auto dealerships to maintain the label on the automobile.[2]
 EPCA specifies the information that is minimally required on every fuel economy label.[3]  As stated above, labels must include:
   * The fuel economy of the automobile,
   * The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile.
   * The range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers,
   * A statement that a booklet is available from the dealer to assist in making a comparison of fuel economy of other automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers in that model year,
   * The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax imposed on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;[4] and
   * Other information required or authorized by the Administrator that is related to the information required [within the first four items].
Under the provision for "other information" EPA has previously required the statements "your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle," and cost estimates "based on 15,000 miles at $2.80 per gallon" be placed on vehicle labels.  EPA is adopting all of the labeling requirements discussed below and specified in EPA's regulations, based on its authority under section 32908(b).  In addition, the regulations adopted by EPA satisfy the requirement to develop criteria for purposes of section 32908(g).
There are additional labeling requirements found in EPCA for "dedicated" automobiles and "dual fueled" automobiles.  A dedicated automobile is an automobile that operates only on an alternative fuel.[5]  Dedicated automobile labels must also display the information noted above.
A dual fueled vehicle is a vehicle which is "capable of operating on alternative fuel or a mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel ..., and on gasoline or diesel fuel" for the minimum driving range (defined by the DOT).[6]  Dual fueled vehicle labels must:
   * Indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline or diesel fuel.
   * Clearly identify the automobile as a dual fueled automobile.
   * Clearly identify the fuels on which the automobile may be operated; and
   * Contain a statement informing the consumer that the additional information required by subsection (c)(2) [the information booklet] is published and distributed by the Secretary of Energy.[7]
EPCA defines "fuel economy" for purposes of these vehicles as "the average number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator [of the EPA] under section 32904(c) [of this title]."[8]
Additionally, EPA is required under EPCA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing information that is "simple and readily understandable."[9]  The booklet is commonly known as the annual "Fuel Economy Guide."  EPCA further instructs DOE to publish and distribute the booklet.  EPA is required to "prescribe regulations requiring dealers to make the booklet available to prospective buyers."[10]  While the booklet continues to be available in paper form, in 2006, EPA finalized regulations allowing manufacturers and dealers to make the Fuel Economy Guide available electronically to customers as an option.[11]
In this rule where we refer to EPA's statutory authority under EPCA, we are referring to these provisions.

B.  Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
The 2007 passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) amended EPCA by introducing additional new vehicle labeling requirements, to be implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). [12]   While EPA retained responsibility for establishing test methods and calculation procedures for determining the fuel economy estimates of automobiles for the purpose of posting fuel economy information on labels and in an annual Fuel Economy Guide, NHTSA gained responsibility for requiring automobiles to be labeled with additional performance metrics and rating systems to help consumers compare vehicles to one another more easily at the point of purchase.
Specifically, and for purposes of this rulemaking, subsection "(g) Consumer Information" was added to 49 U.S.C. 32908.  Subsection (g), in relevant part, directed the Secretary of Transportation (by delegation, the NHTSA Administrator) to "develop and implement by rule a program to require manufacturers  -
(A) to label new automobiles sold in the United States with  -
(i) information reflecting an automobile's performance on the basis of criteria that the [EPA] Administrator shall develop, not later than 18 months after the date of the of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, to reflect fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the useful life of the automobile:
(ii) a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of automobiles --
(I) with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and
(II) the highest fuel economy..."
In this rule where we refer to NHTSA's statutory authority under EISA, we are referring to these provisions.
Thus, both EPA and NHTSA have authority over labeling requirements related to fuel economy and environmental information under EPCA and EISA, respectively.  In order to implement that authority in the most coordinated and efficient way, the agencies are issuing this joint final rule.

[1]   EPA's 2006 labeling rule applied to passenger cars, light-trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.  Under section 32908(b), a manufacturer is to label each "automobile," and EPA interpreted that provision as requiring labeling for vehicles that meet the definition of  "automobile"  under section 32901(a)(3), as well as vehicles under 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight, whether or not they meet the definition of automobile,  pursuant to section 32908(a)(1).  See 71 FR 77872, 77876-87, 77915 (December 27, 2006).  Since the 2006 rule, EISA revised the definition of automobile in section 32901(a)(3).  As with the interpretation discussed in the 2006 rule, the requirements of section 32908(b) continue to apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
[2] 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).
[3] 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).
[4] 26 U.S.C. 4064.
[5] 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) defines "alternative fuel" as including  -- (A) methanol; (B) denatured ethanol; (C) other alcohols; (D) except as provided in subsection(b) of this section, a mixture containing at least 85 percent of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels; (E) natural gas; (F) liquefied petroleum gas; (G) hydrogen; (H) coal derived liquid fuels; (I) fuels (except alcohol) derived from biological materials; (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits."
[6] 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9), (c).
[7] 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).
[8] 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11).
[9] 49 U.S.C. 32908(c).
[10] Id.
[11] 71 FR 77915, Dec. 27, 2006.
[12] P.L. 110-140.

10.3.2. NHTSA's Authority under EISA
                                                                            362
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Comment:
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
THE LABEL MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6927.1, p.7]
The label must be consistent with the text and purpose of the statutory requirements. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act, directs NHTSA, based on EPA criteria, to develop "a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of automobiles --  with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy." 49 U.S.C. § 32908(g). The Agencies are also required by statute to include information about the cost to consumers related to these environmental factors. Some have problematically recommended that the labels contain a variety of other factors and considerations unrelated to fuel economy and emissions. While there is ample room for additional considerations to be addressed in a variety of other forms and formats separate from the fuel economy label, the labeling protections under EPCA and EISA are expressly designed to empower consumer with clear, accessible information on emissions and fuel economy.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6927.1, pp.7-8]
Response:
The final labels put forward by the agencies are fully consistent with the text and purpose of the statutory requirements under EPCA and EISA.  For a discussion of both agencies statutory provisions and legal authority, please see the preamble section II.

10.6. Comments on Regulatory Text
                                                                            363
Organization: General Motors (GM)
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Comment:
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
Definition of 'Emission-Related Defect' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
This NPRM includes a proposed change to the definition of an emission-related defect in 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(2). The proposed change added the words 'greenhouse gas,' so that it now reads '...which must function properly to ensure continued compliance with greenhouse gas emission requirements, including compliance with CO2, CH4, N2O, and carbon-related exhaust emission standards.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
We assume that the words 'greenhouse gas' were added to clarify that the applicability of 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(2) would be limited to emission-related defects pertaining to greenhouse gases. The Alliance supports this addition and appreciates the clarity that these added words bring. However, one further modification is necessary: the elimination of the term 'carbon-related exhaust emission' (also known as 'CREE') from the standards listed in the concluding phrase in (b)(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
We are not aware of any stand-alone CREE standards in the greenhouse gas rule. Instead, overall greenhouse gas standards use CREE data for the detailed carbon balance calculations. The CREE standards, such as CO2 and hydrocarbon exhaust emission standards, are air quality-related standards that pre-existed the onset of GHG regulations. The CREE constituents have never been considered 'greenhouse gases' and were not reclassified as such with the passage of the GHG regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
Defect reporting for non-greenhouse gas criteria pollutants (e.g. HC, CO, and NOx) is addressed in 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(1). To the best of our knowledge, this would encompass all CREE pollutants. It is not necessary or desirable to have two different defect reporting schemes applicable to the same pollutants. We are concerned that referring to CREE in 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(2) will create either an unnecessary duplication of effort, or confusion regarding which criteria should be used to determine defects that affect non-GHG carbon-containing emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
Defect reporting for CREE is adequately addressed in 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(1). References to other individual greenhouse gas constituents in (b)(2) are also unnecessary, since the proposed definition refers to greenhouse gas standards in general. Therefore, we request that EPA amend 40 C.F.R. Section 85.1902(b)(2) as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]
(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 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, pp.14]

Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.10]
Definition of 'Emission-Related Defect' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.10]
Ford supports the feedback contained in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers written comments related to the proposed change to the definition of an emission-related defect in 40CFR 85.1902(b)(2). In particular, it is important that the reference to carbon-related exhaust emission ('CREE') standards be removed from that definition. Defect reporting pertinent to CREE is already well-established in CFR 85.1902(b)(1). The inclusion of CREE in (b)(2) would only serve to create confusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7141.1, p.10]

General Motors (GM)
Definition Changes
The proposed amendment to the definition of an emissions-related defect in 40 CFR 85.1902(b)(2) is appropriate to the extent that it clarifies that the definition applies to 'vehicle greenhouse gas emission requirements.'  However, by retaining the words 'and carbon-related exhaust emissions standards' the agency defeats the purpose of the amendment.    The amended definition may be interpreted to apply to carbon-related exhaust emissions such as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, which are not greenhouse gases.   The agency should remove those words from the definition. We also suggest that EPA to remove reference to CO2, CH4 and N20 as they are encompassed by the term "greenhouse gas." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 5]
Certification Details ( Comments/Corrections)
600.210-12(a), GM would like to point out that the following statement from 600.210-08(a) was omitted: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
"All 2011 and later model year medium-duty passenger vehicles, dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles, and dual fuel vehicles when operating on alternative fuel must be labeled for fuel economy, using the derived 5-cycle method or, at the manufacturer's option, the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method. Fuel economy label values for dual fuel vehicles operating on alcohol-based or natural gas fuel are calculated separately." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
GM does not believe that EPA intended to exclude this statement from the new regulation.  This statement needs to be in place so manufacturers will continue to be allowed to label MDPVs and alternative fueled vehicles using the derived 5-cycle method rather than using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle method.  This is necessary because these vehicles are not required to meet SFTP standards and therefore do not normally perform US06 and SC03 tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
40 CFR 600.002
GM recommends the following correction - the definition of diesel equivalent gallon from "one gallon of gasoline" to "one gallon of diesel fuel." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
600.114-12
GM recommends a change to the following introductory paragraph: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
 "Paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section are used to calculate 5-cycle CO2 and carbon-related exhaust emission values for the purpose of determining optional credits for CO2-reducing technologies under § 86.1866 of this chapter." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
Paragraphs (d) and (f) are also being used to calculate the CO2 value for the label so the above paragraph needs to be modified to indicate such. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
600.114-12(f)(1)(i) City CO2 emissions and carbon-related exhaust emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
GM would like to note the following definitions do not apply to the given equations and need to be updated to represent city values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
"Where:
US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the city portion of the US06 test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
US06 Highway CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per miles per gallon over the Highway portion of the US06 test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
HFET CREE = carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile over the HFET test." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6924.1, p. 6]
Response:
We agree with the comments referring to the definition of an emissions related defect in 40 CFR 85.1902(b)(2) and have revised the regulation accordingly. In addition, we have changed the reference to "vehicle standards" to more generally refer to "standards", since the definition applies for all motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, including highway motorcycles and heavy-duty highway engines.
We agree with GM about the omission of the language about the 5 cycle method in 600.210-08(a) and have revised the regulation accordingly.  We have also corrected the definition of diesel equivalent gallon for "one gallon of gasoline" to "one gallon of diesel fuel," and revised the regulation to include an introductory paragraph to indicate the intent of paragraphs (d) through (f) of 600.114-12.

10.7.1. Related to the Proposed Rule
                                                                            367
Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
Comment:
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures (Alliance)
One way to improve fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions from both the existing fleet and future new car fleets is to address driving behavior. While this issue is too complex to capture in a label, the Alliance encourages the Agencies to feature "Eco-Driving" information prominently in their websites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6850.2, p.6]
Response:
We appreciate this input and will include that in our ongoing consideration of our communication on our websites and in other materials.
Organization: Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
Comment:
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)
The Power of Regulation by Information [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7173.1, p.2]
That is the power of regulation by information. While car makers were adamantly opposed to giving consumer easily understandable and comparable information on crash tests, doing so forced them to dramatically improve their vehicles' overall performance. In fact, in 1990, less than half of the tested vehicles had 4 or 5 star driver ratings. Overtime, thanks to consumer information in the market, that percentage increased to 98% with the 2010 vehicles. The following table shows how the percent of vehicles getting 4-5 stars increased from 1990 to 2010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7173.1, p.2; see p.3 of this comment summary for a figure entitled, NCAP Crash Test Improvements 1990-2010]
Now it's time to learn a lesson from this powerful change-maker and use the free market to dramatically improve vehicle fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7173.1, p.2]
Response:
We appreciate this input and believe we are moving strongly in the direction of providing useful and effective information to help consumers make better-informed decisions about their vehicle purchases.
Organization: DieselGreen Fuels
Comment:
DieselGreen Fuels
Regarding diesel vehicles - vehicles made in 2012 need to show their compatibility with current common biodiesel blends - ULSD (B0), B5, and B20. If information overload is a concern, cut out B5 and only show B20, if that vehicle is supported by the OEM with B20. This is critical information since the customer's fuel choice will profoundly affect the emissions output, and consequently, the overall score. Please explain the EPA's plans to create a sticker that would show the score with and without the use of biodiesel blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-1376, p.1]
Response:
As with flexible fuel vehicles operating on gasoline and ethanol, we believe it is not appropriate to require additional information related to the alternative fuel.  This is especially the case with diesel vehicles because the maximum biodiesel portion is expected to be 20 percent.  While this information would be useful to some drivers for their refueling decisions, we believe it is less pertinent for the decision related to buying a vehicle.
Organization: Hyundai Motor Company
Comment:
Hyundai Motor Company
Korean Fuel Economy Labels [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.6]
Since Hyundai references our experience with the Korean government's labeling system, we would like to provide a brief overview of the program, which EPA may find helpful in making final decisions regarding the U.S.-based fuel economy label. In 1992, the Korean government implemented an Energy Efficiency Labeling program, which uses a scoring system of one to five to help consumers identify vehicles with high fuel efficiency.' For vehicles, the label and scoring method is applicable to conventional vehicles. Vehicles with small engines (below 1000cc) and hybrid electric vehicles are exempted from the score but are required to have a different, separate label affixed to the vehicles. Advanced technologies like plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles were not included in the labeling regulation. Examples of the labels are in Figure 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.6; see p.7 for Figure 4 entitled, Examples of Korea's Vehicle Energy Efficiency Labels]
It is important to note that when Korea originally implemented the labeling program, it was applied based on vehicle segment. The government found that a segmented approach resulted in customer confusion because certain larger, less efficient vehicles received higher ratings than smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. The government revised the program, so that it is applied to a single fleet, to allow all applicable models to be compared to each other. As previously stated, Hyundai supports an absolute approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7139.1, p.7]
Response:
We appreciate this input and believe that our final labeling requirements generally align with these suggested principles.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
Comment:
Institute for Policy Integrity - New York University School of Law
EPA and NHTSA Should Work with Other Agencies to Create Uniform Policy on Labeling [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.17]
There are many similarities between the agencies' proposed vehicle fuel economy labels, the NHTSA tire fuel efficiency labels, and the DOE/FTC appliance labeling programs. These labels all seek to provide information on environmental impacts in a manner most likely to affect consumer purchasing and use decisions. Given their common goals, the agencies should consider forming an inter-agency working group dedicated to determining best labeling practices in this area. OIRA, with its oversight authority, is in an ideal position to coordinate the creation of such a group. The potential benefits of coordination include: saving the cost of performing repetitive research; facilitating the sharing of data among agencies; increasing consumer understanding through harmonization of labeling programs; and decreasing the cost of compliance for regulated entities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7136.1, p.17]
Response:
The suggested approach is consistent with the process used in this rulemaking to reach an agreement on a label that reflects the combined input (and statutory parameters) from EPA, NHTSA, DOE, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Comment:
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
The existing label rule allows manufacturers the option to include fuel economy estimates and estimated annual fuel costs for the alternative fuels potentially used by duel- or flex-fueled vehicles (in addition to those assuming their use of gasoline or diesel). Unless the incorporation of the FTC label information requires otherwise, this should remain a manufacturer option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-6940.1, p.8]
Response:
We agree that it would not be appropriate to require additional information related to the alternative fuels in the case of flexible fuel vehicles.
Organization: Nelson, Steve
Comment:
Nelson, Steve
I am 3M Traffic Safety Systems' business development manager for digital validation products. I am wondering whether there is an interest in making the new sticker tamper-evident and/or easier to remove by the consumer, post-purchase. We have a tamper-evident sticker product that features a stretch-release adhesive that prevents unauthorized transfer of stickers between vehicles and enables clean removal without the use of tools or solvents. Would be happy to discuss in more detail if there is interest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-4069, p. 1]
Response:
We are not aware the there is a need for tamper-proof labels to avoid abuse by consumers.  We encourage 3M to interact directly with vehicle manufacturers regarding this issue.
Organization: Nissan
Comment:
Nissan
Financial support for technology development and commercialization is just one aspect of what is necessary to make revolutionary reductions in tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 98]
No matter how much we invest in the technology, American consumers must endorse the benefit of electric power trains and must themselves be willing to embrace a new form of transportation. Government sponsored information is critical to influencing public perception. American consumers rely on the government to provide them with information that is accurate and is responsive to their concerns. When it comes to vehicles, those concerns fall into a few clearly defined areas. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 98]
Vehicles must be reliable and safe, they must be fuel efficient to keep operating costs down, and increasingly they must be environmentally friendly. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 98-99]
Response:
We appreciate this input but believe it is outside the scope of the current rule.
Organization: Operation Free
Comment:
Operation Free
I guess one of the points is, too, is to reiterate, is our dependence on oil is really a threat to our national security. That's one of the reasons why I'm extremely involved in this. And this is a way for the American people to actually, you know, put some effort in. A lot of times people when we've -- I've gone places and educated people on clean energy and climate change and how it affects our national security. You know, the fact that we're completely vulnerable here in the United States because we're dependent our own source of energy, we're funding both sides of the war. Climate changes will be causing conflict in the future. All that kind of stuff. I don't want to have to go through that whole scphiel if I don't have to. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 54]
I guess on the home front, unfortunately, you know, just a few years ago and stuff when we had the oil -- you know, gas prices hike up really high. I think it's really hard for families to budget. I know a lot of my friends, you know, started riding their bikes more often because they just couldn't afford to be continuing, you know, to drive when the prices are so high. Well, you know, families need to really try to budget for those kind of fluxes. And if they're getting a more full efficient car and they know they are, you know, it's just going to be easier for them in the long run. [These comments were submitted as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 55]
Response:
We appreciate this input and believe we are moving strongly in the direction of providing useful and effecive information to help consumers make better-informed decisions about their vehicle purchases.
Organization: Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
Comment:
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE)
As a starting point, the agencies must include on the new fuel economy labels those items required by statute. Irrespective of the statutory requirements, SAFE believes that it also is important to give consumers the information that is most useful in helping them make a well-informed decision based on meaningful data with respect to their choice of new vehicles. SAFE recognizes, however, that there is a balance between providing information that will help a consumer make an informed decision and information that will not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7522.1, p.4]
Response:
We appreciate this input and believe we are moving strongly in the direction of providing useful and effective information to help consumers make better-informed decisions about their vehicle purchases. We believe the new label meets all applicable statutory requirements.
Organization: Siegel+Gale
Comment:
Siegel+Gale
Twenty-five percent of Democrats think the environment is a major factor in purchasing a vehicle versus 12 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of independents.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-0824.1, p.2]
Response:

Thank you for providing this information.
Organization: University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
Comment:
University of Pennsylvania Law School, Environmental Law Project
V. Judicial Review
Like many major rulemakings, whatever label design NHTSA and EPA requires in its final rule may be challenged in court. If our proposed label design, or any version of Label 1 is accepted by EPA and NHTSA, the agency will still likely have to confront arguments that the rating system is arbitrary and capricious and out of line with the agencies' underlying statutory authority. Although the grading, color-coding, and other features of the labels are designed to make it easy for consumers to compare the environmental impact of automobiles, they may also make it harder for automakers to market cars with poor fuel efficiency. This tension will likely lead to challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as "arbitrary and capricious" or "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of a statutory right." However, it is likely the proposed labels will survive judicial review, since the grant of statutory authority is broad, and both agencies have a specific charge to make the information "easy for consumers to compare." Thus, as long as EPA and NHTSA include all of the mandatory information on the label, it is unlikely challenges under the APA will succeed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7171.1, p.8]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the comment from University of Pennsylvania Law School, however at this time we are not finalizing a label with the letter grade or color coding.

10.7.2. Not Related to the Proposed Rule
                                                                            374
Organization: Sierra Club
Comment:
Sierra Club
Illinois has been seriously looking at clean car standards for several years. I chaired Illinois's Clean Car and Energy Efficiency Working Group in 2007, and at that time we found that implementing the LEVII/Pavley standards in Illinois would result in 1 billion gallons of gasoline not bought at the pump annually in Illinois drivers by 2020 and 2 billion gallons per year fewer per year by 2030. [These comments were submitted by Jack Darin as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 69-70]
Subsequently, after that, the Illinois General Assembly seriously debated adopting those standards here in Illinois and again was in the midst of actively considering that at the time that President Obama announced new vehicle standards governing model years 2012 through 2016 to effectively do that for the entire country. We were using numbers at that time at $3 a gallon of gas that Illinois drivers will save, thanks to that action. About $3 billion a year by 2020 and $6 billion a year for 2030, thanks to that action. And we found tremendous secondary economic benefits by Illinois drivers having those dollars to spend or save in their communities as opposed to spending it at the gas stations. [These comments were submitted by Jack Darin as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 70]
So this first big step towards breaking our dependence on oil and reducing U.S. global warming pollution from our cars and trucks is a tremendous first step forward. And, as you know, the Sierra Club is engaged in the administration's process to begin work on the next round of standards governing years 2017 through 2025. Similarly, we look forward to the first ever fuel efficiency rules for delivery trucks and tractor trailers. [These comments were submitted by Jack Darin as testimony at the Chicago hearing.  See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865-7548 PP 70-71]
Response:
The agencies appreciate the input.  We believe this rulemaking is important for communicating vehicle fuel economy to consumers, however fuel economy standards are outside of the scope of this process.  Fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for 2017-2025 are being evaluated independent of this rulemaking.