Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label

Federal RegisterSep 23, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86 and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865; FR-9197-3; NHTSA-2010-0087]

RIN 2060-AQ09; RIN 2127-AK73

Revisions and Additions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are conducting a joint rulemaking to redesign and add information to the current fuel economy label that is posted on the window sticker of all new cars and light-duty trucks sold in the U.S. The redesigned label will provide new information to American consumers about the fuel economy and consumption, fuel costs, and environmental impacts associated with purchasing new vehicles beginning with model year 2012 cars and trucks. This action will also develop new labels for certain advanced technology vehicles, which are poised to enter the U.S. market, in particular plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles.

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 imposes several new labeling requirements, because the agencies believe that the current labels can be improved to help consumers make more informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because the time is right to develop new labels for advanced technology vehicles that are being commercialized. This proposal is also consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012-2016.

DATES:

Comments:

Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2010. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 25, 2010.

See

the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about written comments.

Hearings:

NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings; one in Chicago on October 14, 2010, and one in Los Angeles on October 21, 2010, with both daytime and evening sessions at each location. EPA and NHTSA will announce the specific hearing locations and times of day in a separate

Federal Register

announcement.

See

the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about the public hearings.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 and/or NHTSA-2010-0087, by one of the following methods:

•

http://www.regulations.gov:

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

•

E-mail: newlabels@epa.gov

•

Fax:

EPA: (202) 566-1741; NHTSA: (202) 493-2251.

•

Mail:

○

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865.

○

NHTSA:

Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

○ In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.

•

Hand Delivery:

○

EPA:

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

○

NHTSA:

West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865 and/or NHTSA-2010-0087.

See

the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about submitting written comments.

Public Hearing:

Federal Register

announcement. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section on “Public Participation” for more information about the public hearings.

Docket:

All documents in the dockets are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available in hard copy in EPA's docket, and electronically in NHTSA's online docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the following locations:

EPA:

EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

EPA: Lucie Audette, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4850; fax number: 734-214-4816; e-mail address:

audette.lucie@epa.gov,

or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; e-mail address

asdinfo@epa.gov. NHTSA:

Gregory Powell, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5206; Fax: (202) 493-2990; e-mail address:

gregory.powell@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Does this action apply to me?

This action affects companies that manufacture or sell new light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, as defined under EPA's CAA regulations,

1 2

and passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) as defined under NHTSA's CAFE regulations.

Regulated categories and entities include:

“Light-duty vehicle,” “light-duty truck,” and “medium-duty passenger vehicle” are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.

Generally, the term “light-duty vehicle” means a passenger car, the term “light-duty truck” means a pick-up truck, sport-utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, and “medium-duty passenger vehicle” means a sport-utility vehicle or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up trucks.

“Passenger car” and “light truck” are defined in 49 CFR part 523.

Category

NAICS Codes

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry

336111

Motor vehicle manufacturers.

336112

Industry

811112

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components.

811198

423110

Industry

336211

Stretch limousine manufacturers and hearse manufacturers.

Industry

441110

Automobile dealers.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

B. Public Participation

NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of this joint proposed rule. This section describes how you can participate in this process.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

In this joint proposal, there are many issues common to both EPA's and NHTSA's proposals. For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA docket (whether hard copy or electronic) will be considered comments submitted to both EPA and the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. Therefore, the public only needs to submit one set of comments to either one of the two agency dockets that will be reviewed by both agencies. Comments that are submitted for consideration by only one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is submitted on its proposal.

Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket are described below.

EPA:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through

http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

NHTSA:

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0087 in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.

NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible

(last accessed June 2, 2010), and DOT's guidelines may be accessed at

http://regs.dot.gov

(last accessed June 22, 2010).

49 CFR 553.21.

Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, please remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket numbers and other identifying information (subject heading,

Federal Register

date and page number).

• Follow directions—The agencies may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the

DATES

section above.

How do I submit confidential business information?

Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to the other agency.

However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies' dockets, and it will be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency.

This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential information received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies.

EPA:

Do not submit CBI to EPA through

http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.

NHTSA:

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. When you send a comment containing confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation.

In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.

49 CFR part 512.

Will the agencies consider late comments?

NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under

DATES

. To the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final rule. However, the agencies' ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be limited due to the time frame for issuing a final rule.

If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider it in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (

e.g.,

the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the EPA Docket Center or NHTSA Docket Management Facility by going to the street addresses given above under

ADDRESSES

How do I participate in the public hearings?

Federal Register

announcement.

If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

at least ten days before the hearing. Once EPA and NHTSA learn how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (

e.g.,

audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.

The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above no later than ten days before the date of the hearing.

NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of Proposed Labels

C. When Would The Proposed Label Changes Take Effect?

D. What Are The Estimated Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Label Changes?

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

2. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating Systems)

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles

1. Fuel Economy Performance

2. Fuel Consumption

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles

8. SmartWay Logo

9. Annual Fuel Cost

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

12. Other Label Text

13. Gas Guzzler Tax Information

B. Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

1. Introduction

2. EPA Statutory Requirements

3. Principles Underlying the Co-Proposed Advanced Technology Vehicle Labels

4. Key Advanced Technology Vehicle Label Issues

C. Labels for Other Vehicle/Fuel Technologies

1. Flexible Fuel Vehicles

2. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles

3. Dual Fuel Natural Gas & Gasoline Vehicles

4. Diesel Fueled Vehicles

III. Proposed Revisions to Fuel Economy Label Appearance

A. Proposed Label Designs

1. Label 1

2. Label 2

B. Alternative Label Design (Label 3)

IV. Agency Research On Fuel Economy Labeling

A. Methods of Research

1. Literature Review

2. Focus Groups

3. Internet Survey

4. Expert Panel

B. Key Research Questions and Findings

1. Effective Metrics and Rating Systems for Existing and New Label Information

2. Effective Metrics and Ratings Systems for Advanced Technology Vehicles

3. Effective Metrics to Enable Vehicle Comparison

4. Effective Whole Label Designs

5. Tools beyond the Label

V. Implementation of the New Label

A. Timing

B. Labels for 2011 model year advanced technology vehicles

C. Implementation of Label Content

VI. Additional Related EPA Proposals

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

1. Electric Vehicles

2. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

B. Utility Factors

1. Utility Factor Background

2. General Application of Utility Factors

3. Calculating combined values using Cycle Specific Utility Factors

4. Low Powered Vehicles.

C. Comparable Class Categories

D. Using Smartphone QR Codes® to Link to Fuel Economy Information

E. Fuel Economy Information in the context of the “Monroney” Sticker

F. Miscellaneous Amendments and Corrections

VII. Projected Impacts Of The Proposed Requirements

A. Costs Associated with this Rule

1. Operations and Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours

2. Facility Costs

3. Startup Costs

4. Cost Summary

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

C. Benefits of Label Changes

D. Summary

VIII. Agencies' Statutory Authority and Executive Order Reviews

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

1. Automobile Disclosure Act

2. Internal Revenue Code

3. Clean Air Act

4. Federal Trade Commission Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Vehicles

5. California Environmental Performance Label

B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (NHTSA only)

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

A/C Air Conditioning

AC Alternating Current

AIDA Automobile Information Disclosure Act

BTU British Thermal Units

CAA Clean Air Act

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBI Confidential Business Information

CD Charge Depleting

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Methane

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CO Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Dioxide

CREE Carbon-related Exhaust Emissions

CS Charge Sustaining

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

E85 A mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

EREV Extended Range Electric Vehicle

EV Electric Vehicle

FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle

FE Fuel Economy

FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicle

FTC Federal Trade Commission

FTP Federal Test Procedure

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HCHO Formaldehyde

HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon

HFET Highway Fuel Economy Test

ICI Independent Commercial Importer

IT Information Technology

ICR Information Collection Request

LEV II Low Emitting Vehicle II

LEV II opt 1 Low Emitting Vehicle II, option 1

MDPV Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle

MPG Miles per Gallon

MPGe Miles per Gallon equivalent

MY Model Year

O Nitrous Oxide

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEC Net Energy Change

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NMOG Non-methane Organic Gases

Oxides of Nitrogen

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OCR Optical Character Recognition

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PEF Petroleum Equivalency Factor

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PM Particulate Matter

PZEV Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicle

CDA

Actual Charge Depleting Range

RESS Rechargeable Energy Storage System

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SBA Small Business Administration

SFTP Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

SOC State-of-Charge

SULEV II Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

UF Utility Factor

ULEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicles II

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle

I. Overview of Joint EPA/NHTSA Proposal on New Vehicle Labels

A. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Label Changes

This joint action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes what will likely be the most significant overhaul of the federal government's fuel economy label or “sticker” since its inception over 30 years ago.

The current fuel economy label required on all new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles contains the following core information, as required by statute:

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon.

• Comparison of the vehicle's combined city/highway fuel economy to a range of comparable vehicles.

• Estimated fuel cost to operate the vehicle for one year.

This joint proposal is designed to update the current label in order to increase the usefulness of the label in helping consumers choose more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles that would also meet new requirements added by Congress. This proposal also includes new label designs for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), two advanced vehicle technologies that are beginning to enter the market.

EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs for public comment without a single primary proposal, although the final rule will adopt only one label design. Both label designs meet statutory requirements and rely on the same underlying data; they differ in how the data is used and presented on the label. One is a more traditional label design that retains the current label's focus on fuel economy values and annual fuel cost projections, with a general label layout more similar to the current label. The second label design contains all appropriate information but prominently features a letter grade to communicate the overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions—along with projected 5-year fuel cost or savings associated with a particular vehicle when compared to an average vehicle. The agencies are also seeking comment on an alternative third label design that follows a more traditional format but presents some information differently. All labels expand upon the content found on the current label and include the following information for conventional vehicles (advanced technology vehicle labels contain additional information tailored to the individual technology):

• City and highway fuel economy values in miles per gallon.

• Combined city/highway fuel consumption in gallons per 100 miles.

• Tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO

) emissions in grams per mile.

• Annual fuel cost in dollars per year.

• A slider bar comparing the combined fuel economy to all other vehicles.

• A slider bar comparing the CO

emissions to all other vehicles.

• A slider bar comparing non-CO

(“other” or “smog-related”) emissions to all other vehicles.

• A symbol that can be read by a `Smartphone' for additional consumer information (also known as a QR Code

• A reference to a Federal government Web site for additional information.

Despite the fact that the co-proposed labels are based on the same underlying data, they are significantly different in terms of presentation and prominence. The agencies encourage public feedback on the central question of which label design would be more useful and help consumers select more energy efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles that meet their needs, or whether the agencies should consider alternative designs.

NHTSA and EPA are proposing these changes because the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates several new labeling requirements intended to help consumers make more informed vehicle purchase decisions, and because this is an appropriate time to develop new labels for advanced technology vehicles (Battery Electric or EVs and Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles or PHEVs) that are being commercialized. The agencies believe that a joint label meeting our separate statutory requirements and our shared consumer information objectives makes far more sense for both consumers and manufacturers than separate labels. As a joint rulemaking, this proposal is also consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012-2016.

75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.

The agencies believe these new labeling requirements for automobiles are important in light of a growing national interest in both fuel economy and climate change. Historically, consumers have generally paid the most attention to fuel economy when fuel prices increase sharply over a short period of time, such as in 2008, but the agencies believe that this phenomenon has changed and consumers will continue in the future to pay more attention to fuel economy. Based on projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that future gasoline prices will increase over coming decades due to global economic growth and oil demand, we believe that it is likely that consumer interest in and use of the fuel economy label will grow over time.

In addition, given the increased awareness of consumers regarding climate change and air pollution, more comprehensive information on the emissions performance of vehicles, as required by EISA, could help consumers make more informed decisions on how a vehicle they buy may impact the environment.

Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0383 (2010), May 11, 2010, available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.

It is also important for the agencies to define labeling requirements for advanced vehicle technologies that are nearing commercialization. The existing label has long provided city and highway fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon (MPG) values, which the agencies believe are well recognized and understood by consumers, and which are widely used as metrics for comparing the efficiency of one vehicle to another. Since the late 1970s when the fuel economy label was first established by EPA as required under the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, over 99 percent of the automobiles sold have been conventional, internal-combustion engine vehicles that run on petroleum-based fuels (or a liquid fuel blend dominated by petroleum). When manufacturers produced different advanced technology vehicles, such as compressed natural gas vehicles, EPA has generally addressed the need for labels on a case-by-case basis.

Over the next several model years, however, the agencies expect to see increasing numbers of EVs and PHEVs entering the marketplace. This proposal includes changes to the label to address some of the specific issues raised by the use of grid electricity as a fuel for EVs and PHEVs. These vehicles will be required to display labels containing the same kind of information as conventional vehicles, but some of that information may be better conveyed in different ways, and consumers may be interested in different information for these vehicles. For example, evaluating the performance of a vehicle that uses grid electricity as some or all of its fuel, or the cost of operating such a vehicle, presents unique challenges for making an informed comparison between different EVs and PHEVs, and between advanced technology vehicles and their conventional vehicle counterparts including gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles and hybrid gasoline electric vehicles (HEVs).

The co-proposed label designs present two approaches for addressing the complex challenges associated with labels for these advanced technology vehicles, and the agencies encourage the public to comment on a wide range of possible solutions. The agencies recognize that this is only the first generation of EV and PHEV labels, and we expect to refine them over time as we have done with conventional vehicle labels. Additionally, the agencies recognize that other advanced technology vehicles, such as fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), may enter the marketplace in the near future as well, but for purposes of this first effort we have chosen to focus on EVs and PHEVs. Specific label requirements for other advanced technology vehicles will be developed at a later time as those vehicles enter the market.

This joint proposal is designed to satisfy each agency's statutory responsibilities in a manner that maximizes usefulness for the consumer, while avoiding unnecessary burden on the manufacturers who prepare the vehicle labels. Since 1977, EPA has required auto manufacturers to label all new automobiles,

pursuant to EPCA.

As amended, EPCA requires that labels shall contain the following information:

An “automobile” is defined for these purposes as a “4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways” and “rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight.”

See

49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3) and 32908(a)(1).

Public Law 94-163.

(1) The fuel economy of the automobile;

(2) The estimated annual fuel cost of operating the automobile;

(3) The range of fuel economy of comparable vehicles of all manufacturers;

(4) 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;

(5) The amount of the automobile fuel efficiency tax (“gas guzzler tax”) imposed on the sale of the automobile under section 4064 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4064); and

(6) Other information required or authorized by the EPA Administrator that is related to the information required by (1) through (4) above.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b).

In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),

Congress required that NHTSA, in consultation with EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), establish regulations to implement several new labeling requirements for new automobiles.

NHTSA must develop a program that requires manufacturers to label new automobiles with information reflecting an automobile's performance with respect to fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions over the useful life of the automobile based on criteria provided by EPA.

NHTSA must also develop a rating system that makes it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gas and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including designations of automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel economy.

Public Law 110-140.

EISA Sec. 108, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32908(g).

49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(i).

49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(a)(ii).

Thus, either the basic label for automobiles needs to be expanded to include additional information on performance in terms of fuel economy, greenhouse gas and other emissions, or a new label needs to be required. NHTSA and EPA believe that a joint rulemaking to combine all of these elements into a single revised fuel economy label is the most appropriate way to meet the goals described above, rather than placing the information in two separate labels with duplicative and overlapping information, which could cause consumer confusion and impose unnecessary burden on the manufacturers.

The agencies also raised the issue of the upcoming labeling requirements in the recent joint rulemaking for MYs 2012-2016 CAFE and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).

Finally, given the goals described above and the need to provide additional information on the label, the agencies believe that the overall vehicle label design format and content should be reevaluated and could be improved. Simply including the additional information required under EISA for both conventional and advanced technology vehicles necessitates a review of the overall label design.

As described above, the agencies view the purpose of the label as providing information that will be most useful for consumers in making informed decisions regarding the energy efficiency and emissions impacts of the vehicles they purchase. Providing information on energy, environmental performance, and cost can educate consumers in various ways. These metrics have the potential to help people who value this kind of information to make a more informed choice among different vehicles. It also has the potential to inform people who currently place less or even no value on this kind of information, but who may decide it is more important to them at some point in the future. NHTSA and EPA are mindful that this is a complicated issue and that there is no readily ascertainable metric to determine whether we have achieved this somewhat subjective and qualitative purpose. Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two options, and also taking comment on another alternative, that highlight a number of relevant issues on which we seek public comment. The agencies will consider all public comments and publish a final rule in the near future.

B. A Comprehensive Research Program Informed the Development of Proposed Labels

Since today's proposal includes adding important new elements to the existing label as well as creating new labels for advanced technology vehicles, EPA and NHTSA embarked on a comprehensive and innovative research program beginning in the fall of 2009. The research helped inform the development of the new labels being proposed and included three phases of consumer focus groups, a review of available literature, and a day-long consultation with an expert panel of individuals who have introduced new products or have spearheaded national educational campaigns.

For the focus groups, the agencies decided to use a three-phase approach

in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information intended to be covered in the groups, as well as to use each phase to inform the next phase to help evolve the overall label design in regard to both content and appearance. Focus groups were held beginning in late February through May 2010 in four cities: Charlotte, Houston, Chicago, and Seattle. Overall, 32 focus groups were convened with a total of 256 participants. We asked the focus groups about the following issues:

• How they use the current fuel economy label,

• What feedback they could give us on potential new information and metrics for the label for conventional and advanced technology vehicles (EVs and PHEVs), and

• What feedback they could give us, after reviewing draft labels, on designs and the level of information that makes sense, as well as overall preference for displaying information.

The insights received from the focus groups were key for the agencies with regard to individual metrics that consumers wanted to see on labels and also with regard to effective label designs. Overall, focus groups indicated

that redesigned labels must:

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010; Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 2 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-904, August 2010 ; and Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010.

• Create an immediate first impression for consumers.

• Be easy to read and understand quickly.

• Clearly identify vehicle technology (conventional, EV, PHEV).

• Utilize color.

• Chunk information to allow people to deal with “more information.”

• Be consistent in content and design across technologies.

• Allow for comparison across technologies.

• Make it easy to identify the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles.

Following the focus group research, we assembled an expert panel for a one day consultation and asked them to give us feedback on the draft label designs the focus groups had helped create and to also assist us in identifying opportunities and strategies to provide more and better information to consumers so that they can more easily assess the costs, emissions, and energy efficiency of different vehicles. The experts came from a variety of fields in advertising and product development, and were chosen because they have led successful national efforts to introduce new products or have spearheaded national educational campaigns. After viewing the draft labels, the expert panel offered the agencies the following insights and guidance

that were key in developing one of the co-proposed label designs, including:

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

• Keep it simple; we yearn for simplicity (fewer, bigger, better).

• Consumers don't act on details.

• Remember the reality of very short label viewing time—roll ratings and metrics up into a single score.

• Use cost savings information- a very strong consumer motivator.

• Develop a Web site that would be launched in conjunction with the new label. This consumer-focused, user friendly Web site would provide more specific information on the label including additional information on the letter grade, along with access to the tools, applications, and social media.

Beyond these two core research elements, the agencies also undertook a comprehensive literature review

and drafted and had peer reviewed an internet survey. The agencies intend to administer the survey concurrently with the release of this proposal, and the results will be made publicly available in the dockets for this proposal prior to issuing a final rule with the new label requirements.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Literature Review, EPA420-R-10-906, August 2010.

The agencies also met with a number of stakeholders, including environmental organizations, auto manufacturers, and dealers, to gather their input on what the label should and should not contain, as well as to ascertain particular concerns.

Comments received on labeling issues in the context of the joint rulemaking on fuel economy and GHG standards,

as well as for the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule,

have also been considered.

Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum recording those meetings it attended, and attach documents submitted by stakeholders, as appropriate, when the information received formed a basis for this proposal, and the information can be made public, in the docket for this rulemaking.

Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472.

Available at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169.

C. When would the proposed label changes take effect?

The agencies propose that the final label changes will take effect for model year (MY) 2012 vehicles, consistent with the recent joint rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA that established harmonized federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.

For those advanced technology vehicles that will be introduced to the market prior to MY2012, EPA will work with individual manufacturers on a case-by-case basis to develop interim labels under EPA's current regulations that can be used prior to MY2012 and that are consistent with the proposed labels for advanced technology vehicles.

75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.

D. What are the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed label changes?

The primary costs associated with this proposed rule come from revisions to the fuel economy label and new testing requirements. As discussed in Section VII of this preamble, we estimate that the costs of this rule are likely to be in the range of $649,000—$2.8 million per year. This rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 or any DOT or EPA policies and procedures because it does not exceed $100 million or meet other related standards.

The primary benefits associated with this proposed rule come from any improvements in consumer decision-making that may lead to reduced vehicle and fuel costs for them. There may be additional effects on criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. At this time, EPA and NHTSA do not believe it is feasible to fully develop a complete benefits analysis of the potential benefits.

EPA and NHTSA request comment on the assessment of the benefits and costs presented in Section VII below.

E. Relationship of This Proposal to Other Federal and State Programs

This proposal involves the addition of new information and design changes to conventional vehicle labels and the creation of specific labels for certain advanced vehicle technologies, but will not impact other important elements of the Federal government's fuel economy and GHG emissions regulatory programs. For example, this proposal will not affect the fuel economy compliance values used in NHTSA's CAFE program, or the GHG emissions compliance values used in EPA's GHG emissions control program. Nor will this proposal affect the methodology by which EPA generates the consumer fuel economy values used on the vehicle labels and provided at

http://

www.fueleconomy.gov.

The result of the additional information, including environmental information, appearing on the label will necessitate that additional information also be displayed on this Web site in the future. Finally, this proposal does not affect the test procedures that are used by EPA and manufacturers to generate the Federal government's vehicle fuel economy and GHG emissions database.

This proposal also does not affect the vehicle labels required by the California Air Resources Board which indicate relative ratings for “Smog” and “Global Warming,” in fulfillment of that state's statutory requirements. The agencies are aware that the California labels provide information that is effectively duplicative with some of the information on the labels that will result from this rulemaking effort, although using different underlying rating methodologies and presentational approaches. It is the hope of both NHTSA and EPA that the Federal label can meet the CARB requirements and, thus, preclude the need for a separate set of labels. However, it is ultimately up to California to determine how to implement its statute and, thus, beyond the purview of this rulemaking to make any such determination.

F. History of Federal Fuel Economy Label Requirements

The fuel economy label has evolved several times since it was first required by Congress in the 1970s, both in response to new statutory requirements and to changing policy objectives. There have been important changes in the past to make the label more technically accurate and understandable to consumers. The changes being proposed are consistent with past efforts by EPA to make the fuel economy label more consumer friendly and effective over time. This section provides a brief historical summary of the development of the fuel economy label.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established two primary fuel economy requirements: (1) Fuel economy information, designed for public use, in the form of fuel economy labels posted on all new motor vehicles, and the publication of an annual booklet of fuel economy information to be made available free to the public by car dealers; and (2) calculation of a manufacturer's average fuel economy and compliance with a standard (later, this compliance program became known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program). The responsibilities for these requirements were split between EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT)

and the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA is responsible for establishing the test methods and procedures both for determining the fuel economy estimates that are displayed on the labels and in the annual booklet, and for the calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy. DOT, and by delegation, NHTSA, is responsible for administering the CAFE compliance program, which includes establishing standards, determining compliance, and assessing any penalties as needed. DOE is responsible for publishing and distributing the annual fuel economy information booklet.

The CAFE-related responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation are delegated to the NHTSA Administrator at 49 CFR 1.50.

EPA published regulations implementing portions of the EPCA statute in 1976.

The provisions in this regulation, effective with the 1977 model year, established the first fuel economy label along with the procedures to calculate fuel economy values for labeling and CAFE purposes that used the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or “city” test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or “highway” test) data as the basis for the calculations. At that time, the fundamental process for determining fuel economy was the same for labeling as for CAFE, except that the CAFE calculations combined the city and highway fuel economy values into a single number for manufacturers' compliance purposes.

41 FR 38685, promulgated at 40 CFR part 600.

EPCA requires that manufacturers simply comply with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, it does not require separate city and highway standards for each type of automobile. Thus, EPA calculates the average fuel economy for a manufacturer by weighting and combining the results of each automobile on the separate city and highway cycles.

See

49 U.S.C. 32904(c).

After a few years of public exposure to the fuel economy estimates on the labels of new vehicles, it soon became apparent that drivers were disappointed by not often achieving these estimates on the road and expected them to be as accurate as possible. In 1978, Congress recognized the concern about differences between EPA-estimated fuel economy values and actual consumer experience and mandated a study under section 404 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978.

In February 1980, a set of hearings were conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and National Resources. One of the recommendations in the subsequent report by the Subcommittee was that “EPA devise a new MPG system for labeling new cars and for the Gas Mileage Guide that provides fuel economy values, or a range of values, that most drivers can reasonably expect to experience.”

Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 404, November 9, 1978.

House Committee on Government Operations, “Automobile Fuel Economy: EPA's Performance,” Report 96-948, May 13, 1980.

EPA commenced a rulemaking process in 1980 to revise its fuel economy labeling procedures, and analyzed a vast amount of in-use fuel economy data as part of that rulemaking.

In 1984, EPA published new fuel economy labeling procedures that were applicable to 1985 and later model year vehicles.

The decision was made to retain the FTP and highway test procedures, primarily because those procedures were also used for other purposes, including emissions certification and CAFE determination. Based on the in-use fuel economy data, however, it was evident that the final fuel economy values put on the labels needed to be adjusted downward in order to reflect more accurately consumers' average fuel economy experience. The final rule, therefore, included downward adjustment factors for both the city and highway label fuel economy estimates. The city values (based on the raw FTP test data) were adjusted downward by 10 percent and the highway values (likewise based on the raw highway test data) were adjusted downward by 22 percent.

“Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA 460/3-80-010, September 1980, and “Technical Support Report for Rulemaking Action: Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Labeling,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report no. EPA/AA/CTAB/FE-81-6, October 1980.

49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984, and 49 FR 48149, December 10, 1984.

49 FR 13845, April 6, 1984.

In the early 2000s, EPA again began investigating the accuracy of the fuel economy label estimates, and concluded that driving behavior (

e.g.,

higher average speed and acceleration) and other factors (such as the use of ethanol as a gasoline blending agent) had changed significantly since the correction factors were implemented in 1985, leading again to a widening gap between real-world fuel economy and the label estimates that consumers saw when shopping for new vehicles. During the development of vehicle emissions regulations in the late 1990s, EPA had already conclusively found that the city and highway tests did not adequately represent real-world driving, and in December of 2006 EPA finalized new

test methods for calculating the fuel economy label values.

71 FR 77872, December 27, 2006.

The 2006 final rule made three important changes. First, EPA's new methods brought the miles per gallon estimates closer to consumers' actual fuel economy by including factors such as high speeds, quicker accelerations, air conditioning use, and driving in cold temperatures. These revised fuel economy estimates also reflect other conditions that influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The new estimates took effect with model year 2008 vehicles. Second, EPA now requires fuel economy labels on certain heavier vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, such as larger SUVs and vans. Manufacturers will be required to post fuel economy labels on these vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. Third, to convey fuel economy information to the public more effectively, EPA updated the design and content of the label. The rule required that new labels be placed on vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007. The fuel economy for each vehicle model continues to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG estimates.

G. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

1. Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

Under EPCA, EPA is responsible for developing the fuel economy labels that are posted on all new light duty cars and trucks sold in the U.S. and beginning in MY 2011 all new medium duty trucks as well. 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. 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.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1).

EPCA specifies the information that is minimally required on every fuel economy label.

As stated above, labels must include:

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(2)(A) through (F).

• 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;

and

26 U.S.C. 4064.

• 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.

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.

Dedicated automobile labels must also display the information noted above.

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.”

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).

Dual fueled vehicle labels must:

49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(9), (c).

• 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.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).

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].”

49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(11).

Additionally, EPA is required under EPCA to prepare a fuel economy booklet containing information that is “simple and readily understandable.”

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.”

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.

49 U.S.C. 32908(c).

Id.

71 FR 77915, Dec. 27, 2006.

2. 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).

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.

Public Law 110-140.

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—to label new automobiles sold in the United States with 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: 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 * * *”

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 jointly proposing the revised labels presented below. NHTSA notes that its proposed regulatory text changes to 49 CFR Chapter V to implement the EISA requirements (and to make other proposed changes) are currently designated as “reserved.” This is not to suggest that these sections will remain “reserved” (

i.e.,

blank) for the final rule. NHTSA will add regulatory text to implement the EISA requirements in these sections for the final rule consistent with the agencies' final decisions on label formats and based on review and consideration of all public comments.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Fuel Economy Label Content (Metrics and Rating Systems)

This section discusses the elements that the agencies are proposing for the fuel economy label. Section A discusses the range of options considered and proposed for “conventional” petroleum-fueled vehicles (

i.e.,

those powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel). Current hybrid vehicles, which are fundamentally gasoline-fueled vehicles,

will continue to use the same label as other gasoline vehicles, just as they do today. Many of the approaches discussed in Section A, such as the rating systems, will apply across all vehicles, including advanced technology vehicles. Section B specifically discusses the special cases of advanced technology vehicles. These vehicles—such as electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs)

—are one of the key reasons we are proposing new regulations. The agencies are concerned that current label requirements do not adequately address these vehicles, and we are seeking to develop labels that are useful and understandable to consumers, as well as equitable across the range of different vehicles and technological approaches. Section C addresses some of the less common fuels and fuel combinations for which label templates must ultimately be developed, such as compressed natural gas and methanol.

Current hybrid vehicles obtain their electric power from their onboard conventional gasoline engine and energy captured through regenerative braking. Thus, the vehicle's energy source is still gasoline.

Definitions for hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can be found in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1803-01.

A. Conventional Gasoline, Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles

The complete effect of this proposal would be a single new label, which replaces the existing fuel economy label and which contains more information than is currently displayed, even in the case of conventional petroleum-fueled vehicles. An example of the current label is shown here to provide a basis for comparison with the proposed labels.

EP23SE10.002

The new single label is the result of EPA and NHTSA's decision that it is good public policy to consolidate label requirements called for by EPCA and EISA. This label would contain information not only on a new vehicle's fuel economy, annual fuel cost, and range of fuel economy within class, but also, for the first time, information on a new vehicle's fuel consumption, emissions, and comparative rating information, as required by statute. This expansion of the role of the label beyond fuel economy information reflects the new EISA requirements, which are premised on the concept that greenhouse gas and other environmental information is also in the public interest.

In developing this proposal, the agencies came up with two distinct approaches for conveying information on the label. While both approaches rely on the same underlying data and both meet EPCA and EISA requirements, they differ in how they present and emphasize the information. One approach is more traditional, focusing primarily on MPG values and secondarily on annual fuel cost, but adding new elements, such as environmental information. A label using this approach would look familiar to the public, with a style similar to the

existing label. Requiring a label based on the traditional approach assumes that potential vehicle purchasers will use the information that is most meaningful to them, whether that is MPG, fuel cost, or other values. For example, participants in the focus groups leading up to this proposal indicated that, when considering the current fuel economy label, nearly all used the city and highway MPG values almost exclusively, despite the presence of other data elements on the label; some also used annual fuel cost and within-class comparison information.

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

The other approach uses the same data, but shifts the emphasis to a single, more prominent value that reflects fuel consumption and its counterpart, greenhouse gas emissions, using a format the consumers will easily recognize—a letter grade. The associated numerical values and other required elements would remain on the label, but with much less prominence. This approach makes it simpler for the consumer to identify those vehicles that use less oil and have a lesser environmental impact and more clearly expands the role of the label beyond fuel economy information. Many of the focus group participants indicated that they trusted the EPA to determine which of these factors were important, and the agencies believe that consumers might be more likely to consider a vehicle with higher fuel economy and lesser environmental impact if they were provided with a simpler label.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 36.

The agencies believe each approach has merit and that the public will be well-served by having both be fully considered; therefore, EPA and NHTSA are co-proposing two label designs based on these two approaches, without either being the primary proposal. NHTSA and EPA expect that comments will provide valuable insight on these two proposed label designs, and seek comment on the merits and drawbacks of each, recognizing that the label design ultimately finalized may draw on elements from all the labels presented in this proposal. The labels are presented in Section III. Label designs 1 and 2 are co-proposed, with Label 1 being the letter grade approach and Label 2 being the more traditional approach. Label 3, on which comment is also sought, is an alternative version of the traditional approach.

The subsections that follow describe each of the data elements presented on the labels, how the agencies considered them, and how we are proposing that they be displayed on each of the co-proposed labels.

1. Fuel Economy Performance

Since 1977, the EPA fuel economy label has represented the fuel economy performance of a vehicle with estimates of city and highway miles per gallon (MPG). With more than 30 years of consumers seeing these estimates as the most prominent values displayed on the fuel economy labels, it is not surprising that the consumer research conducted as part of this rulemaking has revealed a strong attachment to city and highway MPG values. A combined city and highway MPG value was first placed on the label starting with model year 2008—as part of the graphic showing the combined MPG value of the vehicle compared with other vehicles in the same class

but, even prior to this, the combined MPG value has always been a key input to estimating the annual fuel cost value required on the label.

The vehicle classes are defined in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 600.315-08 and provide a basis for comparing a vehicle's fuel economy to that of other vehicles in its class as required by statute. See the discussion in section VI.C for a detailed discussion of the vehicle class structure.

Combined fuel economy is a harmonic average of the City and Highway MPG values, with the City value weighted 55% and the Highway value weighted 45%.

See

71 FR 77904, December 27, 2006.

Representing the vehicle's fuel economy performance on the label with an estimate of miles per gallon is a core element of the fuel economy information requirements of EPCA, which specifically states that the label must display “the fuel economy of the automobile” and defines “fuel economy” as “the average number of miles travelled * * * for each gallon of gasoline.”

In addition, EPA and NHTSA have determined that continuing to display the fuel economy values on the label would also meet the new requirements put in place by EISA that call for a label “reflecting an automobile's performance [based on criteria determined by EPA] to reflect fuel economy * * * over the useful life of the vehicle.”

Because vehicle fuel economy depends primarily on fundamental vehicle design characteristics that do not change over time, the agencies believe that fuel economy remains essentially stable throughout the life of properly-maintained vehicles. Thus the agencies believe that the current test methods that determine label values for new vehicles will meet the EISA requirements by providing reasonable estimates of fuel economy performance for the full useful life of a vehicle. Finally, consumers have shown a strong familiarity with and preference for MPG values, and have consistently indicated that these values are used as part of the vehicle purchase decision.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(A).

49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i).

For these reasons, the agencies are proposing to continue to provide mile per gallon estimates to consumers, but with some changes relative to the current label, and with markedly different approaches on the two co-proposed labels.

The agencies recognize that the focus group research suggested that consumers have a strong familiarity with and preference for the city and highway fuel economy values

(although this preference was much stronger for conventional vehicles than for advanced technology vehicles; in those cases perhaps the complexity of the labels encouraged them to part with some of the numbers on the label). Focus group participants who argued strongly for separate city and highway MPG values on the label often stated, for example, that most of their driving is either city or highway, and that a combined city-highway MPG value might make it harder for them to determine what MPG they should reasonably expect for that vehicle.

The agencies believe that this apparent preference was formed in large part because of EPA's decision to present these as the dominant figures on the label for decades, not because consumers demanded these metrics 33 years ago. Had EPA been presenting the combined number as the dominant figure on the label since 1977, we might expect to see a great deal of familiarity with and understanding of that particular value today. However, the distinction between city and highway driving does not address the key variables that could impact energy consumption for alternative technologies, such as ambient temperature. Thus, the agencies believe that, for labeling purposes, the city/highway distinction may be a less relevant metric than in the past.

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

Thus with Label 1, NHTSA and EPA propose that the MPG values be significantly reduced in prominence (

i.e.,

smaller font and “below the fold” location on the label), with the letter grade rating assuming the predominant role. Given space constraints and the

amount of information that is required to be provided on the label, continuing to display MPG estimates with the same or similar prominence would be likely unnecessary and possibly untenable. The city and highway MPG values would be available for those who wish to use them, but the rating assumes the key role of informing the public about the relative energy use and carbon emissions of a vehicle. The agencies believe that this de-emphasis on MPG values would have two primary benefits: First, the rating's predominance should encourage consumers to use it rather than the specific MPG values to compare across vehicle technology types (particularly as MPG values become less meaningful for vehicles that do not run, or only partially run, on fuels dispensed by the gallon); and second, to address the non-linearity of MPG with respect to energy use, emissions, and cost, discussed further in Section II.A.2, which becomes more important as significantly higher mileage vehicles are poised to enter the marketplace.

The agencies are proposing a different approach for Label 2, in which the combined MPG value is displayed prominently, with separate city and highway values continuing to be shown on the label, but as subordinate values. This approach focuses attention on MPG since it is the metric that consumers are the most familiar with and have come to utilize on the label. However, it downplays the separate city and highway value in favor of a single, combined MPG, because the agencies believe that continuing to highlight multiple pieces of fuel economy information with the same level of prominence could make it more difficult for consumers to compare vehicles, particularly across technology types, where MPG becomes a less meaningful metric. A similar approach is taken on Label 3.

The agencies seek comment generally on these two approaches to displaying fuel economy performance information on the labels. Specifically, comment is sought on whether or not the labels that emphasize combined city/highway MPG values over separate city and highway MPG values are helpful to consumers, and why or why not. If combined MPG is preferred, comment is sought on whether or not city and highway values should continue to be displayed, and why or why not.

2. Fuel Consumption

While miles per gallon is statutorily mandated for fuel economy labels and has appeared on the label for several decades, the agencies have some concern that it can be a potentially misleading comparative tool for consumers, particularly when it is used as a proxy for fuel costs. The problem can be easily illustrated by the following figure, which shows the non-linear relationship between gallons used over a given distance and miles per gallon. It can be seen that the difference in gallons it takes to go 1,000 miles between 10 and 15 MPG (about 33 gallons) is substantially greater than the difference in gallons it takes to go the same distance between 30 and 35 MPG (about 5 gallons). In other words, even if consumers clearly understand that higher MPG is better, those comparing vehicles with relatively low MPG values may not know that MPG differences that appear to be small, even one or two MPG, may actually have very different fuel consumption values, and that selecting the slightly higher MPG vehicle could actually result in significantly less fuel used, thus saving a considerable amount of money. Fuel consumption numbers, unlike MPG, relate directly to the amount of fuel used. Mathematically, they represent gallon per mile, instead of miles per gallon. Not coincidentally, they also relate directly to the amount of CO

emitted, because the grams of CO

produced are directly proportional to gallons of fuel combusted.

EP23SE10.003

This so-called “MPG illusion,” which has been widely written about by a number of economists to illustrate why MPG is a flawed measure of how a vehicle's efficiency relates to fuel costs,

was raised as an issue during the development of the 2006 fuel economy labeling rule. Some vehicle manufacturers suggested at the time that it may be more meaningful to express fuel efficiency in terms of consumption (

e.g.,

gallons per mile or per 100 miles) rather than in terms of economy (miles per gallon).

Fuel consumption is the primary metric used in Europe, and the Canadian fuel economy labels report both MPG and a consumption metric (liters per 100 kilometers). Because a few stakeholders expressed an interest in a fuel consumption metric at the time, EPA requested comments on a gallons-per-mile metric and how it could be best used and presented publicly, such as whether it should be included in the Fuel Economy Guide.

Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., “Energy: Behavior and Energy Policy,” Science, March 5, 2010, available at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5970/1204;

Larrick, R.L., Soll, J.B., “The MPG Illusion,” Science, June 20, 2008, available at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5883/1593;

McArdle, M., “Department of Mathematical Illusion,” The Atlantic, December 24, 2007, available at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/department-of-mathematical-illusion/2425/.

US EPA Response to Comments: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles, EPA-420-R-06-016, Dec 2006, pp. 60-61.

The comments received in response to this request were mixed. Public Citizen, on the one hand, responded that, while there may be some merit to including a fuel consumption metric, consumers are comfortable with MPG. Any change, they argued, should be carefully deliberated and involve a massive public outreach campaign to educate consumers.

They also suggested that the estimated annual fuel cost provides information derived from consumption values and is thus a suitable proxy for consumption. Toyota, in contrast, commented that fuel consumption is a more meaningful measure than MPG for expressing fuel efficiency, while acknowledging EPA's statutory limitations. They noted—as have many others—that the MPG metric is fundamentally nonlinear in relation to issues of consumer interest, such as cost of fuel or gallons used, and noted that anecdotal evidence shows that the nonlinear aspects of MPG can lead to consumer confusion. Toyota concluded that “* * * this is a matter on which the EPA is obligated to educate the public as fuel consumption, not fuel economy, is a direct reflection of the environmental impact of vehicles in use.”

Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-0123.1, Apr 3, 2006, p. 4.

Toyota Motor Corporation Comments on Proposed Fuel Economy Labeling Of Motor Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0169-0118.1, Mar 31, 2006, p. 7.

EPA responded to these comments in the 2006 final rule by concluding that switching to a consumption metric without a long-term consumer education program would cause confusion and that, absent Congressional action, the fuel economy labels would still have to continue to report MPG. EPA also agreed with commenters that the estimated annual fuel cost was a consumption-based metric which conveys essentially the same information (although the estimated annual fuel cost on the label is not without its own limitations, as described below).

To allow further consideration of this issue, the consumer focus groups conducted for this rulemaking were asked to specifically explore the MPG illusion. Most participants were unconvinced that consumption should be included on the label with primary prominence and, although many were unopposed to having it as additional information, it was unclear whether it would add value from their perspective.

This was the case regardless of the consumption metric tested, ranging from gallons per 100 miles to annual gallons consumed.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 17.

However, there is general interest from a number of parties in the inclusion of a fuel consumption metric on the label. The agencies, as well, believe that it is important to introduce the concept of consumption to enable consumers to more accurately consider fuel use and costs during the vehicle purchase process. Thus, the agencies propose to introduce such a metric along with the MPG values, expecting that, over time, and with some education, consumers will begin to understand energy consumption and the direct connection it has with the fuel costs and environmental impacts of the vehicle. EPA is therefore proposing to include an estimate of gallons per 100 miles on the label under its 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F) authority to require other information related to fuel economy on the label, and requests comment on doing so, as well as on alternative options for reflecting fuel consumption, such as annual gallons consumed.

For consumers to use a consumption number, however, EPA and NHTSA believe that a comprehensive education campaign would have to accompany the roll-out of new labels.

This proposal is being made under EPA's authority to require other information related to fuel economy on the label, as described in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).

The agencies also seek comment on the specifics of displaying a consumption metric on the two labels being co-proposed. Although the label may provide city and highway MPG values as well as a combined city/highway MPG, we are proposing to require only the combined city/highway consumption value on the label. The agencies are concerned that requiring a consumption value corresponding to every MPG value would lead to an undesirable proliferation of numbers on the label.

3. Greenhouse Gas Performance

In addition to the fuel economy performance information that has been provided on the labels since 1977, Congress directed NHTSA, through EISA, to require new vehicles to also be labeled with information reflecting their greenhouse gas performance, which would be determined on the basis of criteria provided by EPA to NHTSA. As with fuel economy, the GHG performance information would be per vehicle model type. EPA hereby proposes the criteria for determining greenhouse gas performance, addressing the greenhouse gases to be incorporated, the emissions sources to include, the underlying test procedures, and the specific metric to be used. The agencies seek comment on whether these criteria, as described below, are reasonable and appropriate for determining the greenhouse gas performance of new vehicles. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA is proposing that the greenhouse gas performance element of the label be based on these criteria. These same greenhouse gas performance values would also be used as the basis for the proposed greenhouse gas rating systems.

With regard to the greenhouse gases to be covered, the agencies propose that the label include greenhouse gas performance information solely on the basis of carbon dioxide (CO

) emissions, which typically constitute approximately 95% of the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Including emission levels of the greenhouse gases methane (CH

) and nitrous oxide (N

O) along with CO

would not provide additional differentiation between vehicles. This is because, for purposes of compliance with EPA's GHG standards beginning in model year 2012, CH

and N

O values would be based on emission factors-that is, set values applied to each vehicle,

rather than direct measurements. Because these values would be set at the same level for all vehicles, the agencies do not believe that including them would provide consumers with additional useful information.

Similarly, the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information be based on CO

emissions for the vehicle model type, rather than the carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) methodology used to determine fuel consumption for CAFE programs and compliance with the light duty greenhouse gas requirements. The use of CREE adds a level of complexity that, while useful for compliance purposes, may not be beneficial to public understanding of the relative differences in GHG emissions between vehicles because the levels of other carbon-related emissions are low relative to CO

emissions. Although the agencies propose that the greenhouse gas information on the label be based only on CO

, we also seek comment on whether and, if so, how, the other greenhouse gases and carbon-related emissions should be included.

Regarding the underlying test procedures to be used to determine the vehicle-specific GHG performance information for the labels, the agencies propose that the CO

values presented on the label be based on the five-cycle test procedures that are currently utilized for fuel economy labeling purposes.

These test procedures measure rates of tailpipe CO

and other emissions, which form the basis of the fuel economy values currently used for vehicle labeling. The five-cycle test procedures have been used for labeling since model year 2008, and have significantly improved the correlation between label values for MPG and those seen in actual use. Manufacturers could thus calculate CO

emission rates using the same approach that they use for label fuel economy values, which the agencies know to be well-correlated with actual performance in use. More specifically, if a manufacturer uses the “derived five cycle” method for determining MPG for fuel economy labeling, they would use the same method for determining CO

for labeling purposes. The city and highway CO

emissions test results would then be used in the derived five-cycle equations, which the EPA has converted from a MPG basis to a CO

basis for this purpose. Similarly, vehicle model types that are using the “full five cycle” method for fuel economy labeling would use the CO

results from those tests for purposes of fuel economy labeling. The agencies are therefore proposing that manufacturers use the same five-methodology currently utilized for fuel economy labeling purposes for determining GHG values for purposes of the new label.

40 CFR part 600.210-08.

As far as emission sources to include, NHTSA and EPA propose that the greenhouse gas emissions represented on the label include only vehicle tailpipe emissions,

and do not account for any GHG emissions generated upstream of the vehicle. This approach is also consistent with the vehicle GHG emissions compliance levels recently adopted by EPA, which treat GHG emissions for electric operation as zero up to a cumulative production cap per manufacturer.

The agencies seek comment on the potential inclusion of GHG emissions reflecting from A/C leakage credits, as described later in this section.

EPA placed a cumulative production cap on the total production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs for which an individual manufacturer can claim the zero grams/mile compliance value during model years 2012-2016. The cumulative production cap will be 200,000 vehicles, except that those manufacturers that sell at least 25,000 EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in MY 2012 will have a cap of 300,000 vehicles for MY 2012-2016. See 75 FR 25436 (May 7, 2010).

When exploring this issue with focus groups, the agencies found that most participants did not consider the issue of upstream emissions either way. A few raised it when they noted that an electric vehicle indicated zero emissions, and suggested that these vehicles did cause some emissions at the power plant, which should be represented on the label.

On further discussion, they generally determined that it would be challenging for the label to meaningfully represent the range of emissions from power plants operated on different fuels, and suggested that this information was obtainable from other sources.

Given space constraints and the difficulty of explaining the potential range of upstream emissions due to different fuel sources, participants tended to agree that this issue could be adequately addressed by a statement on the label indicating that the CO

values on the label represented vehicle tailpipe emissions only. The label designs presented in this NPRM include the words “Tailpipe Only” next to the CO

value presented; the agencies seek comment on whether this wording will be readily and uniformly understood to mean that upstream GHG emissions are not being reflected on the label, or whether other, more direct wording might be clearer and more helpful to consumers.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 42.

Aside from tailpipe CO

, the agencies are not proposing, but seek comment on the inclusion of an additional factor in the GHG performance used for labeling: air conditioning (A/C) credits generated by a manufacturer under the light duty vehicle GHG requirements. Air conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, which are powerful GHGs, can leak from the A/C system (direct A/C emissions). Operation of the A/C system also places an additional load on the engine, which results in additional CO

tailpipe emissions (indirect A/C related emissions). The efficiency-related A/C impacts are accounted for in the five-cycle tests utilized for fuel economy labeling and proposed as the basis for GHG labeling purposes. However, EPA and NHTSA are considering whether allowing manufacturers that generate credits towards their GHG compliance obligation by reducing A/C leakage-related GHGs should be allowed to factor these credits into the CO

value displayed on the label and used as the basis for the GHG rating. Allowing manufacturers to factor A/C credits into the GHG performance metric on the label would reward them for making A/C leakage improvements, but it would also cause the GHG performance value and the fuel economy performance value to diverge, and would impact the methodology for any rating system that combines GHGs and fuel economy. Because A/C-related reductions are not “tailpipe,” including leakage improvements in the tailpipe emissions could be misleading and inaccurate. If the final label includes other non-tailpipe emissions, the agencies may consider incorporating A/C leakage improvements. EPA and NHTSA seek comment on a number of issues: whether including A/C leakage adjustments would lead to widening the gap between what is on the label and what consumers get in the real world; whether and, if so, how, to allow the use of A/C credits for the purposes of labeling, with specific focus on the methodology and how the labels might display the inclusion of A/C leakage credits if the agencies decided to allow their use.

EPA and NHTSA are proposing to use grams per mile as the metric to display greenhouse gas performance information on the label, which would be consistent with the metric used for GHG emission standards and compliance for light duty vehicles. The agencies believe that this metric is also consistent with requirements in 49

U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A) that performance reflect emissions “over the useful life of the automobile.” As with fuel economy, the agencies do not at this time expect notable deterioration of greenhouse gas emissions levels over a vehicle's useful life. However, the agencies seek comment on alternative approaches to convey GHG performance information, such as tons per year, using an approach parallel to that discussed in section II for annual cost information.

4. Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating Systems

EISA requires that the label include 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 the automobiles with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles, and the highest fuel economy. * * *”

The two co-proposed label designs present two variations on ratings systems for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, based on two interpretations of the statutory language. These two approaches—separate absolute ratings for fuel economy and greenhouse gases, and a relative rating that combines the two factors—are not mutually exclusive, and a label could contain one or both.

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

In developing rating systems, the agencies are cognizant of the focus group testing conducted for this proposal, in which it appeared that many participants did not rely on any rating system. Perhaps due to their familiarity with the prominently displayed MPG numbers, many participants relied initially and sometimes exclusively on MPG or MPGe label values to compare vehicles to one another.

Given this result, the agencies are proposing two different approaches to the ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 36.

The first approach is displayed at the bottom of Label 1 and Label 2: Separate ratings scales for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, bounded by specific values for the “best” and the “worst” vehicles, and with specific fuel economy and GHG emissions values for the vehicle model type in question identified in the appropriate location on the scale. The scales on Label 2 are essentially larger versions of those on Label 1, with the addition of a within-class indicator on the fuel economy scale to meet the EPCA

requirement for comparison across comparable vehicles.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).

This variation—absolute rating scales—directly utilizes the actual fuel economy and CO

performance values per vehicle model type to define the rating, which the agencies believe has both potential benefits and drawbacks. The agencies believe that, by rating vehicles on an absolute scale, this approach clearly meets the text of the EISA requirement for providing fuel economy and GHG performance information and indicating highest fuel economy and lowest GHG vehicles. The rating system allows the consumer looking at the label on the dealer's lot to identify precisely the highest and lowest fuel economy values available, the lowest and highest GHG emissions values available, and where the vehicle bearing the label falls in relation to these extremes. When this variation was presented in focus groups, some participants liked the level of detail provided by absolute rating scales and found it helpful in understanding how a vehicle compared to the “best” and “worst” vehicles available, although others found it to be more detail than they wanted or did not pay attention to this information on the label.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 41.

However, even for those consumers who appreciate this level of detail in comparing vehicles by fuel economy and GHG emissions, there is the possibility that the “best” will change over the course of the model year and that the MPG or gram/mile value at the end of the scale may no longer be accurate. Highest and lowest values to be used on the scale would be provided to manufacturers by EPA prior to the start of the model year via annual guidance. Because these values will be based on the previous model year plus any additional information regarding the upcoming new sales fleet available to the EPA, they are expected to be relatively accurate. However, because they are projected values, the introduction during the model year of any new and unexpected vehicles not previously identified to EPA could potentially cause inaccuracy in the end points of the rating scales. In general, because of the expected introduction of electric vehicles, which have no tailpipe CO

emissions and thus anchor one end of the scale at zero, and because of the expectation that, for the foreseeable future, one or more vehicles will anchor the opposite end at a relatively constant level, the agencies believe that the end points will likely remain

relatively

constant, but they may not remain

exactly

constant. The agencies therefore seek comment on how significant this potential for inaccuracy could be on consumers' ability to use the absolute rating scales to compare fuel economy and GHG emissions across vehicles, and on whether commenters believe the labels would have to be revised in order to meet the statutory requirement every time a new “best” vehicle was introduced if they were not accommodated by the end points.

The second approach to a rating system is also displayed on Label 1: A combined rating scale for fuel economy and GHG emissions, shown in the form of a letter grade. Because vehicles that are low in CO

emissions have inherently good fuel economy (and vice versa), and because CO

emissions are the primary determinant of fuel economy using EPA test procedures, vehicles would generally tend to have the same “score” for fuel economy as for GHG emissions. Thus, if the ratings are equivalent, as a practical matter, it would be consistent with the statutory requirement to provide a single, combined rating system.

The proposed letter grade scale would range from A+ to D, including plus and minus designations to provide more opportunities for improvement. All vehicles would receive a “passing” grade—that is, the ratings would not include an “E” or “F” grade—because all vehicles must meet CAA requirements in order to be sold, and the agencies do not wish to convey otherwise. Additionally, the “A+” vehicles—with associated text stating the range of letter grades—will indicate which vehicles are the “best,” thus, meeting the requirement that the label designate highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas vehicles.

This variation of a fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system was suggested by the expert panel and was not presented in focus groups, but many focus group participants favored the simplification of information presented when possible, and the agencies believe that such a well-known rating approach will be immediately recognizable by the majority of consumers. The agencies are also hopeful that a rating system as simple as a letter grade may encourage consumers to rely more on the rating system itself in making purchasing decisions, rather than on, for example, MPG numbers, which are subject to the “MPG illusion” issue discussed above.

A letter grade allows vehicles purchasers to make a comparative assessment among vehicles with different grades, consolidating information so that consumers might

more easily assess the GHG emissions and fuel economy of different vehicles and make fully informed decisions. The agencies also request comment on whether any vehicle should receive a grade of A+ or whether this might lead to mistaken consumer conclusion that the vehicle has no energy or environmental impacts.

As noted above, CO

emissions are directly measured by EPA and form the basis for calculating the fuel efficiency of the vehicle; using CO

as the basis for the rating is the most direct methodological approach and will avoid any rounding discrepancies that could occur from converting to MPG and then to fuel consumption. It also avoids the need to adjust the MPG thresholds by fuel type to account for differences in the energy content of fuel. Utilizing CO

as the controlling factor in the rating thresholds is a practical consideration and is not meant to imply that GHG emissions are more important than energy use; both are relevant considerations and are viewed by the agencies as equally important under the rating system.

The direct relationship between CO

and fuel consumption breaks down to some extent for vehicles with electric operation. For these vehicles, tailpipe CO

emissions are zero; however, energy is consumed by the vehicle and an energy efficiency value other than infinity can be assigned. Nevertheless, given that electric drive trains are currently much more efficient than those for conventional vehicles, the relationship between those vehicles emitting zero CO

and having the highest energy efficiency holds true at the present time. This approach may need to reassessed in the future if efficiencies of electric drive and conventional vehicles begin to approach each other, or if it is desired to differentiate between the efficiencies of electric-powered vehicles, but should not be a necessary consideration in the foreseeable future.

The agencies propose to base this rating system approach on the range of CO

emissions for the projected fleet, placing the middle of the rating scale at the combined 5-cycle CO

emissions rate for the median vehicle,

with equal-sized increments of CO

assigned to each grade or rating.

The higher-GHG end of the scale would therefore be twice the CO

emissions rate of the median value, although, effectively, any vehicle higher than this level would also receive the lowest rating. Under such an approach, the median value would become more stringent over time as a result of GHG emissions requirements and, thus, the entire scale would shift toward lower GHG levels. Unless a vehicle model reduced its rate of CO

emissions across the model years, its ratings would gradually drop over time. This approach would be consistent with both the evolution of fuel economy and emission requirements, and the public expectation that products evolve over time. The CO

thresholds associated with each rating would be determined on an annual basis and provided through guidance in advance of the model year. EPA would require that manufacturers use the ratings from the prior year if they are in a position to need to label a vehicle before the annual guidance has been issued. The agencies recognize that revising the median baseline vehicle each year may lead to some consumer confusion, but this dilemma is no different than what consumers currently encounter when they view identical vehicles from different model years and their associated annual fuel cost or the comparative fuel economy slider bar for each vehicle displayed on today's label. The agencies continue to believe that the underlying assumptions need to be up-to-date to be most useful to consumers. Nevertheless, the agencies request comment on what the agencies might do to avoid potential confusion.

Median vehicle is determined by vehicle model type, with model type as defined in 40 CFR 600.002-08.

The agencies evaluated several potential methodologies for creating this rating system besides equal increments of CO

. We rejected an approach that would create the rating system based on establishing equal size categories for the ratings using miles per gallon—that is, taking the range of MPG of the vehicle fleet and dividing that range into ten equal segments. Given that the fleet will soon see vehicles that achieve MPG-equivalent values of 75 to 100, the agencies were concerned that this methodology would create a situation where a vehicle such as the 2010 Toyota Prius (which gets a combined MPG of 50 MPG) would receive only an average rating. Using this method would result in the vast majority of vehicles receiving a rating well below the middle rating, which would not seem to be an appropriate result of a rating system. However, the agencies seek comment on whether a combined rating system based on MPG instead of on CO

might be developed in a way that avoided these results.

The following example is based on model year 2010 data and assumes that one or more vehicles that emit zero CO

tailpipe emissions (

i.e.,

electric or fuel cell vehicles) have entered the market. Gasoline-equivalent MPG values are provided in the table for clarity. However, the agencies propose that the CO

values be controlling for purposes of assigning the rating.

Table II.A.4-1—Example Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Rating System

range

(grams per mile)

Rating

Combined gasoline MPG or MPGe

0-76

A+

117 and higher.

77-152

59-116.

153-229

A−

40-58.

230-305

B+

30-39

306-382

24-29.

383-458

B−

20-23.

459-535

C+

18-19.

536-611

16-17.

612-688

C−

14-15.

689-764

D+

13.

765-842 and higher

12 and lower.

This example would result in the following distributions of ratings, based on 2010 vehicle model types, plus several additional vehicles indicated as “Electric Vehicle” and “Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.”

The additional vehicles are examples of types expected to enter the commercial market. The CO

and MPGe values shown are examples only and are not based on any formal testing or certification data.

EP23SE10.004

Ratings by Class

A+

A−

B+

B−

C+

C−

D+

Small car

215

306

Midsize car

Large car

Minivan

Pickup

Station wagon

SUV

167

166

Van

Applying this rating system to model year 2010 data would assign the ratings as follows for the sample vehicles listed. Of course, future model year vehicles could receive different ratings from those shown in this example.

g/mi

MPGe

Sample vehicles

A+

0-76

117 and up

Electric Vehicle.

77-152

59-116

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

A−

153-229

40-58

Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius.

B+

230-305

30-39

Chevrolet Cobalt (Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (2WD), Honda Fit, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Toyota Corolla (1.8L Manual), Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Golf.

306-382

24-29

Chevrolet Cobalt (Automatic), Chevrolet Malibu (2.4L), Ford Escape (2.5L Manual), Ford Escape Hybrid (4WD), Ford Focus, Ford Fusion (2.5L), Ford Ranger (2.3L Manual), Honda Accord (2.4L), Honda Civic, Honda CR-V (2WD), Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai Sonata (2.4L), Jeep Patriot (2.0L, 2.4L Manual), Mazda 3, Nissan Altima (2.5L), Nissan Sentra, Porsche Boxster (Automatic), Toyota Camry (2.5L), Toyota Corolla (1.8L Automatic, 2.4L), Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Matrix, Toyota RAV4 (2.5L).

B−

383-458

20-23

Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Automatic), Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Malibu (3.5L and 3.6L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe 1500 Hybrid, Dodge Charger (2.7/3.5L with 4-speed Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (4.0L), Ford Escape (2.5L Automatic), Ford Fusion (3.5L), Ford Mustang (4.0L Manual), Ford Ranger (2.3L Automatic), GMC Canyon (2.9L), GMC Sierra 15 Hybrid, Honda Accord (3.5L), Honda CR-V (4WD), Hyundai Sonata (3.3L), Hyundai Santa Fe, Jeep Patriot (2.4L CVT), Nissan Altima (3.5L), Porsche Boxster (Manual), Subaru Forester, Toyota 4Runner (2.7L), Toyota Camry (3.5L), Toyota Highlander (2WD), Toyota RAV4 (3.5L), Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 2WD).

C+

459-535

18-19

BMW 750Li (4.4L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (3.0/3.6L, Manual), Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Automatic, 7.0L), Chevrolet Express 1500 (4.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), Chevrolet Tahoe 1500, Dodge Charger (3.5/5.7L with 5-speed Automatic), Dodge Grand Caravan (3.3L, 3.8L), Ford Explorer (4.6L 2WD), Ford F150 (2WD 6-speed Automatic), Ford Mustang (4.0L Automatic, 4.6L, 5.4L), Ford Ranger (4.0L Automatic), GMC Canyon (3.7L, 5.3L 2WD), GMC Sierra 15 (4.3L 2WD, 5.3L), Honda Pilot, Jaguar XJ, Jeep Grand Cherokee (3.7L), Kia Sedona, Toyota 4Runner (4.0L), Toyota Highlander (4WD), Toyota Sienna, Toyota Tacoma (2.7L 4WD, 4.0L Automatic), Toyota Tundra (4.6L 2WD).

536-611

16-17

BMW 750Li (4.4L 4WD, 6.0L 2WD), Cadillac CTS (6.2L, Manual), Chevrolet Corvette (6.2L Manual), Chevrolet Express 1500 (5.3L), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 6.3L 2WD), Dodge Charger (6.1L), Ford Explorer (4.0L and 4.6L 4WD), Ford F150 (4-speed Automatic, 4WD 6-speed automatic), GMC Canyon (5.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (4.3L 4WD, 4.8L, 6.2L), Jeep Grand Cherokee (5.7L), Nissan Titan (2WD), Toyota Tacoma (4.0L Manual), Toyota Tundra (4.0L, 4.6L 4WD, 5.7L 2WD).

C−

612-688

14-15

Aston Martin DBS, BMW M5, Cadillac CTS (6.2L, Automatic), Chevrolet Silverado 15 (6.3L 4WD), GMC Sierra 15 (6.2L 4WD), Land Rover Range Rover, Lexus LX 570, Maserati Quattroporte, Nissan Titan (4WD), Toyota Tundra (5.7L 4WD).

D+

689-764

Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, Mercedes-Benz Maybach 57.

765 and up

12 and down

Ferrari 612 Scaglietti.

One potential issue with this approach is that a rating system based on CO

emissions may not be an adequate proxy for a fuel economy rating system if the agencies decide in the final rule to allow manufacturers to use A/C credits in determining their CO

emissions values. Since fuel economy by definition does not account for HFC leakage, a CO

rating boosted by A/C leakage credits would not accurately represent the vehicle's fuel economy rating. EISA requires that labels include a rating system that allows consumers to compare fuel economy across vehicles, so a fuel economy rating system that includes HFC leakage arguably would not meet these requirements. The proposed Label 1 would address this issue, whether A/C were included in the letter-grade rating or not, by virtue of also having the absolute rating scale for fuel economy at the bottom of the label. Still, the agencies seek comment on whether a rating system that combined fuel economy and CO

emissions could accurately describe both if A/C credits were permitted to be included in the rating system for CO

Another issue with using a CO

-based method is the fact that some diesel vehicles would see their rating reduced by

1/2

letter grade—

i.e.,

diesel vehicles would appear “worse” to the consumer in the rating system—relative to an approach that relied on MPG or fuel consumption, given the higher carbon content of a gallon of diesel fuel compared to a gallon of gasoline. This could potentially discourage some sales of diesel vehicles if consumers are influenced by the rating system, which the agencies may not necessarily want to accomplish. However, because a consistent basis is needed across all fuels, MPGe would need to be used rather than MPG: This would provide equivalency on an energy basis rather than a volume basis, and would allow the use of an MPG-type metric across fuels that are not dispensed by the gallon, such as CNG and electricity. Since gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol have nearly equivalent ratios of energy to carbon, the choice of MPGe versus CO

/mile has minimal impact on the rating system results, particularly for liquid fuels. The agencies nevertheless seek comment on how significantly a CO

-based rating system might impact diesel sales, and whether an MPGe-based rating system might ameliorate any such impact, and if so, how that rating system would need to be structured for technology neutrality.

In practical terms, this means that the rating system would include all vehicles for which fuel economy information and labeling is required, which currently includes all passenger automobiles and light trucks as defined by NHTSA at 49 CFR part 523. More specifically, the rating system would span all automobiles up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight, plus some vehicles (large SUVs and some passenger vans) between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We believe that this is consistent with the intent of Congress, based on the text of EISA which refers clearly to labels for “automobiles” rather than “passenger” or “non-passenger automobiles,” and which states that the rating system must include a designation of the vehicle with the highest fuel economy and lowest GHG emissions.

The approach of including all vehicles in a single rating system is supported by the market research and literature reviews done for this proposal, which show that, while prospective vehicle purchasers narrow their choices by vehicle type early in the buying decision, they do not focus narrowly on a single class, at least as defined by EPA. Focus group participants indicated that they shopped, on average, across two to three vehicle classes.

For these consumers, a single rating system will enable them to make accurate vehicle comparisons across whichever vehicles they choose to shop. Market research also indicates that consumers have varying definitions of what constitutes a specific vehicle class, thus making it challenging to categorize vehicles in a way that is useful for all consumers.

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

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Pre-Focus Groups Online Survey Report, EPA420-R-10-907, August 2010, p. 18.

Nevertheless, EPA is seeking comment on rating passenger cars separately from light duty trucks under its authority to require other information related to fuel economy as authorized by the Administrator at 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(F).

In this case, EPA would propose to use the same definitions for cars and trucks used for light-duty fuel economy and GHG standards, which are NHTSA's definitions provided in 49 CFR part 523. Doing so would be consistent with automaker obligations under those requirements, in which cars and trucks have separate sets of standards. Additionally, market research shows that, while many people shop across several narrowly-defined classes, about two-thirds shop exclusively among either trucks or cars. These consumers might find it useful to compare among only those vehicles of interest. If a commenter believes that separate rating systems for cars and trucks would be preferable, EPA especially seeks comment on whether those consumers that shop among both cars and trucks could adequately compare across their vehicles of interest if ratings systems were separated, and whether or not the emerging “crossover” market will make this “car/truck” distinction increasingly less relevant and potentially confusing to the public.

NHTSA does not interpret 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) as permitting rating systems based on less than the entire fleet, so a rating system for fuel economy and/or GHG emissions based on only the car or truck fleet would not be sufficient to satisfy EISA's requirement, although EPA could require such a rating system under its authority.

For example, under NHTSA's and EPA's definitions, the same version of a crossover could potentially be a “car” if it were two wheel drive and a “truck” if it were four wheel drive. A consumer looking at the labels of these two vehicles side by side might find it challenging to understand why their ratings were different.

5. Other Emissions Performance and Rating System

In addition to fuel economy and greenhouse gas information and ratings, EISA requires new vehicles to also be labeled with information reflecting a vehicle's performance in terms of “other emissions,” and a rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase.

Unlike fuel economy and GHG emissions, EISA does not expressly require the designation of the “best” vehicle in terms of other emissions. This section lays out the criteria that EPA proposes NHTSA use to form the basis for other emissions performance and ratings. Concurrently, NHTSA proposes that these criteria be used as the foundation for information that is provided on the label.

49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A).

Congress did not precisely define in EISA which of the pollutants in the universe of possible candidates for “other emissions” should be included for labeling purposes. The agencies assume that Congress did not intend to create any new substantive requirements as part of this labeling provision for pollutants that are not currently regulated and, thus, propose that “other emissions” include those tailpipe emissions, other than CO

, for which vehicles are required to meet current emission standards. These air pollutants comprise both criteria emissions regulated under EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and air toxics, and include:

• NMOG—non-methane organic gases;

• NO

—oxides of nitrogen;

• PM—particulate matter;

• CO—carbon monoxide; and

• HCHO—formaldehyde.

Auto manufacturers must provide the agency with emission rates of these pollutants for all new light duty vehicles each model year under EPA's Tier 2 light duty vehicle emissions standards requirements,

or the parallel requirements for those vehicles certified instead to the California emissions standards.

Emission standards for these pollutants are aggregated into bins; each bin contains emissions limits on a gram per mile basis for each of the aforementioned pollutants for the useful life of the vehicle, as shown in Table II.A.5-1. To be eligible for sale in the United States, each vehicle model and configuration must be certified to a specific bin, meaning that the automaker is confirming that the vehicle is designed not to exceed the specified emission rates for any of the pollutants over the useful life of the vehicles. Automakers must submit data to EPA that demonstrates compliance with these levels, with a requirement that their fleet achieve a sales-weighted NO

average equivalent to the Bin 5 standard or cleaner annually. California and states that have adopted California emissions standards in lieu of the federal standards have similar sets of emissions standards, known as the Low Emitting Vehicle II (LEV II) standards.

40 CFR part 86, subpart S.

42 U.S.C. 7543(b), Clean Air Act Section 209, gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government's, as long as under certain requirements are met. 42 U.S.C. 7507, Clean Air Act Section 177, allows states, under certain conditions, to adopt California's vehicle emission standards. See 40 CFR 86.1844-01.

The California Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles, Title 13, California Code of Regulations (last amended March 29, 2010).

Table II.A.5-1—U.S. EPA Light Duty Tier 2 Emission Standards

Emission limits at full useful life (120,000 miles) for model year 2004 and later light duty vehicles, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles

(g/mi)

NMOG

(g/mi)

HCHO

(g/mi)

Bin 1

Bin 2

0.02

0.01

2.1

0.01

0.004

Bin 3

0.03

0.055

2.1

0.01

0.011

Bin 4

0.04

0.07

2.1

0.01

0.011

Bin 5

0.07

0.09

4.2

0.01

0.018

Bin 6

0.1

0.09

4.2

0.01

0.018

Bin 7

0.15

0.09

4.2

0.02

0.018

Bin 8

0.2

0.125

4.2

0.02

0.018

The agencies considered whether to provide specific information and ratings for each of these individual pollutants listed above. EPA Tier 2 emission regulations do require manufacturers to submit specific information regarding the performance of each vehicle for each of these pollutants, but the agencies believe that attempting to require all of it to be represented on the fuel economy label, along with rating systems for each, would be unduly burdensome and not reasonable given space constraints and the need to present all the other information required by EPCA and EISA.

In addition, in the focus groups conducted for this proposal, consumers' interest in actual emissions levels across multiple pollutants was minimal, and this level of detail is likely to be well beyond that which most members of the public would seek or find useful.

Repeatedly, focus group participants reflected that it was the job of the government to determine the relative importance of the pollutants, and that the label should not leave this determination up to the individual. Given that EISA did not specify exactly which pollutants would make up “other emissions” and given focus group feedback that differentiation between other emissions did not add value for many participants, the agencies are not proposing to provide pollutant-specific information on the label for “other emissions.'' Nevertheless, the agencies seek comment on whether pollutant-specific information and ratings might have value to consumers beyond what the agencies have seen in their focus group research, and if so, how the agencies might design a label to require pollutant-specific information and ratings that would make it easy for consumers to compare other pollutant emissions across vehicles at the point of purchase.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 29.

Instead, the agencies believe that a rating based on the groups of emissions standards—either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEV II system, as appropriate—can and should be used

to meet this requirement. This approach mirrors the current Air Pollution Score on EPA's Green Vehicle Guide (

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle

). Vehicle certification under either the Federal Tier 2 bin system or the California LEV II system allows auto manufacturers to certify that their vehicles will fall into an emissions range across each of the regulated pollutants. In effect, the Federal and California systems rate vehicles according to their air pollution emissions by compiling the requirements across multiple pollutants into one category (a Tier 2 bin or a LEV II standard). Though these systems are useful for regulatory compliance, they have limited recognition among consumers. However, relative rating systems are well-recognized by the public, and the Federal emissions bins and California standards categories are well-suited to conversion to a relative rating system that would be readily understandable.

EPA and NHTSA therefore propose to establish a rating system for “other emissions” in which each rating is associated with a bin from the Federal Tier 2 emissions standards (or comparable California emissions standard). Table II.A.5-2 provides an example of how such a system would work for a ten-point rating scale.

Various graphical representations of this rating are being contemplated, as discussed in Section III.

Under EPA regulations, Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are allowed to import a limited number of older vehicles that can be certified to the emission standards which were in effect at the time the vehicle was produced. In some cases, these standards may be pre-Tier 2 standards. Because the rating system being proposed for other pollutants on the FE label is based on the Tier 2 bin structure, we are proposing that vehicles imported by ICIs that are not subject to the Tier 2 standards will automatically be rated as a “1” (

i.e.,

the rating assigned to vehicles with the worst emissions under the Tier 2 bin structure).

Table II.A.5-2—Proposed Rating System for Other Emissions

Rating

EPA Tier 2 emissions standard

California Air Resources Board LEV II emissions standard

Bin 1

ZEV.

N/A

PZEV.

Bin 2

SULEV II.

Bin 3

N/A.

Bin 4

ULEV II.

Bin 5

LEV II.

Bin 6

LEV II opt 1.

Bin 7

N/A.

Bin 8

SULEV II large trucks.

N/A

ULEV & LEV II large trucks.

Because such a rating would be directly reflective of the emissions standards requirements for air pollutants to which the vehicle is certified, the agencies believe that it could serve the dual purposes of performance information and ratings for “other emissions” as required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i) and (A)(ii). Such an approach would have the advantage of avoiding requiring detailed information on the label that would detract from the key elements and could be of minimal use to the majority of the public. NHTSA and EPA seek comment on whether also utilizing the rating system to meet the requirement for performance information on other emissions would be permissible under EISA.

6. Overall Energy and Environmental Rating

One of the issues that came up frequently in the focus groups conducted for this proposal was how to design a label that balanced the competing interests of completeness and simplicity. It became clear that different consumers wanted different amounts of information and levels of detail about fuel economy, GHG emissions, and other emissions, and how vehicles compare to one another. Many focus group participants expressed an interest in most or all of the information that might be offered, until they saw that the label they had “designed” would be cluttered and difficult to read; at this point, many culled their desired information down to a few key elements. Other participants simply were not interested in much detail. Yet other participants insisted that they wanted more detail anyway and would not find labels with more information distracting or confusing.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 29.

One approach that emerged to condense the level of detail was to combine rating systems: For example, a rating system that combined fuel economy and CO

emissions, or that combined CO

and other pollutant emissions, or that combined all three. Because they have different sets of units and different scales, rating systems that combine different data elements must employ relative or unit-free scales, such as the letter grade system, rather than absolute approaches like the separate rating scales discussed above. Using the bar as an example, if CO

and other pollutants were combined into a single bar, a vehicle that falls at one point between the absolute end points for CO

emissions may not fall at the same point between the (different) end points for other emissions, which would make combining the ratings challenging at best, and unhelpful at worst. Similarly, while a vehicle may fall at roughly the same point between “best” and “worst” absolute values for both fuel economy and CO

emissions, differences in scale make presenting that visually difficult and possibly factually incorrect.

Thus, if the agencies wanted to try to combine rating systems for visual simplicity and to appeal to consumers who want labels with less information, a relative scale—1 to 10, 1 to 5, A+ to D−is needed. The agencies tested combined relative scales for GHG and other pollutant emissions fairly extensively in the focus groups, with mixed results. When environmental ratings were shown in the context of the label, the preference was for a consolidated environmental rating, with participants expressing minimal interest in having separate information on greenhouse gases and other air pollutant emissions; these participants often stated that the EPA was in a better position to assess the relative concerns regarding the various environmental factors than were the participants

themselves.

In contrast, however, when the environmental rating approaches were shown in isolation, apart from the context of the entire label, many participants indicated a preference for two separate ratings, arguing that more complete information holds more value.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 25.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 39.

Congress required in EISA that each new vehicle must be labeled with a “rating system that would make it easy for consumers to compare the fuel economy and greenhouse gases and other emissions of automobiles at the point of purchase, including a designation of automobiles with the lowest GHG emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy* * *” Thus, for purposes of meeting the statute, the question is whether a rating that combined two or all three elements could accurately reflect which vehicle achieves the lowest GHG and the highest fuel economy. For purposes of meeting consumers' needs in a label, the question is how to design a label that is helpful both to the people who want more information and detail and to the people who want less information and detail. Given the EPCA requirements for fuel economy and annual cost information, and the EISA requirements for performance information on fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions, the agencies believe that the needs for more detail-oriented consumers will likely be adequately met.

In the previous section we discussed an approach to combining fuel economy and CO

into one overall rating; in this section the agencies discuss the additional option of also combining “other emissions” with either CO

or with a combined fuel economy/CO

rating. EPA and NHTSA recognize that there is not a strong correlation between CO

and other emissions, due to sophisticated emission control systems, such as catalytic converters and exhaust gas recirculation, which target reductions of specific pollutants but do not also reduce CO

emissions. In addition, the agencies are cognizant of the very real challenges automakers must overcome to achieve the required emissions levels and do not wish to deprive them of public recognition of advancements in reducing air pollutants that could come with a separate rating system for pollutants. Moreover, a separate rating would provide information for purchasers who value low emission levels and an opportunity to raise awareness among other consumers of which vehicles produce lower emissions. And finally, as discussed above, the agencies have determined that a rating for “other emissions” also meets the EISA requirement of providing vehicle performance information for those emissions. Combining this rating for “other emissions” with ratings for fuel economy and greenhouse gases would potentially be at odds with this requirement. For these reasons, the agencies propose that the rating for “other emissions” be separate from the rating(s) for fuel economy and greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, while some focus group participants wanted more information, most clearly wanted less and suggested that they would glean little additional value from a label with separate ratings. The agencies seek comment on whether it would be more useful to provide a single rating that captures all three elements: fuel economy, greenhouse gases, and other emissions. As a matter of technical appropriateness, although there is not a strong correlation between emissions of CO

and emission of other pollutants, there is some correlation. The vehicles with the lowest fuel economy levels and highest CO

emissions do not typically meet the cleaner emission bins; conversely, those with high fuel economy and low CO

emissions are rarely, if ever, certified to the higher emission bins.

Including other emissions in the rating system to form one rating would simplify for the consumer the overall energy and environmental impact of using the vehicle, thus reducing their need to weigh the relative importance of the various elements. It also allows the label to be less cluttered and more streamlined.

Therefore, it is possible and perhaps reasonable to combine “other emissions” with the fuel economy/CO

letter grade approach. Under this approach, the rating for fuel economy and greenhouse gases applicable to a vehicle would be adjusted upward or downward, based on the Federal emissions bin (or California standard) to which the vehicle is certified. That is, vehicles that are certified to the cleanest bins would have their rating increased—for example, under a letter grade system, a Bin 2 vehicle otherwise eligible for a B+ would have their rating increased to an A−. Table II.A.6-1 illustrates how such a system could work.

Table II.A.6-1—Potential Comprehensive Rating

Fuel economy/greenhouse gas rating

Overall energy and environment rating

Bin

1, 2, 3

Bin

4, 5

Bin

6, 7, 8

A+

A−

B+

A−

B+

B−

C+

B−

C+

C−

D+

C−

D+

D−

7. Indicating Highest Fuel Economy/Lowest Greenhouse Vehicles

In addition to ratings indicating relative emissions performance, EISA also requires the rating system to include “a designation of automobiles with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles; and the highest fuel economy.”

Depending on the rating system(s) selected, differing approaches may be needed to achieve this requirement. For example, if the fuel economy and greenhouse gas ratings are provided separately, such as with the absolute bars shown on labels 1 and 2, consumers would be able to easily identify the highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas emitting vehicles by looking for those that have the highest absolute values. If fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined into one rating, such as with the letter grade system, but are provided separately from other emissions, again consumers should be able to easily identify the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG vehicles by looking for those that achieve the best rating category. However, this will likely encompass more models than would be designated “best” under an absolute rating system, which may or may not have been the intent of EISA. In that instance, the rating system itself meets the requirement for designation of lowest GHG automobiles, defined in that case as the group of vehicles that achieve the best rating category.

If, on the other hand, fuel economy and greenhouse gases are combined with other emissions into a comprehensive rating, and no other information on the label indicates the highest fuel economy/lowest GHG vehicles, then the rating system would need to be adjusted in order to ensure that EISA requirements were met. The agencies seek comment on whether

separate ratings should be provided for other emissions or whether a single combined rating for fuel economy, GHG and other emissions should be provided.

8. SmartWay Logo

EPA and NHTSA additionally seek comment on utilizing the SmartWay logo as an indicator of a high level of overall environmental performance. The SmartWay logo appears as follows:

EP23SE10.005

The SmartWay logo could be added to the label as a way of highlighting the top environmental performers each model year. This approach is contemplated for labels 2 and 3.

The trademarked SmartWay designation was launched in 2005 on the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide Web site (

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle

) to provide consumers with a quick and easy way to determine which vehicles were the cleanest and most fuel efficient for each model year. It has been awarded to those vehicle models that achieve certain thresholds on the Greenhouse Gas score (which is tied to the vehicle's fuel economy and fuel type) and the Air Pollution score (which is tied to the Tier 2 bins or California standards, as applicable). Historically, the SmartWay thresholds determined by EPA have been targeted to approximately the top 20% of vehicle models each model year, and have been tightened over time as the fleet has become cleaner and more fuel efficient.

The SmartWay logo for light duty vehicles is currently being used on a voluntary basis by auto manufacturers, vehicle-search web sites, rental car companies, banks/credits unions (green vehicle loan programs), and private companies (light duty commercial fleets and employee incentive programs). The SmartWay logo was included on labels shown to focus group participants for this rulemaking. Although participants did not recognize the logo, most readily understood that they could use it when shopping for vehicles to quickly identify those that were environmentally friendly, without having to review the rest of the environmental information on the label.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p. 41.

Because focus groups have indicated that some consumers prefer more detailed information while others prefer a simpler presentation, the agencies are seeking comment on whether to require or optionally allow the SmartWay logo on the label for applicable vehicles. This logo would indicate in a binary fashion, similar to other eco-labels, whether \ a vehicle meets certain environmental and energy use thresholds. Specifically, the agencies seek comment on whether including the SmartWay logo would be helpful to consumers on a label that already addresses fuel economy, GHGs, and other emissions in other formats.

9. Annual Fuel Cost

EPCA requires the estimated annual fuel cost be displayed on the fuel economy label.

Prior to 2008, the label simply displayed the estimated annual cost with no explanatory information. EPA's consumer research in 2006 found that consumers paid little attention to this metric, and the reason most frequently stated was that the assumptions behind the estimate (annual miles and fuel price) were unknown to them.

As a result, the 2008 label modifications included a requirement that these assumptions be placed on the label.

EPA publishes annual guidance directing manufacturers what fuel price to use for determining annual cost—based on projections made by the Department of Energy

—so that all vehicles in a given model year use the same assumptions. The estimated annual fuel cost can therefore be used to compare across vehicles of the same model year. As an example, the estimated annual fuel cost to be used for labels on model year 2008 gasoline-fueled vehicles is $2.80.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(B).

PRR, Inc., EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups: Report of Findings, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005.

40 CFR 600.307-08.

The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration publishes gasoline and diesel fuel price forecasts at least annually in its Annual Energy Outlook, available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

Despite the addition to the label of the assumptions behind the annual fuel cost starting in 2008, the early focus groups conducted in 2010 showed that many participants still did not pay much attention to the estimated annual fuel cost metric. Participants often stated that this was because fuel prices fluctuate and, therefore, they did not think that the fuel price assumption stated on the label reflected what they were actually paying. Less frequently, participants additionally said that the fact that they did not drive 15,000 miles a year made the estimated annual cost not meaningful to them. Participants remained skeptical of the use of estimated annual fuel cost even when asked to consider whether it could be a useful comparative metric across other vehicles of the same model year. In retrospect, it is possible that providing this information on the label about the assumptions behind the annual fuel cost number resolved one issue and caused others, in that now there are two more numbers for the consumer to process and question. There is also the possibility that consumers are not aware that the two assumptions are used universally across all vehicles, which would call into question the usefulness of the metric as a comparative tool at the point of purchase (for example, if they believe that the manufacturers individually determine the inputs to the estimated annual fuel cost). However, participants in the Phase 3 focus groups leading up to this NPRM consistently employed the annual fuel cost information (along with MPG) when asked to compare the fuel efficiency of advanced technology vehicles like PHEVs and EVs with conventional vehicles, with their more complicated set of energy metrics.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 3 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-905, August 2010, p.37.

Recognizing the EPCA statutory requirement to continue to display the estimated annual fuel cost, EPA requests comment on how to improve consumers' understanding of the estimated annual fuel cost, whether it is a useful comparative tool across technologies, and if so, how to best communicate on the label that it is a valid comparative tool. EPA also requests comment on whether there might be an additional way to display fuel cost information—or a better way of displaying the required information—that might be more useful or might have a greater impact on consumers. In the 2010 focus groups, some groups were presented with a number of different ways of displaying fuel costs on the label, ranging in magnitude from dollars per mile to dollars per five years.

A fairly clear preference emerged for dollars per year, with dollars per month a frequent second choice.

EPA is thus proposing labels that continue to prominently display the estimated annual fuel cost and the associated assumptions. EPA is requesting comment on whether the label should include the estimated monthly fuel cost, or other alternative cost information. Commenters should bear in mind the statutory requirement that estimated annual fuel cost be on the label; thus

any other cost would have to be an additional piece of information.

Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Label: Phase 1 Focus Groups, EPA420-R-10-903, August 2010, p. 19.

10. Relative Fuel Savings or Cost

The expert panel recommended another approach to presenting fuel cost information—to focus on the savings attainable by purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle. These panelists felt strongly that savings is a much more powerful message than cost, which tends to be discounted, as just discussed. Although savings calculations would necessarily also rely on assumptions, they suggested that the value of savings to the consumer is significant enough to overcome these drawbacks, at least for a substantial portion of the population. NHTSA and EPA therefore propose including a five-year savings value on Label 1. No such value is proposed for Labels 2 or 3, although the agencies could also require savings information on these labels, if one of them were finalized.

The agencies explored a number of methods for calculating savings. The most promising approach seems to be savings compared to the projected median vehicle for that model year, and the agencies propose this method. Thus, some vehicles would show a savings, while others would show consumers paying more for fuel over five years compared to a reference vehicle; these values would increase in magnitude the further the vehicle is in terms of fuel consumption from the reference value. This approach appropriately reflects that fuel cost savings become larger the more a vehicle improves their fuel economy, and conversely that vehicles cost more to fuel when fuel efficiency is decreased when compared to the reference, median, vehicle.

As with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating system and comparable class information, the EPA would provide annual guidance indicating the value to be used as the reference against which the fuel cost savings would be measured. The reference five-year fuel cost would be calculated by applying the gasoline fuel price to the average miles driven over the first five years of the reference vehicle's life, assuming a particular fuel economy for the reference vehicle; these values would be provided in the annual guidance. We propose that the fuel economy value for the reference vehicle be based on the projected fuel economy value of the median vehicle model type for sale the previous model year, not sales-weighted, and adjusted based on projections regarding the upcoming model year. This value is expected to change slightly from one year to the next as the fleet becomes more fuel efficient in response to regulations and market forces. The guidance would also include the fuel prices to be used to calculate fuel cost savings for the particular vehicle, based on its applicable fuel type. Finally, we propose to round the fuel cost savings values used on the label to the nearest one hundred dollars to avoid implying more precision than is warranted, as well as for ease of recall.

As previously stated, vehicles with a higher fuel economy than the median vehicle would be designated as saving the consumer a certain number of dollars over a five year period. For those vehicles with fuel economy lower than the median vehicle, the label would state that the consumer would spend a certain number of dollars more over a five year period. Vehicles that are within fifty dollars of the reference vehicle fuel cost could be designated as saving zero dollars. Alternatively, text could indicate that this vehicle is comparable to the average vehicle. Although the agencies recognize that “median” is a more accurate term than “average,” we propose the use of the term `average” as being more readily understandable.

Other methods considered include savings compared to the average vehicle one grade lower, and fuel cost savings compared to vehicles 10 MPG lower. These approaches had certain positive aspects, particularly in that they demonstrated the value of incremental improvements in vehicle choice. In the main, however, they provided values that seemed to be difficult to interpret and could perhaps cause perverse effects. For example, a vehicle at the high end of their grade or rating would have a higher savings value than a vehicle at the low end of their grade or rating. This might be valuable for those who are considering vehicles within the same grade. However, for those shoppers who glanced at the number quickly, they might erroneously conclude that, for instance, a vehicle at the low end of the B- grade would save less on fuel costs than a vehicle at the high end of the D+ grade. The agencies seek comment on this and alternative approaches, as opposed to the proposed approach of displaying a vehicle's fuel cost savings relative to the median vehicle in the fleet. The agencies are also seeking comment on whether there is a potential for consumer confusion caused by two different cost values displayed on Label 1 with regard to the estimated annual fuel cost of operating the vehicle and the 5 year fuel cost savings number compared to the average vehicle. We are interested in receiving comments on how consumers may perceive these values as interacting with each other and we intend to explore this issue further prior to finalizing this proposal, including exploring research conducted in executive branch agencies.

11. Range of Fuel Economy of Comparable Vehicles

EPCA requires that the label contain “the range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles of all manufacturers,” a requirement that the label addressed somewhat awkwardly for many years.

As a result of EPA's 2006 labeling rule, the labels now use a graphical element to show the performance of the labeled vehicle relative to the best and worst within that vehicle class.

In the 2010 focus groups, it became clear that this information, though more prominently displayed on today's fuel economy label than in previous iterations of the label, continued to be under-utilized by consumers as a tool to assist them in making vehicle purchase decisions.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C).

40 CFR 600.307-08. A discussion of the comparable class categories and a proposed change to those categories can be found in section VI.B.

EPA is now proposing two possible ways of meeting this statutory requirement. Given the likelihood of more information on the label, a graphic as used on the current label that repeats the combined fuel economy number may overly complicate the new label. Thus one option being proposed is simply a text statement that would read “Combined fuel economy for [insert vehicle class] ranges from XX to XX.” This approach is used on Labels 1 and 3. The other option EPA is proposing is essentially an updated version of the current graphical representation, which combines the fuel economy rating across all vehicles with the within-class information into one graphical element, as shown in Section III as part of Label 2.

The agencies believe that one of these approaches could be used to satisfy the statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(C) (“the range of fuel economy of comparable automobiles”). As an alternative, EPA seeks comment on whether the requirement to indicate fuel economy of comparable vehicles is met by the overall fuel economy rating required by 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) (“a rating system that would make it easy to compare the fuel economy * * * of automobiles”), given that consumers tend to consider vehicles from several classes during their purchase process.

12. Other Label Text

EPA is proposing some minor changes and an addition to the text on the label

not previously discussed, and seeks comment on each of these text changes.

First, each of the proposed labels has information that indicates the fuel on which the vehicle operates. The agencies believe it will become increasingly important, as different technologies emerge, to display clearly the kind of vehicle a consumer is viewing. For dual fuel vehicles (

e.g.,

current gasoline/ethanol vehicles), EPA is required by statute to identify the vehicle as a dual fuel vehicle and to identify the fuels that the vehicle operates on.

In the case of current flexible-fuel vehicles, for example, this text would read “Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Ethanol (E85),” and for plug-in hybrid vehicles arriving soon on the market this text would read “Dual Fuel: Gasoline-Electricity.” In addition, we are proposing the use of various icons on the label to distinguish between different technologies and between different operating modes. These icons include stylized electric plugs, fuel pumps, and fuel dispensing nozzles.

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(3).

Second, because of the expanded information on the label and DOT requirements under EISA, EPA is proposing to change the label heading from the current text (“EPA Fuel Economy Estimates”) to “EPA/DOT Fuel Economy & Environmental Comparisons.” We also propose adding the DOT logo to the label, to provide appropriate recognition of DOT's role mandated by EISA.

Third, EPA is proposing to change the Fuel Economy Guide statement found on the label to reflect the expanding features that comprise

http://www.fueleconomy.gov,

with the hope that this Web site will become the first Internet stop for a vehicle's fuel economy and environmental information. The proposed text would read: “Visit

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

to calculate estimates personalized for your driving, and to download the Fuel economy Guide (also available at dealers).”

EPCA requires EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare and distribute to dealers a fuel economy booklet, commonly known as the annual “Fuel Economy Guide,” containing information that is “simple and readily understandable.”

EPCA requires that the guide include fuel economy and estimated annual fuel costs of operating automobiles manufactured in each model year, as well as some additional information for dual fueled automobiles (such as the fuel economy and driving range on both fuels). Further, EPCA requires that a statement appear on the fuel economy label that this booklet is available from dealers.

Starting in the 2008 model year, the statement on the label was broadened to include a reference to

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

as another source for the Fuel Economy Guide; this Web site is based on the EPA fuel economy information and jointly run by EPA and DOE. Thus the current text now reads: “See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or

http://www.fueleconomy.gov.”

49 U.S.C. 32908(c)(1)(A).

49 U.S.C. 32908(b)(1)(D).

Both the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the EPA currently maintain

http://www.fueleconomy.gov.

The site helps fulfill DOE and EPA's responsibility under EPCA of 1992 to provide accurate MPG information to consumers. The site provides fuel economy estimates, energy and environmental impact ratings, fuel-saving tips, as well as a downloadable version of the fuel economy guide and other useful information. Since its inception in 1999 this Web site has been used by millions of consumers, and the latest data from 2008 indicates that more that 30 million user sessions occurred in that year.

Because of the extensive amount of information and user features available on the Web site beyond simply providing electronic access to the Fuel Economy Guide, the agencies wish to direct consumers to this Web site when they are researching their vehicle purchases. For example, the Web site allows a user to personalize their fuel economy information by inputting their specific driving habits and fuel prices. This ability will be even more important for understanding the impacts of driving distance and battery charging habits on the fuel consumption of vehicles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and EPA expects to work with DOE to develop a Web-based system to allow users to customize the fuel economy estimates for these advanced technology vehicles. Further, information that some consumers may want but that is not available on the label is likely to be available on the Web site. For example, in the 2010 focus groups some participants expressed an interest in knowing the cost to fill the tank, or the volume of the fuel tank, or how many miles could be driven on a tank. The Web site provides all this information, and information such as the miles per tank can be personalized to reflect a person's relative amount of city and highway driving. Finally, the Web site also has developed a version tailored to mobile devices.

During the expert panel, EPA provided the panelists with a copy of the current Fuel Economy Guide. The panelists all expressed concerns that the public probably didn't know it was available, didn't access it at the dealer showrooms if they did know it was available, and would not respond well to it in its current format. They recommended a simple one-sheet “guide” that dealers would distribute in the form of a checklist, that would allow EPA to deliver the top ten points on fuel economy that could not (and should not) be included on the label. It also would ensure that even if individuals did not utilize the Web site, they would receive this information. It was also suggested that if possible, distribution of this document be mandatory.

EPA requests comments on the

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.