Print 70 comment(s) - last by RaggedClaws.. on Sep 8 at 1:40 AM

The EPA's 2008 sticker design (click to enlarge).  (Source: EPA/DOT)

One of the new sticker designs.  (Source: EPA/DOT)

The other proposed new sticker design.  (Source: EPA/DOT)
Sticker is one of two proposed designs, each with new information to help consumers choose their next vehicle

Spiking oil prices in the 1970s inspired the U.S. Congress to pass the Energy Tax Act of 1978, a phased in tax that hits people who buy inefficient vehicles.  Around the same time Congress also mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation put fuel efficiency labels on all new cars sold at dealerships in the U.S.  Those stickers became a familiar, relatively unchanging sight over the next 30 years.

Starting in 2008, the stickers underwent their first big overhaul.  Today, with new types of automobiles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles preparing to hit the market, the DOT and EPA are looking to roll out yet another shakeup to the dealership sticker design. 

The government organizations aired two alternative designs for labels today.  The first design more closely resembles the 2008 label and its contents.  It adds several additional statistics, as well -- offering metrics on CO2 emissions (in g/mile from the tailpipe), "other emissions" (on a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the best possible), how many gallons are used every 100 miles, how the vehicle compares fuel economy-wise with other vehicles in its class, and how the vehicle compares to all other vehicles (including those outside its class) in fuel economy.

The second design is a more radical redesign offering a letter grade to the vehicle in terms of fuel economy.  According to the EPA/DOT proposal page shows a battery electric vehicles getting an "A+", a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle receiving an "A", a compressed natural gas vehicle getting an "A-", and a "flexible fuel" (ethanol-ready) vehicle receiving a "B".  The page insists, though:

Please note that these labels are examples and do not represent real automobiles. 

Thus, it is unclear whether these labels are indicative to what kind of letter grades the actual vehicles in these classes would succeed.  Interestingly, there's no room for failure under the new system.  The worst rating one can get is a "D".

The design bumps the average yearly cost of fuel to a text subnote and instead emphasizes the amount the vehicle "saves" per year, "compared to the average vehicle".  It also bumps the note on how the vehicle stacks up within its class to a text subnote.

Both labels feature special QR Codes that allow smartphones to pull up additional info on fuel efficiency and the model.  Both labels also include special "effective MPG" ratings, to encompass electric vehicle performance.  Electric vehicles have their costs tallied as an "Annual Electric Cost".

The first sticker also includes, for the first time, a short disclaimer on how the fuel costs are calculated (a gas price of $2.80 USD is assumed in the sticker shown).  The letter-grade sticker doesn't include the disclaimer, though both stickers remind customers to go to to learn more on the topic.

The EPA is seeking public comment on both designs, in order to decide which to adopt.  You can leave your thoughts, comments, criticism, and suggestions here.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Cheating
By The Raven on 9/7/2010 10:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
I mean, think before you post something like this. There is overlap in the aegis of government agencies, and always will be overlap.

So you are for redundancy and inefficiency? Hell, why not get a 3rd and 4th agency in there to make doubly sure that the environment is protected from all of the stupid people who don't know how to reduce their carbon footprint. Yeah that's right. I said what the gov't and the elites think. That we are all too stupid (despite our gov't granted education).

Oh and I find your use of the word aegis to describe the gov't entertaining. I pray for all of our sakes that it was a sarcastic jab.

The fact is that keeping our air clean IS a VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST, which fits squarely in the DOT's mandate. So is EFFICIENCY, which is listed IN THE STATEMENT YOU GAVE! [...] This DEFINITELY fits into the EPA's mandate, because a good 50% of our dirty environment or the dirty that humans add is coming from? VEHICLES!

Yes you can read their mission statement and with hindsight and tie environmental concerns into it, but I don't think that is how the statement is to be interpreted. If it was, then why do we have the EPA in the first place? I thought that it is there to do what the other agencies were not.

And with your logic, we should make sure that there are astronomists in the DOT because asteroids could burn through the atmosphere, crash into a major intersection and cause a traffic jam.

Should there be cooperation between gov't agencies? Yes.
Overlap? No.

Oh and by the way, you didn't get any of the questions correct. The answers are (I hope everyone is done by now lol):
1: EPA
2: DOT

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki