Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12749 

1 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq. 

2 49 CFR 1.95. 

3 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). 

4 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). 

5 49 U.S.C. 32902(d). NHTSA notes that there is 

no statutory provision allowing exemptions from 

the light truck standards established in 49 CFR part 

533. 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0145 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0145 Safety Zone; Laguna 

Madre, South Padre Island, TX. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: all navigable waters of the 

Laguna Madre encompassed by a 700- 

yard radius from the following point; 

26°6′5.05′′ N, 97°10′12.46′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

is in effect, and subject to enforcement, 

from 6 p.m. on February 14, 2024 

through 1 a.m. on February 15, 2024. 

(c) Regulations. (1) According to the 

general regulations in § 165.23 of this 

part, remaining in, or entry into this 

temporary safety zone are prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a 

designated representative. They may be 

contacted on Channel 16 VHF–FM 

(156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361– 

939–0450. 

(2) If permission is granted, all 

persons and vessels shall comply with 

the instructions of the COTP or 

designated representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public of the enforcement 

times and date for this safety zone 

through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, 

Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety 

Marine Information Broadcasts as 

appropriate. 

Dated: February 12, 2024. 

Jason Gunning, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Corpus Christi. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03406 Filed 2–14–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 531 

[NHTSA–2022–0048] 

RIN 2127–AM29 

Exemptions From Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Passenger 

Automobile Average Fuel Economy 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; final decision to 

grant exemption. 

SUMMARY: This final decision responds 

to petitions filed by several low volume 

manufacturers requesting exemption 

from the generally applicable corporate 

average fuel economy (CAFE) standards 

for several model years (MYs). The low 

volume manufacturers and MYs are as 

follows: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited 

for MYs 2008–2023, Ferrari N.V. for 

MYs 2016–2018 and 2020, Koenigsegg 

Automotive AB for MYs 2015 and 2018– 

2023, McLaren Automotive for MYs 

2012–2023, Mobility Ventures LLC for 

MYs 2014–2016, Pagani Automobili 

S.p.A for MYs 2014 and 2016–2023, and 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. for MYs 

2008–2010. NHTSA is exempting these 

manufacturers from the generally 

applicable CAFE standards for the 

model years listed and establishing 

alternative standards for each 

manufacturer at the levels stated below, 

which the agency has determined to be 

maximum feasible for each of those 

manufacturers for the model years in 

question. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 21, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the dockets to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, and/or: 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 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except on Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Bayer, Chief of Fuel Economy 

Division, Office of Rulemaking, by 

phone at (202) 366–9540 or by fax at 

(202) 493–2290 or Hannah Fish, 

Attorney Advisor, Vehicle Standards 

and Harmonization, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, by phone at (202) 366–2992 or 

by fax at (202) 366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Summary of Proposed Rule 

3. Summary and Response to Comments 

Received on the Proposal 

4. Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy 

for Exempted Manufacturers 

5. Regulatory Impact Analyses 

a. Regulatory Evaluation 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

c. National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulatory Text 

1. Introduction 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) of 2007,1 directs the Secretary of 

Transportation, and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation,2 to prescribe 

corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) 

standards for automobiles manufactured 

in each model year (MY). EPCA/EISA 

requires NHTSA to establish CAFE 

standards for passenger cars and light 

trucks at the ‘‘maximum feasible average 

fuel economy level’’ that it decides 

manufacturers can achieve in a MY,3

based on the agency’s consideration of 

four factors: technological feasibility, 

economic practicability, the effect of 

other standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

United States to conserve energy.4

Congress provided in EPCA/EISA 

statutory authority for NHTSA to 

exempt a low volume manufacturer of 

passenger automobiles from the 

industry-wide passenger car standard if 

NHTSA concludes that the industrywide passenger car standard is more 

stringent than the maximum feasible 

average fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve, and NHTSA 

establishes an alternative standard for 

that manufacturer’s fleet of passenger 

cars at the maximum feasible average 

fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve.5 Under 

EPCA/EISA, a low volume manufacturer 

is one that manufactured (whether in 

the United States or not) fewer than 

10,000 passenger automobiles in the MY 

two years before the MY for which the 

exemption is sought, and that will 

manufacture fewer than 10,000 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12750 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6 49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2). 

7 49 CFR 525.6(b). See also 54 FR 40689 (Oct. 3, 

1989). NHTSA has identified two broad categories 

of situations that would establish good cause for 

failure to submit a timely petition: situations in 

which necessary supporting data for the petition 

were unavailable until after the due date had passed 

(for example, a recently incorporated manufacturer 

might not have adequate time to file an exemption 

petition 24 months prior to the model year), and 

second, situations in which a legitimately 

unexpected noncompliance occurs (for example, if 

a company providing a low volume manufacturer 

with its engines goes out of business, and the 

manufacturer is forced to make an unanticipated 

engine switch, resulting in lower than expected fuel 

economy). That said, each determination that good 

cause was or was not shown for the late filing is 

made on an individual basis. Manufacturers should 

reach out to NHTSA as expeditiously as possible if 

they expect they cannot submit a petition in a 

timely manner. 

8 49 CFR 525.7. 

9 49 CFR 525.8. 

10Pagani petitioned for alternative standards for 

MYs 2012–2021 but did not produce any vehicles 

for sale in the U.S. market in MYs 2012, 2013, and 

2015. 

11See, e.g., 43 FR 33268 (July 31, 1978); 49 FR 

11548 (March 1, 1979); 46 FR 29944 (June 4, 1981); 

54 FR 40689 (October 3, 1989); 55 FR 12485 (April 

4, 1990). 

12 49 CFR 525.6 (‘‘Each petition filed under this 

part must . . . Be submitted not later than 24 

months before the beginning of the affected model 

year, unless good cause for later submission is 

shown.’’). 

passenger automobiles in the affected 

MY. NHTSA may set alternative fuel 

economy standards in three ways: (1) a 

separate standard for each exempted 

manufacturer; (2) a separate standard 

applicable to each class of exempted 

automobiles (classes based on design, 

size, price, or other factors); or (3) a 

single standard for all exempted 

manufacturers.6 NHTSA has historically 

set individual standards for each 

exempted manufacturer. 

49 CFR part 525 contains NHTSA’s 

regulations implementing the 

requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32902. This 

part provides content and format 

requirements for low volume 

manufacturer petitions for exemption 

and specifies that those petitions must 

be submitted to NHTSA not later than 

24 months before the beginning of the 

affected model year unless good cause 

for later submission is shown.7 As 

discussed further below, manufacturers 

must include several data elements in 

their petitions, including among other 

things projected vehicle production 

mix, vehicle features for each vehicle 

configuration, projected average fuel 

economy figures for each production 

mix, and technological means for 

improving the fuel economy of the 

manufacturer’s vehicles.8 Part 525 also 

outlines the NHTSA process for 

publishing proposed and final decisions 

on petitions in the Federal Register and 

for accepting public input on proposed 

decisions.9 A manufacturer’s final 

alternative standard is codified at 49 

CFR part 531. 

This final decision responds to 

petitions filed by Aston Martin Lagonda 

Limited (AML) for MYs 2008–2023, 

Ferrari N.V. (Ferrari) for MYs 2016– 

2018 and 2020, Koenigsegg Automotive 

AB (Koenigsegg) for MYs 2015 and 

2018–2023, McLaren Automotive 

(McLaren) for MYs 2012–2023, Mobility 

Ventures LLC (Mobility Ventures) for 

MYs 2014–2016, Pagani Automobili 

S.p.A (Pagani) for MYs 2014 and 2016– 

2023,10 and Spyker Automobielen B.V. 

(Spyker) for MYs 2008–2010. NHTSA 

concludes that all seven manufacturers 

were, and are, eligible for an alternative 

standard for the listed model years and 

that the industry-wide passenger car 

CAFE standard for those model years is 

more stringent than the maximum 

feasible average fuel economy level that 

those manufacturers could, and can, 

achieve. Alternative standards for each 

manufacturer will be set at the levels 

discussed below. 

2. Summary of the Proposed Decision 

NHTSA published a proposed 

decision on July 1, 2022 (87 FR 39439) 

that proposed to exempt several low 

volume manufacturers from the 

generally applicable CAFE standards for 

several model years. Some of these 

model years had already passed, 

meaning that any NHTSA action 

prescribing alternative standards for 

past model years would be retroactive. 

NHTSA recognized that an agency’s 

ability to prescribe retroactive rules is 

very limited; however, NHTSA 

concluded that based on a history of 

previously granting low volume 

exemption petitions when the agency 

did not publish proposed and final 

determinations on those exemption 

petitions before the beginning of a 

model year,11 and the limited 

circumstances in this case, retroactively 

publishing alternative low volume 

CAFE standards was appropriate. 

NHTSA also detailed the agency’s 

approach to evaluating exemption 

petitions for model years that had 

already passed. NHTSA concluded that 

in addition to evaluating the 

manufacturer’s exemption petitions for 

past model years, it was appropriate to 

evaluate the manufacturer’s actual 

CAFE values if NHTSA had those values 

(either from EPA-verified data or from 

preliminary data submitted by the 

manufacturer). For imminently future 

model years, NHTSA evaluated whether 

the alternative standard for which the 

manufacturer petitioned was maximum 

feasible, and if not, what, if any, 

technologically feasible and 

economically practicable changes the 

manufacturer could make in the time 

frame before model year production 

would need to commence. NHTSA 

looked to the regulations implementing 

EPCA’s low volume manufacturer 

exemption provisions, which required 

low volume manufacturers to submit 

petitions for exemption ‘‘not later than 

24 months before the beginning of the 

affected model year,’’ as a guidepost for 

determining whether a low volume 

manufacturer could potentially make 

any additional changes to its vehicles. 

All low volume manufacturers 

considered in the proposed decision 

met the threshold statutory 

requirements for eligibility; that is, all 

manufacturers manufactured or will 

manufacture fewer than 10,000 vehicles 

in the applicable model years. Some 

petitions for some model years were 

submitted late, although the late filings 

were accompanied by good cause 

claims, per 49 CFR part 525.12

Regardless of the sufficiency of those 

good cause claims, NHTSA stated that 

due to the significant lateness of the 

agency’s response to these specific 

exemption requests, it would be 

inequitable at this point to deny the late 

petitions on grounds of untimeliness. 

Moving forward, NHTSA expects 

manufacturers to remain cognizant of 

the requirement that each submission 

must be submitted not later than 24 

months before the beginning of the 

affected model year unless good cause 

for later submission is shown. 

When proposing maximum feasible 

average fuel economy levels, NHTSA 

must consider four factors: 

technological feasibility, economic 

practicability, the effect of other motor 

vehicle standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

United States to conserve energy. 

NHTSA detailed in the proposed rule 

how the agency’s consideration of these 

factors with low volume manufacturers 

differs from consideration of these 

factors for full-line manufacturers, and 

also how consideration of these factors 

as applied to past model years differs 

from consideration for future model 

years. 

Per NHTSA’s regulations at 49 CFR 

525.7, NHTSA evaluated several pieces 

of information in each manufacturer’s 

petition to assist the agency in assessing 

technologically feasible and 

economically practicable improvements 

for the manufacturer’s fleet. This 

information included a description of 

the technological means selected by the 

manufacturer for improving the average 

fuel economy of its automobiles to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12751 

13See, e.g., 54 FR 40689 (Oct. 3, 1989). 

14See, e.g., 61 FR 46756 (Sep. 5, 1996), 71 FR 

49407 (Aug. 23, 2006). In brief, the estimated 

amount of additional fuel consumed by the 

exempted fleet over its operating lifetime is a 

function of the difference between the 

manufacturer’s actual CAFE standard and their 

requested alternative standard multiplied by the 

manufacturer’s estimated U.S. production volume, 

multiplied then by an estimate of the total miles 

these vehicles could travel as an active part of the 

fleet. The resulting difference is then divided by the 

average number of gallons that the total U.S. 

automotive fleet uses. The final value shows the 

fleet’s additional gallons of fuel use as a percentage 

of total U.S. automotive fuel use. 

15Historically, low volume manufacturer 

petitions for exemption from CAFE standards have 

covered luxury vehicles, exotic high-performance 

vehicles, and vehicles exclusively designed to be 

used for transporting the wheelchair-bound or other 

mobility-impaired individuals. 

16 85 FR 39561 (July 1, 2020). 

17Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy for MY 2017–MY 2025 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table IV–3a 

(August 2012). 

18 79 FR 23534 (April 28, 2014). 

manufactured in a model year, a 

chronological description of the 

manufacturer’s past and planned efforts 

to implement the fuel-economyimproving technology in its fleet, a 

discussion of the alternative and 

additional means considered but not 

selected by the manufacturer that would 

have enabled its passenger automobiles 

to achieve a higher average fuel 

economy than is achievable with the 

means it described, and in the case of 

a manufacturer that planned to increase 

the average fuel economy of its 

passenger automobiles to be 

manufactured in either of the two model 

years immediately following the first 

affected model year, an explanation of 

the reasons for not making those 

increases in the affected model year. 

To evaluate the potential effect of 

alternative CAFE standards on the need 

of the United States to conserve energy, 

NHTSA described two historical 

approaches. For several years, the 

agency categorically concluded that if it 

had already determined that it would 

not be technologically feasible or 

economically practicable for the low 

volume manufacturer to achieve a 

higher fuel economy standard than 

requested, denying the exemption or 

setting a higher alternative standard 

would not have had any effect on the 

need of the United States to conserve 

energy.13 In later years the agency 

attempted to quantify that de minimis 

impact for illustrative purposes, by 

estimating the amount of additional fuel 

consumed by the exempted fleet over its 

operating lifetime.14 The July 2022 

proposed decision quantified the 

estimated additional fuel consumed by 

the exempted fleet in accordance with 

the second approach, using a 

combination of estimated and achieved 

fleet fuel economy values, and an 

updated data-based estimate of yearly 

low volume vehicle miles travelled 

(VMT) for some categories of low 

volume vehicles.15 NHTSA sought 

comment on that approach and 

requested any other data or information 

on the driving patterns and mileage 

schedules of another category of low 

volume vehicles—vehicles used to 

transport wheelchair-bound or 

otherwise mobility-impaired 

individuals. NHTSA estimated that the 

additional fuel consumed by the entire 

low volume fleet considered in the 

proposed decision at the proposed 

alternative standards level equaled 

39,769,449 additional gallons of 

gasoline or 0.001877% of total U.S. 

motor vehicle fuel consumption over 

the vehicles’ lifetimes. 

To evaluate the effect of ‘‘other motor 

vehicle standards of the Government’’ 

on fuel economy, NHTSA examined the 

agency’s safety standards as well as 

EPA’s emissions standards, which 

include criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas (GHG, which include 

CO2, N2O, CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons) 

emissions standards. 

NHTSA recognized that three 

manufacturers considered in the July 

2022 proposal (Aston Martin, Ferrari, 

and McLaren) had received an 

alternative low volume GHG standard 

under the EPA small volume program 

for vehicles manufactured in MYs 2017– 

2021.16 NHTSA explained that the 

agencies’ (NHTSA’s and EPA’s) 

respective statutory authorities and 

regulations required a slightly different 

approach to examining these 

manufacturers’ petitions for alternative 

standards and provided a comparison of 

differences between EPA’s final small 

volume standards and NHTSA’s 

proposed alternative standards. NHTSA 

sought comment on any new 

information the agency should consider 

on the impact of EPA’s GHG standards 

on a manufacturer’s ability to meet an 

alternative fuel economy standard. 

Several manufacturers cited various 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) that could impact their CAFE 

values, including FMVSS No. 214, Side 

Impact Protection, FMVSS No. 216, 

Roof Crush Resistance, FMVSS No. 226, 

Occupant Ejection Mitigation, FMVSS 

No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, FMVSS 

No. 111, Rear Visibility (concerning 

rearview mirrors), and the Pedestrian 

Protection requirements as proposed in 

the UN ECE Global Technical 

Regulation (GTR) No. 9. Broadly, 

manufacturers stated that these safety 

standards could have potentially 

adverse impacts on vehicles’ achieved 

fuel economy levels because of 

additional vehicle weight required, and 

because they reduce potential 

aerodynamic improvements. 

Manufacturers also cited EPA and 

California non-GHG emissions 

standards as requirements that would 

demand additional balancing of 

priorities. 

Using an analysis of estimates from 

prior CAFE standards rules,17 NHTSA 

concluded that the small increase in 

weight from the FMVSSs 

(approximately 32 pounds, which was 

likely already incorporated in the 

vehicle) would have negligible effects 

on any vehicle considered in the 

proposed decision. NHTSA also 

concluded that a manufacturer’s 

compliance with EPA’s criteria 

pollutant emissions standards would 

have a negligible effect on the 

manufacturer’s maximum feasible fuel 

economy level, based on EPA’s specific 

consideration of its criteria pollutant 

emissions programs on small volume 

manufacturers.18

Accordingly, NHTSA had proposed 

alternative standards as follows: For 

MYs 2018 and prior, NHTSA proposed 

to use a combination of final fuel 

economy values received from EPA and 

some non-final fuel economy values 

received from manufacturers. NHTSA 

stated its belief that all manufacturers 

covered by the proposed decision 

submitted information sufficient for the 

agency to conclude that their achieved 

fuel economy levels for past model 

years were the maximum feasible fuel 

economy levels that they could have 

achieved for those model years. 

For MYs 2019–2023, the proposed 

alternative standards considered both 

confidential business information (CBI) 

and non-CBI information submitted to 

the agency, including the 

manufacturer’s requested alternative 

standard and predicted achieved fleet 

fuel economy value (if that value 

differed from the requested alternative 

standard). For imminently future model 

years (i.e., MYs 2022 and 2023), NHTSA 

proposed standards that did not 

backslide (i.e., that did not decrease 

from MY 2022 to 2023). 

NHTSA tentatively concluded that the 

proposed fuel economy levels 

appropriately balanced the CAFE 

exemption program with EPCA’s 

directive to conserve energy and that 

standards that did not backslide for 

imminently future model years were 

maximum feasible. 

NHTSA sought comment on the 

analysis that led the agency to propose 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

19NHTSA–2022–0048–0005. 

20NHTSA–2022–0048–0007. 

21NHTSA–2022–0048–0006, Attachment 1, at 1. 

22 Id. 

23NHTSA–2022–0048–0006, Attachment 1, at 2. 

24NHTSA–2022–0048–0004, Attachment 1, at 3. 

25 Id. 

26 Id. 

27 87 FR 39443 (July 1, 2022) (citing 44 FR 3710 

(Jan. 18, 1979)). 

those alternative standards. In addition, 

NHTSA stated that the agency would 

consider any additional information 

submitted by commenters, 

manufacturers (if additional information 

became available), or EPA (if additional 

final fuel economy data became 

available) submitted during the 

pendency of the comment period 

associated with the proposal. 

3. Summary and Response to 

Comments Received on the Proposal 

NHTSA received four comments to 

the proposal. One individual 

commenter opposed the proposed 

exemption, believing that the exemption 

should not apply to expensive 

vehicles.19 Another individual 

commenter broadly opposed the CAFE 

program based on, among other things, 

general opposition to climate science.20

The Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation (Auto Innovators) agreed 

with NHTSA’s proposed approach to 

alternative standards through MY 2023. 

Auto Innovators stated that 

manufacturers affected by the proposal 

for past model year standards ‘‘have no 

ability to change the technologies 

installed on their vehicles, to alter U.S.- 

directed production, or to otherwise 

achieve compliance with the CAFE 

regulation other than through the 

purchase of credits from other 

manufacturers or the payment of civil 

penalties.’’ 21 Auto Innovators also 

stated that MY 2022 production will 

likely soon be ending, and there is little 

or no opportunity to change designs for 

MY 2023 production.22 Auto Innovators 

urged NHTSA to propose future 

alternative standards at least 18 months 

before the affected model year, as ‘‘lowvolume manufacturers require similar or 

even more lead-time as larger 

manufacturers to adjust product designs 

and production plans’’ if NHTSA were 

to finalize alternative standards other 

than those the manufacturer requested 

in its petition.23

Ferrari also supported the proposed 

alternative standards for affected model 

years and urged NHTSA to adopt the 

final standards as quickly as possible.24

Ferrari reiterated the company’s use of 

fuel economy-improving technologies, 

and stated that its fuel economy levels 

are highly dependent on the mix of 

models that its purchasers choose 

because of the limited number of 

models and powertrains.25 Ferrari also 

noted EPA’s final determination for 

alternative GHG standards for low 

volume manufacturers, which set 

standards for Ferrari for MYs 2017 

through 2021.26

NHTSA considered these four 

comments. As discussed above, 

Congress provided in EPCA/EISA 

statutory authority for NHTSA to 

exempt a low volume manufacturer of 

passenger automobiles from the 

industry-wide passenger car standard if 

NHTSA concludes that the industrywide passenger car standard is more 

stringent than the maximum feasible 

average fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve, and NHTSA 

establishes an alternative standard for 

that manufacturer’s fleet of passenger 

cars at the maximum feasible average 

fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer can achieve. In addition, 

as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA does not 

consider the ability of a manufacturer to 

(through an increase in the price of the 

vehicle or otherwise) absorb civil 

penalty payments from having to meet 

a higher standard.27 NHTSA disagrees 

with the individual commenter’s 

assessment of the state of climate 

science, and that comment is discussed 

further in the Final Environmental 

Assessment, below. Finally, NHTSA 

considered Auto Innovators’ and 

Ferrari’s comments and is finalizing 

these alternative standards as 

expeditiously as possible. 

4. Maximum Feasible Average Fuel 

Economy for Exempted Manufacturers 

Considering the information 

presented in the proposed decision and 

comments received, NHTSA is setting 

alternative average fuel economy 

standards for these seven manufacturers 

for each model year at the levels 

identified in the proposed decision. 

NHTSA used several sources of data to 

determine these CAFE levels, including 

final and non-final fuel economy data, 

and CBI and non-CBI submitted by 

manufacturers. In addition, the 

standards do not backslide for 

imminently future model years. NHTSA 

believes that these alternative standards 

are maximum feasible for these 

manufacturers for these model years, 

that they are consistent with the 

purpose of EPCA/EISA, and that they 

appropriately balance the CAFE 

exemption program with EPCA’s 

directive to conserve energy. 

TABLE 4—ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR MYS 2008–2023 

Aston Martin Ferrari Koenigsegg McLaren Mobility 

Ventures Pagani Spyker 

2008 ............................. 19.0 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 19.6 

2009 ............................. 18.6 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 19.6 

2010 ............................. 19.2 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 20.7 

2011 ............................. 19.1 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

2012 ............................. 19.2 ........................ ........................ 23.2 ........................ ........................ ........................

2013 ............................. 20.1 ........................ ........................ 24.0 ........................ ........................ ........................

2014 ............................. 19.7 ........................ ........................ 23.8 19.6 15.6 ........................

2015 ............................. 19.8 ........................ 16.7 22.9 20.1 ........................ ........................

2016 ............................. 20.2 21.7 ........................ 23.2 20.1 15.6 ........................

2017 ............................. 21.4 21.5 ........................ 24.3 ........................ 15.6 ........................

2018 ............................. 22.9 21.6 16.7 23.3 ........................ 15.6 ........................

2019 ............................. 22.4 ........................ 16.6 22.5 ........................ 15.5 ........................

2020 ............................. 22.6 21.1 16.6 22.5 ........................ 15.5 ........................

2021 ............................. 24.9 ........................ 16.6 21.5 ........................ 15.5 ........................

2022 ............................. 24.9 ........................ 16.9 24.6 ........................ 15.5 ........................

2023 ............................. 24.9 ........................ 16.9 25.7 ........................ 15.5 ........................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12753 

28 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). 

29 40 CFR 1501.5(a). 

30 40 CFR 1501.5(c)(2). 

31See, e.g., 44 FR at 3711 (Jan. 18, 1979). 

32As discussed in the proposal and Draft EA (87 

FR 39439, July 1, 2022), NHTSA has expired MY 

2012 and earlier fuel economy credits in accordance 

with 49 CFR 536.5(c)(2), meaning that low volume 

manufacturers that built vehicles in MYs 2008– 

2012 cannot now buy fuel economy credits from 

manufacturers that exceeded their CAFE standard 

in those years to offset the CAFE values of the low 

volume vehicles produced in those years. As a 

simplifying assumption, because there can be no 

difference between the fuel used in MYs 2008–2012 

under the no-action alternative baseline and action 

scenarios, fuel use in those years was not 

considered. 

These alternative standards apply 

only to Aston Martin Lagonda Limited 

for MYs 2008–2023, Ferrari N.V. for 

MYs 2016–2018 and MY 2020, 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB for MYs 

2015 and 2018–2023, McLaren 

Automotive for MYs 2012–2023, 

Mobility Ventures LLC for MYs 2014– 

2016, Pagani Automobili S.p.A for MYs 

2014 and 2016–2023, and Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. for MYs 2008–2010. 

They do not apply to low volume 

manufacturers generally or to a class of 

automobiles of exempted 

manufacturers. Readers should 

remember that NHTSA does not set 

alternative standards for a given model 

year unless a manufacturer has 

requested them, and thus certain cells in 

the table above are blank. 

NHTSA is also finalizing the 

correction to the reference to alternative 

fuel economy standards in 49 CFR 

531.5(a), as paragraph (f) does not exist. 

5. Regulatory Impact Analyses 

a. Regulatory Evaluation 

NHTSA has considered the potential 

impacts of this action under Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Department 

of Transportation’s regulatory policies 

and procedures and has concluded that 

those orders do not apply because this 

action is not an agency statement of 

general applicability and future effect. 

This decision is not generally 

applicable, because the agency has 

proposed to set alternative average fuel 

economy standards for each 

manufacturer. 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions) unless the head of an 

agency certifies the proposal will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR part 

121.105(a)). SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

proposal will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

I certify this final decision will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final decision exempts low volume 

manufacturers from the generally 

applicable passenger car CAFE 

standards and sets alternative standards 

for those low volume manufacturers at 

maximum feasible levels. 

c. National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4347) requires Federal agencies to 

consider the environmental impacts of 

proposed major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, as well as the 

impacts of alternatives to the proposed 

action.28 The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) 

direct Federal agencies to prepare an 

environmental assessment for a 

proposed action that is not likely to 

have significant effects or when the 

significance of the effects is unknown.29

The environmental assessment must 

‘‘briefly discuss the purpose and need 

for the proposed action, alternatives[ ], 

and the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives, and 

include a listing of agencies and persons 

consulted.’’ 30 This section serves as the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Final 

Environmental Assessment (Final EA). 

1. Purpose and Need for Action 

In accordance with the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, 

as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

of 2007, and the procedures at 49 CFR 

part 525, the purpose of this action is to 

set alternative corporate average fuel 

economy (CAFE) standards for low 

volume manufacturers that have 

petitioned the agency for an alternative 

standard at the maximum feasible fuel 

economy level that NHTSA believes 

each manufacturer can achieve in each 

model year. While the purpose of setting 

industry-wide fuel economy standards 

under EPCA/EISA is, among other 

things, energy conservation, Congress 

granted NHTSA the ability to provide an 

exemption to low volume manufacturers 

in part because it believed that the need 

of the United States to conserve energy 

would not be adversely affected by 

allowing the limited exemption.31 If 

NHTSA did not grant alternative 

standards for low volume 

manufacturers, they would have to meet 

the industry-wide passenger car 

standard in each applicable model year, 

which, in most if not all cases, is more 

stringent than the maximum feasible 

fuel economy level that NHTSA believes 

these low volume manufacturers can 

achieve. 

When determining the maximum 

feasible fuel economy levels that 

manufacturers can achieve in each 

model year, EPCA/EISA requires that 

NHTSA consider four factors: 

technological feasibility, economic 

practicability, the effect of other motor 

vehicle standards of the government on 

fuel economy, and the need of the 

United States to conserve energy. 

NHTSA relies on information in each 

low volume manufacturer’s petition for 

exemption to propose alternative 

average fuel economy standards at the 

maximum feasible level for each 

manufacturer. However, the unique 

nature of this action requires NHTSA to 

set maximum feasible standards for 

model years that have already passed. 

NHTSA’s proposed action and range of 

alternatives considered below reflect 

these statutory and practical 

considerations. 

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

The Draft EA considered a ‘‘no-action 

alternative’’ and two alternatives. The 

‘‘no-action alternative’’ assumed that in 

the absence of NHTSA action on their 

petitions, manufacturers would meet 

their footprint-based CAFE standard for 

MYs 2013–2023.32 One alternative 

proposed to set alternative standards at 

the levels that the manufacturers 

requested for model years for which 

NHTSA does not have final fuel 

economy data (the ‘‘as-requested’’ 

alternative); and the preferred 

alternative proposed to set standards at 

the levels detailed in the preamble 

above. NHTSA did not consider an 

alternative that proposed to set an 

alternative standard for a model year at 

a lower level than the manufacturer 

achieved in past model years (i.e., in 

some cases for past model years what 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

33NHTSA has released a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2027–2032, and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks 

and Vans, Model Years 2030–2035, available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NHTSA-2022- 

0075. This Draft EIS has additional analysis of the 

affected environment and environmental 

consequences associated with different levels of 

fuel economy and fuel efficiency standards; 

however, there is an ongoing comment period for 

that Draft EIS and NHTSA is still receiving 

comments on the approach and analysis used in 

that Draft EIS, which may yet be updated in the 

Final EIS. Accordingly, NHTSA continues to 

reference the Final SEIS mentioned above in this 

Final EA/FONSI. 

34 40 CFR 1501.12. 

35 87 FR 39455 (July 1, 2022). 

36Approximately 15 years, based on the 

estimated passenger sedan life as calculated in the 

latest industry-wide CAFE rulemaking action. 

37As discussed in the proposal, where NHTSA 

did not have final production data for a 

manufacturer, in particular where estimated 

production data is still confidential, the agency 

averaged the last three years of a manufacturers’ 

actual production data. 

38As discussed in the proposal, NHTSA 

estimated that a high-performance vehicle would 

travel 2,543 miles per year, while a mobility van 

would travel 11,128 miles per year. 

the manufacturer requested) because 

that would not have been the maximum 

feasible fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer could achieved. 

3. Affected Environment 

The Draft EA described that NHTSA 

actions regulating motor vehicle fuel 

economy could have a range of 

environmental impacts, including on 

energy use, air quality, climate change, 

resource extraction and use, and on 

environmental justice communities, 

among others. Every time NHTSA sets 

industry-wide CAFE standards, the 

agency examines the environmental 

impact of the proposed standards and a 

range of alternatives on these resources 

in an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). The EIS uses estimates of fuel 

consumption that would result if the 

agency adopted different levels of fuel 

economy standards to quantitatively 

estimate the impacts on energy use, air 

quality, and greenhouse gas emissions 

and climate change. NHTSA also 

qualitatively discusses the lesser 

impacts on other resource areas, 

including land use and development, 

hazardous materials and regulated 

waste, historical and cultural resources, 

noise, and environmental justice. 

NHTSA’s Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final 

SEIS) for MY 2024–2026 passenger car 

and light truck fuel economy standards 

(hereinafter ‘‘Final SEIS’’) provided the 

most up-to-date estimates of the impact 

of different levels of fuel economy 

standards on these resource areas and 

discussion of the environmental 

impacts, at the time that NHTSA was 

completing the Draft EA associated with 

this decision.33 The Final SEIS 

discussions of environmental impacts 

resulting from changes in fuel use from 

motor vehicles were incorporated by 

reference in the Draft EA,34 and the 

Draft EA contains a summary of those 

discussions.35

4. Environmental Consequences 

The Draft EA estimated the levels of 

changes in fuel consumption under the 

‘‘no-action alternative’’ and two 

alternatives to provide a starting point 

to estimate a relative potential range of 

environmental impacts. To estimate the 

amount of additional fuel consumed by 

the exempted fleet over its operating 

lifetime,36 NHTSA calculated the 

difference between the low volume 

manufacturer’s footprint-based standard 

for MY 2013 forward (i.e., the estimated 

fuel used under the no-action 

alternative, for model years for which 

fuel economy credits are available) and 

its proposed alternative standard (or 

achieved fleet fuel economy for model 

years that have already passed). NHTSA 

multiplied this difference by the 

manufacturer’s estimated U.S. 

production volume,37 and then by 

estimated total miles that these vehicles 

could travel as an active part of the fleet 

(i.e., the vehicles’ estimated yearly 

VMT).38 The resulting estimates of 

additional lifetime fuel consumption for 

all manufacturers and model years 

considered in this action compared to 

the no-action alternative are shown 

below. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL LIFETIME FUEL CONSUMPTION

No action Preferred 

alternative As requested 

Total Gallons .............................................................................................................. 48,873,908 88,643,357 88,997,267 

Difference from the No-Action Alternative ................................................................. .............................. 39,769,449 40,123,359 

To put this in perspective, NHTSA 

looked at the average amount of fuel 

consumed by an average passenger car 

subject to the industry-wide passenger 

car CAFE standard over its useful life, 

in this case a MY 2017 Toyota Camry. 

The estimated total gallons of fuel used 

if standards are set at the levels 

proposed in this action are roughly 

equivalent to the fuel used by 

approximately 8,534 MY 2017 Toyota 

Camrys. In other words, setting 

alternative standards at the levels 

proposed in this notice for the 15 model 

years covered by this notice would have 

the energy effect of a one-time addition 

of 171 MY 2017 Toyota Camrys per U.S. 

state. Compared to the pre-pandemic 

peak of approximately 17 million 

vehicles sold in the United States in a 

model year, the vehicles considered in 

this notice that cover fifteen model 

years contribute only a small amount to 

total U.S. transportation fuel use. 

As with the impacts to energy use, 

NHTSA tentatively concluded that the 

proposed action would have a relatively 

minimal impact on air quality, and 

accordingly, air quality-related health 

effects, based on the relative percentage 

of fuel used by the vehicles considered 

in this action compared to total lightduty vehicle fuel use. As discussed in 

Chapter 4 of NHTSA’s Final SEIS, 

nationwide criteria pollutant emissions 

from vehicle tailpipes are projected to 

decrease over time, even as VMT 

increases, due to increasingly stringent 

EPA regulation of criteria pollutant 

emissions and reductions in emissions 

from fuel production. NHTSA does not 

expect that trend to change based on the 

levels of fuel use projected for this 

action. In addition, some of the 

increases in criteria pollutant emissions 

projected in the Final SEIS are due to 

increases in upstream emissions from 

power plants from increased electric 

vehicle use. The vehicles considered in 

this action run primarily on gasoline; 

none of the vehicles with electrified 

powertrains draw energy from the 

electric grid. The same projected trends 

exist for toxic air pollutants; emissions 

are projected to decrease through 2050 

based on increasingly stringent EPA 

regulations and reductions in emissions 

from fuel production, despite growth in 

total VMT. NHTSA does not expect that 

any of these trends would change based 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12755 

39U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies 

Calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/ 

greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. EPA 

specifies that estimates from this calculator are 

approximate and should not be used for emission 

inventories or formal carbon emissions analysis. 

NHTSA used these estimates as part of its 

determination that a formal carbon emissions 

analysis is not required for this action. 

40U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2019, at Table 2–13, 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-maintext.pdf?VersionId=wEy8wQuGrWS8Ef_

hSLXHy1kYwKs4.ZaU. 41 49 U.S.C. 32912(b). 

42NHTSA–2022–0048–0007, Attachment 1. 

43Final SEIS, at 5–1. 

44See, e.g., 40 CFR 1502.23. 

45Final SEIS, at 5–2. 

46 Id. 

on the minor increases in fuel use 

projected from this decision. 

To estimate the approximate effect 

that this action would have on 

greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA first 

used EPA’s Greenhouse Gas 

Equivalencies Calculator to convert the 

estimated additional gallons of gasoline 

that would be used under the 

alternatives to metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent emissions.39 Over 

the lifetime of all model year vehicles 

considered in this notice (15 model 

years’ worth of vehicles that each last 

approximately 15 years), for the fuel use 

considered in this action, the following 

additional carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions are expected to result: 

285,193 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions under the ‘‘asrequested’’ alternative, and 282,047 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions at the preferred alternative 

levels. To put this in perspective, 

NHTSA referenced EPA’s Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks 1990–2019 report, which 

estimated that the U.S. passenger car 

and light truck vehicle fleet emits a little 

over a thousand million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per 

year (averaged over 2017, 2018, and 

2019).40 Over the useful life of a vehicle 

considered in this action, the vehicles 

considered in this action are estimated 

to produce an estimated increase in 

carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of 

0.00169% and 0.00167% (for the asrequested and preferred alternative 

levels, respectively) of total light-duty 

vehicle carbon dioxide equivalent 

emissions over what the vehicles would 

have produced had they met their 

footprint-based standard. 

NHTSA did not perform independent 

climate modeling because the agency 

believes that it is reasonable to infer that 

if relatively small—but not trivial— 

climate impacts would result from largescale changes in fuel use from changes 

in the industry-wide passenger car and 

light truck standards, as demonstrated 

in the Final SEIS and referenced in the 

Draft EA, estimating the impacts of the 

no-action alternative and alternatives 

presented in this notice would not 

present any additional meaningful 

information for decisionmakers and the 

public. 

Some potential impacts of the 

proposed action could be mitigated 

through other means; as discussed 

above, EPA also sets alternative carbon 

dioxide emissions standards for some of 

the low volume manufacturers 

considered in this notice. Unlike the 

structure of EPCA/EISA, which allows 

civil penalty payment for each 0.1 of a 

mile a gallon by which the manufacturer 

falls short of the applicable average fuel 

economy standard,41 manufacturers 

must comply with EPA regulations 

promulgated under the Clean Air Act to 

sell their vehicles. To the extent that 

EPA sets higher alternative standards for 

model years 2022 and 2023 vehicles, 

some of the estimated impacts could 

potentially be mitigated. Next, the 

estimates of fuel use presented here are 

dependent on several assumptions, one 

being how many miles these vehicles 

are driven. The vehicles covered by this 

final decision represent an extremely 

small fraction of overall motor vehicle 

sales and on-road VMT; most of the 

vehicles considered in this notice are 

estimated to drive only a quarter of the 

mileage of the average passenger car. If 

these vehicles were or are driven less 

than NHTSA estimated, fuel use, air 

quality impacts, and greenhouse gas 

emissions would be reduced 

accordingly. However, to the extent that 

some of the vehicles considered in this 

action have already been built and sold, 

the impacts of those vehicles achieving 

a lower fuel economy level than their 

footprint-based standard represent an 

unavoidable adverse impact. 

Both alternatives considered in the 

Draft EA and now this Final EA result 

in increased fuel use compared to the 

no-action alternative; however, the 

preferred alternative does result in 

marginally less estimated fuel use than 

the ‘‘as requested’’ alternative. NHTSA 

does not believe that establishing 

alternative CAFE standards at the 

preferred alternative levels would 

contribute appreciably to any of the 

environmental impacts considered in 

this Final EA. 

NHTSA invited public comments on 

the contents and tentative conclusions 

of the Draft EA. No public comments 

directly addressing the Draft EA were 

received. One individual commenter 

loosely commented in opposition to 

industry-wide fuel economy regulations 

based on, among other things, concern 

about the quality and integrity of data 

used in climate science.42 NHTSA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assessment of the quality and integrity 

of peer-reviewed studies on climate 

change, and summarizes in the Final 

SEIS the panel-reviewed synthesis and 

assessment reports from various 

agencies that NHTSA relies on,43 in 

accordance with CEQ regulations to 

ensure the scientific integrity of 

discussions and analyses in 

environmental documents.44 As 

discussed in the Final SEIS, NHTSA 

relies on panel-reviewed synthesis and 

assessment reports ‘‘because these 

reports assess numerous individual 

studies to draw general conclusions 

about the state of climate science and 

potential impacts of climate change, as 

summarized or found in peer-reviewed 

reports. These reports are reviewed and 

formally accepted by, commissioned by, 

or in some cases authored by U.S. 

government agencies and individual 

government scientists, and in many 

cases reflect and convey the consensus 

conclusions of expert authors. These 

sources have been vetted by both the 

climate change research community and 

by the U.S. government.’’ 45 NHTSA 

notes here and in the Final SEIS that 

uncertainty still exists, as with any 

analysis of complex, long-term changes 

that involve many assumptions and 

uncertainties. That is why ‘‘NHTSA 

relies on methods and data to analyze 

climate impacts that represent the best 

and most current information available 

on this topic and that have been 

subjected to extensive peer review and 

scrutiny.’’ 46

NHTSA did not make any changes to 

the Final EA in response to this 

comment. 

5. Agencies and Persons Consulted 

NHTSA coordinated with EPA to seek 

its feedback on the Draft EA, and EPA 

had no comments or suggested changes. 

NHTSA also coordinated with EPA for 

further input in drafting the Final EA. 

6. Finding of No Significant Impact 

NHTSA has reviewed the information 

presented in this Final EA and 

concludes that the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the 

human environment and that a ‘‘finding 

of no significant impact’’ is appropriate. 

This statement constitutes the agency’s 

‘‘finding of no significant impact,’’ and 

an environmental impact statement will 

not be prepared. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531 

Energy conservation, Gasoline, 

Imports, Motor vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR part 531 is amended as follows: 

PART 531—PASSENGER 

AUTOMOBILE AVERAGE FUEL 

ECONOMY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 531 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Amend § 531.5 by: 

■ a. Removing from paragraph (a) the 

term ‘‘paragraph (f)’’ and adding in its 

place the term ‘‘paragraph (e)’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (e)(4) and (15); 

and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (e)(16) through 

(20). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 531.5 Fuel economy standards. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) Aston Martin Lagonda Limited 

TABLE 8 TO § 531.5(e)(4)—AVERAGE

FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

1979 ...................................... 11.5 

1980 ...................................... 12.1 

1981 ...................................... 12.2 

1982 ...................................... 12.2 

1983 ...................................... 11.3 

1984 ...................................... 11.3 

1985 ...................................... 11.4 

2008 ...................................... 19.0 

2009 ...................................... 18.6 

2010 ...................................... 19.2 

2011 ...................................... 19.1 

2012 ...................................... 19.2 

2013 ...................................... 20.1 

2014 ...................................... 19.7 

2015 ...................................... 19.8 

2016 ...................................... 20.2 

2017 ...................................... 21.4 

2018 ...................................... 22.9 

2019 ...................................... 22.4 

2020 ...................................... 22.6 

2021 ...................................... 24.9 

2022 ...................................... 24.9 

2023 ...................................... 24.9 

* * * * * 

(15) Spyker Automobielen B.V. 

TABLE 19 TO § 531.5(e)(15)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2006 ...................................... 18.9 

TABLE 19 TO § 531.5(e)(15)—AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD— 

Continued 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2007 ...................................... 18.9 

2008 ...................................... 19.6 

2009 ...................................... 19.6 

2010 ...................................... 20.7 

(16) Ferrari 

TABLE 20 TO § 531.5(e)(16)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2016 ...................................... 21.7 

2017 ...................................... 21.5 

2018 ...................................... 21.6 

2020 ...................................... 21.1 

(17) Koenigsegg 

TABLE 21 TO § 531.5(e)(17)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2015 ...................................... 16.7 

2018 ...................................... 16.7 

2019 ...................................... 16.6 

2020 ...................................... 16.6 

2021 ...................................... 16.6 

2022 ...................................... 16.9 

2023 ...................................... 16.9 

(18) McLaren 

TABLE 22 TO § 531.5(e)(18)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2012 ...................................... 23.2 

2013 ...................................... 24.0 

2014 ...................................... 23.8 

2015 ...................................... 22.9 

2016 ...................................... 23.2 

2017 ...................................... 24.3 

2018 ...................................... 23.3 

2019 ...................................... 22.5 

2020 ...................................... 22.5 

2021 ...................................... 21.5 

2022 ...................................... 24.6 

2023 ...................................... 25.7 

(19) Mobility Ventures 

TABLE 23 TO § 531.5(e)(19)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2014 ...................................... 19.6 

2015 ...................................... 20.1 

2016 ...................................... 20.1 

(20) Pagani 

TABLE 24 TO § 531.5(e)(20)— 

AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

2014 ...................................... 15.6 

2016 ...................................... 15.6 

2017 ...................................... 15.6 

2018 ...................................... 15.6 

2019 ...................................... 15.5 

2020 ...................................... 15.5 

2021 ...................................... 15.5 

2022 ...................................... 15.5 

2023 ...................................... 15.5 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4. 

Sophie Shulman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03119 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 230224–0053; RTID 0648– 

XD734] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the 

Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for the Pacific cod sideboard 

limit by non-exempt American Fisheries 

Act (AFA) catcher vessels in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

(GOA). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the annual 2024 

Pacific cod sideboard limit established 

for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska 

local time (A.l.t.), February 15, 2024, 

through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Zaleski, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1