Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39439 

§ 1900.42 Right of appeal and appeal 

procedures. 

(a) Right of appeal. A right of 

administrative appeal exists whenever 

access to any requested record or any 

portion thereof is denied, or no records 

are located in response to a request. In 

addition, requesters may appeal denials 

of requests for expedited processing and 

fee waivers, as well as the adequacy of 

a search for records responsive to a 

request. The Agency will apprise all 

requesters in writing of their right to file 

an administrative appeal to the ARP 

through the Coordinator. 

(b) Requirements as to time and form. 

Appeals of decisions must be received 

by the Coordinator within ninety (90) 

days of the date of the Agency’s initial 

decision. The Agency may, for good 

cause and as a matter of administrative 

discretion, permit an additional thirty 

(30) days for the submission of an 

appeal. All appeals shall be in writing 

and addressed as specified in § 1900.03. 

All appeals must identify the 

documents or portions of documents at 

issue with specificity and may present 

such information, data, and argument in 

support as the requester may desire. 

(c) Exceptions. No appeal shall be 

accepted if the requester has 

outstanding fees for information 

services at this or another Federal 

agency. 

(d) Receipt, recording, and tasking. 

The Agency shall promptly record each 

request received under this part, 

acknowledge receipt to the requester in 

writing, and thereafter effect the 

necessary taskings to the relevant 

components for appropriate action. 

(e) Time for response. The Agency 

shall attempt to complete action on an 

appeal within twenty (20) days of the 

date of receipt, except for appeals of 

denial of expedited processing, for 

which the Agency shall attempt to 

complete action within ten (10) business 

days of the date of receipt. The current 

volume of requests, however, often 

requires that the Agency request 

additional time from the requester 

pursuant to § 1900.33. In such event, the 

Agency will inform the requester of the 

right to judicial review. 

§ 1900.43 [Reserved] 

§ 1900.44 Action by appeals authority. 

(a) The Coordinator, acting in the 

capacity of Executive Secretary of the 

ARP, shall place administrative appeals 

of FOIA requests ready for adjudication 

on the agenda at the next occurring 

meeting of that Panel. The Executive 

Secretary shall provide the ARP 

membership with a summary of the 

request and issues raised on appeal for 

the Panel’s consideration, and make 

available to the Panel the complete 

administrative record of the request 

consisting of the request, the 

document(s) at issue (in redacted and 

full-text form), if any, and the findings 

and recommendations of the relevant 

components. 

(b) The ARP shall determine whether 

an appeal before the Panel is 

meritorious. The ARP may take action 

when a simple majority of the total 

membership is present. Issues shall be 

decided by a majority of the members 

present. In all cases of a divided vote, 

before the decision of the ARP becomes 

final, any member of the ARP may by 

written memorandum to the Executive 

Secretary of the ARP, refer such matters 

to the CIA Chief Data Officer (CDO) for 

resolution. In the event of a 

disagreement with any decision by the 

CDO, Directorate or Independent Office 

heads may appeal to the CIA Chief 

Operating Officer (COO) for a final 

Agency decision. The final Agency 

decision shall reflect the vote of the 

ARP, unless the CDO or COO disagrees 

with the ARP and makes a superseding 

final Agency decision. 

(c) Appeals of denials of requests for 

fee waivers or reductions and/or denial 

of requests for expedited processing 

shall go directly from the Coordinator to 

the Agency Release Panel for a final 

Agency determination. 

§ 1900.45 Notification of decision and right 

of judicial review. 

The Executive Secretary of the ARP 

shall promptly prepare and 

communicate the final Agency decision 

to the requester. With respect to any 

adverse Agency determination, that 

correspondence shall state the reasons 

for the decision, and include a notice of 

a right to judicial review. 

Dated: June 13, 2022. 

Brian C. O’Neill, 

Director, Advanced Data Lifecycle Solutions. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13361 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6310–02–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: Proposed rule; proposed 

decision to grant exemption. 

SUMMARY: This proposed 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 proposes to exempt these 

manufacturers from the generally 

applicable CAFE standards for the 

model years listed and establish 

alternative standards for each individual 

manufacturer at the levels outlined 

below. 

DATES: Comments are requested on or 

before August 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket No. NHTSA–2022– 

0048, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for sending comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: 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. 

• Hand Delivery: 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, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39440 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 49 U.S.C. 32902. 

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). 

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 525.8. 

9Pagani 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. 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the dockets to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

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 Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Bayer, Engineer, 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. Evaluation of Maximum Feasible Fuel 

Economy Levels 

a. Determining ‘‘Maximum Feasible’’ 

Under EPCA/EISA 

b. Methodology Used To Assess Maximum 

Feasible Average Fuel Economy Level for 

Petitioners 

i. Technological Feasibility and Economic 

Practicability 

(a) Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML) 

MY 2008–2023 Vehicles 

(b) Ferrari MY 2016–2018 and 2020 

Vehicles 

(c) Koenigsegg Automotive AB MY 2015, 

2018–2023 Vehicles 

(d) McLaren Automotive MY 2012–2023 

Vehicles 

(e) Mobility Ventures MY 2014–2016 MV1 

(f) Pagani Automobili S.p.A MY 2014 and 

2016–2023 Vehicles 

(g) Spyker Automobielen B.V. MY 2008– 

2010 Vehicles 

ii. The Need of the United States To 

Conserve Energy 

iii. The Effect of Other Standards of the 

Federal Government on Fuel Economy 

3. Proposed Maximum Feasible Average Fuel 

Economy for Exempted Manufacturers 

4. Regulatory Impact Analyses 

a. Regulatory Evaluation 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

c. National Environmental Policy Act 

5. Proposed 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 

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 statutory 

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 That 

part 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.8 A 

manufacturer’s final alternative 

standard is codified at 49 CFR part 531. 

This proposed 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– 

2023,9 and Spyker Automobielen B.V. 

(Spyker) for MYs 2008–2010. NHTSA 

proposes to conclude that all seven 

manufacturers were, and are, eligible for 

an alternative standard for the listed 

model years, 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, and that alternative 

standards should be set at the levels 

discussed below. 

2. Evaluation of Maximum Feasible 

Fuel Economy Levels 

NHTSA has not granted petitions for 

alternative standards for several low 

volume manufacturers for several model 

years, both past and imminent future. If 

NHTSA does not set an alternative 

standard for a petitioning manufacturer, 

that manufacturer would be subject to 

the industry-wide passenger car 

standard(s) for the model year(s) in 

question, and would therefore be liable 

for civil penalties if it was unable to 

comply with those standards. At this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39441 

10See Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 

488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). The Supreme Court in 

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital laid the 

foundation for modern retroactivity jurisprudence 

by pronouncing that ‘‘[r]etroactivity is not favored 

in the law.’’ Justice Kennedy, writing for the 

majority, and Justice Scalia, writing in his 

concurrence, established the competing principles 

that a statute can explicitly authorize retroactive 

rulemaking where Congress conveys the power to 

do so in express terms, and a statute can implicitly 

authorize retroactive rulemaking, as in situations 

where an agency misses a statutory deadline to 

promulgate a rule, or similarly, where an agency’s 

inaction would have eliminated a Congressionallyprescribed exemption. 

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). 

12Supra note 10. 

13 General Motors Corp. v. National Highway 

Traffic Safety Admin., 898 F.2d 165, at 171 (1990). 

14 Id. at 176. The court agreed with NHTSA that 

it was reasonable to deny a 1987 petition and 

subsequent petition for reconsideration from 

General Motors (GM) to retroactively amend the 

1984 and 1985 industry-wide CAFE standard. 

NHTSA had denied GM’s petitions on the basis that 

retroactive amendment would be inconsistent with 

the EPCA statutory scheme. Subsequent to 

NHTSA’s original petition denials but before 

General Motors Corp., the Supreme Court addressed 

retroactive rulemaking in Bowen, and NHTSA 

added to its original argument that ‘‘beyond the 

independent validity of its petition denials, any 

retroactive amendment of the [industry-wide] CAFE 

standard is barred by the Bowen decision.’’ 

15 Id. (citing 53 FR 15246 (April 28, 1988)). 

16 Id. (citing 44 FR 3710 (Jan. 18, 1979), 53 FR 

15241 (April 28, 1988)). 

17 Id. at 177. Chief Judge Wald went on to state 

that, similarly, ‘‘[e]ven assuming a general policy of 

granting retroactive exemptions after the model year 

had begun for a segment of the industry accounting 

for significantly less than one percent of the 

product, NHTSA could reasonably have a different 

policy for the other 99 percent.’’ 

18NHTSA has deleted all MY 2012 and earlier 

credits which have reached their expiry date in 

accordance with 49 CFR 536.5(c)(2). 

19See supra, note 11. 

20Note, this is a different inquiry than whether 

the LVM’s maximum feasible fuel economy level is 

the level that it petitioned for, or some other level. 

NHTSA can grant the petition for review then set 

a different standard than the manufacturer 

requested. 

21 If a manufacturer’s vehicles in a particular 

compliance category have below standard fuel 

economy, NHTSA will provide written notification 

to the manufacturer that it has failed to meet a 

particular fleet target standard. See 49 CFR 

536.5(d)(2). 

point, any NHTSA action prescribing 

alternative standards for past model 

years is retroactive.10

However, NHTSA has previously 

granted low volume exemption petitions 

retroactively when the agency did not 

publish proposed and final 

determinations on those exemption 

petitions prior to the beginning of a 

model year.11 In these previous notices, 

NHTSA recognized that the agency’s 

ability to adopt retroactive rules is very 

limited but noted that there were 

compelling reasons to distinguish low 

volume CAFE exemptions. NHTSA 

reasoned that if the agency could not 

issue exemptions from the industrywide CAFE standards for low volume 

manufacturers after the commencement 

of a model year, the agency would, by 

inaction, have ‘‘totally eliminated the 

congressionally prescribed’’ low volume 

manufacturer exemption for the 

manufacturers and years in question.12

NHTSA also stated that the agency’s 

failure to act upon timely applications 

for low volume exemptions from the 

industry-wide CAFE standard is 

analogous to a situation where an 

agency misses a statutory deadline and 

then must issue a rule retroactively, 

particularly since the manufacturers 

were in no way responsible for the 

agency’s inaction. To avoid unfairly 

penalizing the low volume 

manufacturers for agency inaction that 

was beyond their control, NHTSA 

reasoned that EPCA must be construed 

to implicitly authorize the grant of 

retroactive low volume exemptions. 

Since those decisions, the D.C. Circuit 

in General Motors Corp. v. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

stated, in dicta, that EPCA provided 

support for NHTSA to set retroactive 

alternative fuel economy standards for 

low volume manufacturers.13 In 

considering the congressional 

authorization for NHTSA’s ability to 

retroactively amend a CAFE standard 

for LVMs, but not full-line 

manufacturers,14 the court agreed with 

the agency’s explanation that ‘‘granting 

retroactive exemptions from the 

generally applicable standard for lowvolume manufacturers does not have the 

same potential for disrupting the 

statutory scheme as retroactively 

amending the standard as it applies to 

the rest of the industry.’’ 15 The court 

also noted that Congress had, in EPCA 

and accompanying legislative history, 

‘‘[sent] out strong signals that [low 

volume] manufacturers are to be treated 

differently from the rest of the 

industry.’’ 16 Because LVMs only 

account for a fraction of the total annual 

production of passenger automobiles, 

the LVMs have limited engineering staff 

and limited market, and each exemption 

applies to only one manufacturer, 

‘‘NHTSA is well within its authority to 

proceed on a case-by-case basis to 

exempt small manufacturers from the 

industry-wide CAFE standards, and 

establish an individualized CAFE for 

each exempted manufacturer.’’ 17

If NHTSA could not set standards for 

these past model years, the low volume 

manufacturers would be liable for civil 

penalties for noncompliance, and would 

have to either pay the penalty or buy 

unexpired fuel economy credits 18 from 

other manufacturers to make up the 

deficit between their fleet fuel economy 

and the industry-wide passenger car 

standard. This would be a reversal of 

several decades of NHTSA policy to 

grant appropriately submitted petitions 

for alternative standards,19 20 and with 

functionally no notice. A petitioning 

manufacturer would have had no reason 

to believe that NHTSA would not act in 

a timely fashion on its request based on 

prior agency practice; that is, it could 

not have known that it needed suddenly 

to drastically improve its fleet fuel 

economy, or alternatively, needed 

suddenly to pay civil penalties for 

failure to meet the industry-wide 

standard. Accordingly, NHTSA 

continues to believe that EPCA/EISA 

permits the agency to set alternative 

standards for past MYs. In support of 

this position, NHTSA has also deferred 

sending the required enforcement 

notification to the manufacturers 

considered in this notice for falling 

below the conventional passenger car 

standards until any outstanding 

petitions for the given model year have 

been resolved.21

a. Determining ‘‘Maximum Feasible’’ 

Under EPCA/EISA 

NHTSA has determined that EPCA/ 

EISA permits the agency to retroactively 

set fuel economy standards for low 

volume manufacturers. However, 

determining how to prescribe an 

alternative fuel economy standard at the 

maximum feasible level for past model 

years is a separate question. 

NHTSA relies heavily on the 

information that a low volume 

manufacturer submits in its petition in 

determining what maximum feasible 

fuel economy level is achievable for that 

manufacturer. Evaluating that 

information well in advance of a model 

year for which the petition is submitted 

invariably aids NHTSA in setting a 

LVM’s alternative standard at its 

maximum feasible level; attempting to 

determine now how the agency would 

have evaluated the information 

included in the petition seems like an 

imprecise, if not also futile, exercise 

because the agency already knows what 

fuel-economy-improving technologies 

the LVM applied, and importantly (and 

irrevocably), the vehicles have already 

been sold. Regardless of what average 

fuel economy level the LVMs told the 

agency they could achieve in each 

model year, the LVMs achieved the 

levels they achieved, and that 

information is now before the agency 

along with the information originally 

submitted by the LVMs. Thus, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22See 41 FR 53827, 53828 (Dec. 9, 1976); 54 FR 

40690 (October 3, 1989). See also 49 U.S.C. 

32902(a), 81 FR 95491 (Dec. 28, 2016). EPCA/EISA 

requires that when NHTSA amends a generally 

applicable fuel economy standard to make it more 

stringent, that new standard must be promulgated 

‘‘[a]t least 18 months before the beginning of each 

model year.’’ This is because Congress recognized 

the importance of notice to vehicle manufacturers 

to allow them the lead time necessary to adjust their 

product plans, designs, and compliance plans to 

address changes in fuel economy standards. 

23 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.’’). 

24 56 FR 3517 (Jan. 30, 1991). 

25 49 CFR 525.7(h)(1). 

26See, e.g., 42 FR 33533 (June 30, 1977). 

agency will consider all currently 

available information in proposing 

maximum feasible levels for each LVM. 

Accordingly, NHTSA believes the 

question that the agency must answer 

now for past model years is, given all 

information currently before the agency, 

what fuel economy levels were the 

maximum feasible levels that each LVM 

could have achieved in each model 

year? 

For imminently future model years, 

the agency must answer a slightly 

different set of questions; that is, is the 

alternative standard that the 

manufacturer petitioned for maximum 

feasible, and if not, what, if any, 

technologically feasible and 

economically practicable changes would 

the manufacturer be able to make in the 

time frame before model year 

production would need to commence? A 

vehicle manufacturer’s model year 

typically begins before the calendar year 

(e.g., model year 2020 vehicles are 

manufactured beginning in calendar 

year 2019). Vehicle designs (including 

drivetrains, which are where many fuel 

economy improvements are made) are 

often fixed years in advance, which 

makes adjusting fleet fuel economy 

difficult without sufficient lead time. 

For most manufacturers, production 

plans are solidified at least 18 months 

in advance of a model year, and there 

is limited ability to deviate. 

While EPCA/EISA does not prescribe 

a statutory deadline by which NHTSA 

must act on low volume exemption 

applications, in establishing the 

regulations implementing EPCA’s low 

volume manufacturer exemption 

provisions, the agency required low 

volume manufacturers to submit 

petitions for exemption ‘‘not later than 

24 months before the beginning of the 

affected model year’’ to ‘‘facilitate the 

low volume manufacturers’ planning to 

comply with the alternative standards, 

and to ensure that the agency’s analysis 

of those manufacturers’ maximum 

feasible average fuel economy would 

not be simply a ‘rubber stamping’ of the 

individual manufacturer’s planned fuel 

economy, caused by insufficient 

leadtime for the manufacturer to make 

changes.’’ 22 As a practical matter, the 

greater the difference between what 

NHTSA believes is the maximum 

feasible standard and what the 

manufacturer petitioned for, the more 

time the manufacturer likely needs to 

adjust product designs and plans to 

meet that standard. 

With these considerations and 

questions in mind, NHTSA summarizes 

the methodology used to assess the 

petitioners’ maximum feasible average 

fuel economy levels, and the 

information submitted by petitioners to 

assist in that assessment, below. 

b. Methodology Used To Assess 

Maximum Feasible Average Fuel 

Economy Level for Petitioners 

As an initial matter, all manufacturers 

considered in this 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 with good cause 

claims, per 49 CFR part 525.23

Regardless of the sufficiency of those 

good cause claims, NHTSA believes 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. While 

each good cause claim is evaluated on 

an individual basis, NHTSA encourages 

manufacturers to contact the agency as 

early as possible if they begin to expect 

a petition for exemption may be 

delayed. Once a manufacturer is aware 

of its obligations regarding petitions for 

exemption from CAFE standards, 

arguing that a company is ‘‘busy simply 

trying to survive as a small 

manufacturer’’ is not enough to show 

good cause for late submission of an 

exemption petition.24

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. The 

agency’s consideration of these factors 

in relation to low volume manufacturers 

differs from how the agency considers 

these factors for full-line manufacturers; 

the consideration of these factors as 

applied to past model years as 

compared to future model years 

necessarily differs as well. 

‘‘Technological feasibility’’ refers to 

whether a particular method of 

improving fuel economy can be 

available for commercial application in 

the model year for which a standard is 

being established. Historically, for both 

low volume and full-line manufacturers, 

NHTSA has looked at manufacturers’ 

use of fuel-economy improving 

technologies for weight reduction and 

aerodynamic improvements, engine 

improvements, and transmission 

improvements, among other 

technologies. Moving forward, NHTSA 

is also considering another category of 

technologies, off-cycle and air 

conditioning (A/C) efficiency 

improvement technologies. These 

technologies provide fuel economy 

improvements in real-world operation, 

but that improvement cannot be 

adequately captured by the 2-cycle test 

procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with fuel economy 

standards. These off-cycle and A/C 

efficiency improvement technologies 

fall within the scope of technologies 

that manufacturers must discuss in their 

petitions to the agency,25 and the 

manufacturer should include any 

anticipated benefit from those off-cycle 

and A/C efficiency improvement 

technologies in the projected fuel 

economy value for each vehicle 

configuration as required by 49 CFR 

525.7(f). 

Next, NHTSA considers ‘‘economic 

practicability’’ for petitions filed under 

49 CFR part 525 as meaning the 

financial capability of the manufacturer 

to improve its average fuel economy by 

making technologically feasible changes 

to its passenger automobiles for the 

model years under consideration.26

Technological feasibility and economic 

practicability are often conflated; 

whether a fuel-economy-improving 

technology does or will exist 

(technological feasibility) is a different 

question from what economic 

consequences could ensue if NHTSA 

effectively requires a low volume 

manufacturer utilize that technology, 

and the economic consequences of the 

absence of consumer demand for low 

volume vehicles utilizing that 

technology (economic practicability). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39443 

27 60 FR 31937 (June 19, 1995). 

28 58 FR 41229 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

29 61 FR 39429 (July 29, 1996). 

30See, e.g., 54 FR 37444 (Sep. 8, 1989); 58 FR 

41229 (Aug. 3, 1993), 60 FR 31937 (June 19, 1995); 

63 FR 5774 (Feb. 4, 1998). 

31See Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA (CAS), 

793 F.2d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Administrator’s 

consideration of market demand as component of 

economic practicability found to be reasonable); 

Public Citizen v. NHTSA, 848 F.2d 256 (Congress 

established broad guidelines in the fuel economy 

statute; agency’s decision to set lower standards 

was a reasonable accommodation of conflicting 

policies). See also 58 FR 41229 (Aug. 3, 1993) 

(‘‘Consumers need not purchase what they do not 

want.’’). 

32See, e.g., 61 FR 39429 (July 29, 1996); 61 FR 

67518 (December 23, 1996); 63 FR 5774 (February 

4, 1998); 64 FR 73476 (December 30, 1999); 71 FR 

49407 (August 23, 2006); 73 FR 34242 (June 17, 

2008). 

33 49 CFR 525.7(h). 

34See, e.g., 83 FR 43014 (Aug. 24, 2018) (Table 

II–3, Summary of Sales Weighted Average Time 

between Engineering Redesigns, by Manufacturer, 

by Vehicle Technology Class). 

35Because CAFE standards apply to a 

manufacturer’s fleet rather than to individual 

vehicles, it is possible for a manufacturer’s fuel 

economy performance to fluctuate yearly based not 

only on changes in the fuel economy of each of its 

models, but also based on changes in the 

production volumes of those models. There may be 

situations in which a manufacturer makes no 

changes to the fuel economy of any of its models 

from one year to the next, but its fleet average 

decreases because of changes in the production 

volumes of the individual vehicle models it 

produces. This may occur even when a 

manufacturer makes improvements in the fuel 

economy of one or more individual vehicle models 

from one year to the next. 

36See 58 FR 41228 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

37See, e.g., 44 FR 3710 (Jan. 18, 1979). 

As part of economic practicability, 

NHTSA has historically considered only 

those technology improvements that 

would be compatible with the basic 

design concepts of the low volume 

manufacturers’ vehicles. For example, 

for vehicles exclusively designed to be 

used for transporting the wheelchair 

bound or other mobility-impaired 

individuals, NHTSA did not consider 

design changes that would impair the 

ability of the vehicle to perform that 

function; 27 for a five-passenger luxury 

car, NHTSA did not consider ‘‘design 

changes that would make the cars 

unsuitable for five adult passengers with 

luggage or would remove items 

traditionally offered on luxury cars, 

such as air conditioning, automatic 

transmission, power steering, and power 

windows;’’ 28 and for ‘‘exotic high 

performance cars, design changes that 

would remove items traditionally 

offered on these cars, such as reducing 

the displacement of their engines, were 

not considered.’’ 29 This is because 

‘‘[s]uch changes to the basic design 

could be economically impracticable 

since they might well significantly 

reduce the demand for these 

automobiles, thereby reducing sales and 

causing significant economic injury to 

the low volume manufacturer.’’ 30

Market demand has been part of 

economic practicability considerations 

for decades, both in the industry-wide 

and low-volume CAFE programs.31

Between different types of low 

volume manufacturers, different 

technologies may or may not be 

available for commercial application for 

certain types of vehicles because of 

supply chain considerations and 

economies of scale. NHTSA has 

previously recognized that low volume 

manufacturers lag in having the latest 

developments in fuel-economyimproving technology because suppliers 

generally provide components to small 

manufacturers only after supplying large 

manufacturers.32 Similarly, full-line 

manufacturers that provide engines and 

transmissions to small volume 

manufacturers may only do so after 

developing those parts for use in their 

own vehicles. In fact, as discussed 

below, some manufacturers requesting 

alternative standards rely on full-line 

manufacturers to provide customized 

engines for their vehicles. 

That said, some of the vehicles 

covered by this proposed decision 

employ some of the most advanced fueleconomy-improving technologies 

available in the market today, but to 

improve other vehicle attributes. For 

example, as mentioned below, NHTSA 

generally considers turbochargers to be 

an effective technology to improve 

vehicle fuel economy; however, a highperformance sports car manufacturer 

may use turbochargers to increase 

vehicle power. Under NHTSA’s 

historical interpretation of economic 

practicability for low volume 

manufacturers, a low volume 

manufacturer would justify in its 

petition to the agency whether it could 

direct some performance improvement 

towards fuel economy, and if not, why 

not. This requirement is echoed in 

NHTSA’s regulations governing petition 

information: petitioners must include a 

discussion of the technological means 

selected by the petitioner for improving 

the average fuel economy of its vehicles 

and a discussion of the alternative and 

additional means considered but not 

selected that would have enabled its 

vehicles to achieve a higher average fuel 

economy than it did.33

Economic practicability can also 

encompass considerations like the 

manufacturer’s ability to refresh and 

redesign their vehicles based on the 

availability of technology, as discussed 

above, or other factors. Manufacturers 

use diverse strategies with respect to 

when, and how often, they update 

vehicle designs. While most vehicles 

have been redesigned sometime in the 

last five years, many vehicles have 

not.34 For low volume manufacturers, 

that time frame can potentially be even 

longer given the nature of their 

products. Vehicles with lower annual 

sales volumes tend to be redesigned less 

frequently, giving manufacturers more 

time to amortize the investment needed 

to bring the product to market. To the 

extent that a manufacturer includes 

these economic practicability concerns 

in their petition for exemption, NHTSA 

considers this alongside the evaluation 

of potential technological 

improvements. 

NHTSA also considers a low volume 

manufacturer’s ability to improve fuel 

economy by changing the mix of vehicle 

models it sells. Where a low volume 

manufacturer only produces one vehicle 

model, there is no change that they can 

make to their fleet sales mix to achieve 

a higher fleet average fuel economy 

level. Where a manufacturer only 

produces a handful of vehicle models, 

there may be slightly more 

opportunity; 35 however, a 

manufacturer’s ability to change its fleet 

mix may also be a component of its 

sales strategy, and a limitation of 

producing such a niche product. Where 

‘‘producing additional models or 

making some of the configurations 

significantly more fuel efficient is not 

possible since both corporate financial 

limitations and the unique market sector 

served by [the low volume 

manufacturer] preclude significant 

changes to the basic concept of’’ the low 

volume manufacturers’ vehicles, 

NHTSA has not previously required 

those types of changes.36

Finally, it is important to note that 

NHTSA has historically taken the 

position that its evaluation of economic 

practicability does not consider the 

ability of the low volume manufacturer 

to absorb any potential civil penalties.37

This is because if NHTSA considers the 

ability to pay a civil penalty as part of 

economic practicability for an 

individual manufacturer, the resulting 

standard may be higher than the highest 

fuel economy level that the 

manufacturer could achieve. 

Considering the ability of a 

manufacturer to pay civil penalties 

would also not conserve any fuel, which 

would not appear to support EPCA’s 

underlying purpose of energy 

conservation and would simply 

represent a transfer of money from the 

manufacturer to the U.S. Treasury. This 

is separate from EPCA/EISA’s statutory 

prohibition on the consideration of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39444 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

38 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). 

39While 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) does not point 

directly to the exemption provision at 49 U.S.C. 

32902(d), it does point to 49 U.S.C. 32902(f), which 

outlines the factors that NHTSA must consider 

when ‘‘deciding maximum feasible average fuel 

economy.’’ NHTSA believes that when the agency 

carries out the directive in 49 U.S.C. 32902(d)—to 

prescribe by regulation an alternative average fuel 

economy standard for the passenger automobiles 

manufactured by the exempted manufacturer that 

the Secretary decides is the maximum feasible 

average fuel economy level for the manufacturers to 

which the alternative standard applies—just as 

considering the manufacturer’s ability to pay civil 

penalties would result in a higher standard than the 

manufacturer could actually achieve, forcing the 

manufacturer to buy credits would also result in a 

higher standard than the manufacturer could 

actually achieve. 

40 42 FR 63184, 63188 (Dec. 15, 1977). 

41See, e.g., 60 FR 31937 (June 19, 1995). 

42See, e.g., 54 FR 40689 (Oct. 3, 1989). 

43See, e.g., 61 FR 46756 (Sep. 5, 1996); 71 FR 

49407 (Aug. 23, 2006). 

44 84 FR 37277 (July 31, 2019); 85 FR 39561 (July 

1, 2020). 

45 49 CFR 525.9. 

trading, transferring, or the availability 

of credits when setting maximum 

feasible standards,38 which the agency 

believes is also relevant when setting 

alternative standards for a low volume 

manufacturer at the maximum feasible 

level.39 In either case, NHTSA continues 

to believe that imposing an unavoidable 

additional cost on manufacturers 

(whether to pay the penalty, or, since 

the enactment of the credit trading 

program in EPCA/EISA, buy credits 

from another manufacturer) contravenes 

Congress’ intent to establish maximum 

feasible standards for a manufacturer 

that the manufacturer can actually 

achieve. 

Next, NHTSA interprets ‘‘the need of 

the United States to conserve energy’’ as 

‘‘the consumer cost, national balance of 

payments, environmental, and foreign 

policy implications of our need for large 

quantities of petroleum, especially 

imported petroleum.’’ 40 In determining 

the impact that establishing an 

alternative CAFE standard would have 

on the need of the United States to 

conserve energy, NHTSA has 

historically taken two approaches. 

Originally, if the agency determined the 

low volume manufacturer could not 

meet a higher fuel economy standard 

than they requested—because it was not 

technologically feasible or economically 

practicable for them to do so—NHTSA 

concluded that denying the exemption 

or setting a higher alternative standard 

would not lead to any fuel savings.41

Similarly, if the manufacturer had 

already produced the vehicles for sale 

(in the case of a petition that was 

granted after the vehicles were built and 

sold), NHTSA concluded that denying 

the exemption or setting a higher 

alternative standard would not result in 

any fuel savings, and would relatedly 

have no effect on the need of the United 

States to conserve energy.42 In later 

years the agency attempted to quantify 

the de minimis impact of granting low 

volume manufacturer exemption 

petitions for illustrative purposes, by 

estimating the amount of additional fuel 

consumed by the exempted fleet over its 

operating lifetime.43

Finally, in considering the impact of 

other standards of the Government on 

fuel economy, NHTSA has historically 

looked at the weight impact of its own 

safety standards, as well as the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria 

pollutant emissions standards. NHTSA 

is aware that some manufacturers 

included in this proposed decision have 

received a final determination from EPA 

on alternative GHG standards for past 

model years,44 standards that are on 

average less stringent than EPA’s large 

manufacturer standards, and invites 

comment on any new information on 

the impact of EPA’s GHG standards on 

the manufacturer’s ability to meet an 

alternative fuel economy standard that 

the agency should consider. 

The following section discusses 

technological feasibility and economic 

practicability individually for each 

manufacturer, as each manufacturer 

employs technology in a different 

manner to achieve different objectives. 

For some manufacturers that have 

several years of unanswered petitions, 

with several vehicle lines, the 

discussion of relevant information 

submitted in their petitions is 

necessarily longer than that of a 

manufacturer that produces only one 

vehicle type, or that only has 

outstanding petitions for a few model 

years. In addition, because low volume 

manufacturers can petition for 

alternative standards for periods of three 

model years at a time,45 some petitions 

docketed in support of this notice also 

include requests for alternative 

standards for MYs through 2024. 

Outstanding MY 2024 requests will be 

addressed in a subsequent notice. 

Note also, low volume manufacturers 

generally submit two copies of their 

petition to NHTSA, one with 

confidential business information (CBI), 

and one without. CBI includes 

information like projected sales volumes 

for each vehicle, planned future 

technology application, and future 

vehicle models. The information 

presented below is taken from the nonCBI materials because even though some 

model years have passed (and some MYspecific information like actual 

production volumes ceases to be CBI 

after the model year has passed and that 

information becomes knowable), 

information may still be pertinent to 

future product plans or confidential 

sales strategy may have remained the 

same over time. 

To assess the impact of setting 

alternative standards at the levels 

proposed herein on the need of United 

States to conserve energy, NHTSA 

presents the calculations for all 

manufacturers together and separately 

by manufacturer. Similarly, the 

assessment of the effect of other 

standards of the Government on fuel 

economy is presented in a single section 

for all manufacturers. 

i. Technological Feasibility and 

Economic Practicability 

NHTSA’s regulations at 49 CFR 525.7 

request that low volume manufacturers 

submit several pieces of information to 

assist NHTSA in assessing 

technologically feasible and 

economically practicable improvements 

for the manufacturer’s fleet. This 

information includes a description of 

the technological means selected by the 

manufacturer for improving the average 

fuel economy of its automobiles to be 

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 plans 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. 

As discussed above, the technologies 

manufacturers generally discuss in these 

exemption petitions include 

technologies for weight reduction and 

aerodynamic improvements, engine 

improvements, and transmission 

improvements. Manufacturers have also 

started using off-cycle and air 

conditioning (A/C) efficiency 

improvement technologies, which fall 

within the scope of technologies that 

manufacturers should discuss in their 

petitions to the agency if a manufacturer 

plans to apply those technologies in an 

affected MY. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39445 

46The reported aerodynamic drag coefficients for 

AML vehicles range from 0.33–0.34 for the early 

2010s DB9, Virage, and Vantage models, to 0.37 for 

the MY 2020 DB11. Although current mass market 

vehicles have now achieved similar aerodynamic 

drag coefficients, for high performance vehicles 

desirable downforce to prevent rear end lift at high 

speeds and sufficient powertrain cooling needs 

limit further reductions. 

47Likewise, AML stated the company has 

extensively used carbon fiber composite material in 

the vehicles’ body panels. All AML models 

incorporate an all-alloy underbody structure that 

contributes only minimal weight, in addition to the 

bonnet and roof that are constructed from a 

lightweight alloy, while the front fenders, tailgate, 

and sills are produced from advanced composites. 

Aside from the vehicle body, the engine block 

design also decreases weight with use of aluminum 

material for components that are not loading points. 

(a) Aston Martin Lagonda Limited 

(AML) MY 2008–2023 Vehicles 

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML) 

is a sports car manufacturer whose 

product portfolio for the model years 

covered by this proposed decision 

include the DB9, DBS, DB11, Vantage, 

Virage, Rapide, and Vanquish, among 

others, in multiple engine and body 

configurations. 

For all model years covered by AML’s 

petitions for alternative standards, AML 

only sold vehicles with V8 or V12 

engines. With respect to ongoing engine 

improvements, AML stated that for MYs 

2018 and later it is downsizing the V12 

6.0-liter engine to 5.2 liters, resulting in 

reduced fuel use. Other engine 

technologies for the V12 engine that 

AML stated support a reduction in fuel 

use include turbocharging, reduced 

exhaust backpressure, stop-start, 

cylinder deactivation, electric 

thermostat with coolant flow 

management, and electric/hydraulic 

power steering. For the models that use 

the new 4.0-liter V8 turbocharged 

engine, like the new DB11 V8 and 

Vantage models, AML stated that 

similar technology additions helped to 

realize an additional fuel economy 

improvement. 

Starting with MY 2014, AML 

employed Bosch engine management 

systems (EMS) to realize fuel 

consumption improvements and CO2

emissions reduction through use of 

other technology enablers such as startstop, but due to the small size of the 

company the application of additional 

technologies will be over an extended 

period. According to AML’s MY 2021 

petition in June 2018, all vehicle models 

included the Bosch EMS. AML stated 

that the company is also investigating 

powerunit sourcing opportunities to 

increase vehicle efficiency, although 

there are very long lead time changes 

due to contractual agreements with 

suppliers and vehicle architecture 

modification requirements. 

Since MY 2008, AML’s transmissions 

incorporate six-, seven-, or eight-speed 

technologies, and the seven-speed 

transmission incorporates a lightweight, 

low friction design. Starting in 2014, 

AML began replacing the previouslyused 6-speed ZF automatic transmission 

with an 8-speed ZF transmission in its 

vehicles with V12 engines. Per AML, 

the DB11 uses an enhanced version of 

the 8-speed ZF transmission coupled to 

a low loss higher ratio final drive to 

enable further downspeeding of the V12 

engine, thereby enhancing its fuel 

economy capability. Future AML 

models will also use this 8-speed 

transmission. 

Each of AML’s vehicles possesses a 

body and chassis configuration that is 

small, aerodynamic,46 and that makes 

extensive use of advanced lightweight 

materials. All major body and 

mechanical components of the Virage, 

DB9, DB11, and Vanquish models are 

either aluminum, magnesium alloy, or 

advanced lightweight composite 

materials, resulting in vehicles that are 

up to 600kg lighter than comparable in 

the same class of vehicles.47

In the late 2000s/early 2010s, AML 

considered using partial hydraulic/ 

electric or full electric power assist 

steering (EPAS) technology that could 

improve fuel economy, however, it was 

rejected because of the scale of 

development needed for introduction. 

As mentioned above, AML’s more 

recent vehicles include this technology. 

Similarly, in the early 2010s, AML 

considered using low friction lubricants 

in the V8 engines but rejected them on 

the basis that 10W60 oil provided the 

oil-film thickness retention needed to 

protect the lead-free main bearings at 

elevated engine speeds. Since that time, 

with the introduction of the 5.2 liter 

V12 engine, AML has improved engine 

friction by adopting advanced engine oil 

lubrication and is continuously 

investigating use of other oil 

formulations for the future. 

AML noted in its petitions that its 

vehicles share underlying platforms and 

technologies, which impacts how fueleconomy improving technologies can be 

applied throughout its fleet. For 

example, AML introduced the ZF 8 

speed automatic transmission in MY 

2015 following four years of 

development to replace all 6-speed 

transmissions on V12 models apart from 

the DB9. AML stated that this lead time 

was principally driven by the need for 

new tooled parts and a heavily revised 

engine and gearbox calibration. 

Next, AML stated that it is not able to 

manipulate its model mix. AML 

produces only one ‘‘type’’ of car, 

specifically what it characterizes as high 

performance/limited production. These 

vehicles all have what AML refers to as 

multi-cylinder large capacity power 

units, and in fact for model years that 

have already passed, AML has only sold 

vehicles with V8 or V12 power units in 

the U.S. market. In early petitions, AML 

projected that vehicles with the 

(relatively) more fuel efficient V8 

engines would exceed sales of vehicles 

with the V12 engines, however, that did 

not happen. AML observed that the V8 

and V12 vehicles appeal to different 

market segments and attempting to force 

more sales of vehicles with V8 engines 

was not feasible. Accordingly, when 

sales of the V8 models declined relative 

to projections, as compared to the V12 

model, AML’s achieved CAFE level was 

negatively affected. Over the model 

years that NHTSA considered in this 

proposed decision, AML projected that 

the balance of vehicle sales with V8 and 

V12 engines would vary in different 

model years. 

AML also stated that the company is 

limited to making technology 

improvements that are compatible with 

the basic design concept of its vehicles, 

i.e., high performance vehicles. AML 

stated in its petitions that it has taken 

all possible steps to maximize fuel 

economy within its existing vehicle 

range, with recent changes to engine, 

engine management, and transmission 

technology, that has resulted in 

incrementally improving fleet fuel 

economy. AML also stated that its 

lightweight and aerodynamic vehicle 

designs have shown that it has done as 

much as possible to improve its 

vehicles’ fuel economy. 

(b) Ferrari MY 2016–2018 and 2020 

Vehicles 

Ferrari N.V. (Ferrari) is a small 

volume manufacturer of sports cars. 

Ferrari’s product portfolio for the model 

years covered by this proposed decision 

includes GT cars (e.g., the GTC4Lusso 

and California T) and sports cars (like 

the F12 Berlinetta and LaFerrari, and 

488 Spider and 488 GTB) with a mix of 

V8 and V12 engines, in addition to its 

portfolio of limited series supercars, 

which include the LaFerrari Aperta, the 

F60 America, the F12tdf, GTC4LussoT, 

and 812 Superfast. 

With respect to powertrain 

technologies, Ferrari stated that it was 

developing new gasoline direct injection 

technology to target tailpipe emissions, 

in addition to a new turbocharged, 

downsized, and down-speeded V8 

engine family. Ferrari also stated that it 

is investigating engines with higher 

BMEP levels to improve thermal 

efficiency from better combustion, with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39446 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

48Additionally, McLaren stated that the 

maximum speed of the MP4–12C is achieved in 6th 

gear, leaving 7th gear as a true ‘‘overdrive’’ gear 

intended for maximum fuel efficiency. 

electric boosting to reduce turbo lag. 

Ferrari provided specific technology 

information on its MY 2015 California T 

grand tourer, showing that with the 

addition of a downsized engine and two 

turbochargers, the vehicle achieved an 

improved fuel economy value of 18.7% 

over the previous model while still 

meeting its performance objectives. The 

MY 2014 V12 Limited Edition LaFerrari 

utilized a hybrid powertrain with a 

120kW electric motor and an ultralightweight composite body to achieve a 

fuel economy of 17.6 mpg. 

Ferrari stated that the mix of vehicles 

it sells strongly affects its fleet average 

fuel economy, though substantial fuel 

economy improvements can be seen in 

each category of vehicles. In evaluating 

new vehicle technologies, Ferrari stated 

that it must consider maintaining the 

higher performance and unique driving 

experience of its vehicles, customer 

acceptance, and the impact on overall 

vehicle design. Additionally, 

manufacturing constraints may affect 

which new technologies Ferrari can 

adopt on its vehicles; Ferrari noted that 

moving from internal R&D to production 

vehicles is dependent on suppliers, and 

obtaining components from suppliers is 

more difficult for Ferrari than for larger 

companies, especially given the low 

volume of vehicles produced and the 

unique nature of the vehicles’ design. 

The low volume of components 

required by the company may cause 

delays or project cancellations due to 

the inability of suppliers to produce 

components in a desired timeframe. 

Additionally, Ferrari stated that it had 

not had any assistance regarding vehicle 

components from Fiat or Fiat Chrysler 

when it was still associated with those 

organizations. 

Ferrari stated that even with a limited 

model mix and the need to provide 

customers with superior performance, 

handling, and luxury, the company 

targeted a fuel economy improvement of 

17.4% for its fleet average fuel economy 

for MY 2018 as compared to MY 2014. 

Ferrari stated that it planned to improve 

its fleet fuel economy in each of the 

model years covered by its petitions. 

Ferrari also initially requested an 

exemption for its MY 2019 vehicles, but 

subsequently notified NHTSA that it 

produced more than 10,000 passenger 

automobiles globally in 2019 and 

therefore was not eligible for small 

volume manufacturer status. 

Accordingly, NHTSA did not consider 

Ferrari’s original MY 2019 request in 

this notice. 

However, Ferrari has requested an 

exemption for its MY 2020 vehicles, 

expecting sales to be below the 10,000 

passenger automobiles globally. The 

drop in sales is anticipated due to the 

effects of the COVID–19 public health 

emergency. 

(c) Koenigsegg Automotive AB MY 

2015, 2018–2023 Vehicles 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB 

(Koenigsegg) is a low volume 

manufacturer of high-performance 

vehicles. For the model years covered 

by this proposed decision, Koenigsegg 

produced the Agera model for 2015 and 

2018, the Regera model for 2019–2021, 

the Jesko model for 2022–2023, and the 

Gemera model for 2023. 

Koenigsegg vehicles use smaller 

displacement engines than many other 

specialty manufacturers; the company 

stated that where other similarly 

situated manufacturers often use 6 liters 

or larger displacement 10- or 12- 

cylinder engines, the Koenigsegg engine 

is a relatively small 5-liter V8 engine 

that utilizes twin turbochargers to 

facilitate vehicle performance. 

Koenigsegg also uses lightweight 

materials to build its vehicles; carbon 

fiber is used not only for the body 

panels, but for structural parts as well. 

Additionally, starting with MY 2019, 

the company offers only a hybrid 

drivetrain, consisting of a conventional 

combustion engine and three electric 

motors. That hybrid drivetrain was not 

introduced onto MY 2015 and MY 2018 

vehicles because of budget and staff 

limitations. 

Koenigsegg stated that it was not 

possible to improve its fuel economy 

level in MYs 2015 and 2018–2021 by 

shifting its fleet mix because the 

company only offered one vehicle 

configuration. Additionally, for model 

years 2022 and 2023, the vehicle 

footprints are increasing in size for the 

new vehicle models. Koenigsegg stated 

that its budget for research and 

development into fuel economy 

improving technologies is limited 

because of its small size. Other 

economic practicability concerns 

relevant to this proposed decision 

include Koenigsegg’s statement that an 

obligation to meet higher CAFE 

standards than requested would 

‘‘jeopardize [its] position as a world 

class leader of hyper cars.’’ 

(d) McLaren Automotive MY 2012–2023 

Vehicles 

McLaren Automotive is a small 

volume manufacturer of highperformance vehicles. The vehicles 

covered by McLaren’s petitions include 

the MP4–12C, P1, 570S/570GT, and 

720S, among others. 

McLaren’s independently-developed 

vehicle models began in 2011 with the 

McLaren MP4–12C, which utilized 

McLaren’s independently-developed 

engine, the M838T. The M838T is a 3.8 

liter downsized, turbocharged 8- 

cylinder engine that employs 

technologies including variable valve 

timing to optimize engine efficiency, 

secondary air injection, and 

electronically controlled twin 

thermostats. The engine also uses 

Nikasil-coated aluminum liners for 

further weight reduction. McLaren 

stated the valve timing on the M838T 

has been calibrated for best fuel 

economy under typical road driving 

speeds and loads, within the limitations 

of acceptable combustion stability. From 

optimizing the M838T prototype engine 

to pre-production engine valve timing, 

McLaren realized a 4–5% specific fuel 

consumption reduction. The M838T 

also uses friction reduction technology 

including reduced diameter bearing 

journals, the Nikasil-coated cylinder 

liners mentioned above, low friction 

piston skirt coating, superfinished finger 

followers, and coated valves in the 

valvetrain. The piston ring pack has 

been developed to meet oil 

consumption targets with minimum ring 

tension, and the use of a dry sump 

system, allows reduced churning losses 

in the crankcase. McLaren uses 

synthetic Mobil 0W/40 oil in its 

vehicles, and stated that the advantages 

to moving to bespoke oil for its vehicles 

is limited; however, McLaren stated that 

it is investigating other advanced engine 

oil formulations. 

McLaren’s P1 vehicle is powered by 

an upgraded version of its M838T 

powertrain in parallel with an electric 

motor, and the vehicle can operate in 

either hybrid or electric-only mode. The 

motor also allows for energy recovery 

through regenerative braking. 

Accordingly, the P1 has achieved an 

increase in fuel economy over the 

previous vehicle, the MP4–12C, while 

also increasing power. 

The M838T engine is coupled to a 7- 

speed dual clutch transmission, which 

McLaren refers to as its ‘‘Seamless 

Shift’’ dual clutch gearbox (SSG), and 

which the company designed to respond 

to demand for a ‘‘mechanical package 

that resulted in not only reduced weight 

and dynamic control for the entire 

vehicle, but also improved fuel 

consumption and CO2 emissions.’’ 

McLaren stated that the gear ratios have 

been optimized for acceptable vehicle 

performance while maximizing fuel 

economy,48 and in the transmission’s 

base mode, ‘‘auto normal,’’ the shift 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39447 

49McLaren stated that the company has 

conducted extensive development work to ensure 

that the default shift schedule has been optimized 

to ensure the best possible fuel economy: ‘‘The high 

levels of torque available at low engine speeds have 

been exploited to improve fuel economy. The 

engine idle speed has been reduced to 600rpm to 

minimise the fuel consumption when in this 

condition. If a very high level of performance is 

requested by the driver, the shift schedule will 

adapt to this request before returning to the low 

engine speed, maximum fuel economy schedule, 

once the driver demand is reduced to lighter load 

driving. This adaption will be completed after just 

20 seconds of light load driving. If the driver is 

holding a constant speed around 50kph/30mph 

then this will trigger a shortcut and the adaption 

will be complete within just 4 seconds.’’ 

50 Vehicles manufactured and certified by AM 

General in the past, such as the road-legal variant 

of the Hummer, were likely not passenger 

automobiles or non-passenger automobiles subject 

to the CAFE program, and thus would not have 

needed to apply for exemption from CAFE 

standards. 

points are optimized to provide 

maximum powertrain efficiency and 

fuel economy.49 McLaren has explored 

transmission loss reductions, using 

hardware to significantly improve losses 

from the first prototype transmission 

and final validation prototypes. A wide 

default park position for the shift 

clutches also allows for reduced friction 

levels, reduced cooling flow to the 

clutches, contributing to efficiency at 

idle. Because there is some performance 

trade-off for this park position, the 

vehicle uses an adaptive strategy to 

detect when a higher performance level 

is required, returning to the low friction 

park position once the highperformance demand has subsided. 

McLaren also stated that the 

transmission lubricants have been 

optimized to provide the best 

compromise between fuel economy and 

transmission life/service intervals. 

All of McLaren’s vehicles utilize a 

lightweight carbon fiber chassis that 

McLaren has termed the Carbon 

MonoCell, with the 12C MonoCell 

weighing less than 175 pounds. Other 

mass reduction opportunities that 

McLaren has implemented include 

brakes with forged aluminum hubs, 

reduced exhaust path length, airflowassisted airbrake deployment, reduced 

wheel weight, rear-mounted engine 

cooling radiators to minimize pipework 

and the fluid contained within, a 

downsized engine coupled to a 

lightweight transmission, halogen-free 

compressed wiring, and a Li-ion battery. 

For aerodynamic improvements, 

McLaren has increased the MP4–12C 

down force while achieving a reduction 

in the coefficient of drag relative to the 

Mercedes SLR McLaren. Techniques 

used to achieve this reduction include 

a more efficient vehicle shape, careful 

control of vehicle cooling air, and 

extensive use of under floor guide vanes 

to control wheel wakes while producing 

downforce with little or no drag 

penalties. 

Other commonly employed vehicle 

technologies that McLaren has utilized 

to reduce parasitic losses include an 

electrically powered hydraulic steering 

system, which provides fuel efficiency 

improvements over a conventional 

engine-driven hydraulic pump by 

removing the need to continually drive 

the pump when the pressure is not 

required. McLaren has also made 

electric load improvements by using 

high efficiency lamps and series/parallel 

fan control. 

With respect to economic 

practicability, McLaren noted that it 

invested significantly in the M838T 

engine, and as a low volume 

manufacturer with relatively low sales 

volumes, a return on investment must 

come from carefully considered 

platform engineering and an extended 

lifecycle for the base powertrain. The 

projected trend for McLaren’s market 

sector is continued increases in rated 

power; the company predicted that a 

sustained reduction in CO2 (and 

accordingly, an increase in fuel 

economy) would be challenging. 

McLaren stated that the company 

continues to conduct powertrain 

research and development to support 

future emissions and CO2 reductions. 

However, McLaren stated that currently, 

there are no other further fuel economy 

improvements that the company can 

adopt that are compatible with the basic 

design concept of its high-performance 

sports cars. Similarly, McLaren stated 

that the company has no opportunity to 

improve fuel economy by changing its 

model mix because all of its vehicles 

share a common platform, all using 

variants of the same power plant. 

As for future fuel economy 

improvements, McLaren stated that 

moving forward, they have planned a 

range of other models that will allow the 

company to introduce new, innovative 

technologies designed to improve 

efficiency even further. McLaren in 

2016 stated that the company planned 

to implement hybrid technology on 50% 

of its fleet by 2022, with a quarter of 

planned investment revenue slated for 

research and development of new 

technologies. In 2020, McLaren stated 

that the company would implement 

hybrid technology on 100% of its Sports 

Series and Super Series vehicles by 

2025. 

(e) Mobility Ventures MY 2014–2016 

MV1 

Mobility Ventures is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of AM General LLC (‘‘AM 

General’’). AM General is a private 

company headquartered in South Bend, 

Indiana. AM General produces light 

tactical vehicles for the military as well 

as commercial vehicles, both as an 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

and as a contract manufacturer.50

Prior to forming Mobility Ventures in 

late 2013, AM General contracted with 

the now-defunct Vehicle Production 

Group LLC (‘‘VPG’’) to assemble their 

MV–1 vehicle at AM General’s 

Commercial Assembly Plant in 

Mishawaka, Indiana. The MV–1 is a 

vehicle specifically engineered from the 

ground up to address the unique 

requirements and limitations of 

wheelchair users and other people with 

disabilities. Production of the VPG MV– 

1 began in 2011 and ended in February 

2013 when VPG ceased operations. In 

September 2013, AM General acquired 

the assets of VPG and formed Mobility 

Ventures to assume engineering, 

production, and distribution of the MV– 

1. Production of the MV–1 resumed 

under the Mobility Ventures brand in 

March 2014. Production of the MV–1 

ceased in late 2015, with MY 2016 being 

the final model year. 

In its petition, Mobility Ventures 

listed and described several fuel-saving 

technologies that it applied to its 

vehicles for MYs 2014–2016 including 

engine and transmission technologies. 

Mobility Ventures noted that, ‘‘after 

acquiring the assets of VPG in 2013, 

Mobility Ventures put the MV–1 into 

production without modifying the 

vehicle from VPG’s 2012 model year 

configuration,’’ due to time constraints. 

For MY 2014, Mobility Ventures offered 

a compressed natural gas (CNG) variant 

of the 4.6L V8 engine which achieved a 

fuel economy value of 114.7 mpg, 

substantially higher than the 18.4 mpg 

achieved by the gasoline-powered 

variant. Starting with MY 2015, 

Mobility Ventures retired the 4.6L V8 

engine in favor of a more efficient 3.7L 

V6 engine. Also for MY 2015, Mobility 

Ventures replaced the 4-speed 

transmission with a more efficient 6- 

speed transmission. Implementation of 

this downsized engine and more 

advanced transmission resulted in a 

9.8% increase in fuel economy for the 

MY 2015 MV–1 as compared to the 

gasoline-powered MY 2014 MV–1. The 

MV–1 retained the MY 2015 

configuration for MY 2016. 

Mobility Ventures did not consider 

any changes for the MY 2014 MV–1 

since it elected to resume MV–1 

production without delay following its 

acquisition of VPG in late 2013. 

Mobility Ventures planned to offer a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39448 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

51The corresponding model numbers for vehicles 

covered by this petition are C8 and C9. As of the 

date that Pagani submitted its MY 2012–2014 

petition, the C9 had not yet been named Huayra. 

52At the time that the entity that produced 

Spyker vehicles petitioned NHTSA for alternative 

standards, that entity was Spyker Automobielen 

B.V. That entity is now Spyker N.V., however it 

does not seem that Spyker has produced vehicles 

for sale in the U.S. market from the time of the 

2008–2010 petition. 

53At the time of its petition, Spyker was also 

planning to produce a Super Sport Utility Vehicle 

(SSUV) and mentioned that vehicle in their 

petition. However, 49 U.S.C. 32902(d) limits the 

applicability of an exemption to passenger 

automobiles produced by the manufacturer 

requesting the exemption. 

54See, e.g., McLaren CAFE Exemption Petition 

for MYs 2021–2023. 

55 Id. 

CNG version of the MV–1 for MY 2015. 

However, CNG calibration issues arose 

in transitioning to the more fuel 

efficient 3.7L V6 engine. Mobility 

Ventures considered technical solutions 

proposed by the fuel injector 

manufacturer but could not justify the 

substantial added cost given the weak 

demand for the CNG version of the 

vehicle. 

(f) Pagani Automobili S.p.A MY 2014 

and 2016–2023 Vehicles 

Pagani Automobili S.p.A. (Pagani), 

formerly Modena Design S.p.A., is an 

Italian corporation formed in 1991 and 

owned by the Pagani family. Pagani 

began manufacturing Pagani-brand 

sports cars in 1999, first producing the 

Zonda, then Huayra,51 both in very low 

volumes. For the model years covered 

by Pagani’s petitions, the company’s 

product portfolio includes the Huayra 

(C9), Huayra BC (C9N), and Huayra 

Roadster (C9R). The company estimated 

that it had a total production capacity of 

no more than 50 vehicles per year, with 

approximately 20 of those vehicles built 

to U.S. specifications. 

Pagani’s first vehicle, the Zonda, was 

a high-performance sports car powered 

by a Mercedes-Benz 12-cylinder engine. 

The Huayra, the vehicle replacing the 

Zonda, received a new engine, the M158 

engine, which was more powerful than 

the previous engine but also smaller, 

further reducing weight and increasing 

efficiency. Pagani stated in its MY 

2015–2017 petition that the M158 

engine was homologated to meet the 

strictest environmental regulations, 

which at that time were EU5 and LEV2. 

Additionally, despite the increase in 

power compared to other MercedesAMG V12 engines developed for Pagani, 

the engine has reduced CO2 emissions 

and fuel consumption, ‘‘to make the 

Pagani Huayra class leading amongst 12 

cylinder sports cars with values that are 

respective of much smaller vehicles in 

the market.’’ Pagani’s MY 2018–2020 

petition also stated that a new 

developed engine is expected for 

introduction in MY 2018. 

Pagani stated in its MY 2012–2014 

petition that the Huayra makes 

extensive use of lightweight materials, 

including carbon fiber in the chassis 

and panels, and chromoly steel space 

frames. Pagani stated in its MY 2015– 

2017 petition that the central 

monocoque on the Huayra had been 

updated to an entirely new design made 

from carbontitanium, and structural and 

non-structural weight reduction 

strategies like integrating all ventilation 

air ducts into the monocoque’s structure 

contributed to the vehicle’s weight of 

1,350 kg (2976.24 lbs), making the 

Huayra ‘‘the lightest sports car in its 

class.’’ Pagani stated that the Huayra 

design optimizes aerodynamics to 

achieve a coefficient of drag value of 

0.35, which also allows for greater 

efficiency. Finally, the Huayra employs 

low rolling resistance Pirelli P Zero tires 

to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel 

consumption. 

Pagani stated that the unique nature 

of the company’s product line does not 

lend itself to high fuel economy values, 

and accordingly there are no additional 

fuel economy improvements that it 

could adopt that are compatible with 

the basic design concept of a traditional 

sports car. Similarly, Pagani stated that 

it cannot improve its fuel economy by 

changing its model mix because it only 

sells one vehicle model in the United 

States, which uses the Mercedes-Benz 

engine. Because Pagani does not 

produce its own engine, the company 

stated that it is constrained in making 

additional improvements to the vehicle 

powertrain. Beyond the technologies 

described above, Pagani stated that there 

are no further fuel economy 

improvements for the company to adopt 

that are compatible with the basic 

design concept of its vehicles. 

(g) Spyker Automobielen B.V. MY 

2008–2010 Vehicles 

Spyker Automobiles produces 

limited-production sports cars, built to 

individual order.52 The vehicles 

covered by Spyker’s MY 2008–2010 

petition include different variants of its 

C8 vehicle.53

Spyker’s vehicle uses a LEV V8 

powertrain from the Audi A8 coupled 

with a Bosch ME–7 engine management 

system. Spyker stated that this 4.2 L 

Audi V8 engine is the most advanced 

engine available to a small vehicle 

manufacturer seeking an engine from an 

outside source. Spyker stated that its 

vehicles are both lightweight and 

aerodynamic; the chassis is made of 

aluminum and the vehicle in total 

weighs in at 1346 kg (2967 pounds). The 

coefficient of drag of the vehicle is 0.41 

with the roof off, and 0.38 with the roof 

on. 

Spyker stated that the highperformance nature of its product line 

generally does not lend itself to high 

fuel economy values, and the company 

is not able to manipulate model mix 

because the company was created to sell 

limited numbers of high-performance 

automobiles. Accordingly, Spyker stated 

that there is no room for CAFE changes 

based on marketing actions. Spyker also 

stated that it has no opportunity to 

improve fuel economy by changing its 

model mix because it would only export 

three high performance models to the 

United States in MYs 2008–2010, all 

using the Audi V8 or V12 engines. 

Spyker also stated the company had 

invested millions of dollars (at the time 

of the MY 2008–2010 petition) in 

design, development, homologation, 

and the start of production, and the 

company is financially constrained in 

making additional fuel economy 

improvements because of the large 

investment in start-up and producing 

new models. In sum, Spyker stated that 

producing more fuel-efficient models or 

making existing configurations 

significantly more fuel efficient is not 

possible. 

ii. The Need of the United States To 

Conserve Energy 

Many of the manufacturers 

considered in this notice noted that they 

were not unmindful of energy issues 

facing the United States today, 

including both energy conservation and 

climate change. Several manufacturers 

noted however, that the extremely low 

sales volumes of their vehicles, coupled 

with the fact that, in the case of many 

high-performance sports cars, they are 

‘‘almost exclusively used as a second or 

third car (and hence infrequently),’’ 54

meant that these vehicles had a 

‘‘virtually immeasurable’’ effect on U.S. 

energy consumption.55 As discussed 

further below, some manufacturers also 

submitted additional data estimates on 

how many miles their vehicles are 

driven per year, or estimates of how 

much fuel their fleet of vehicles is 

estimated to consume over time, and the 

agency confirmed these estimates with 

an independent evaluation of vehicle 

miles travelled (VMT) data performed 

for this notice. 

As mentioned above, when 

independently evaluating the impact 

that establishing an alternative CAFE 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39449 

56See, e.g., 54 FR 40689 (Oct. 3, 1989). 

57See, e.g., 61 FR 46756 (Sep. 5, 1996), 71 FR 

49407 (Aug. 23, 2006). 

58NHTSA estimated the lifetime miles for vehicle 

classes as part of the SAFE Final Rule analysis. See 

SAFE Final Rule ‘‘paramters_ref.xlsx’’ file, available 

for download at https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporateaverage-fuel-economy/compliance-and-effectsmodeling-system. 

59U.S. Energy Information Administration 

Monthly Energy Review March 2020, Table 3.7c 

Petroleum Consumption: Transportation and 

Electric Power Sectors, available at https://

www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/ 

mer.pdf. 

60Historically, 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. 

61See Developing a Best Estimate of Annual 

Vehicle Mileage for 2017 NHTS Vehicles, available 

at https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017BESTMILE_

Documentation.pdf. 

standard would have on the need of the 

United States to conserve energy, 

NHTSA has historically taken two 

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.56 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 

their operating lifetime.57

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.58 The resulting difference is 

then divided by the average number of 

gallons that the total U.S. automotive 

fleet uses.59 The final value shows the 

fleet’s additional gallons of fuel use as 

a percentage of total U.S. automotive 

fuel use. 

Unique to the analysis for this 

proposed action is that for model years 

that have already passed, for which 

NHTSA has final verified fuel economy 

values from EPA or final data submitted 

to EPA by manufacturers, those values 

are used instead of the proposed 

alternative standard. In a majority of 

cases, the manufacturers achieved a 

higher fleet fuel economy value than 

they requested for a given model year. 

Additionally, because projected U.S. 

production volumes for some fleets are 

still CBI at this time, or because NHTSA 

does not have final production data 

from EPA for some completed model 

years, NHTSA averaged each 

manufacturers’ latest three years of 

verified production data to present 

estimates of potential future fuel use for 

those model years. NHTSA considered 

assuming that every manufacturer 

would produce the maximum 10,000 

vehicles in MYs 2019 and later, or that 

each manufacturer would produce 5,000 

vehicles in MYs 2019 and later, 

although these assumptions were not 

supported by historical data. NHTSA 

seeks comment on this approach, in 

addition to any alternative assumptions 

that the agency should employ in 

estimating the amount of additional fuel 

consumed by a fleet granted an 

alternative CAFE standard. Note again, 

these projections are only used to 

estimate the potential future fuel use of 

a manufacturer’s fleet; a fleet’s actual 

fuel use is dependent factors like an 

individual vehicle owner’s driving 

patterns. As discussed below, many of 

the vehicles considered in this notice 

are driven infrequently, if at all. 

For the quantitative estimate 

presented today, NHTSA also developed 

new assumptions about low volume 

vehicle lifetime mileage that more 

accurately captures how some low 

volume vehicles are driven.60 For 

reference, the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) 2017 National 

Household Travel Survey (NHTS) best 

available estimate for average miles 

driven per vehicle is 11,128 miles per 

year for the category of vehicle that 

includes automobiles, cars, and station 

wagons.61 NHTSA’s new calculated 

yearly VMT for high performance 

vehicles is 2,543 miles per year. Note, 

as discussed below, that NHTSA used 

the FHWA’s 2017 NHTS best available 

VMT estimate for cars for Mobility 

Ventures’ fleet, as the agency does not 

believe that the driving patterns of 

mobility vehicles are accurately 

represented by the data used to 

calculate an average yearly VMT value 

for high performance vehicles. The 

agency seeks comment on this 

approach, in addition to any other data 

or information on the driving patterns 

and mileage schedules of vehicles used 

to transport wheelchair bound or 

otherwise mobility impaired 

individuals. 

To estimate an average yearly VMT 

schedule for high performance vehicles, 

NHTSA consulted an IHS/Polk dataset 

that includes more than 74 million 

unique odometer readings across 16 

model years (2000–2015). NHTSA used 

over 10,000 odometer readings from 

vehicles produced by Aston Martin, 

Ferrari, and McLaren from MY 2000 to 

MY 2014. Specifically, NHTSA used the 

average odometer reading for vehicles of 

each manufacturer, model, and model 

year, and the average age of the vehicle 

in calendar year 2014 (when the 

majority of odometer readings 

occurred). NHTSA then divided the 

average odometer reading by the average 

age for each vehicle to arrive at an 

estimate of average miles traveled per 

year of use. Averaging all the unique 

make, model, and model years for 

which there is data (approximately 200 

unique combinations), resulted in an 

average usage of 2,543 miles per year. 

Although this is a relatively small 

sample that only considers 

manufacturers for which there is 

readily-available data, it more closely 

tracks what low volume manufacturers 

(specifically in this case of what could 

be considered high performance 

vehicles) claim the impacts of their 

vehicles would be on overall fuel use. 

For example, AML’s MY 2019 petition 

(and other manufacturers have shared 

similar sentiments) stated that their 

vehicles’ impact on energy consumption 

is de minimis, ‘‘not only because of the 

tiny volume of cars, but also because the 

vehicles tend to be used very 

infrequently (as a second or third car) 

and therefore have a very low VMT 

(vehicle miles travelled) value per 

annum.’’ Similarly, Pagani stated that, 

in fact, ‘‘[s]ome customers choose to not 

drive the cars at all and view the cars 

as investments to be stored for future 

sale. Most others will choose to drive 

the car sparingly as a weekend trophy 

car.’’ More recently, in its MY 2022 

petition, AML stated that ‘‘AMLs 

current understanding is that VMT [for 

its vehicles] is in the order of 2500 miles 

per annum.’’ 

We seek comment on this new 

approach, in addition to any other data 

or information on yearly VMT for 

vehicles that would generally qualify 

under NHTSA’s low volume 

manufacturer provision. If commenters 

believe that a higher VMT assumption 

would be appropriate for making this 

calculation, it would be most helpful to 

the agency for commenters to provide 

specific data or citations underlying that 

belief, ideally data that could be made 

public. Additionally, as mentioned 

above, NHTSA did not believe that it 

was appropriate to use the calculated 

value for high performance vehicles for 

the Mobility Ventures fleet, as odometer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39450 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

62See U.S. Energy Information Administration 

Monthly Energy Review March 2020, Table 3.7c 

Petroleum Consumption: Transportation and 

Electric Power Sectors, available at https://

www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/ 

mer.pdf. This includes an average estimate of 8.9 

million barrels/day of motor gasoline consumed by 

vehicles in the United States. 

63See 85 FR 24174, 25137 (April 30, 2020). 

64 77 FR 62624, 62789 (Oct. 15, 2012). 

65 77 FR 62624, 62789 (Oct. 15, 2012). 

66To be eligible for alternative standards 

established under the EPA program, the 

manufacturer’s average sales for the three most 

recent consecutive model years must remain below 

5,000. If a manufacturer’s average sales for the three 

most recent consecutive model years exceeds 4999, 

the manufacturer will no longer be eligible for 

exemption and must meet applicable emission 

standards starting with the model year. See 40 CFR 

86.1818–12(g)(1). In contrast, as discussed above, 49 

U.S.C. 32902(d)(1) makes clear the exemption 

applies to manufacturers that manufacture 

worldwide fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles 

in the model year 2 years before the model year for 

which the application is made, and in the 

applicable model year. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 

32902(d)(1)(B) makes clear the exemption and 

alternative standard only applies to passenger 

automobiles. 

67 42 FR 38374 (July 28, 1977). 

68 85 FR 39561 (July 1, 2020). 

69 85 FR 39561, 39563 (July 1, 2020). 

70 49 U.S.C. 32902(d). 

71 84 FR 37281 (July 31, 2019). 

readings from high performance sports 

cars would likely not be representative 

of the average usage of mobility 

vehicles. NHTSA seeks comment on any 

data or information that would help to 

inform the agency’s yearly VMT 

schedule for these vehicles. 

NHTSA estimates that the additional 

fuel consumed by the LVM fleets at the 

proposed alternative standards level is 

as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL LIFETIME FUEL CONSUMPTION

Manufacturer 

Additional 

lifetime fuel 

consumption 

(gallons) 

Percentage 

of total 

U.S. motor 

vehicle fuel 

consumption 

over lifetime 62

(%) 

Aston Martin MY 2008–2023 ............................................................................................................................. 17,752,742 0.000838 

Ferrari MY 2016–2018 and 2020 ...................................................................................................................... 7,668,471 0.000362 

Koenigsegg MY 2015, 2018–2023 .................................................................................................................... 58,029 0.00000274 

McLaren MY 2012–2023 ................................................................................................................................... 7,845,563 0.000370 

Mobility Ventures MY 2014–2016 ..................................................................................................................... 6,186,748 0.000292 

Pagani MY 2014, 2016–2023 ............................................................................................................................ 200,428 0.00000946 

Spyker MY 2008–2010 ...................................................................................................................................... 57,469 0.000002712 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 39,769,449 0. 001877 

iii. The Effect of Other Standards of the 

Federal Government on Fuel Economy 

NHTSA has determined that ‘‘other 

motor vehicle standards of the 

Government’’ that affect fuel economy 

include its own safety standards as well 

as EPA’s emissions standards, which 

include criteria pollutant and now 

greenhouse gas ((GHG), which include 

CO2, N2O, CH4, and hydrofluorocarbons) 

emissions standards. While NHTSA 

regulates fuel economy and EPA 

regulates GHGs, and has done so 

sometimes in joint rules, differences in 

the agencies’ statutory authorities make 

it so that each agency is required to 

make an independent judgment about 

the level of standards that is 

appropriate.63

This is the first time that NHTSA has 

had the opportunity to consider EPA’s 

small volume manufacturer GHG 

standards in the context of CAFE low 

volume petitions for exemption. Just as 

there are differences in the agencies’ 

statutory directives that require 

programmatic differences between the 

fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

emissions light-duty vehicle programs, 

differences exist between each agency’s 

low or small volume manufacturer 

exemption program. EPA’s small 

volume manufacturer regulations, 

finalized in 2012,64 defined the process 

for exemptions from GHG standards 65

differently from the NHTSA program by 

expanding applicability to light trucks, 

and lowering the eligibility 

requirements to only 5,000 vehicles 

produced in the United States.66 For 

NHTSA’s program, both the 10,000 

vehicle worldwide production limit on 

eligibility and sole applicability to 

passenger cars were terms prescribed by 

Congress in the 1970s.67

Three manufacturers considered in 

this notice (Aston Martin, Ferrari, and 

McLaren) recently received an 

alternative low volume standard under 

the EPA small volume program for 

vehicles manufactured in MYs 2017– 

2021.68 For the first four model years of 

the program, MYs 2017–2020, EPA 

proposed and adopted the alternative 

standards requested by the 

manufacturers. For MY 2021, EPA 

finalized MY 2021 standards for 

McLaren reflecting 3 percent year-overyear reductions from a MY 2017 

baseline year.69

NHTSA must set alternative standards 

at the maximum feasible average fuel 

economy level for the manufacturer to 

which the alternative standard 

applies.70 This means that, as discussed 

further below, NHTSA believes that the 

agency cannot set alternative standards 

for a manufacturer for past model years 

at the level that the manufacturer 

requested, if that level is lower than the 

fuel economy level than the 

manufacturer actually achieved. In fact, 

it is frequently the case that the 

manufacturers achieved a higher fuel 

economy value than they requested. 

NHTSA believes that, accordingly, the 

requested fuel economy value is not the 

maximum feasible fuel economy level 

that the manufacturer could have 

achieved in that model year, and is 

proposing to set standards at the fuel 

economy values that manufacturers 

achieved for past MYs. 

EPA’s final rule also stated that in 

determining GHG standards for some 

manufacturers in MY 2021, EPA 

considered that those standards can be 

met ‘‘through the use of credits, 

including air conditioning and off-cycle 

credits, and the use of program 

flexibilities including credit carryforward and credit carry-back within the 

lead time available.’’ 71 As discussed 

above, NHTSA does not consider the 

availability of credits when prescribing 

a maximum feasible average fuel 

economy standard under the low 

volume CAFE exemption program. In 

addition, in NHTSA’s program, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39451 

72 85 FR 39561, 39564 (July 1, 2020), Table 4— 

Summary of Standards and Per-Manufacturer GHG 

Reductions (g/mile). 

73To the extent that GTR No. 9 adds additional 

weight and AML has modified its entire fleet of 

production vehicles based on economies of scale to 

meet that standard, NHTSA understands that is 

factored into AML’s assessment of the maximum 

feasible fuel economy level that its fleet could 

achieve. 

74 71 FR 49407 (Aug. 23, 2006), 72 FR 28619 (May 

22, 2007). 

75 64 FR 73476 (Dec. 30, 1999). 

additional fuel economy benefit from air 

conditioning and off-cycle technology is 

added to a vehicle’s fuel economy value, 

and is not a ‘‘credit’’ that can be traded 

or transferred. Accordingly, as 

discussed above, a manufacturer that 

plans to use air conditioning and offcycle technology should include any 

anticipated benefit from those 

technologies in the projected fuel 

economy value for each vehicle 

configuration as required by 49 CFR 

525.7(f). 

The following table shows differences 

between EPA’s final small volume 

standards (g/mile) 72 and NHTSA’s 

proposed alternative standards (mpg). 

TABLE 2—EPA AND NHTSA LVM STANDARD COMPARISON

Model year Manufacturer 

EPA LVM 

STD 

(g/mi) 

EPA LVM 

STD 

equivalent 

(gal/mi) 

EPA LVM 

STD 

equivalent 

(mpg) 

NHTSA 

LVM STD 

(mpg) 

2017 .................................................. Aston Martin ..................................... 431 0.048497806 20.6 21.4 

Ferrari ............................................... 421 0.047372567 21.1 21.5 

McLaren ............................................ 372 0.041858895 23.9 24.3 

2018 .................................................. Aston Martin ..................................... 396 0.044559469 22.4 22.9 

Ferrari ............................................... 408 0.045909756 21.8 21.6 

McLaren ............................................ 372 0.041858895 23.9 23.3 

2019 .................................................. Aston Martin ..................................... 380 0.042759086 23.4 22.4 

Ferrari ............................................... 395 0.044446945 22.5 ........................

McLaren ............................................ 368 0.041408799 24.1 22.5 

2020 .................................................. Aston Martin ..................................... 374 0.042083943 23.8 22.6 

Ferrari ............................................... 386 0.04343423 23.0 21.1 

McLaren ............................................ 360 0.040508608 24.7 22.5 

2021 .................................................. Aston Martin ..................................... 376 0.042308991 23.6 24.9 

Ferrari ............................................... 377 0.042421515 23.6 ........................

McLaren ............................................ 334 0.037582986 26.6 21.5 

NHTSA invites comment on any new 

information on the impact of EPA’s 

GHG standards on a manufacturer’s 

ability to meet an alternative fuel 

economy standard that the agency 

should consider. 

In regards to the impact of vehicle 

safety standards on CAFE values, AML 

stated that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side Impact 

Protection, FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush 

Resistance, FMVSS No. 226, Occupant 

Ejection Mitigation, and FMVSS No. 

301, Fuel System Integrity, could have 

potential adverse impacts on its 

vehicles’ achieved fuel economy levels, 

requiring increased mass to body and 

frame structures. Additionally, AML 

stated that it must consider the 

Pedestrian Protection requirements as 

proposed in the UN ECE Global 

Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 9 due to 

economies of scale. GTR No. 9 would 

require increased deformation resistance 

to body and frame structures, which 

translate into additional weight.73

Ferrari stated that FMVSS No. 216, 

Roof Crush Resistance, FMVSS No. 226, 

Occupant Ejection Mitigation, and 

FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection, 

affect vehicle weight and aerodynamics, 

and other aspects of vehicle design. 

Ferrari also stated that they face 

challenges regarding compliance with 

the EPA and California Tier 3 tailpipe 

and evaporative emissions standards. 

Koenigsegg stated that the Federal 

motor vehicle standards regarding 

outside rear view mirrors have a 

significant effect on fuel economy, and 

that if outside rear view mirrors are 

replaced by camera systems, fuel 

economy will improve significantly. 

McLaren cited FMVSS No. 214, Side 

Impact Protection, FMVSS No. 216, 

Roof Crush Resistance, and FMVSS No. 

301, Fuel System Integrity, as safety 

standards that have impacts on 

McLaren’s achievable fuel economy. 

McLaren also stated that 

crashworthiness standards generally 

tend to decrease fuel economy, since 

they can preclude, in some instances, 

the use of lighter-weight components. 

McLaren additionally cited EPA’s Tier 3 

emissions rule as a requirement that 

would demand resources (both financial 

and personnel) and a balancing of 

priorities for the company to comply 

with all government standards. 

Mobility Ventures did not identify 

any other motor vehicle standards that 

affect the fuel economy achieved or 

achievable by the MV–1. 

Pagani stated that the company’s 

small size limits the amount of 

resources it can apply to comply with 

both the mandatory safety and 

emissions standards and fuel economy 

requirements (citing NHTSA’s proposed 

and final decisions for Spyker’s MY 

2006 and 2007 exemption request).74

Similarly, Pagani cited NHTSA’s 

proposed decision for DeTomaso 

Automobiles’ MY 2000 and 2001 

vehicles for the proposition that 

crashworthiness standards can generally 

tend to reduce achievable CAFE,75 since 

they preclude, in some instances, the 

use of lighter weight components. 

Pagani stated that other safety standards 

that would demand the company’s 

resources, and that could have weight 

and fuel economy consequences, 

include upgraded FMVSS No. 301, Fuel 

System Integrity requirements, 

upgraded FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact 

Protection, and upgraded FMVSS No. 

216 Roof Crush Resistance. 

Spyker stated in its petition for MYs 

2008–2010 that California’s emissions 

standards will apply to the company in 

MY 2006, and the Tier 2–LEV II exhaust 

standards are applicable in 2007. 

Accordingly, the company’s limited 

engineering resources would have to be 

expended to comply with those more 

stringent standards. With respect to 

safety, Spyker stated that crashworthiness standards tend to reduce 

achievable CAFE because they preclude, 

in some instances, the use of lighterVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 Jun 30, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM 01JYP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39452 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

76Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy for MY 2017–MY 2025 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table IV–3a 

(August 2012). 

77 Id. at 119. Note, in the MY 2017–2025 LightDuty CAFE and GHG Rule, the agencies analyzed 

two baseline fleets, a 2008 baseline fleet and a 2010 

baseline fleet. The difference in total added weight 

for passenger cars between the two fleets is 5.13 

pounds (32.31 added pounds for the 2008 fleet and 

27.18 added pounds for the 2010 fleet). NHTSA 

believes that the 5.13 pound difference between the 

two estimates is trivial; however, the agency 

decided to use the more conservative 2008 fleet 

estimates for this analysis. 78 49 CFR 571.214. 79 49 CFR 571.215. 80 49 CFR 571.226. 

81 49 CFR 571.301. 

82Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy for MYs 2012–2016 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Table IV–5 (March 

2010). 

83 79 FR 23446 (April 28, 2014). 

84 79 FR 23534 (April 28, 2014). 

85 Id. 

weight components. Spyker also stated 

that smaller companies with limited 

resources must give priority to 

compliance with safety standards. 

Spyker had until June 2008 to develop 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection compliant advanced air bags 

(under a NHTSA temporary exemption), 

which the company stated would add 

additional weight, and Spyker stated 

that FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System 

Integrity would also demand additional 

resources. To determine the additional weight 

that federal motor vehicle safety 

standards would have on these vehicles, 

to determine the impact of the standards 

on fuel economy, NHTSA used 

published estimates from the MYs 

2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards 

and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (FRIA).76 Table IV–3a in the 

FRIA shows estimated weight increases 

for each FMVSS that would become 

effective between MY 2008 and MY 

2018 for passenger vehicles and light 

trucks, comparing MY 2025 to the MY 

2008 baseline fleet.77 The passenger car 

values are reproduced below. 

TABLE 3—MY 2017–MY 2025 FRIA, TABLE IV–3a WEIGHT ADDITIONS DUE TO FINAL RULES OR POTENTIAL NHTSA 

REGULATIONS

Standard No. Title 

Added weight 

(pounds) 

passenger 

cars 

126 .............................................................................................. Electronic Stability Control Systems .......................................... 2.12 

206 .............................................................................................. Door Locks and Door Retention Components ........................... 0.00 

214 78 .......................................................................................... Side Impact Protection ............................................................... 12.43 

216 79 .......................................................................................... Roof Crush Resistance .............................................................. 11.65 

226 80 .......................................................................................... Occupant Ejection Mitigation ...................................................... 2.00 

301 81 .......................................................................................... Fuel System Integrity .................................................................. 1.11 

Pedestrian Protection ................................................................. ..................................................................................................... Not quantified 

Total ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 32.31 

As NHTSA stated in the FRIA, these 

weight estimates, which are based on 

cost and weight tear-down studies of a 

few vehicles, cannot possibly cover all 

the variations in a manufacturer’s fleet. 

Rather, these represent rough averages 

of potential per-vehicle weights that 

could be incurred. This is even truer for 

the vehicles considered in this petition, 

which, as discussed above, use a high 

proportion of advanced lightweight 

materials like carbon fiber reinforced 

plastics. That said, for purposes of this 

analysis, NHTSA believes that these 

weight values are reasonable to use to 

consider potential impacts on vehicle 

weight, as the agency does not now have 

updated weight estimates or estimates 

specifically for the specialized vehicle 

types considered in this proposed 

decision. Additionally, because of the 

lateness of the agency’s response to 

these petitions, much of the projected 

weight difference may already be 

included on manufacturers’ vehicles. It 

is possible that these values might 

overestimate any potential future weight 

impacts that may compete with 

manufacturers’ ability to reduce weight 

to better achieve fuel economy 

improvements. The agency seeks 

comment on the methodology used, in 

addition to any specific information 

(including tear-down studies, etc.) that 

could better inform this analysis. 

Based on the agency’s weight-versusfuel-economy algorithms as applied in 

the 2012–2016 CAFE FRIA,82 a 3–4- 

pound increase in weight is projected to 

reduce fuel economy by 0.01 mpg. A 

manufacturer that had to comply with 

all additional FMVSS that NHTSA 

considered in the 2017–2025 final rule 

would add 32.31 pounds to a passenger 

car in MY 2025 versus a baseline 2008 

passenger car, for an approximate fuel 

economy penalty of 0.09 mpg. Based on 

these estimates, NHTSA believes that it 

is reasonable to conclude that the small 

increase in weight from the FMVSSs 

would have negligible effects on any 

LVM fleet considered in this proposed 

decision. 

As to the impact that criteria pollutant 

emissions standards would have on a 

LVM’s maximum feasible fuel economy 

level, EPA stated in its final rule 

establishing Tier 3 motor vehicle 

emissions and fuel standards that they 

‘‘do not expect the Tier 3 vehicle 

standards to result in any discernible 

changes in vehicle . . . fuel economy. 

Emissions of the pollutants that are 

controlled by the Tier 3 program— 

NMOG, NOX, and PM—are not a 

function of the amount of fuel 

consumed, since manufacturers need to 

design their catalytic emission control 

systems to reduce these emissions 

regardless of their engine-out levels.’’ 83

Moreover, EPA established special 

flexibility provisions for small 

businesses subject to the Tier 3 

standards, which include small volume 

manufacturers (SVMs) that sell less than 

5,000 vehicles per year in the United 

States.84 In the Tier 3 final rule, EPA 

stated that the agency ‘‘have found no 

fundamental reason why, given 

sufficient lead time, all manufacturers, 

regardless of company size and vehicle 

characteristics, will not be able to meet 

the Tier 3 standards,’’ but also 

established an optional alternative 

phase-in schedule for SVMs and nonSVM small businesses to meet the 

standards.85 Given these findings, 

NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to 

conclude that criteria pollutant 

emissions standards would have a 

negligible effect on any low volume 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39453 

86See, e.g., 44 FR at 3711 (Jan. 18, 1979) (‘‘The 

agency believes that the language in section 502(c) 

specifying that this agency may exempt low volume 

manufacturers indicates that Congress intended this 

agency to apply a test of whether granting an 

exemption would be generally consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. The main purpose of the Act 

is conserving energy.’’). 

manufacturer’s maximum feasible fuel 

economy level. 

3. Proposed Maximum Feasible 

Average Fuel Economy for Exempted 

Manufacturers 

With these considerations taken 

together, NHTSA proposes to set 

alternative average fuel economy 

standards for these seven manufacturers 

for each model year at the following 

levels: NHTSA has received final fuel 

economy data from EPA for MYs 2008– 

2017 for all LVMs that have outstanding 

petitions for those years, and is 

proposing to use those final EPA values 

for those years. For MY 2018, NHTSA 

has some final EPA values for 

petitioning manufacturers’ fleets, but 

not all; where NHTSA has a final EPA 

value for a manufacturer, NHTSA 

proposes to set the manufacturer’s 

alternative standard at that level. Where 

NHTSA does not have a verified final 

EPA value for a manufacturer, NHTSA 

proposes to set the manufacturer’s 

alternative standard at the level 

submitted by manufacturers in their 

non-final fuel economy reports to the 

agencies. NHTSA believes that all 

manufacturers covered by this 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 take into 

consideration both 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). In addition, the 

alternative standards proposed today 

reflect NHTSA’s belief that even though 

the manufacturers considered in this 

notice may have less capability to 

improve their fleet fuel economy than 

full-line manufacturers for the reasons 

listed above, manufacturers should aim 

to at least hold their fleet fuel economy 

constant, if not improve it year over 

year. Congress granted NHTSA the 

ability to provide an exemption to low 

volume manufacturers in part because it 

believed that the need of the nation 

would not be adversely affected by 

allowing the limited exemption; 86

however, as discussed further in the 

draft environmental assessment below, 

transportation fuel consumption is 

expected to remain a major source of 

U.S. energy use through at least middecade. NHTSA believes that the 

proposed fuel economy levels presented 

below appropriately balance the CAFE 

exemption program with EPCA’s 

directive to conserve energy, and that 

standards that do not backslide year 

over year for imminently future model 

years are therefore maximum feasible 

for the manufacturers petitioning the 

agency for alternative standards. 

Considering the unique circumstances 

of this proposed decision, we also note 

that in accordance with 49 CFR 

525.11—Termination of exemption; 

amendment of alternative average fuel 

economy standard, the agency may also 

initiate another rulemaking either on its 

own motion or on petition by an 

interested person to terminate an 

exemption granted under this part or to 

amend an alternative average fuel 

economy standard. While that may seem 

premature to mention at this point, as 

the agency has not yet issued final 

standards, NHTSA must set standards 

for a petitioning low volume 

manufacturer at the maximum feasible 

level. If additional data indicate that a 

manufacturer’s achieved CAFE level 

differs significantly from the levels 

proposed in this notice or finalized, 

NHTSA will consider all options 

available to the agency to ensure that 

each manufacturer’s alternative 

standard is the maximum feasible 

standard that the manufacturer can 

achieve. In addition, as discussed above, 

NHTSA will consider any additional 

information submitted by commenters, 

manufacturers (if additional information 

is available), or EPA (if additional final 

fuel economy data becomes available) 

that is submitted during the pendency 

of the comment period associated with 

this notice. 

Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the 

proposed alternative standards 

presented below are maximum feasible 

for these manufacturers for these model 

years, consistent with the purpose of 

EPCA/EISA. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED 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 ........................

These alternative standards are being 

proposed only for 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39454 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

87 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). 

88 40 CFR 1501.5(a). 

89 40 CFR 1501.5(c)(2). 

90See, e.g., 44 FR at 3711 (Jan. 18, 1979). 

91As discussed above, 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. 

2014 and 2016–2023, and Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. for MYs 2008–2010, 

and not for low volume manufacturers 

generally or for a class of automobiles of 

exempted manufacturers. 

NHTSA is also proposing to correct 

the reference to alternative fuel 

economy standards in 49 CFR 531.5(a), 

as paragraph (f) does not exist. 

NHTSA seeks comment on the 

analysis that led to this proposed 

decision. 

4. 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 affect. 

This decision is not generally 

applicable, because the agency has 

proposed to set alternative average fuel 

economy standards for each individual 

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 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 proposed decision would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed decision exempts low 

volume manufacturers from the 

generally applicable passenger car CAFE 

standards and proposes to set 

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 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.87

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.88 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.’’ 89 This section serves as the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Draft 

Environmental Assessment (Draft EA). 

NHTSA invites public comments on the 

contents and tentative conclusions of 

this Draft 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 proposal 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.90 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, which are discussed in more 

detail in the preamble above, 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 reflects these 

statutory and practical considerations. 

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 

For this action NHTSA has 

considered a No Action Alternative and 

two alternatives. The No Action 

Alternative assumes that in the absence 

of NHTSA action on their petitions, 

manufacturers would meet their 

footprint-based CAFE standard for MYs 

2013–2023.91 One action alternative 

proposes to set alternative standards at 

the levels that the manufacturers 

requested for model years that NHTSA 

does not have final fuel economy data 

(the ‘‘as-requested’’ alternative); and the 

preferred alternative proposes 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 the manufacturer requested) 

because that would not have been the 

maximum feasible fuel economy level 

that the manufacturer could have 

achieved. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39455 

92 40 CFR 1501.12. 

93 In the motor vehicle context, emissions from 

fuel extraction, refining, and transportation are 

generally referred to as upstream emissions, while 

emissions from the tailpipe of the vehicle that result 

from the vehicle being driven are generally referred 

to as downstream emissions. Decreases in upstream 

emissions could result from decreases in gasoline 

consumption, and therefore lower volumes of fuel 

production and distribution, while decreases in 

downstream emissions generally occur because of 

on-vehicle pollution controls like catalytic 

converter systems or because the vehicle is being 

driven less, and therefore emits fewer emissions 

from the tailpipe. 

94Final SEIS, at 4–13. 

95While greenhouse gas emissions and the 

corresponding processes that affect the 

aforementioned climate parameters are highly 

complex and variable, an increasing number of 

studies conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gas 

Continued 

3. Affected Environment 

Broadly, NHTSA actions regulating 

motor vehicle fuel economy could have 

a range of environmental impacts, 

including to energy use, air quality, 

climate change, resource extraction and 

use, and to 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 to energy use, air quality, and 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate 

change. NHTSA also qualitatively 

discusses the lesser impacts to other 

resource areas, including land use and 

development, hazardous materials and 

regulated waste, historical and cultural 

resources, noise, and environmental 

justice. NHTSA’s recent Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final SEIS) for the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for MY 

2024–2026 passenger car and light truck 

fuel economy standards (hereinafter 

‘‘Final SEIS’’) provides the most up-todate estimates of the impact of different 

levels of fuel economy standards on 

these resource areas and discussion of 

the environmental impacts. The Final 

SEIS discussions of environmental 

impacts resulting from changes in fuel 

use from motor vehicles is incorporated 

by reference here,92 as discussed further 

below. 

Transportation fuel accounts for a 

large portion of total U.S. energy 

consumption and energy imports and 

has a significant impact on the 

functioning of the energy sector as a 

whole. Although U.S. energy efficiency 

has been increasing and the U.S. share 

of global energy consumption has been 

declining in recent decades, total U.S. 

energy consumption has been increasing 

over that same period. Until a decade 

ago, most of this increase came not from 

increased domestic energy production 

but from the increase in imports, largely 

for use in the transportation sector. U.S. 

net petroleum imports are expected to 

result primarily from fuel consumption 

by light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, 

with the transportation sector expected 

to account for 76.9 percent of total U.S. 

petroleum consumption by 2050. This 

means that the transportation sector will 

continue to be the largest consumer of 

U.S. petroleum and the second-largest 

consumer of total U.S. energy, after the 

industrial sector. Please refer to Chapter 

3 of the Final SEIS (Energy) for a 

comprehensive discussion of 

transportation sector energy impacts, 

including discussions of how the 

passenger car and light truck vehicle 

sector affects overall energy use in the 

United States and how improvements in 

the fuel economy of vehicles and 

increasing energy production together 

affect U.S. energy security by reducing 

the overall U.S. trade deficit and the 

macroeconomic vulnerability of the 

United States to foreign oil supply 

disruptions. 

Next, several human activities related 

to motor vehicles cause gases and 

particles to be emitted into the 

atmosphere, including driving cars and 

trucks; extracting, refining, and 

transporting crude oil; burning coal, 

natural gas, and other fossil fuels; and 

manufacturing chemicals and other 

products from raw materials as well as 

other industrial and agricultural 

operations. Emissions of vehicle-related 

sources of air pollutants, including 

criteria pollutants and mobile source air 

toxics (MSATs), from both upstream 

fuel extraction processes and vehicle 

tailpipes impact air quality.93 In 

addition to causing adverse 

environmental impacts, air pollution 

from upstream and downstream sources 

causes emissions-related health 

conditions like increased asthma 

incidences, work-loss days, and even 

premature mortality. 

To reduce air pollution levels, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

(and some state agencies, like the 

California Air Resources Board) 

established regulatory programs to 

control sources of emissions from 

transportation. The regulatory programs 

that cover the vehicles subject to 

proposed alternative CAFE standards in 

this notice include EPA’s Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 vehicle emissions and gasoline 

standards, which prescribe reductions 

in vehicle tailpipe emissions as well as 

limits for the sulfur content in gasoline. 

As discussed further in Chapter 4 of 

NHTSA’s Final SEIS (Air Quality), since 

the 1970s aggregate emissions 

traditionally associated with vehicles 

have decreased substantially even as 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased 

by approximately 173 percent from 1970 

to 2014, and additional growth in VMT 

will have a smaller impact on emissions 

because of these stricter EPA standards 

for vehicle tailpipe emissions and 

fuels.94

Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS also 

discusses how air pollutant emissions 

increase the risk of adverse health 

impacts, particularly for populations 

that live, work, or go to school near 

high-traffic roadways or that are 

exposed to high-traffic; the human 

health and environmental effects of 

criteria pollutants and MSATs; the 

relevant regulatory programs that 

control air pollutant emissions from 

vehicles and gasoline; and trends in 

travel and emissions from highway 

vehicles. Chapter 4 estimates the impact 

of emissions of criteria pollutants and 

MSATs from passenger cars and light 

trucks that would result from different 

levels of increases in CAFE standards 

for the U.S. light duty vehicle fleet. 

Please refer to that Chapter for a 

comprehensive discussion of those 

impacts. 

Finally, as discussed further in 

Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS (Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Climate Change), the 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gasses emitted from the tailpipes of 

vehicles driven in the United States 

have global impacts. Chapter 5 of the 

Final SEIS provides a comprehensive 

survey of panel-reviewed synthesis and 

assessment reports from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) and U.S. Global Climate 

Change Research Program (GCRP), 

supplemented with past reports from 

the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program (CCSP), the National Research 

Council, the Arctic Council, and EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

the Clean Air Act (EPA 2009), which 

relied heavily on past major 

international or national scientific 

assessment reports, to provide 

decisionmakers and the public with 

information about climate change’s 

potential impacts on health, society, and 

the environment. Increases in 

greenhouse gas emissions, in particular 

from human activities like burning 

fossil fuels,95 leads to changes in global 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

emissions are affecting the global climate in 

detectable and quantifiable ways. 

96Reproduced from Final SEIS Table 5.4.2–2, at 

5–42. Note that the numbers in Table 5.4.2–2 were 

rounded for presentation purposes, and as a result, 

the reductions might not reflect the exact difference 

of the values in all cases. See the Final SEIS at 5– 

42 for additional notes about these values. 

97Moreover, this is unlike a typical NEPA action 

such as a pipeline route, forest management plan, 

etc. that considers a site-specific proposal and sitespecific alternatives. 98Approximately 15 years, based on the 

estimated passenger sedan life as calculated in the 

latest industry-wide CAFE rulemaking action. 

99As discussed in the preamble, 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. 

100As discussed in the preamble, 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. 

average surface temperature, 

precipitation, ice cover, sea level, cloud 

cover, sea surface temperatures and 

currents, and other climate conditions. 

Chapter 5 of the Final SEIS explains 

how NHTSA estimated the levels of 

greenhouse gas emissions that would 

result from different levels of CAFE 

standards, and how the agency modeled 

certain climate parameters including 

global concentrations of CO2, sea level 

rise, global mean surface temperature, 

and ocean pH. At the levels of estimated 

fuel use resulting from different levels 

of industry-wide CAFE standards for 

model years 2024–2026, NHTSA 

estimated the following global impacts 

(presented as a range between the no 

action alternative, which is an 

approximately 1.5 percent year over 

year increase in the industry-wide light 

duty CAFE standards, and the most 

stringent action alternative, which is an 

approximately 10 percent year over year 

increase in the industry-wide light duty 

CAFE standards).96

TABLE 5—CAFE MY 2024–2026 FINAL SEIS ESTIMATES OF CLIMATE IMPACTS

CO2 concentration 

(ppm) 

Global mean surface temperature increase 

(°C) 

Sea-level rise 

(cm) 

Ocean pH 

2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 2040 2060 2100 

478.92– 

479.04 

565.10– 

565.44 

788.33– 

789.11 

1.287– 

1.287 

2.006– 

2.008 

3.481– 

3.484 

22.87– 

22.87 

36.55– 

36.56 

76.22– 

76.28 

8.4100– 

8.4099 

8.3478– 

8.3476 

8.2180– 

8.2176 

Although actions related to motor 

vehicle fuel economy have local, 

national, and global effect, it is difficult 

to assess the area of effect for this action 

because—unlike the industry-wide EIS 

that assigns nationwide impacts based 

in part on population 97—NHTSA does 

not know where the vehicles considered 

in this action are sold and driven. 

Therefore, as discussed further below, 

NHTSA made several simplifying 

assumptions for purposes of estimating 

the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

The following subsection presents the 

estimated impacts of this action on fuel 

use for each alternative and the 

associated estimated downstream 

greenhouse gas emissions impacts based 

on estimated fuel use. NHTSA did not 

conduct independent climate or air 

quality modeling for this action because, 

as discussed further below, the agency 

believes that it is reasonable to infer 

from the amount of estimated fuel used 

under each alternative that none of the 

alternatives considered in this notice 

would result in appreciable 

environmental impacts, and this 

information would not result in any 

new meaningful information for 

decisionmakers and the public. To read 

a comprehensive discussion of the 

resource areas summarized above, or the 

other resource areas considered when 

setting industry-wide CAFE standards, 

please see the Final SEIS. 

4. Environmental Consequences 

Like the estimates of fuel 

consumption that would result if 

NHTSA set industry-wide CAFE 

standards at different levels, NHTSA’s 

fuel consumption estimates calculated 

for this action 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,98 NHTSA 

calculated the difference between the 

low volume manufacturer’s footprintbased 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 their 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,99

and then by an estimated total miles 

that these vehicles could travel as an 

active part of the fleet (i.e., the vehicles’ 

estimated yearly VMT).100 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39457 

101U.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. 

102U.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. 

103 49 U.S.C. 32912(b). 

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 expects 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 light-duty 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 on 

the minor increases in fuel use projected 

from this action. 

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.101 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).102 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 as-requested 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 for this proposal 

because the agency believes that is 

reasonable to infer that if relatively 

small—but not trivial—climate impacts 

would result from large-scale changes in 

fuel use from changes in the industrywide passenger car and light truck 

standards, as shown in the table of 

estimated atmospheric CO2

concentrations, global mean surface 

temperature increases, sea-level rise, 

and ocean pH above, 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,103 manufacturers 

must be in compliance with EPA 

regulations promulgated under the 

Clean Air Act to sell their vehicles. To 

the extent that EPA sets higher 

alternative standards for model year 

2022 and 2023 vehicles, some of the 

estimated impacts could 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 proposed exemption 

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 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 this 

Draft 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 Draft EA. NHTSA seeks comment 

on this analysis and whether there are 

any environmental impacts that the 

agency has not considered that are 

relevant to a reasoned choice by the 

decisionmaker. 

5. Agencies and Persons Consulted 

NHTSA coordinated with EPA to seek 

their feedback on this Draft EA, and 

EPA had no comments or suggested 

changes. 

6. Conclusion 

NHTSA has reviewed the information 

presented in this Draft EA and 

concludes that the proposed action 

would have minimal impacts on the 

quality of the human environment. 

Based on the information in this Draft 

EA and assuming no additional 

information or changed circumstances, 

NHTSA expects to issue a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). Such a 

finding will be made only after careful 

review of all public comments received. 

A Final EA and a FONSI, if appropriate, 

will be issued as part of the final rule. 

Proposed 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 proposed to be amended 

as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
39458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 add in its 

place ‘‘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 

Average Fuel Economy Standard 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

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. 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

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

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

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

(16) Ferrari 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

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

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

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

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

(17) Koenigsegg 

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 

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 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

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

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

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

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

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

(19) Mobility Ventures 

Model year (Miles per 

gallon) 

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

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

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

(20) Pagani 

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. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12618 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS