CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

“LEV III” AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS AND 

CRITERIA POLLUTANT EXHAUST AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS 

AND TEST PROCEDURES AND TO THE ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM 

REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, AND MEDIUMDUTY VEHICLES, AND TO THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

 

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

 

June 2012
Page i

Table of Contents

I. GENERAL...........................................................................................................1

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE ..............................14

A. COMMENTS PRESENTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.................14

1. General Comments..................................................................................14

2. Comments Concerning the Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Regulations .........16

3. Comments Concerning the Evaporative Emission Regulations ...............42

4. Comments Concerning the Greenhouse Gas Regulations ......................48

5. Comments Concerning Size Definitions...................................................65

6. Comments Concerning Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Test Procedure .............67

7. Comments Concerning Fuel Specifications .............................................67

8. Comments Concerning the Non-Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures75

9. Comments Concerning Editorial Changes to Regulations and Test 

Procedures........................................................................................................75

10. Comments Concerning On-Board Diagnostics Regulations ....................76

11. Comments Concerning California Environmental Performance Label .....77

12. Comments Concerning Statements Made by Air Resources Board in Initial 

Statement of Reason ........................................................................................77

13. Comments In Support of Amendments....................................................84

14. Comments Not Previously Addressed Pertaining to Environmental Issues

96

15. Comments Outside the Scope of this Rulemaking...................................97

B. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD ...102

1. Comments Concerning the Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Regulations .......102

2. Comments Concerning the Evaporative Emission Regulations .............109

3. Comments Concerning the Greenhouse Gas Regulations ....................111

4. Comments Concerning Size Definitions.................................................112

5. Comments Outside the Scope of the 15-day Notice ..............................115

6. Comments Not Previously Addressed Pertaining to Environmental Issues

119

7. Comments Submitted After the Close of the 15-day Comment Period ..119

III. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................121

IV. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS............................................................................123
Page 1

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE “LEV III” AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS AND CRITERIA POLLUTANT EXHAUST AND 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES AND TO THE 

ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER CARS, 

LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES, AND TO THE 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

Public Hearing Date: January 26-27, 2012

Agenda Item No.: 12-1-2

I. GENERAL

The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (staff report), 

entitled "INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING, 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE “LEV III” AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS AND CRITERIA POLLUTANT EXHAUST 

AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES 

AND TO THE ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES, 

AND TO THE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR HEAVYDUTY VEHICLES", released December 7, 2011, is incorporated by reference 

herein. The staff report, which is incorporated by reference herein, contained a 

description of the rationale for the proposed amendments. Also on December 7, 

2011, all references relied upon and identified in the staff report were made 

available to the public. 

On January 26-27, 2012, Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) conducted the 

public hearing to consider the Advanced Clean Cars Program, which includes the 

Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) III Regulations, the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) 

Regulations, and the Clean Fuels Outlet Regulations. At this hearing, the Board 

received oral and additional written comments. At the conclusion of the hearing, 

the Board adopted Resolution 12-11, in which it directed the Executive Officer to 

make the originally proposed LEV III regulations and test procedures with a 

number of proposed modifications available for formal public comment. 

Staff suggested these modifications in response to public comments made after 

issuance of the original proposal. The proposed modified regulatory and test 

procedure language and the text or narrative description of each modification 

was contained in a 107-page document entitled, “Staff’s Suggested Modifications 
Page 2

to the Original Proposal for LEV III,” which was distributed at the beginning of the 

hearing and included as Attachment D to Resolution 12-11.

Resolution 12-11 directed the Executive Officer to incorporate the modifications 

described in Attachment D into the originally proposed regulatory text, with such 

other conforming modifications as may be appropriate. The Executive Officer 

was directed to make the modified regulation (with the modifications clearly 

identified) and any additional documents or information available for a 

supplemental public comment period. He was also directed to consider any 

comments on the modifications received during the supplemental comment 

period. The Executive Officer was then directed to (1) adopt the modified 

regulation as it was made available for public comment, with any appropriate 

conforming additional modifications; (2) make all modifications available for 

public comment for an additional period of at least 15 days; and (3) present the 

regulation to the Board for further consideration if he determined that this is 

warranted.

Although stakeholder comments on hydrogen fuel price assumptions submitted 

to related rulemakings need not be responded to here, due to the relationship 

between the three Advanced Clean Cars program components, we state the 

following for completeness. Economic analysis of the overall program using the 

more conservative retail hydrogen fuel price assumption presented in the Clean 

Fuels Outlet ISOR shows this parameter would have a negligible effect on the 

program’s overall impact. Therefore, staff continues to conclude that the 

Advanced Clean Cars program will produce small, positive economic impacts.

In preparing the modified regulatory language, the staff made various additional 

conforming revisions in response to public comments received during the 45-day 

comment period. These post-hearing modifications were incorporated into the 

text of the proposed regulation, along with the modifications specifically identified 

in Attachment D to Resolution 12-11.

The text of the proposed modifications to the regulation, with the modified text 

clearly indicated, was made available for a 15-day comment period starting on 

February 22 and ending on March 8, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., by issuance of a Notice 

of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of Additional Documents, 

which included eight enclosures: Enclosure A - Proposed 15 Day Modifications to 

sections 1900, 1961, 1961.2, 1961.3, 1976, 1978, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147; 

Enclosure B - Proposed Amendments to the "California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles"; Enclosure C - Proposed 

New "California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse 

Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles"; Enclosure D - Proposed 

Amendments to the "California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test 
Page 3

Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles"; Enclosure E -

Proposed Amendments to the "California Refueling Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles"; Enclosure F -

Proposed Amendments to the "California Test Procedure for Evaluating 

Substitute Fuels and New Clean Fuels"; Enclosure G - Summary of 15-Day 

Changes to the Proposed Regulation Order and Incorporated Test Procedures; 

and Enclosure H - List of Additional Documents Added to the Rulemaking 

Record.

These changes included:

1. The addition of qualifying language to the definition of a small volume 

manufacturer to allow manufacturers that meet the 4,500 vehicle sales 

threshold for a small volume manufacturer, but are partially or fully owned by 

another manufacturer, to still qualify as “small volume manufacturers,” if they 

remain operationally independent from the company that owns them;.

2. Allowing 2015-2019 model year LEV II vehicles to certify to combined 

non-methane organic gas (NMOG) plus oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standards 

instead of separate NMOG and NOx standards;

3. Allowing manufacturers to meet a combined NMOG+NOx fleet average 

requirement for the 2014 model, instead of the current NMOG fleet average;

4. Allowing the criteria pollutant “pooling provision” to apply to the entire 

LEV III program, rather than just the NMOG+NOx fleet average;

5. Allowing manufacturers to meet the phase-in requirements for the LEV 

III medium-duty vehicle particulate standards based on a percentage of the 

combined sales of medium-duty vehicles weighing 8,501 to 10,000 pounds 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and medium-duty vehicles weighing 

10,001 to 14,000 pounds GVWR, rather than separate percentages for the 

two weight classes;

6. The addition of an alternative compliance option for meeting the 

proposed Federal Test Procedure (FTP) particulate matter (PM) standards;

7. Requiring that the Highway NMOG+NOx emission values used to 

demonstrate compliance with the highway NMOG+NOx standards be 

rounded to three instead of two decimal places, since the highway 

NMOG+NOx standards are given in terms of three decimal places;

8. Allowing early compliance with 150,000-mile Supplementary Federal 

Test Procedure (SFTP) standards for model year 2014 vehicles and to 

require LEV III fuel-flexible vehicles to test only on LEV III certification 

gasoline;
Page 4

9. Clarification of how to project full useful life emission values for vehicles 

continuing to certify to LEV II SFTP emission standards during the LEV III 

SFTP phase-in period (“carry-over” test groups);

10. Allowing the use of full useful life SFTP values in lieu of projections if 

such values are used to certify to the 4,000-mile emission standards;

11. Correction of three of the values in the table of NMOG+NOx Interim InUse Compliance Standards in the regulations to align them with the values 

set forth in the “California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent 

Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

for Passenger Cars, Light Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles;”

12. Allowing interim in-use SFTP emission standards for new certifications 

through the 2020 model year to align with the interim in-use standards for 

LEV III FTP;

13. Clarification that vehicles that certify to the LEV III super-ultra-lowemission vehicle 30 (SULEV30) or the LEV III super-ultra-low-emission 

vehicle 20 (SULEV20) standards are not required to generate partial ZEV 

credits;

14. Allowing manufacturers to use projected sales data rather than actual 

sales data to determine the minimum number of SULEV30 and SULEV20 

vehicles they must produce in the 2018 and subsequent model years;

15. Allowing vehicles certified to federal standards to be included in the fleet 

average NMOG+NOx calculation based on the actual standards to which they 

certify; also, values were provided to allow LEV II low-emission and ultra-lowemission medium-duty vehicles to be included in the fleet average 

NMOG+NOx calculations;

16. Correction of an error in the Zero-emission vehicle miles travelled (VMT) 

Allowance values that may be used in the fleet average NMOG+NOx 

calculations;

17. Providing an additional two year lead time before small volume 

manufacturers are required to certify to ultra-low-emission vehicle 125 

(ULEV125) standards, which aligns the compliance dates for certifying to 

these new standards with the compliance dates by which these 

manufacturers must certify to the 3 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) particulate 

standards and by which they must certify 100 percent of their fleet to LEV III 

standards;
Page 5

18. Allow manufacturers to carryover to the 2015 and 2016 model years the 

certification of vehicles that were certified as LEV II SULEVs prior to the 2015 

model year;

19. The addition of an alternate phase-in schedule of LEV III vehicles for 

those manufacturers that produce too few medium-duty vehicle test groups to 

be able to meet the percent requirements for the phase-in of LEV III vehicles;

20. Correction of the year when a manufacturer may earn LEV III credits, to 

align it with the year that the LEV III regulations will apply to medium-duty 

vehicles;

21. The correction of various mathematical formulas;

22. Elimination of the requirement that a manufacturer that elects to pool its 

GHG emissions report that selection to ARB prior to the start of each model 

year to which that selection applies;

23. Clarification of a reporting requirement that an Air Conditioning (A/C) 

Direct Emissions Credit application must meet, which was erroneously 

interpreted as one of the criteria that an A/C system must meet in order to 

qualify for A/C Direct Emissions Credit;

24. The provision for in-use compliance standards for vehicles certifying to 

the 2017 and subsequent model year greenhouse gas standards, which were 

inadvertently omitted from the regulations;

25. Revisions to the provisions for trading evaporative emission fleetaverage credits to provide additional flexibility for trading evaporative 

emission credits among the heavier vehicle categories;

26. Allowing manufacturers to use projected sales data rather than actual 

sales data to determine the minimum number of vehicles they must produce 

in the 2015-2017 model years that meet the proposed evaporative emission 

standards;

27. Revisions to the pooling compliance option to specifically set forth 

required submittal information and to reduce the Executive Officer notification 

requirement;

28. Allowing manufacturers to meet optional early compliance with the LEV 

III evaporative emission standards requirement in the 2014 model year;

29. Exempting all incomplete vehicles, rather than just a subset of 

incomplete vehicles, from the refueling requirements given the added 

complexity that testing refueling on incomplete vehicles entails;
Page 6

30. Corrections to the title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR)

sections to which sections 2112, 2139, 2140, and 2147 apply;

31. The addition of a requirement that automakers who will be making 

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prior to the 2015 model year are to notify ARB of 

their intent 29 months or 33 months prior to the applicable model year, for the 

2012 calendar year and for the 2013 and subsequent years, respectively, 

because this lead time is needed to build hydrogen fueling stations;

32. Requiring the air to fuel ratio requirements during SFTP operation to not 

be richer than the leanest air to fuel mixture required to obtain maximum 

torque (lean best torque), with a tolerance of 6 percent of the fuel 

consumption and remove a provision describing the operating mode of the 

emission control system;

33. Removing Small Volume Provisions specific to SFTP because the 

provisions for Small Volume Manufacturers already in the LEV III FTP 

program are linked to SFTP program;

34. Specification of a conversion factor of 1.03 to convert Non-methane 

hydrocarbons (NMHC) emission values to NMOG emission values for the 

purpose of determining SFTP compliance, because LEV II SFTP testing only 

required measurement of NMHC emission values;

35. Addition of testing requirements for demonstration of compliance with 

the LEV III PM standards;

36. Inclusion of text that was inadvertently omitted that sets forth criteria for 

comparing the stringency of LEV II standards and federal Tier 2 standards;

37. Adding “Vehicle fuel pressure rating” to the reporting requirement for 

hydrogen vehicles to inform ARB about the fueling requirements of the cars 

so that the agency can best inform the regulated party about fuel dispenser 

specifications;

38. Revisions to the testing requirements for flexible fuel vehicles to reduce 

the number of different test fuels that would need to be maintained in order to 

complete certification testing;

39. Clarification of the procedure for PM exhaust emissions testing and 

measurement on SFTP cycles;

40. Addition of a provision that changes the technical specifications of the 

cooling fan used during SFTP testing;
Page 7

41. Adding equations and instructions for evaporative testing with the 

proposed certification test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol;

42. Adding an optional hydrocarbon mass adjustment factor for ethanol in 

lieu of directly measuring ethanol emissions to reduce equipment 

requirements and test burden when conducting evaporative emission testing 

with the proposed E10 fuel;

43. Allowing air to be mixed with fuel vapor for canister stabilization in the 

bleed emission test procedure and to specifically set forth a requirement to 

use the proposed ethanol-containing certification fuel for this evaporative 

emission test to reduce test burden and to clarify the fuel requirement for this 

test;

44. Requiring the use of the new certification fuel containing 10 percent 

ethanol for vehicles that comply with the proposed evaporative emission 

standards in the 2014 model year and to clarify the proposed evaporative 

emission test fuel requirement and implementation date for gasoline-fueled 

vehicles;

45. Clarification of the evaporative emission test fuel requirement for 

alternative-fueled vehicles; and

46. Aligning the durability demonstration requirements for new and 

substitute clean fuels with those required under the LEV III regulations.

With respect to the notice of modified text, on the Internet posting date the notice 

and all attachments were mailed to 12 parties for whom ARB staff did not have 

electronic mail addresses, as required by section 44(a), title 1 CCR. At the same 

time, the notices and all attachments were electronically distributed to all other 

parties identified, per section 44(a), title 1, CCR, in accordance with Government 

Code section 11340.85, and to all persons that have subscribed to the following 

8 ARB listserves: cfo2012, clean_cars, fuels, leviiighg2012, levprog, ms-mailings, 

zev2012, zev-program.

After considering the comments received during the 15-day comment period, the 

Executive Officer determined that it was appropriate to present the modified 

regulatory language to the Board for further consideration. Subsequently, on 

March 22, 2012, the Board considered the modified regulatory language and 

adopted the Advanced Clean Cars Program, including the Low-Emission Vehicle 

III regulations. The adopted LEV III regulations reflect the final modifications that 

were made available for the supplemental comment period. The following 

sections of CCR, title 13, and the incorporated test procedures, are affected by 

the adoption of the LEV III regulations: sections 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1961, 

1961.1, 1965, 1968.2, 1968.5, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 

2145, 2147, 2235, and 2317; and new sections 1961.2 and 1961.3.
Page 8

Subsequent to the release of the 15-day notice and the March 22, 2012, Board 

hearing, staff noticed several inconsistencies in the proposed modified regulatory 

language and test procedure language. These non-substantive mistakes, 

described below, have been corrected in the final versions of this document.

 

Non-Substantive Corrections to the Regulations

1. In the 45-day version of section 1961.2(a)(7)(A)(1), 2 of the columns in 

SFTP standards table were inadvertently mislabeled as “NMHC + NOx” 

instead of “NMOG + NOx.” This was not staff’s intent and is inconsistent with 

both the title of the section, “SFTP NMOG+NOx and CO Stand-Alone Exhaust 

Emission Standards” and the title of the table itself, “SFTP NMOG+NOx and 

CO Stand-Alone Exhaust Emission Standards for 2015 and Subsequent 

Model LEV III Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 

Passenger Vehicles.” In addition, the “NMHC + NOx” labeling is inconsistent 

with the corresponding language and tables contained within section 

E.1.2.2.1.1 of the "California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent 

Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures 

for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” This 

error has been corrected in the final regulation, and the corrected labels are 

underlined below.

§ 1961.2 (a)(7)(A)(1) SFTP NMOG+NOx and CO Exhaust Stand-Alone Emission 

Standards. 
Page 9

SFTP NMOG+NOx and CO Stand-Alone Exhaust Emission Standards for

2015 and Subsequent Model LEV III Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and 

Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

Vehicle

Type

Durability 

Vehicle Basis

(mi)

Vehicle 

Emission 

Category1

US06 Test

(g/mi)

SC03 Test

(g/mi)

NMOG + 

NOx CO NMOG + NOx CO

All PCs; 

LDTs 0- 8,500 lbs. 

GVWR; and MDPVs

Vehicles in these 

categories are tested at 

their loaded vehicle 

weight (curb weight plus 

300 pounds).

150,000

LEV 0.140 9.6 0.100 3.2

ULEV 0.120 9.6 0.070 3.2

SULEV

(Option A)2

0.060 9.6 0.020 3.2

SULEV 0.050 9.6 0.020 3.2

2. As part of the 15-day changes to CCR, title 13, section 1961(b)(1)(A)

and section 1961.2(b)(1)(A), text was added to allow manufacturers to comply 

with fleet average NMOG+NOx values instead of fleet average NMOG 

values. These fleet average NMOG+NOx values must be calculated using 

the applicable full useful life standards for their vehicle fleet. However, the 

word “life” was inadvertently omitted from the last sentence in the footnote to 

each table. This word (shown below in underlined text) has been added to 

these footnotes, so they now correctly read:

“A manufacturer must calculate its fleet average NMOG+NOx values using 

the applicable full useful life standards.”

3. Starting with the 2016 model year, a manufacturer that produces and 

delivers for sale in California medium-duty vehicles in excess of the 

requirements may earn “Vehicle-Equivalent Credits” that can be banked for 

future use or sold to other manufacturers. CCR, title 13, section 

1961.2(c)(2)(A) contains the formula for calculating these credits. The first 3

parts of the formula are shown below:

(1.00) x {[(No. of LEV395s and LEV630s Produced excluding HEVs) + 

(No. of LEV395 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for LEV395s) +

(No. of LEV630 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for LEV630s)] –

(No. of LEV395s and LEV630s Required to be Produced)} + 

(1.14) x {[(No. of ULEV340s and ULEV570s Produced excluding HEVs) + 
Page 10

(No. of ULEV340 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for ULEV340s) +

(No. of ULEV570 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for ULEV570s)] –

(No. of ULEV340s and ULEV570s Required to be Produced)} + 

(1.37) x {[(No. of ULEV250s and ULEV400s Produced excluding HEVs) + 

(No. of ULEV250 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for ULEV250s) +

(No. of ULEV400 HEVs x HEV VEC factor for ULEV400s)] -

(No. of ULEV250s and ULEV400s Required to be Produced)} + 

In each part of the equation, the underlined terms are intended to be identical 

and the double underlined terms are intended to be identical. However, in the 

15-day regulatory language, the bold dashed term in the third part of this 

equation was shown as ULEV270, instead of ULEV400. This error has been 

corrected in the final regulation.

4. In 6 places in CCR, title 13, section 1961.3, the word “for” was omitted 

from the title of the test procedures. So, the title was shown as “California 

2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures Passenger Cars, Light 

Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles” instead of “California 2015 and 

Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light Duty 

Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles.” These sections are 1961.3(a)(2)(A)1, 

1961.3(a)(2)(A)2, 1961.3(a)(2)(C), 1961.3(a)(5)(A), 1961.3(e)(30), and 

1961.3(e)(35). These errors have been corrected in the final regulation. 

5. CCR, title 13, section 1961.3(a)(1) establishes fleet average Carbon 

dioxide (CO2) requirements for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles based on the sales-weighted average of the 

calculated CO2 exhaust mass emission target values for each manufacturer. 

Subsections 1961.3(a)(1)(A) and (B) contain the CO2 target values that are to 

be used throughout section 1961.3.

One subsection in which the CO2 target values are to be used is 1961.3 

(a)(4)(A). However, in the formulas in subsections 1961.3 (a)(4)(A)1 and 

(a)(4)(A)2 incorrectly use the term GHGtarget instead of CO2 target to refer to the 

CO2 target values. Since the term “GHGtarget” is undefined and inconsistent with 

the terminology used throughout the rest of section 1961.3, this error has 

been corrected in both formulas in the final regulation.

6. Both CCR, title 13, section 1976, subsection (b)(1)(G)4.a and subsection 

(b)(1)(G)4.b allow a manufacturer to demonstrate compliance, for each model 

year, based on 1 of 2 options applicable throughout the model year. These 

options are Pooling Option 1, which requires manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance separately for California, the District of Columbia, and for each 

individual state that has adopted California's evaporative emission standards 
Page 11

for that model year pursuant to section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act

(Section 177 states); or Pooling Option 2, which allows manufacturers to 

demonstrate compliance based on the combined sales of vehicles in 

California, the District of Columbia, and the Section 177 states.

In the 15-day regulatory language for subsection 1976(b)(1)(G)4.c, “Pooling 

Option 2” was erroneously called “compliance Option 2.” Since the term 

“compliance Option 2” is undefined and inconsistent with the terminology 

used throughout the rest of subsection 1976(b)(1)(G)4, this error has been 

corrected in the final regulation.

Non-Substantive Corrections to the Test Procedures

7. The intent of SFTP program is to require LEV II vehicles to meet 4,000-

mile SFTP standards until such vehicles are phased into LEV III and required 

to meet 150,000-mile SFTP standards instead. In the proposed rulemaking 

package, section E.1.2.1 of the “California 2015 and Subsequent Model 

Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 

and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Test procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles” (“Test Procedures”), requires vehicles certifying as LEV II vehicles 

to comply with 4,000-mile SFTP standards through the 2018 model year

(MY). However, there may still be LEV II vehicles being certified after MY

2018, and those vehicles would not have SFTP requirements pursuant to the 

proposed Test Procedures. Limiting the applicability of the 4,000-mile SFTP 

standards to only MY2018 and prior model LEV II vehicles was an inadvertent 

error and was not how staff presented SFTP proposal during the rulemaking 

process. In staff’s discussions with manufacturers throughout the 

development of LEV III regulations, it was mutually understood that the 4,000-

mile SFTP standards would continue to apply until the 150,000-mile SFTP 

standards are phased in. There have been no indications that manufacturers 

believe otherwise, and there is no justification to exclude MY2019 and 

subsequent LEV II vehicles from SFTP requirements. Therefore, the 

applicability language in the proposed Test Procedures is inconsistent with 

both the intent of SFTP program as well as manufacturers' understanding of 

SFTP requirements. In addition, the language also conflicts with the 

regulatory language set forth in section 1960.1 (r), which correctly extends the 

applicability of the 4,000-mile SFTP standards through the 2020 MY.

If left unmodified, the Test Procedures’ inconsistency with the regulation will 

likely cause confusion and hinder the certification process. Additionally, it 

could potentially give manufacturers the opportunity to de-content the 

emission control systems of 2019 and subsequent model LEV II vehicles, 

which would result in increased exhaust emissions.

 
Page 12

Staff is modifying the Test Procedures, as a non-substantive change, to align 

it with the regulatory language, which sets forth SFTP requirements as they 

are understood by manufacturers and other stakeholders. The updated SFTP 

applicability language in the Test Procedures is shown below in underline and 

now reads “through 2020” instead of “through 2018.

California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent 

Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles, Part I section E.1.2.1 4,000-mile SFTP Exhaust Emission 

Standards for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles.

The following standards represent the maximum SFTP exhaust emissions 

at 4,000 miles for 2015 through 2020 model year passenger cars, and 

light-duty truck and medium-duty vehicles (less than 8,501 pounds gross 

vehicle weight rating) certifying to the LEV II exhaust emission standards 

in section E.1.1.1: 

8. The footnotes to the tables in section E.2.1.1 of the “California 2001 

through 2014 Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures and 2009 through 2016 Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles” and section E.2.1.1 of the "California

2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles" contain the identical error that 

appears in CCR, title 13, sections 1961(b)(1)(A) and 1961.2(b)(1)(A). It is 

explained in paragraph 2, above. This error has been corrected in the test 

procedures.

9. Section E.3.1.2.1 of the "California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria 

Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and 

Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles" contains the identical error that appears in CCR, title 13, section 

1961.2(c)(2)(A). It is explained in paragraph 3, above. This error has been 

corrected in the test procedures.

10. Sections E.2.5.4.1.1 and E.2.5.4.1.2 of the "California 2015 and 

Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles" contains the identical error that appears 

in CCR, title 13, subsections 1961.3(a)(4)(A)1 and (a)(4)(A)2. It is explained 

in paragraph 5, above. This error has been corrected in the test procedures.
Page 13

11. Section I.E.1.(e)(iv) of the “California Evaporative Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles” sets 

forth the Pooling Provision that a manufacturer will use to determine 

compliance with the proposed evaporative emission standards. In the 15-day 

test procedure language, sections I.E.1.(e)(iv) and I.E.1.(e)(iv)(B) incorrectly 

reference section I.E.1.(e)(iii) for the phase-in requirements of the evaporative 

emission standards. The correct section for the phase-in requirements is 

section I.E.1.(e)(ii). The references to the phase-in requirements have been 

corrected in the final regulation.

12. Section E.1(e)(iv)(C) of the “California Evaporative Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles”

contains the identical error that appears in CCR, title 13, subsection

1976(b)(1)(G)4.c. It is explained in paragraph 6, above. This error has been 

corrected in the test procedures.

13. Section II.A.5.4.2.3 of the “California Evaporative Emission Standards 

and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles” allows 

the Executive Officer to withdraw a provision for certain types of vehicles to 

provide a canister-condition attestation instead of an engineering 

demonstration. In the original 45-day regulatory language for section

II.A.5.4.2.3, the word “that” was erroneously deleted, which resulted in a 

grammatically incorrect sentence. This error has been corrected in the final 

regulation by leaving the word “that” as is. In addition, the comma between 

“to” and “that” has been deleted to clarify the meaning of this sentence.

14. 15-day modifications were made to section III.D.11.3.2 of the “California 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles” to update the hydrocarbon calculations by 

including ethanol evaporative emissions. During the 15-day comment period, 

automotive manufacturers requested that the numerical ratio factors in these 

equations be expressed on a per-carbon basis, consistent with existing ARB 

regulations. The calculations in the 15-day language and those requested by 

manufacturers are mathematically equivalent. Therefore, to maintain 

consistency with common convention, the calculations have been updated to 

read:

“(1) Mhs = MHChs + (14.2284/23.034) x 10-6 MC2H5OHhs

(2) Mdi = MHCdi + (14.3594/23.034) x 10-6 MC2H5OHdi

(3) Mrl = MHCrlt + (14.2284/23.034) x 10-6 MC2H5OHrlt”

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by identifying 

and providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed 

regulation. The FSOR also contains a summary of the comments received on the 

proposed new regulation during the formal rulemaking process and ARB’s 

responses to those comments.
Page 14

The Board has determined that this regulatory action will not result in a mandate 

to any local agency or school district the costs of which are reimbursable by the 

state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 of 

the Government Code.

No alternatives were considered to lessen the impact on small business, 

because small businesses will not be impacted by these proposed amendments 

and new documents.

The Board has further determined that no alternative considered by the agency 

would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory 

action was proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected 

private persons than the action taken by the Board.

II. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE

The Board received numerous written and oral comments, in connection with the 

January 26-27, 2012 hearing and during the subsequent 15-day comment period. 

Set forth below are either the full text or a summary of each objection or 

recommendation specifically directed at the proposed regulation or to the 

procedures followed by ARB in proposing or adopting the regulation, together 

with an agency response. The comments have been grouped by topic whenever 

possible. Comments not involving objections or recommendations specifically 

directed towards the rulemaking are not summarized below.

A. COMMENTS PRESENTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING

1. General Comments

1. Comment: Relative to early credits manufacturers can generate and use 

in later years, the SCAQMD staff believes that these credits play an 

important role to incentivize manufacturers to produce cleaner cars and 

light-duty trucks. However, CARB needs to carefully monitor the amount 

of credits generated and their use in producing vehicles that do not 

necessarily meet applicable criteria pollutant or greenhouse gas 

standards. (Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry 

Hogo, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))

Agency Response: It is unclear to which early credits the commenter is 

referring. Concerning the criteria element of the LEV III program, early 

credits are only available under the alternative phase-in provision for the 

3 mg/mi and 1 mg/mi particulate matter standards. See response to 

Comment #192 on the potential emission impact of the provision. 
Page 15

Similarly, there are no early credits available for the GHG element of 

LEV III. Furthermore, as a general rule, in the LEV program 

manufacturers have typically carried over a bank of credits from year to 

year in order to address any unforeseen changes in vehicle sales that 

may impact compliance with the fleet average requirement. As a result,

manufacturers have historically over complied with the fleet average 

emission requirement. Staff expects manufacturers to continue this 

practice in LEV III. Regarding the production of vehicles not meeting 

applicable criteria or GHG standards, vehicles may not be certified for 

sale in California unless they meet all applicable criteria or GHG 

emission requirements.

2. Comment: Harmonization is needed for ARB and USEPA test 

procedures, certification processes, phase-in requirements, vehicle 

standards, fleet averages, and certification fuels in order to establish a 

common set of vehicle criteria emission standards nationwide. (Thomas 

C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice 

President of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Comment: Harmonization reduces the regulatory burden on 

manufacturers. We support harmonization with USEPA’s greenhouse 

gas standards, and we encourage harmonization with USEPA’s Tier 3 

standards. (Kellen Schefter, public policy analyst, Fisker Automotive, 

Inc.)

Comment: Although ARB’s proposal is not yet fully aligned with the 

federal programs, we appreciate that ARB has repeatedly committed to 

make any needed changes in your rules to align them with the final 

federal rulemakings to allow manufacturers to continue to comply 

through the One National Program. We are also pleased that ARB and 

USEPA plan to coordinate the criteria pollutant standards to further align 

the regulatory requirements in the spirit of the One National Program. 

(Michael J. Stanton, President & CEO, Global Automakers)

Comment: Chrysler supports single, harmonized national greenhouse 

gas, fuel economy, and criteria pollutant performance standards that 

treat all manufacturers equally and contribute to meeting California’s air 

quality and GHG objectives. (Reginald R. Modlin, Chrysler Group LLC)

Comment: We appreciate CARB working with the USEPA to harmonize 

its greenhouse gas standards as part of one national program. We have 

worked closely with CARB on LEV III and ask that CARB continue to 

work with USEPA to harmonize criteria emission standards with EPA’s 

upcoming Tier 3 rule. (Robert Babik, Director of Environment, Energy, 

and Safety Policy, General Motors)
Page 16

Agency Response: Board Resolution 12-11 directs the Executive Officer 

to either propose modifications to the approved regulatory amendments, 

or to return to the Board with a new regulatory proposal, to accept 

compliance with the 2017 through 2025 MY National Program as 

compliance with California’s greenhouse gas emission standards in the 

2017 through 2025 model years, if the Executive Officer determines that 

U.S. EPA has adopted a final rule that at a minimum preserves the 

greenhouse reduction benefits set forth in U.S. EPA’s December 1, 2011 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 2017 through 2025 model year 

passenger vehicles. Regarding criteria pollutant emissions, although 

federal Tier 3 standards have not yet been proposed, staff has been 

working with USEPA to provide as much consistency as possible 

between California’s LEV III criteria pollutant regulations and potential 

future federal Tier 3 regulations for criteria emissions. 

3. Comment: We need more fuel efficient cars! Having more clean cars 

on the road will have the added benefits of helping families save money, 

cleaner air and supporting new jobs and investment in California’s clean 

energy economy. (Maricela Cueva)

Agency Response: Although ARB does not regulate vehicle fuel 

efficiency, we appreciate this comment of support. The Advanced Clean 

Cars regulations are expected to save California drivers $5 billion in 

operating costs in 2025, and $10 billion by 2030 when more advanced 

cars are on the road. What this means to the average consumer is a 

fuel cost savings of nearly $6,000, nearly triple the estimated per vehicle 

added cost, in 2025. In addition, thanks to these regulations, in 2025, 

cars will emit 75 percent less smog-forming pollution than the average 

new car sold today. Finally, the overall savings generated by the 

proposed rules are expected to result in an additional 21,000 jobs in 

California in 2025, rising to 36,000 in 2030.

2. Comments Concerning the Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Regulations

4. Comment: We would be interested in discussing with ARB ways in 

which a vehicle’s zero-emission vehicle miles travelled (VMT) may be 

accounted for more generally in the criteria pollutant regulations. An 

electric vehicle with extended range is currently certified at the 

emissions level that characterizes its range-extending engine. The 

certification in essence assumes that the engine will be operating at all 

times – a worst-case scenario – with the same emissions profile as a 

conventional vehicle. This assumption has two negative effects: 1) it 

creates confusion in the marketplace as to a vehicle’s relative 

environmental impact, and 2) it requires automakers to design for the 

worst-case scenario as well; emissions equipment, for example, must be 

assumed effective for a full useful life in which a driver never utilizes the 
Page 17

vehicle’s all-electric range, no matter how unlikely this scenario may be. 

(Kellen Schefter, public policy analyst, Fisker Automotive, Inc.)

Agency Response: A vehicle’s zero-emission VMT is currently factored 

into the criteria pollutant regulations through the use of a “zero-emission 

VMT allowance” that is determined in accordance with the “California 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 through 

2017 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the 

Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes” or 

the “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 

2018 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty 

Vehicle Classes,” as applicable. This “zero-emission VMT allowance” 

allows a hybrid electric vehicle to be included in the fleet average at an 

emission rate that is between the actual standards to which they certify 

and the next more stringent standards. This is done based on the 

assumed percentage of the time that the vehicle is operating on 

electricity, as reflected in the Zero-emission VMT Allowance. Staff will 

examine whether or not this approach sufficiently reflects the emission 

benefits of these vehicles, in accordance with Board Resolution 12-11, 

which “directs the Executive Officer to return to the Board with in-use 

data for range extended battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles, and, if warranted, propose appropriate modifications to 

treatment and credits for these vehicle types in 2016.”

5. Comment: The SCAQMD staff supports cleaner tailpipe and 

evaporative emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles 

and trucks. Our analysis of the proposed NMOG+NOx tailpipe 

emissions standards indicate that the proposed standards could be 

accelerated and provide for earlier introduction of cleaner vehicles. The 

proposed standards are not technology forcing for diesel-powered 

passenger cars, based on current NOx and hydrocarbon certification 

levels of these vehicles, except in the outer years of the proposed 

phase-in schedule. This situation may result in the unintended 

consequence of facilitating increased market penetration of diesel 

vehicles with corresponding additional NOx emissions. For example, if 

20 percent of all passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are diesel 

vehicles through the proposed phase-in time period, foregone NOx 

emission reductions could amount to approximately 2 tons per day in 

2025 in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, SCAQMD staff strongly 

recommends the implementation of a NOx capping standard for dieselpowered light-duty vehicles and medium-duty vehicles, to be equal to 

half of the proposed NMOG+NOx fleet average standard. This would 

allow substantial lead time for diesel vehicle manufacturers to develop 

requisite technology, and at the same time provide a level playing field 

approach relative to corresponding gasoline vehicles since the natural 
Page 18

split between NMOG and NOx emissions for gasoline vehicles is about 

50/50. (Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry 

Hogo, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))

Agency Response: Concerning SCAQMD’s analysis of the standards, 

staff is unable to respond in detail since no details of the analysis are 

provided. However, in developing the fleet average emission 

requirements, including the phase-in requirement, for LEV III, staff 

considered technical feasibility, cost of compliance and the resource 

challenge manufacturers face in complying with the requirement to 

simultaneously reduce criteria and GHG emissions. 

Regarding a NOx capping standard to prevent a possible increase in 

NOx emissions from increased production of diesel vehicles, staff 

believes the scenario presented by SCAQMD (20 percent penetration of 

diesel vehicles beginning in 2016) presents an unlikely case. In 2010, 

diesel vehicles represented approximately 0.8 percent of new light-duty 

vehicle sales in California (2010 manufacturer NMOG reports for 

manufacturers selling light-duty diesel vehicles in California). 

Furthermore, with a projected incremental cost ranging from 

approximately $3,300 to $4,600 for light-duty diesel vehicles versus 

$1,400 to $2,400 for gasoline light-duty vehicles with equivalent or 

greater reductions in GHG emissions and concomitant reductions in fuel 

consumption (Tables III-A-4-8 and III-A-4-10, Initial Statement of 

Reasons), and the premium cost for diesel fuel over gasoline, it’s difficult 

to make a business case to support a significant increase in sales of 

diesel vehicles over the long term. Nonetheless, as part of its effort to 

monitor the implementation of GHG technologies, staff will monitor sales 

of diesel vehicles and their emissions and, if necessary, present any 

appropriate regulatory modifications at a future Board hearing.

6. Comment: SCAQMD staff is concerned about the proposed mediumduty emission standards and phase-in schedule. The phase-in schedule 

allows a four-year lead time and a seven-year phase-in. Again, these 

timeframes are above and beyond the time periods CARB has 

historically allowed for compliance with technology forcing standards. 

SCAQMD staff recommends a three-year lead time and three-year 

phase-in, corresponding to an implementation timeframe between 2015 

and 2017. In addition, SCAQMD staff believes that the medium-duty 

vehicle emissions standards can be stronger than the standards 

proposed by CARB staff. Based on certification data for current 

gasoline-powered medium-duty vehicles, these vehicles can meet the 

SULEV170 requirement, specified for 90 percent of the medium-duty 

vehicle sales in the 8,500 to 10,000 lbs weight class for the last model 

year (2022) of the proposed phase-in schedule. Similarly, we believe 
Page 19

that current gasoline-powered medium-duty vehicle technology would 

carry across for the 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. weight class as well. 

Therefore, we recommend that the proposed NMOG + NOx emission 

standards for medium-duty vehicles be tightened by 50 percent to truly 

implement technology-forcing emission standards for medium-duty 

vehicles. (Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry 

Hogo, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))

Agency Response: Staff disagrees and is not proposing any changes to 

standards and phase-in requirements for medium-duty vehicles (MDVs). 

In setting the emission standards for MDVs, staff took into consideration 

the same factors considered when setting the light-duty vehicle emission 

standards; technical feasibility, cost of compliance and the resource 

challenge manufacturers face in meeting the increasingly stringent 

criteria emissions requirements of LEV III while simultaneously meeting 

federal GHG emission requirements for these vehicles. It is important to 

note that MDVs, unlike light-duty vehicles, are work vehicles and 

therefore designed to operate under higher load conditions that in turn 

place higher demands on the emission control system. Furthermore, 

LEV III will for the first time require MDVs to meet Supplemental Federal 

Test Procedure (SFTP) emission requirements when operated under 

high acceleration and high speed conditions. Accordingly, in designing 

the emission control systems for these vehicles a balance must be 

struck between catalyst durability and effective emission control during 

both cold-start and hot running conditions under high load. More 

stringent FTP emission standards would require not only greater 

precious metal loading of the catalyst but also moving the catalyst closer 

to the engine in order to further reduce cold-start emissions during the 

FTP. This would subject the catalyst to higher engine exhaust 

temperatures during the SFTP, potentially impacting catalyst durability. 

Concerning the MDV certification data cited by SCAQMD, again it’s 

unclear what factors SCAQMD staff considered in their analysis. 

Vehicles in the MDV class are classified as either medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (MDPVs) or conventional MDVs. Vehicles in the 

MDPV classification include sport utility vehicles and vans such as the 

Chevrolet Suburban and passenger carrying versions of the Ford E150 

and E250 vans. Since these vehicles are designed primarily to carry 

passengers, not heavy cargo loads, in LEV III their emissions are 

included in the fleet average requirement for the light-duty truck 2 (LDT2) 

category. Furthermore, MDPVs are tested at lighter weights than 

conventional MDVs - curb weight plus 300 lbs., while conventional MDVs 

are tested at curb weight plus half payload (depending on weight class, 

payload for MDVs typically range from 2,000-7,000 lbs.). The lower test 

weight for MDPVs is reflected in the certification data for 2012 model 
Page 20

year where emissions of MDPVs range from 0.110 to 0.160 grams per 

mile NMOG plus NOx. Since LEV III includes these vehicles in the LDT2 

SULEV fleet average requirement, manufacturers will be highly 

motivated to minimize the emissions of their MDPVs. Emissions of 

conventional MDVs tested at higher weights range from 0.103 to 0.442 

grams per mile NMOG plus NOx. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

above, staff believes the LEV III MDV emission standards and phase-in 

provisions are appropriate for this class of vehicles.

7. Comment: A significant concern is that emission reductions gained 

through the proposed LEV III regulation may be largely offset by a 

national consumer trend of purchasing larger, heavier vehicles. 

Additionally, we are concerned that the travel provision, which provides 

an option for fleet averaging emissions across some states, could 

exacerbate this problem for the South Coast Air Basin. To mitigate the 

impact of the consumer trend, we would urge limiting the credit trading 

between vehicle categories for both criteria and greenhouse gas 

emissions in the proposed LEV III regulation. This could be done 

through annual or periodic adjustments based on the prior year's vehicle 

sales. Regardless, at a minimum, the impacts of credit use needs to be 

closely monitored and reported to the CARB Board. (Barry R. 

Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry Hogo, Assistant 

Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD))

Agency Response: As noted in the response to Comment #89, at the 

direction of the Board (Resolution 12-11), staff will monitor fleet trends 

and provide a status update to the Board by 2016 and, if necessary, 

include recommendations to mitigate any adverse impact from a shift in 

the fleet composition on GHG emissions. Concerning any impact on 

criteria emissions from a fleet shift to larger, heavier vehicles, the LEV III 

fleet average emission requirement ultimately reduces emissions for all 

vehicles less than 8,500 lbs., gross vehicle weight (GVW) to SULEV 

levels, mitigating any emission impact from a potential shift in passenger 

vehicle fleet composition.

Comments Concerning the Particulate Matter Standards

8. Comment: The lead time provided to phase-in the 3 mg/mi PM standard 

is a critical enabler of technically feasible and cost effective deployment 

of advanced technology vehicles. Ford requests that the Board maintain 

the phase-in percentages and timing proposed by staff. (Bob Holycross, 

Manager, Regulatory Strategy & Planning Sustainability, Environment & 

Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company)
Page 21

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

9. Comment: We recommend that ARB provide an alternative phase in for 

the 3 mg/mi PM proposed standards, as described in the On-Board 

Diagnostic regulations §1968.2(c), definitions, “Alternate Phase-In.” 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

10. Comment: The new ultra-low PM standard of 3 mg/mi creates new and 

unprecedented measurement challenges for both industry and 

government. The LEV III and ZEV 2012 PM test procedures still 

reference older measurement techniques without properly accounting 

for this artifact or dilution ratio multiplier. The “LEV III PM TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT” (appendix P) paper states test procedures will 

be updated in the future, but specifics are unclear. Furthermore, routine 

PM measurements for all emissions testing will be very costly and

represent a significant testing burden for OEM’s. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: ARB recognizes the technical challenges presented 

by the 3 mg/mi PM standard and is committed to work with the USEPA 

and industry in developing improved measurement protocols for PM. 

Furthermore, the USEPA is currently developing an improved PM test 

procedure, part 1066, that will be incorporated in the federal Tier 3 

program for criteria emissions. It is ARB’s intent to incorporate part 1066 

into LEV III after USEPA finalizes the Tier 3 program.

Concerning “routine” PM emission testing, staff included a provision for 

testing of a subset of vehicle test groups when demonstrating 

compliance with the PM standards in a 15 day change, thus reducing the 

testing burden for manufacturers.

11. Comment: CARB has chosen to broadly seek to harmonize with the 

EPA's upcoming Tier 3 requirements to control particulate matter from 

gasoline-powered vehicles. However, there remain many discrepancies 

between the agencies' regulatory requirements that affect 

manufacturers’ ability to meet these very stringent particulate 

requirements. Among the most important of these discrepancies are the 

test methods that will be selected to measure the particles now and in 

the future. The other critical discrepancy is that CARB and USEPA have 
Page 22

different requirements for reference fuels. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director 

of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: It is staff’s intent to work with USEPA in their 

development of the federal Tier 3 program, to encourage the 

development of a national program that is consistent with California’s air 

quality and programmatic needs.

12. Comment: One very critical aspect of the requirements that are now 

proposed is a 3 mg/mile PM measurement standard. 3 mg/mile is on 

the edge of accurate and repeatable measurement capability using 

available techniques today. This challenge is likely to remain for the 

next 5 years. It is therefore critical that these regulations do not set 

standards at levels that cannot be measured and that cannot be 

achieved with known technology. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of 

Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: See response to Comment #10.

13. Comment: The proposed model year 2025 FTP PM standard of 1 

mg/mi is considered impossible to achieve with the currently 

established, as well as the under development, measurement 

procedures. BMW recommends eliminating this standard and 

conducting a review of the PM standards between ARB, USEPA, and 

industry. The review process should evaluate correlation and variability 

of new test procedures and facility requirements, consistency and 

repeatability of measuring PM at low levels (≤ 3 mg/mi), as well as an 

evaluation of alternative particulate test methods. (Thomas C. Baloga, 

Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President 

of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Comment: We recommend eliminating the 2025 FTP PM Standard of 1 

mg/mile from the regulations. Instead, ARB and USEPA should work 

with automakers to develop standards for 2025 and beyond, when the 

results of a thorough formal review of the PM standards, test methods, 

and alternative test methods are available. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: We recommend a formal review of the form and level of the 

PM standard with ARB, USEPA, and automakers. This review should 

begin as soon as the new test procedures are public and facilities 

meeting the new requirements are available. The review should look at 

correlation and variability of the new test procedures and facility 

requirements, the ability to consistently and repeatedly measure PM at 

the 3 mg/mile and 1 mg/mile levels, and alternative PM test methods. 

Industry would work with ARB and USEPA to develop a scope of work, 
Page 23

timeline, commitments from each party, and a final report. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Comment: ARB’s proposed phase-in of 3 mg/mi FTP PM standards 

beginning in 2017 MY will be very challenging, due to technical issues 

such as measurement technology. More concerning is ARB’s proposal 

to set a 1 mg/mi standard in 2025 MY. Toyota strongly supports the 

Alliance comment for a thorough formal technical review for any 

proposed PM standard after the 3 mg/mi standard. Once that review is 

done, then ARB could develop and propose standards for 2025 MY and 

later based on the findings of the PM technical review. (Kevin Webber, 

General Manager, Vehicle Regulation and Certification Engineering, 

Toyota Technical Center)

Comment: Based on Volvo’s knowledge of particulate matter 

measurement technology, it is not currently feasible to measure 

compliance with the 1 mg/mile standard proposed for model year 2025. 

Volvo does not believe that setting an unattainable standard so far out in 

the future (2025) is realistic. Volvo supports a thorough, formal, review 

of PM standards, vehicle emission control technologies, test methods of 

today and alternative test methods for the future, but only as part of 

future rulemaking. After this review is complete, we would recommend 

CARB develop and promulgate standards for 2025. (Katherine H. Yehl, 

Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Comment: Ford requests that CARB conduct a midterm review 

completed no later than April 1, 2018 to re-evaluate the assumptions 

supporting the 2022-2025 MY GHG standards and the 1 mg/mi PM 

requirements. (Bob Holycross, Manager, Regulatory Strategy & 

Planning Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company)

Comment: We're highly supportive of and strongly encourage the Board 

to conduct a midterm review of the particulate matter standards in or 

around 2017 time frame. (James Jack, Emission Technology Control 

Association)

Comment: We recommend a thorough formal mid-term review of the 1 

mg/mi PM standard and form of the standard with ARB, EPA, and 

industry. The formal review should include a scope of work, timeline, 

commitments from each party, and a final report. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)
Page 24

Comment: MECA agrees with ARB’s decision to propose tighter particle 

matter standards for light-duty vehicles over the FTP test cycle and to 

establish full useful life PM standards for light-duty vehicles over the 

supplemental FTP test cycles. However, the recent late December 

2011 decision by the European Commission to establish a particle 

number emission standard for light-duty vehicles powered by gasoline 

direct injection engines as a part of their upcoming Euro 6 light-duty 

emission standards, provides a more stringent particle emission limit for 

these gasoline direct injection vehicles in the same time frame as ARB’s 

proposed 3 mg/mile PM standard (proposed phase-in for the 3 mg/mile 

PM standard starts in 2017 and is fully phased-in with the 2021 model 

year; the Euro 6 gasoline direct injection particle number limit has been 

set at 6 X 1011 particles/km, measured using the European particle 

measurement protocol (PMP). ARB needs to make sure that these 

same ultra-low PM, Euro 6 gasoline direct injection engines and 

technologies are also utilized in California. To that end, MECA believes 

that it is critically important for ARB to hold a formal technology review 

around their proposed 1 mg/mile PM light-duty vehicle PM standard in 

the 2017 timeframe. In this review, ARB should consider the stringency, 

form, and timing of this PM standard. (Joseph Kubsh, Executive 

Director, Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA))

Comment: CARB should identify the circumstances and/or timeframe 

under which particulate measurement technology would be reevaluated 

to ensure the technology is capable of supporting its proposed more 

stringent particulate matter standards. (Michael L. Krancer, Secretary, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP))

Agency Response: Staff believes that both the stringency and 

implementation schedules for the 3 mg/mi PM standard and the 1 mg/mi 

PM standard are technologically feasible within the proposed timeframe. 

(See the ISOR and its Appendix P: Technical Support Document –

Development of PM Standards for further discussion.) ARB test data 

have demonstrated PM levels from current port fuel injected (PFI) 

engines below 1 mg/mi and from late model gasoline direct injection 

engines (GDI) approaching 1 mg/mi. Staff expects that with further 

technical improvements in GDI engines during the lead time provided will 

enable GDI engines to achieve parity with PFI engines in terms of their 

PM emissions. However, it is staff’s intent, in accordance with the 

Board’s direction (Resolution 12-11), to conduct a review of the 1 mg/mi 

PM standard in the 2015 timeframe and report back to the Board on the 

results. If the outcome of that review indicates that modifications to the 1 

mg/mi PM standard are warranted, staff will return to the Board soon 

after, to present the necessary changes to the standard and/or the 

implementation schedule. If the results of that review are inconclusive, 

staff will continue to monitor manufacturers’ technical progress and 
Page 25

measurement capabilities towards meeting the 1 mg/mi PM standard 

and report back to the Board at such time as more information becomes 

available.

14. Comment: The 1 mg standard for particulate matter should be phased

in sooner than proposed, with full implementation by 2025 in order to 

provide the health protections from such standards as soon as possible. 

(Don Anair, Senior Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Comment: We urge you to modify the compliance date of particle 

emissions standard (1 mg/mile) in the Low-Emissions Vehicles 

regulation to be phased-in from model year 2022 (instead of 2025) as 

had been originally planned. We acknowledge the fact that current 

measurement and monitoring technologies may have some limitations to 

assure compliance. However, in our opinion, providing a 10-year lead 

time is adequate to develop technologies that would ensure proper 

certification and compliance. In addition, ARB can choose conduct a 

review of technologies in the 2017 timeframe and modify if necessary 

the final form, stringency, or the compliance timing of the particle 

emissions standard. (Shankar Prasad, Coalition for Clean Air)

Comment: We strongly support the proposed standards for ratcheting 

down on smog-forming gases and fine particulate pollution, however, we 

urge you to speed up the pace of compliance with the particulate matter 

standard. As proposed, the fine particulate standard (1 mg per mile) 

would not begin to be phased in until 2025 and not fully realized until 

2028. Instead, we urge full implementation of the standard by 2025.

(Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Executive Director, Air Quality and Public Health, 

American Lung Association in California; Will Barrett (testimony), and 21 

members of California’s public health and medical community)

Comment: We support the proposal to reduce smog-forming emissions 

from new cars and light truck tailpipes by 75 percent by 2025 and a 

reduction in toxic particulate matter by 2028, while urging California Air 

Resources Board officials to move up the date on toxic particulates to 

2022. (4,220 signatures to letter submitted by Union of Concerned 

Scientists)

Comment: We feel the reductions schedule for PM emissions is not 

commensurate with the previously successful implementation of 

technology-forcing standards. Over 15 years are far too in my opinion 

and does not reflect the critical need of the impact of PM on public 

health. Staff must be careful to avoid the tradeoff between public health 

and climate change. Thus, we're recommending accelerating the fine 

particle limits, reducing the ozone precursor limits on the supplemental 

test procedure, and more closely monitor the FTP testing and progress.
Page 26

(Dr. Alan Lloyd, President, The International Council on Clean 

Transportation)

Comment: SCAQMD staff urges CARB to implement a three-year lead 

time and three-year phase-in subsequent to full implementation of the 

2017 recommended end date for the 3 mg/mi PM standard. Specifically, 

the 1 mg/mi PM standards should be implemented from 2020 to 2022. 

(Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry Hogo, 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))

Agency Response: In determining the appropriate phase-in schedule for 

the 1 mg/mi PM standard, staff considered the pace of technical 

improvement to engine technology that would be required to achieve the 

standard and the state-of-the-art of PM mass measurement. As noted in 

Appendix P: Technical Support Document – Development of PM 

Standards, measuring PM mass emissions at the 1 mg/mi level is 

problematic using current test procedures. Furthermore, in order to 

support certification and enforcement of the standard, the measurement 

procedure must be accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. 

Nonetheless, as noted in the response to Comment #13, staff expects 

that USEPA’s new PM test procedures currently under development for 

LDVs will further enhance PM test capability. In addition, as noted in the 

response to Comment #13, staff will include an evaluation of the 

measurement capabilities of 40 CFR Part 1066 in its review of the 1 

mg/mi standard, as well as manufacturer’s technical progress towards 

achieving the standard. 

15. Comment: ARB staff is proposing a new US06 PM Standard of

approximately 90% reduction. Due to very short notice industry is still 

trying to determine the possibility to reach this extremely low standard. 

Where we and also independent research institutes have concerns is 

the effect this standard will have on new technologies, especially lowpowered, downsized engine technologies and range extenders that will 

be necessary to meet the new greenhouse gas standards. Recent 

vehicle testing has shown that these PM standards are not achievable 

for vehicles with these new technologies. We recommend a PM 

standard for passenger cars and light duty trucks of 25 mg/mi or as an 

alternative a SFTP standard of 10 mg/mi composite. This composite 

formula is also used for other limited criteria pollutants in the LEV III 

regulation. Real world data from EPA and industry show that US citizen 

don’t drive like the US06 test cycle and therefore there is no negative 

impact on the environment if ARB will agree to this proposal.

On the other side the CO2 benefit will be extremely high by bringing low 

powered vehicles into the US market as they are available in the 
Page 27

European Union with more than 20 different models. (Klaus Land, 

Senior Manager, Certification, Environment and Regulatory Affairs 

Mercedes-Benz)

Comment: We recommend a SFTP PM standard for PCs and LDTs of 

25 mg/mi or, as an alternative path, a 10 mg/mi composite standard. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: Technical feasibility of reaching the stringent SFTP PM 

standard (10 mg/mi for PCs, 20 mg/mi for LDTs) do not appear to be 

achievable for all vehicles equipped with new technologies necessary to 

meet the greenhouse gas requirements. More flexibility in meeting the 

SFTP PM standards is essential for future development and leads to the 

following recommendation for the PM standard: 25 mg/mi for PCs and 

LDTs or 10 mg/mi composite as an alternative. (Thomas C. Baloga, 

Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President 

of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response to Technical Part of Comments: Staff does not agree

and is not proposing any changes. The SFTP PM standards were based 

on testing of a wide range of vehicles, including high mileage, older 

vehicles with direct injected engines that are known to have high PM 

emissions. Based on the test data, staff is confident that manufacturers 

will not have difficulty meeting the proposed 10 mg/mi standard. Thus, 

despite the fact that a small number of manufacturers have raised the 

concern that potential future vehicles with low power-to-weight ratios 

may not be able to meet the proposed standard, based on testing and 

discussions with other manufacturers, staff firmly believes that with 

properly designed engines the 10 mg/mi standard is achievable.

 

Agency Response to Portion of Comment Raising Environmental Issues: 

For Agency response to the complete comment, see the document 

“Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars Environmental 

Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the Board at the 

March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – L10.”

16. Comment: EMA has serious concerns with the SFTP PM standards for 

medium-duty vehicles as proposed. The standards are extremely 

stringent and pose significant measurement challenges including 

variability and repeatability. Moreover, manufacturers are concerned 

that the technology developments anticipated to meet forthcoming 

greenhouse gas requirements may be inherently challenged by the 
Page 28

SFTP test cycle and PM standards proposed. Additionally, for the 

10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR weight class, the FTP and SFTP PM 

standards as proposed by ARB Staff lead to an effective LA92 PM 

standard that is negative when the LA92 is back-calculated assuming 

SC03 PM equal to the FTP PM standard.

EMA recommends the following medium-duty vehicle SFTP composite 

PM standards:

• 8,501-10,000 lbs (≤0.024 Hp/GVWR) 10 mg/mi

• 8,501-10,000 lbs (>0.024 Hp/GVWR) 13 mg/mi

• 10,001-14,000 lbs 13 mg/mi

(Lisa A. Stegink, EMA Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association)

Agency Response: Staff does not agree. Based on discussions with 

individual automakers and the USEPA, staff believes that the SFTP 

MDV PM standards are feasible, even when accounting for future 

technologies that will be necessary to comply with California and federal 

greenhouse gas emission requirements. 

Regarding the commenter’s concern for test variability and repeatability, 

based on staff’s own testing experience, staff believes current methods 

and equipment are capable of accurately measuring PM emissions at 

the level these standards require. In addition, because the standards 

are composite standards, this will help reduce the effects of test 

variability, if any, as well as provide additional compliance flexibility by 

allowing test groups to offset a higher emission value from one test cycle 

with a lower emission value from another. 

Regarding the comment about an effective LA92 PM standard that is 

negative, it is unrealistic to assume that manufacturers will certify test 

groups at the level of the standard on the FTP. Based on previous 

engine and vehicle certifications and on staff’s discussions with industry, 

manufacturers design vehicles and engines to meet target emission 

values that are at least 30% lower than actual standards in order to 

provide an acceptable compliance margin. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect a vehicle in the 10,001 to 14,000 lbs GVWR range to certify to an 

FTP PM certification value of approximately 7 mg/mi. This would result 

in an effective 7 mg/mi PM standard for the LA92 as well, which staff 

believes is feasible based on test data from ARB and manufacturers.

17. Comment: Ford raised the concern that testing of PM on the US06 test 

cycle presents challenges due to the high exhaust emission 

temperatures, which can lead to artifacts in the results. In order to 

handle these artifacts the methods for handling exhaust may need to be 

modified. As a result, Ford is requesting that the lead time for 

compliance with the SFTP-US06 PM standards not be moved forward 
Page 29

from what was proposed by staff. (Bob Holycross, Manager, Regulatory 

Strategy & Planning Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, 

Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and has left the SFTP phase-in as 

proposed.

Comments Concerning Phase-in Requirements

18. Comment: The ISOR requires non-PZEV SULEVs to convert 100% to 

150K durability in the first year of LEV III – 2015 MY, with no phase-in 

provided. In our assessment, this would create a disproportionate 

burden in the very first year of LEV III to manufacturers that have 

significant numbers of such SULEVs. Toyota would like to reinforce the 

Alliance’s request to allow at least until the 2017 MY for non-PZEV 

SULEVs to phase-in to 150K, instead of 100% in the 2015 MY. An 

extension by at least two years would provide much needed lead-time 

and flexibility for non-PZEV SULEVs to phase-in from 120K to 150K 

durability. (Kevin Webber, General Manager, Vehicle Regulation and 

Certification Engineering, Toyota Technical Center)

Comment: ARB intends to require all vehicles that certify to ULEV 70 

and below to meet the LEV III requirements (FTP and SFTP 150K 

durability and E10 certification fuel) beginning in 2015 MY, with the 

exception of PZEVs, which can be carried over until 2018MY. This 

penalizes manufacturers who have produced the cleanest vehicles 

(SULEV exhaust) by requiring the manufacturer to certify all of these 

vehicles in a single year (2015 MY) to new requirements. Such a 

penalty seems unnecessary and would be a significant burden on 

manufacturers with significant number of SULEV engine families that 

are not certified to the PZEV standard. We recommend revising the 

phase-in requirement for carry-over SULEVs to require 100% 

compliance with LEV III beginning in 2017 MY. New SULEV 

certifications beginning in 2015 MY would be certified to the new LEV III 

standards. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and, as part of the 

15-day changes, made the necessary modification to the regulatory 

language to provide an addition two years for non-PZEV SULEVs that 

were certified prior to the 2015 model year (i.e., “carry-over” 

certifications) to phase-in to LEV III standards.

19. Comment: Allow compliance with the PM standard phase-in 

percentages for medium-duty vehicles based on the 8,500-14,000 

GVWR. For example, provided 10% of the 8,500-14,000 vehicles meet 
Page 30

their appropriate standard the manufacturer is in compliance. This is

also consistent with EPA. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

20. Comment: We recommend limiting PM certification to a 20 percent of 

each manufacturer’s test groups each year and allowing the 

manufacturer to attest that the other 80% of test groups meet the PM 

standards. Moreover, if ARB so chose, they could ensure that all 

vehicles were tested every 5 years. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff does not agree that limiting PM certification to 

20 percent of each manufacturer’s test groups each year will provide 

sufficient data to adequately demonstrate compliance with the PM 

standard. However, as part of the 15-day changes, staff did provide new 

certification testing requirements for PM emissions, which reduces the 

testing burden for manufacturers. These new certification testing 

requirements are consistent with the PM testing requirements that are 

currently being considered by USEPA for Tier 3. 

21. Comment: We request that CARB change start date by which small 

volume manufacturers must certify vehicles using E10 certification 

gasoline and comply with the proposed 3 mg/mi particulate standard to 

MY 2022 to align with proposed changes to other standards and test 

fuel in order to avoid burdensome SVM certification in consecutive 

years. (Lance Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of Aston 

Martin Lagonda Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren Automotive 

Limited)

Agency Response: As part of the 15-day changes, staff revised the 

compliance schedule for small volume manufacturers to allow them to 

continue to certify their vehicles to LEV II standards through the 2021 

model year.

22. Comment: The phase-in plan for LEV III (FTP and SFTP 150K durability 

and E10 certification fuel) was unclear in the ISOR and in the regulatory 

wording. It is Volvo's understanding that all PZEVs can be carried over 

until MY2018 and that CARB intends to require all vehicles that certify to 

ULEV70 and below to meet the LEV III requirements from the beginning 

of model year 2015. Volvo requests confirmation of CARB's intent. 

(Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo 

Car Corporation)
Page 31

Agency Response: 

For all manufacturers other than small volume manufacturers:

For the 2015 through 2017 model years, the following vehicles may 

be certified to LEV II standards: LEVs, ULEVs, and those SULEVs 

that are certified to SULEV emission standards using “carryover” of 

emission test data from a previous model year. All other 2015 

through 2017 model year vehicles must be certified to LEV III 

standards.

For the 2017 through 2019 model years, the following vehicles may 

be certified to LEV II standards: LEVs and ULEVs. All other 

vehicles, including those previously certified as LEV II SULEVs, 

must be certified to LEV III standards.

For the 2020 and subsequent model years, all vehicles must be 

certified to LEV III standards.

For small volume manufacturers, there is no phase-in schedule. For the 

2022 and subsequent model years, a small volume manufacturer must 

certify 100% of its vehicles to LEV III standards.

23. Comment: The regulations will also need to be changed to allow MDVs 

the option of early compliance with LEV III requirements. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees. An early compliance option is 

generally included to provide manufacturers with additional flexibility by 

accruing credits towards compliance with the phase-in schedule. 

However, unlike the case for LDVs, LEV III provides MDVs with an 

extended seven year phase-in where compliance with the more stringent 

emission standards occurs in the later years of the phase-in. 

Accordingly, staff does not believe that the additional flexibility provided 

by an early compliance option is warranted for MDVs.

24. Comment: Chassis certification is required for MDVs <10,000 GVWR in 

2019 and 2022 depending on the section of the regulation. This should 

be consistent (2022 MY) throughout. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: All medium-duty vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 10,000 

pounds must be chassis-certified in the 2020 and subsequent model 

years, as clearly stated in the 45-day regulatory language that modifies
Page 32

§1956.8 (c)(1)(B) footnote B to the table and §1956.8 (h)(2) footnote A to 

the table. 

25. Comment: BMW proposes that ARB adopt a single, harmonized phasein schedule for LEV III PM, FTP, SFTP, and evaporative emission 

standards. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

Agency Response: ARB is mindful of the technical challenge 

manufacturers face in simultaneously meeting increasingly stringent 

criteria and GHG emission requirements and therefore provided 

substantial flexibility in the phase-in requirements. Manufacturers 

typically certify separate test groups to the exhaust and evaporative 

requirements. Accordingly, the phase-in of LEV III FTP and SFTP 

exhaust emission standards are linked together since they share a 

common emission control system and are certified though common test 

groups. Similarly, the phase-in of evaporative requirements is separate 

because manufacturers certify separate evaporative test groups. The 

PM phase-in schedule is unique because of the technical challenge 

presented by the requirement and ARB intent to provide consistency 

between the LEV III program and the federal Tier 3 program currently 

under development by the USEPA. Accordingly, ARB believes that LEV 

III provides adequate lead time and phase-in flexibility for manufacturers 

to plan their future production. 

26. Comment: Manufacturers should get more flexibility for aligning their 

model plans with the phase-in requirements by allowing an alternative 

phase-in with variation in the individual years if the same overall phasein requirement 2017 to 2021 is achieved. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice 

President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of 

Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: As noted in the response to Comment #25, ARB 

believes that adequate lead time and flexibility has been provided in the 

LEV III phase-in requirements. 

Comments Concerning Deterioration Factors (DFs)

27. Comment: CARB must revise and keep updated assigned DFs. (Lance 

Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of Aston Martin Lagonda 

Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: California’s test procedures for light- and mediumduty vehicles incorporate 40 CFR §86.1826-01 with no changes. Under 

§86.1826-01(b)(1), we are obligated to determine assigned DFs (i) 
Page 33

based on sufficiently available industry-wide data or (ii) based on our

own estimate if there’s insufficient industry-wide data. Our past practice 

has been to let large volume manufacturers develop their own DFs 

during the first two years phase-in, then we develop the assigned DFs in 

the third or fourth year in-time for small volume manufacturers to certify 

to the new standards. This approach has met the needs of small volume 

manufacturers under LEV II, and we believe it will continue to meet the 

needs of small volume manufacturers under LEV III. 

28. Comment: Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions 

are not applicable to vehicles certifying to the SFTP standards set forth 

in section E.1.2.2 of the Appendix D Test Procedures. BMW 

understands DFs estimated through FTP Cycle may be applied to the 

LEV III USO6 and SCO3 emissions as well, in line with Tier 2 SFTP 

standards. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with the commenter’s understanding 

that DFs used for determining FTP compliance may also be applied to 

LEV III US06 and SC03 emissions.

Comments Concerning the Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (PZEV) 

Backstop Provision

29. Comment: The PZEV backstop provision should be removed and 

manufacturers should be allowed to produce whatever vehicles are 

required to comply with the NMOG+NOx fleet average. (Reginald R. 

Modlin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Chrysler)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees with the comment for several 

reasons. First, PZEVs are required to meet the extremely low NMOG 

and NOx SULEV exhaust emission standards and provide an additional 

NOx benefit beyond that provided by the NMOG fleet average 

requirement. Therefore, since each manufacturer’s PZEV production is 

primarily determined by the compliance path it chosen to meet its ZEV 

requirement, beginning in 2018 when PZEVs transfer from the ZEV 

program to the LEV program and are no longer eligible for ZEV credits, 

their continued production would no longer be assured and the NOx 

benefit they provide would be lost. Second, a unique feature of LEV III is 

the change from the LEV II NMOG fleet average requirement to an 

NMOG plus NOx fleet average requirement. ARB incorporated this 

change to provide flexibility to the manufacturers in meeting SULEV 

emissions across their light-duty fleets. However, by combining NMOG 

and NOx emission values, absent a backstop provision, the LEV III fleet 

average requirement would not require manufacturers to produce 
Page 34

SULEVs until the NMOG+NOx fleet average falls below the ULEV50 

NMOG plus NOx emission standard in model year 2023. Since the 

backstop provision only requires manufacturers to continue their 

production at a rate commensurate with their unique ZEV obligation, it 

only requires manufacturers to maintain their production of SULEVs, not 

increase it. Accordingly, the PZEV backsliding provision was included to 

preserve the emission reductions provided by these vehicles.

30. Comment: The PZEV Anti-Backsliding Provision requires 

manufacturers maintain a specific percentage of SULEVs in the 2018-

2021 (Exh) and zero evap vehicles in the 2015-2017 (Evap) based on 

their percentage of PZEV sales in the three years preceding. ARB 

should base the minimum requirement on “projected vehicle sales” for 

all three prior years. For example, 2018 MY minimum SULEVs would 

be based on projected vehicle sales for the 2015-2017 MYs. ARB 

should allow manufacturers to comply with the EVAP PZEV antibacksliding provision based on the average of the three model years 

2015, 2016, 2017 MYs. Thus, the percentage of LEV III Evap vehicles 

in the 2015-2017 MYs (collectively) must be greater than or equal to the 

percentage of PZEVs in the 2012-2014 MYs. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with the comment and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

Comments Concerning the 50oF Exhaust Emission Standards

31. Comment: The 50oF exhaust emission standards for fuel flexible 

vehicles should be deferred until such time when ARB believes there is 

sufficient infrastructure in place to fuel these vehicles or alternatively, 

consider the positive CO2 benefit from these vehicles when operating on 

E85 in lieu of the 50°F emission requirement. (Reginald R. Modlin, 

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Chrysler)

Agency Response: 50oF exhaust emission standards for fuel flexible 

vehicles are currently in place under the LEV II regulations. These

standards were established to adequately control emissions from these

types of vehicles during “cold” mornings in southern California. The 

proposed LEV III 50oF exhaust emission standards for fuel flexible 

vehicles are a necessary continuation of the LEV II standards. Staff, 

however, will examine the environmental impacts of Chrysler’s 

suggestion and, if warranted, propose changes to this requirement at a 

future Board hearing. (It is important to note that ARB’s primary concern 

is the attainment of federal and state ambient air quality standards,
Page 35

which must be carefully considered with the reduction of CO2 emissions 

from the California vehicle fleet.)

Comments Concerning Medium-Duty Vehicle Alternative Compliance 

Plans

32. Comment: A Medium-duty vehicle (MDV) Alternative Compliance Plan 

should be allowed for those manufacturers that have a small number of 

MDV test groups. (Reginald R. Modlin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, 

Chrysler)

Comment: For manufacturers with a small number (four or fewer) of 

MDV test groups the percentage phase-in requirements are not useful –

much like a small volume manufacturer. We request that ARB allow an

alternative phase in for OEMs with 4 test groups or fewer. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

Comments Concerning LEV II Vehicle Requirements

33. Comment: Allow LEV II vehicles to meet a combined NMOG+NOx 

emission standards since the fleet average requirement for 2015MY (or 

earlier if the manufacturer opts in early) and beyond is an NMOG+NOx 

standard. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs,

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

34. Comment: For 50oF testing, LEV II vehicles should meet a combined 

NMOG+NOx standard and FFVs should be afforded the relief provided 

for 50o

F in LEV III. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff has modified the regulatory language to allow 

those LEV II vehicles that are certified to combined NMOG+NOx FTP 

standards to also meet the corresponding combined NMOG+NOx LEV 

III 50o

F standards. 

35. Comment: Table c in section 1961(b)(1)(B) shows the applicable 

emission standards to be used in the fleet average equations. 
Page 36

According to ARB’s Manufacturers Advisory Conversation on rounding 

of the equation, the results of the equation lead to different values for 

2004 through 2014 model year vehicles certified to the optional 150,000 

mile “LEV II” standards (e.g., ULEV for PCs and LDTs is 0.03 instead of 

0.034). Please ensure the regulatory text does not retroactively change 

for manufacturers who have planned their vehicle certification in MY 

2004 through 2014 based on ARB’s Manufacturers Advisory 

Conversation. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

Agency Response: The changes commented upon was done to correct 

an error from a previous rulemaking. The table in question appears in 

both the regulations and in the test procedures. In that previous 

rulemaking, the correct number values, given to three decimal places, 

were written in the table that appears in the test procedures. However, 

they were incorrectly written only to two decimal places in the 

regulations. This error is being corrected in this rulemaking. This

change will not apply retroactively. Rather it will apply to vehicles that 

are certified after these regulatory changes become effective.

Comments Concerning Interim In-use Standards

36. Comment: Interim in-use standards only apply through the 2019 MY for 

FTP, SFTP NMOG+NOx, and SFTP PM. Whereas FTP PM allows 

interim in-use through 2020MY. All of the interim in-use standards 

should apply through 2020 MY (the last year of the phase in). (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Comment: For FTP, SFTP NMOG + NOx, and SFTP PM, interim in-use 

standards apply only through model year 2019. All of these interim inuse standards should apply through model year 2020. For interim inuse FTP PM, Volvo supports CARB's planned phase-in through model 

year 2020. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North 

America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: Historically, ARB has only provided interim in-use 

standards during the phase-in period for new emission standards. Staff 

does not believe they are needed once the standards apply to 100 

percent of a manufacturer’s fleet.

However, because FTP PM interim in-use standards extend through the 

2020 model year, staff agrees that the application of interim in-use 

standards for SFTP PM should be extended through the 2020 MY and 

has made this adjustment as part of the 15-day changes.
Page 37

Comments Concerning the LEV III Fleet Average Requirements

37. Comment: The regulations should provide a 2013 and 2014 MY LEV III 

fleet average of 107 mg/mile (PC/LDT1) and 128 mg/mile (LDT2) for 

manufacturers choosing early compliance. Otherwise, there will be no 

way to implement early compliance (e.g., if a vehicle certified to a 

combined standard what value would the OEM use for the NMOG 

curve?). (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees that it is appropriate to add fleet 

average NMOG+NOx values for the 2014 model year. These have been 

done as part of the 15-day notice changes. However, manufacturers are 

already certifying 2013 model year vehicles based on their plans to 

comply with the current NMOG fleet average requirements. Therefore, it 

would not be appropriate to change the compliance requirements for a 

particular model year once that model year is already underway. 

38. Comment: In the introductory paragraph and the corresponding 

regulatory text, there is a need for CARB to clarify its plan to allow 

compliance with LEV III prior to model year 2015. The regulation lacks 

LEV III FTP and SFTP composite fleet averages for model years 2013 

and 2014. The LEV III regulations appear to require LEV II vehicles to 

continue to meet separate NMOG and NOx standards. (§1961.2, Page 

A-35) Volvo requests clarification. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of 

Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Comment: Like the FTP fleet average, the SFTP composite fleet 

average emission standards should begin with the current 0.140 g/mile 

requirement to 2013 and 2014MYs. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: An SFTP composite fleet average has been added 

in for the 2014 MY as part of the 15-day changes. However, 

manufacturers are already certifying 2013 model year vehicles based on 

their plans to comply with the current NMOG fleet average requirements. 

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to change the compliance 

requirements for a particular model year once that model year is already 

underway.

Comments Concerning Calculations

39. Comment: The Emission Category for MDVs (LEV395, ULEV340, etc.) 

should include the applicable LEV II emission categories 

(§1961.2(b)(1)(B)1.c, page A-56), since MDPVs can and will continue to 
Page 38

certify to LEV II standards through 2019 MY. A separate chart for MDVs 

would be clearer. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

40. Comment: The Alliance recommends ARB allow manufacturers to 

calculate the fleet average of federally certified vehicles at the level for 

which they are certified. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

41. Comment: It is not clear how the NMOG+NOx Contribution Factors in 

(§1961.2(b)(1)(B)2., page A-57) were derived. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: Fisker Automotive recognizes that ARB has included in its 

LEV III amendments a NMOG+NOx Contribution Factor for Off-vehicle 

Capable HEVs that factors in a Zero-emission VMT Allowance in 

calculating a manufacturer’s fleet average NMOG+NOx emissions. 

Fisker appreciates this provision in that it allows manufacturers that 

produce all-electric-capable vehicles to account partially for the reduced 

emissions of their vehicles. However, we would be interested to learn 

how ARB arrived at these contribution factors; it appears that a VMT 

Allowance of greater than 1 would reduce the SULEV20 HEV 

Contribution Factor to a value of less than zero. (Kellen Schefter, public 

policy analyst, Fisker Automotive, Inc.)

Agency Response: The NMOG plus NOx Contribution Factors allow offvehicle charge capable hybrid electric vehicles to be included in the fleet 

average at an emission rate that is between the actual standards to 

which they certify and the next more stringent standards. This is done 

based on the assumed percentage of the time that the vehicle is 

operating on electricity, as reflected in the Zero-emission VMT 

Allowance. As part of the 15-day changes, the Zero-emission VMT 

Allowance was capped at 1, because VMT Allowance of greater than 1 

would allow a vehicle to be included in the fleet average at a more 

stringent standard than the standard to which the vehicle certifies. But

emissions increase as a vehicle ages due to deterioration of its emission 

control system. So, the actual air quality benefits of these hybrids will be 

commensurate with the higher, “unadjusted” actual standards 
Page 39

corresponding to a vehicle’s emissions, not the lower “zero-emission 

VMT adjusted” standards. Consequently, allowing use of a Zeroemission VMT Allowance that is greater than 1 would cause a dis-benefit 

to California’s air quality. 

42. Comment: The section that provides the method for calculating the 

Vehicle Emission Credits (VECs) for medium-duty vehicles other than 

MDPVs should not begin until 2016 MY when the LEV III MDV 

requirements begin. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) 

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes.

Comments Concerning Conversion Factors

43. Comment: The appendix D test procedures use an NMHC to NMOG 

conversion (1.1) which appears to be defined only for E10 fuel. This 

fixed factor is not harmonized with EPA’s proposed Part 1066 where an 

equation is used as a function of the ethanol blends (<25% ethanol). 

Another concern with the fixed factor (1.1) is that other fuels (E15) might 

trigger a full speciation requirement for ARB testing (burden). (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: It is appropriate to use an NMHC to NMOG 

conversion (1.1) in California’s test procedures, because LEV III 

certification gasoline will be E10 fuel. Staff will continue to work with 

USEPA as they finalize CFR Part 1066. After CFR Part 1066 is 

finalized, staff will harmonize California’s requirements with federal 

requirements to the extent that they accurately reflect E10 certification 

gasoline. Once USEPA finalizes CFR Part 1066, staff intends to return 

to the Board with a proposal to incorporate the federal equation to 

determine the NMHC to NMOG conversion factor for ethanol blends less 

than 25 percent. This action would alleviate industry’s concern about 

additional testing requirements.

Comments Concerning SFTP Requirement

44. Comment: LEV II SFTP Projection to 120k or 150k (§1961.2(a)(7)(A)2. 

Footnote 2, page A-45): 

Projection: This footnote requires manufacturers to convert LEV II SFTP 

values to NMOG+NOx and project those values to 120k or 150k using 

either SFTP or FTP deterioration factors. However, it is possible that 
Page 40

some vehicles were certified to 4K LEV II SFTP using 120k or 150k aged 

components. In this case, the projected emissions would be the 

certification value for the vehicle. Additionally, it is not clear which 

vehicles are required to project to 120k and which to 150k. We 

recommend clarifying this footnote to indicate that manufacturers are not 

required to project vehicle data if the data was generated using 120k or 

150k aged components. Additionally, we recommend clarifying that 

vehicles would project to 120k or 150k based on their FTP certification 

durability.

Carry-Over: Footnote 2 begins with “For carry-over test groups certified 

to LEV II FTP emission standards...” However, it’s possible that 

vehicles could be certified to LEV II in the 2015-2019MY timeframe that 

are not carry-over vehicles. We recommend that ARB deletes “carryover” from Footnote 2. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and made the clarifications as part of 

the 15-day changes that manufacturers are not required to project 

vehicle data if the data were generated using 120k or 150k aged 

components and that projection to either 120k or 150k is dependent 

upon FTP certification durability. Also, staff agrees that “carry-over” 

should be deleted from the Footnote 2 and this has been addressed as 

part of the 15-day changes.

45. Comment: Section §1961.2(a)(7)(A)2. (page A-44) of the regulations 

states that for FFVs, “SFTP Compliance shall be based on the same 

gaseous or liquid fuel used for FTP certification.” However, for FFVs, 

the vehicle is certified on both gasoline certification fuel and E85. 

Conducting SFTP testing on two fuels would double the testing burden. 

For consistency with EPA, we recommend certifying on the gasoline 

certification fuel only (e.g., either CA cert gasoline (E0 or E10) or EPA 

certification gasoline (E0 or E15)). If this is not possible, we recommend 

testing using the fuel with the worst-case FTP emissions. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees, in part, with the commenter’s 

suggestion and the regulation has been modified as part of the 15-day 

changes to only require SFTP compliance testing on LEV III certification 

gasoline for LEV III fuel-flexible vehicles. Based on an ARB test 

program evaluating FFV exhaust emissions, SFTP emissions are 

typically higher with certification fuel than with E85. Therefore, staff 

does not expect that this change will impact the stringency of the 

standards. 
Page 41

However, since the fuel-flexible vehicles required to comply with SFTP 

will be LEV III vehicles, staff disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion 

to allow testing with LEV II or Tier II certification gasoline. Regarding the 

commenter’s suggestion to allow SFTP testing using E15 test fuel, staff 

cannot make such a determination at this time because USEPA has not 

yet adopted specifications for E15. That said, once USEPA adopts E15 

specifications, staff will evaluate the use of such test fuel and may 

propose an allowance in a future rulemaking if deemed appropriate.

46. Comment: ARB is proposing to revise the SFTP I requirements and 

adopt new SFTP II requirements to reduce the leanest air-to-fuel mixture 

required to obtain maximum torque (lean best torque, LBT) with a 

tolerance of ± 3% from ± 6%. We understand that the changes were 

intended to align with expected changes by USEPA for SFTP II. 

However, in recent discussions with USEPA, they have not made a 

decision on the actual percentage tolerance. Consequently, we 

recommend (1) deleting this change for LEV II SFTP (i.e., SFTP I) and 

(2) removing the new requirement from the current regulatory proposal 

for SFTP II and adopting a harmonized requirement in the next 

rulemaking to allow USEPA, ARB staff, and industry to determine the 

appropriate tolerance. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and made the necessary modifications 

to the regulatory language to retain the original 6% tolerance language 

as part of the 15-day changes.

47. Comment: CARB should allow small volume manufacturers to certify 

100 percent of their vehicles to existing SFTP I LEV II standards using 

current certification gasoline through the 2021 model year, and 100 

percent of their ULEV/ULEV70/ULEV50 vehicles to SFTP II LEV III 

standards using E10 beginning with the 2022 model year. (Lance 

Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of Aston Martin Lagonda 

Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: Staff agrees, but no changes are being proposed 

because the 15-day regulatory language already provides SVMs with the 

LEV III SFTP phase-in suggested by the commenter. The LEV III SFTP 

requirements are tied to the LEV III FTP requirements in that 

manufacturers are only required to certify an engine family to the 

150,000-mile SFTP standards on E10 when certifying that same family 

to LEV III FTP standards. Therefore, in the 15-day regulatory language, 

SVMs are required to certify all engine families to the 150K durability 

SFTP standards starting with model year 2022 unless they elect to 

certify an engine family to the LEV III FTP standards before the 2022 

model year.
Page 42

3. Comments Concerning the Evaporative Emission Regulations

48. Comment: CARB must revise and keep updated assigned DFs. In 

addition, the procedure for deduction of background evaporative 

emissions from full vehicle testing (mirror image of rig testing) must 

continue to be accepted. This is an important issue to small volume 

manufacturers given small-volume-manufacturer usage of composites, 

leather and larger tires. (Lance Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on 

behalf of Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and 

McLaren Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: The evaporative emission test procedure continues 

to include an allowance for small volume manufacturers (SVM) to use 

assigned DFs in lieu of developing DFs through actual vehicle aging and 

testing, and a procedure already exists for SVMs to request them in the 

certification process. SVMs should work with certification staff to 

determine the appropriate assigned DFs to use for their LEV III 

evaporative emission families. 

Regarding the “mirror image of rig testing,” as with current LEV II 

regulations, LEV III continues to allow manufacturers to use alternative 

test plans, subject to advance Executive Officer approval, to comply with 

the fuel-only (“rig” test) evaporative emission standards. No changes 

have been made in response to this comment.

49. Comment: The evaporative emission standards include MDPVs with 

LDT3 and LDT4s. The evaporative emission standard size based 

requirements were set recognizing that larger vehicles have inherently 

higher non-fuel emissions due to their size. We recommend treating 

MDPVs as MDVs for standards. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The Option 2 evaporative emission standards 

include MDPVs within the more stringent LDT3/LDT4 vehicle category

instead of the MDV category to be consistent with the exhaust emission 

requirements for those same vehicles. Staff acknowledges that MDPVs 

are generally expected to have higher background emissions than 

smaller LDT3s and LDT4s and specifically accounted for this by 

incorporating additional compliance flexibility when developing the 

evaporative emission requirements. First, because the whole vehicle 

diurnal standards are based on the average of all vehicles within a 

category, manufacturers can offset higher MDPV emission values with 

lower emission values from LDT3 and LDT4 families. Additionally, the 

credit trading provisions will allow manufacturers to offset deficits in the 

MDPV/LDT3/LDT4 category with credits generated in the MDV/HDV 
Page 43

category if a deficit still exists three model years after it was incurred. 

No changes have been made in response to this comment.

50. Comment: The proposed regulations for LEV III evaporative emissions 

allow manufacturers the option of certifying to the zero evaporative 

emission standards using the Bleed Emissions Test Procedure rather 

than a “rig” test. Like the LEV III exhaust regulations, the LEV III Evap 

regulations begin in the 2015 MY. However, unlike the LEV III Exhaust 

regulations, there is no provision early compliance with the LEV III Evap 

standards. We recommend allowing early (2014 MY) compliance with 

the new evaporative emission standards consistent with early 

compliance allowance for LEV III exhaust, recognizing the 

manufacturers will not receive credits toward the 2018-2022 phase-in for 

vehicles certified early. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: The proposed regulation for LEV III evaporative emissions 

allows manufacturers the option to certify to the zero evaporative vehicle 

standards using the Bleed Emissions Test Procedure instead of a “rig” 

test. Manufacturers should be allowed early (model year 2014) 

compliance with the new evaporative emission standards consistent with 

the plan to allow early compliance for LEV III exhaust. (§1976(b)(1)(G), 

page A-131) (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North 

America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and has included the necessary 

modifications, as part of the 15-day changes, to the evaporative 

emission regulations and test procedures that will allow a manufacturer 

to optionally certify 2014 model year vehicles to the proposed LEV III 

evaporative emission standards. As noted by the first commenter, these 

early compliance vehicles would not generate credits towards the 

required evaporative emission phase-in schedule.

51. Comment: As written, it is not clear based on the language in App F 

III.F.3, Page III-54, which fuel would be used to test 2015 and 

subsequent model FFVs. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and has incorporated the necessary 

modifications, as part of the 15-day changes, to the “California 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles” that clarify the FFV test fuel 

requirements in section III.F.3.

52. Comment: For the carbon canister loading in the BETP, the test 

procedure requires the canister to be loaded with a mixture of fuel vapor 
Page 44

and nitrogen. Manufacturers would like the option to use air instead of 

nitrogen. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and has made the necessary 

modifications, as part of the 15-day changes, to the “California 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles” that allow loading the canister with a 

mixture of air and fuel vapor as an option.

53. Comment: The current and future evaporative emission test procedures 

require manufacturers to conduct an evaporative test during the exhaust 

deterioration factor determination at 5,000, 40,000, 70,000, and 100,000 

miles. These tests are resource intensive without a commensurate gain. 

We recommend deleting these additional evaporative tests. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Comment: Development of deterioration factors is already an extremely 

resource-intensive process. The prescribed intervals (5,000, 40,000, 

70,000, and 100,000 miles) also make evaporative tests very costly. 

Eliminating the evaporative tests would result in a significant relief to 

Volvo. (Appendix F, Part II.A.(2.4), page II-2) (Katherine H. Yehl, 

Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: Modifications to the current evaporative durability 

procedure were not considered as part of the LEV III rulemaking, and the 

same mileage test points for evaporative durability determination that 

currently apply in LEV II remain unchanged for LEV III. Because this 

comment was submitted during the 45-day comment period of this 

rulemaking, there was insufficient time to fully consider the ramifications 

of making changes to the durability procedure. However, staff will 

continue to evaluate this issue and may consider proposing revised 

requirements as part of a future rulemaking.

54. Comment: We are supportive of CARB's intent to work with USEPA in 

developing evaporative emission leak standards and test procedures. A 

recent USEPA study found that in-use evaporative emissions were 

significantly higher than certification levels. We are concerned that 

significant gains from the proposed LEV III evaporative emission 

standards could be lost through excess in-use emissions. It is 

imperative that a leak test procedure and emission standards be 

developed that can be applied during certification and to the in-use fleet. 

(Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry Hogo, 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))
Page 45

Agency Response: Staff acknowledges the possibility of in-use 

durability issues associated with evaporative emission controls, but 

additional work needs to be completed in order to better characterize this 

problem and set forth an effective leak test program. As discussed in 

the staff report, staff will continue to work with USEPA to increase staff’s 

understanding of the magnitude and causes of in-use evaporative 

emissions and to develop the leak test procedure and associated 

emission standards with the goal of incorporating them into the LEV III 

regulations in a future rulemaking.

Comments Concerning ORVR Requirements

55. Comment: ARB’s proposal exempts incomplete vehicles <14,000 

GVWR from the ORVR requirements if they are certified to complete 

heavy-duty vehicle standards under federal regulations. However, some 

incomplete < 14,000 GVWR vehicles are not so certified, and are 

currently not tested to the ORVR requirements since they are 

incomplete. To clarify, we recommend eliminating the ORVR 

requirements from all < 14,000 GVWR incomplete vehicles. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff intended for all incomplete vehicles to be 

exempted from the ORVR requirements. As such, the regulatory 

language and test procedures have been revised in the 15-day changes 

to make it clear that all incomplete medium duty vehicles are exempted 

from the ORVR requirements. In addition, staff has included language to 

clarify that only vehicles tested as incomplete vehicles for the purposes 

of evaporative emissions testing may be considered incomplete vehicles 

for ORVR compliance and testing.

Comments Concerning the Pooling Provisions

56. Comment: BMW recommends adding a pooling provision for SFTP like 

it is already proposed for FTP in California, the District of Columbia, and 

all states that have adopted California’s criteria pollutant emission 

standards. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

Agency Response: Staff agrees and the pooling provision has been 

extended to SFTP as part of the 15-day changes.

57. Comment: The DEP requests that CARB provide adequate guidance to 

Section 177 states and the District of Columbia on how the credit and 

debit system relates to the pooling option for fleet emission standards 
Page 46

for criteria pollutants and evaporative emissions. (Michael L. Krancer, 

Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP))

Agency Response: If a manufacturer chooses not to pool its emissions, 

credits/debits are calculated separately for CA and each of the 177 

states based on compliance in each state. So, a manufacturer could be 

in compliance for one state (e.g., California) and out of compliance for 

another state (e.g. NY) for the same model year. If a manufacturer 

chooses to pool its emissions, credits/debits are calculated based on the 

total number of vehicles sold in CA and the 177 states combined. In this 

case, a manufacturer is either in compliance for all states or out of 

compliance for all states. Debits earned under a pooled scenario are 

divvied up between each state that is included in the fleet average. The 

per state debits are divvied out based on the “grams per mile” (for 

exhaust criteria emissions) or “grams” (for evaporative emissions) over 

the fleet average that the manufacturer achieves and the number of 

vehicles produced and delivered for sale in California and each

individual state in the fleet average. Each state would then assign 

penalties to a manufacturer based on the debits attributed to that state. 

58. Comment: For the purposes of complying with fleet average and phase 

in requirements, the Section 177 State Pooling Provisions (exhaust and 

evaporative) allow a manufacturer to pool their fleet based on sales in all 

of the Section 177 states. The Alliance recommends that: (1) ARB 

should require manufacturer’s notification only prior to the first model 

year when the Section 177 State Pooling provision will be implemented. 

(2) To ensure this provision covers all of §1961.2, ARB should consider 

moving the Pooling Provision from §1961.2(b)(1)(A)1.c to new Section 

§1961.2(b)(5). (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion and made the 

necessary modifications to the regulatory language as part of the 15-day 

changes. 

59. Comment: Global Automakers understands that ARB, in coordination 

with Section 177 States, will allow a pooled compliance option for 

meeting the Advanced Clean Car regulations and that the pooling 

provisions will be clarified further in the staff’s proposed 15-day

changes. Global Automakers fully supports this allowance under the 

LEV III and GHG regulations and also believes that such a provision 

would add additional flexibility under the ZEV program. (Michael J. 

Stanton, President & CEO, Global Automakers)
Page 47

Agency Response: We appreciate Global Automakers support for the 

pooled compliance option for the LEV III criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas regulations. The portion of this comment that refers to 

the ZEV program is addressed in the Final Statement of Reasons for the 

ZEV portion of the Advanced Clean Cars Program.

Comments Concerning Federal Tier 3 Criteria Pollutant Exhaust 

Regulations

60. Comment: Ford requests a resolution by the Board to direct staff to 

continue to work with manufacturers and the EPA to harmonize the 

California “LEV III” program with the anticipated federal “Tier 3”criteria 

emissions program, to the greatest extent possible, including standards, 

test procedures, certification requirements, and based on national 

compliance volumes. (Bob Holycross, Manager, Regulatory Strategy & 

Planning Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company)

Comment: We recommend the Board direct the Executive Officer to 

work with automakers and USEPA to harmonize the vehicle criteria 

emission regulations, including fuels, standards, test procedures, and 

certification requirements, and to develop a regulatory package for the 

Board’s consideration within 18 months of this hearing or within 9 

months of when USEPA issues a final Tier 3 rule, whichever occurs last. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: It is of utmost importance to Volvo, as an intermediate 

manufacturer, that CARB and USEPA achieve harmonization between 

LEV III and Tier 3 to the greatest possible extent. (Katherine H. Yehl, 

Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Comment: Stringent criteria emission requirements for LEV III and Tier 

3 require the elimination of non-essential requirements and duplication 

of efforts (e.g., submission of certification data to the agencies, test 

procedures for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles). (Thomas C. Baloga, 

Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President 

of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: It is staff’s intent to coordinate and harmonize our 

criteria pollutant programs with those of USEPA to the extent that they 

continue to meet California’s air quality and programmatic needs.

61. Comment: We strongly encourage the Board to continue working with 

your federal counterparts to get the Tier 3 program enacted to create a 

renewable standard and help the friends at the federal level along with 
Page 48

the California's leadership. (James Jack, Emission Technology Control 

Association)

Agency Response: It is staff’s intent to work with USEPA in their 

development of the federal Tier 3 program to encourage the 

development of a national program that is consistent with California’s air 

quality and programmatic needs. 

4. Comments Concerning the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations

62. Comment: The essence of the USEPA/CARB small volume 

manufacturer (SVM) GHG proposal is for each eligible SVM to petition 

both USEPA and CARB for a case by case SVM-specific GHG 

standard. Small volume manufacturers with nationwide sales of fewer 

than 5,000 vehicles per year may petition CARB for alternative GHG 

emission standards. Consideration of alternative standards would be 

based on a review of the manufacturers’ engineering and economic 

resources and other relevant data. If determined appropriate, 

alternative emission standards would be granted for a period of up to 5

years and reconsidered at future 5-year intervals.

We do have one observation on the CARB GHG case-by-case program 

which we feel is significant. Given that an SVM must separately petition 

USEPA and CARB for a case-by-case standard, we believe that all 

parties would wish to avoid a situation where a case-by-case standard 

determined by USEPA ends up being different from the CARB case-bycase standard for the same SVM covering the same time period. We 

believe that close cooperation between USEPA and CARB, as well as 

simultaneous filings with both agencies by the SVM, should essentially 

eliminate the risk of two different standards for a given SVM. However, 

we wish to bring this issue to the Board’s and staff’s attention. (Lance 

Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of Aston Martin Lagonda 

Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees that there is any conflict and is not 

proposing any change. Staff believes that the procedure for evaluating 

whether or not a manufacturer meets the “nationwide sales of fewer than 

5,000 vehicles per year” criteria is sufficiently detailed to minimize the 

risk of ARB and USEPA reaching conflicting conclusions. However, staff 

is not opposed to adding a provision to the regulations that would allow 

California to accept USEPA’s approval of a manufacturer’s compliance 

with this requirement as sufficient for meeting California’s requirement. 

Staff will consider adding such language to the regulations once USEPA 

finalizes their 2017 through 2025 model year greenhouse gas rule, 

provided that the stringency of the final federal rule is consistent with the 

NPRM for that rulemaking. 
Page 49

 

63. Comment: We recommend that the Board direct staff to work with 

industry to align the federal and California programs in the following 

areas.

• Units of Greenhouse Gas Credits and Debits

ARB quantifies greenhouse gas credits and debits in units of grams 

CO2e per mile. EPA quantifies these credits and debits as total tons 

of CO2 or CREE emissions, accounting for differences in estimated 

passenger car and light-duty truck vehicle lifetime mileage.

ARB also appears to mix the use of these units at 13 CCR 

1961.3(a)(8)(A)2.a. and 13 CCR 1961.3(a)(8)(A)2.b. (ISOR at A-93)

 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff has ensured that the crediting systems are 

aligned and is not proposing any change. While mirroring the form and 

stringency of the proposed federal GHG program for 2017-2025, 

California’s GHG program has some unique features absent from the 

federal program. Among these are the assignment of upstream 

emissions to ZEVs and the structure of credits and debits. Since there 

are no provisions to transfer credits or debits between LEV III and the 

federal program, these differences should not pose a problem to the 

manufacturers. Regarding the units used for the term “credits” in the 

calculations in 13 CCR 1961.3(a)(8)(A)2.a. and 13 CCR 

1961.3(a)(8)(A)2.b, they are both given in megagrams, which is used in 

the calculation in 1961.3(a)(8)(A)2.a. Since the final results of the 

calculations in the CCR sections cited here are expressed in terms of 

grams per mile, there is no internal inconsistency in the LEV III GHG 

credit and debit calculation requirements.

64. Comment: We recommend that the Board direct staff to work with 

industry to align the federal and California programs in the following 

areas.

• Treatment of Electric, Plug-In Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell 

Upstream Emissions 

ARB proposes to include upstream emissions for these vehicle 

types. EPA treats these types of vehicles as having 0 g/mi 

upstream emissions up to certain caps.

 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)
Page 50

Agency Response: Staff is not proposing any change. In relation to 

ARB’s proposal to include upstream emissions for plug-in electric and 

fuel cell vehicles, ARB staff stated its justification for not exempting the 

known emissions of these technologies in the regulatory accounting 

(See ISOR, pages 134-138). Staff has received differing comments from 

many stakeholders about the importance of including the relative 

upstream emission impacts from advanced vehicles, and many of the 

comments were highly supportive. Based on staff’s own analysis, 

lifecycle research in the scientific literature, and consideration of 

stakeholders’ comments, staff is proposing to include the upstream 

emission accounting as proposed. The regulatory accounting of these 

vehicles’ emissions is based on the general principles that all vehicle 

technologies are evaluated on a technology-neutral basis, that known 

emission impacts from particular vehicle technologies are not exempted, 

and that the regulatory framework is durable enough to accommodate 

evolving vehicle power sources over the long-term. In addition, the 

specific regulatory requirement for these vehicle types through the ZEV 

program obviates the need for additional special regulatory incentives. 

Nonetheless, staff notes that in the planned future rulemaking to deem 

the federal GHG standard compliance as sufficient for California 

compliance, the manufacturers would ultimately receive the same 

regulatory treatment in the federal and California regulations.

65. Comment: We recommend that the Board direct staff to work with 

industry to align the federal and California programs in the following 

area.

• Treatment of Dual Fueled Vehicles 

ARB does not provide for weighting of dual fuel vehicle emissions 

on both gasoline and alternative fuel. EPA provides an actual 

usage-based factor and proposes to create a “utility factor” for CNG 

dual fueled vehicles.

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: There are no special credits for CNG vehicles in the 

greenhouse gas regulations, but a comparable CNG vehicle does have a 

natural CO2 benefit simply from its exhaust CO2 emissions. 

Functionally, this means that a CNG vehicle will get a 20-25% lower 

GHG rating than its gasoline counterpart. We did not include any 

upstream benefits for any of the alternative fuels in LEV III. Staff 

believes that California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard already provides 

credits to lower carbon fuels and assigning an additional credit to the 
Page 51

vehicle would amount to double counting. Since the Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard does not apply nationwide, USEPA may find it appropriate to 

credit the upstream greenhouse gas emission benefits of CNG vehicles 

through their vehicle regulations.

66. Comment: We recommend that the Board direct staff to work with 

industry to align the federal and California programs in the following 

area.

• Credits for Reduction of Air Conditioning Direct Emissions 

ARB proposes to add a subjective judgment to determine whether 

an air conditioning (A/C) system has been optimized to minimize 

leakage and to justify the number of fittings and joints in an A/C 

system design. In contrast, USEPA only requires the objective 

measurement of system leakage per an established SAE 

procedure.

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The commented provision is meant to be a reporting 

requirement that an A/C Direct Emissions Credit application must meet, 

in addition to the criteria that an A/C system must meet in order to qualify 

for A/C Direct Emissions Credit. To improve clarity, as part of the 15-day 

changes, we revised the regulatory text in CCR, title 13, section 

1961.3(a)(6)(A) and section E.2.5.6.2 of the “California 2015 and 

Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles” to read:

• “an explanation describing what efforts have been made to 

minimize the number of fittings and joints and to optimize the 

components in order to minimize leakage.”

67. Comment: We recommend that the Board direct staff to work with 

industry to align the federal and California programs in the following 

area.

• Credits for Reduction of Air Conditioning Direct Emissions 

Both ARB and USEPA propose a “high-leak penalty” applicable to 

vehicles utilizing refrigerants with a global warming potential of 150 

or less. In the equation for this penalty, the average leakage rate 

terms differ between ARB and USEPA.
Page 52

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The average leakage rate terms in the high leak 

penalty formulas are established based on our analysis that is detailed in 

Appendix R to the Initial Statement of Reasons. We are submitting 

comments to the USEPA proposing that the USEPA revise its proposed 

A/C Leakage Credit provisions by adopting the average leakage rate 

terms currently proposed by ARB, so that the A/C leakage Credit 

provisions would then be identical in the USEPA and ARB rules.

68. Comment: Volvo continuously develops its climate systems in order to 

reduce refrigerant leakage and to improve durability. Volvo is convinced 

that physical measurements better reflect real vehicle emissions and 

also result in development of more robust air conditioning systems than 

calculations of theoretical estimates and allowances. Volvo strongly 

supports the Agency's intent to allow, as expressed in the draft's 

Appendix D, paragraph E.2.5.6.3,1 physical measurements of 

refrigerant leakage as an alternative to the latest version of SAE J2727. 

(Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo 

Car Corporation)

Agency Response: The LEV III provisions on which Volvo commented,

Sections E.2.5.6.3.1 and E.2.5.6.3.2 of the “California 2015 and 

Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” both have the following 

language: “The Executive Officer may allow a manufacturer to use an 

updated version of the August 2008 version of SAE J2727 or an 

alternate method if s/he determines that the updated SAE J2727 or the 

alternate method provides more accurate estimates of the initial leak rate 

of A/C systems than the August 2008 version of SAE J2727 does.”

We would like to clarify that Section E.2.5.6.3 of the proposed LEV III 

rule does not express or imply that we will allow the use of physical 

measurements of refrigerant leakage as an alternative to the latest 

version of SAE J2727.

Section E.2.5.6.3 of the proposed LEV III rule does allow the use of an 

alternate method if we determine that the method provides more 

accurate estimates of the initial leak rate of A/C systems than the latest 

version of SAE J2727 does. For purpose of calculating A/C Direct 

Emissions Credit, ARB believes it is important that a method to quantify 

the initial leak rate of A/C systems reflect the variation in the probability 
Page 53

of mis-assembly for different fitting technologies (for example, O-ring 

versus seal washer). Furthermore, ARB believes that a physical 

measurement, such as a mini-SHED testing, by itself, would not reflect 

such variations because the testing subjects are usually properly 

assembled A/C systems, and thus would not provide more accurate 

estimates of the initial leak rate of A/C systems than SAE J2727 does.

ARB understands that SAE J2727 standard has recently been updated 

to improve the accuracy of the estimation of the initial leak rate of A/C 

systems and to expand its application to HFO-1234yf, a low-GWP 

refrigerant. The updated SAE J2727 (Revision February 2012) 

continues to take into account the variation in the probability of misassembly for different fitting technologies. However, when the updated 

version became available, it was too late for ARB to propose a 

corresponding revision to the LEV III rule via the 15-Day Notice for the 

rule. Therefore, ARB intends to amend the A/C Direct Emissions Credit 

provisions in the future to require the use of February 2012 version of 

SAE J2727. We also intend to continue to allow the use of a further 

updated version of SAE J2727 or an alternate method if we determine 

that the updated SAE J2727 or the alternate method provides more 

accurate estimates than the current SAE J2727 (Revision February 

2012) does.

69. Comment: Fisker Automotive applauds the Air Resources Board for 

approving a cap and trade program that will reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions in California under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. By establishing 

controls for greenhouse gas emissions due to electricity generation (in 

the first compliance period of 2013-2014) and fuel distributors (in the 

second compliance period of 2015-2017), ARB has an opportunity to 

elegantly separate its regulation of upstream emissions and downstream 

(tailpipe) emissions due to vehicle use.

Different regulatory bodies take differing approaches to tailpipe 

emissions. The European Commission (ECE-R 101) recognizes electric 

driving as contributing zero tailpipe emissions, which results in a CO2

rating of 51 g/km (or 82 g/mi) for the 2012 Fisker Karma. In contrast, the 

same vehicle under the proposed LEV III amendments would receive a 

CO2 rating of approximately 140 g/mi, based on the calculation for model 

year 2016. The difference between these two ratings is partially 

attributable to the different handling of upstream emissions. (Kellen 

Schefter, public policy analyst, Fisker Automotive, Inc.)

Agency Response: Staff is not proposing any change. ARB 

emphasizes that counting known emissions impacts of electric vehicles 

is critical to establishing technology-neutral GHG performance standards 

that recognize emission-leading technologies without picking 
Page 54

technological winners. As a point of comparison, ARB staff notes that the 

plug-in hybrid Fisker Karma under a 140 g/mi rating would have a GHG 

level that is lower than every model year 2010 gasoline vehicle model 

except for the Toyota Prius and far lower than any vehicle with 

comparable performance attributes to the Karma. Compared to the fleet 

at large, that 140 g/mi GHG rating is 55% lower than the average model 

year 2010 automobile and 44% lower than the projected model year 

2016 fleet average GHG standard of 250 g/mi. As a result, the model 

would be appropriately rated as a very low-GHG vehicle model and 

therefore receive emission-reduction credits commensurate with its 

environmental performance. Also, as noted in the response to Comment 

#4, staff will return to the Board after further study of in-use data for 

range extended battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, and, if 

warranted, propose appropriate modifications to treatment and credits 

for these vehicles.

70. Comment: ARB’s greenhouse gas emissions standards in the LEV III 

amendments incorporate a utility factor to calculate the fraction of VMT 

spent in all-electric range. Fisker Automotive would encourage ARB to 

consider aligning its utility factor-based accounting of greenhouse gas 

emissions with its approach to criteria pollutants. The utility factor 

approach, which is itself based on data from transportation surveys, 

could be refined with actual in-use data from vehicles as this data 

becomes available. Fisker Automotive does not wish to make undue 

allowances for any vehicles; at the same time, we believe it is in the 

state’s best interests to level the playing-field for all vehicles, especially 

those that enable zero-emission driving. (Kellen Schefter, public policy 

analyst, Fisker Automotive, Inc.)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with the comment that the utility factor 

should be refined based on in-use data as such data becomes available. 

Based on the most recent data, the utility factor method appears to 

approximately estimate the extent to which plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles are utilizing the electric grid in the real world. For example, the 

only such plug-in vehicle model for which there is hard data, the 

Chevrolet Volt, has a utility factor of approximately 64% and General 

Motors has reported that the vehicle model has logged 10 million 

cumulative miles with about two-thirds of its miles powered by electricity. 

ARB has an interest in providing an unambiguous, objective, and 

repeatable measure for all vehicle models for crediting purposes within 

the GHG regulation. ARB staff notes that within several years there will 

be more plug-in hybrid models, with more technology configurations, and 

with varying real-world electricity usage. Data from these new emerging 

vehicle plug-in hybrid models will be considered by ARB staff as it 

becomes available and will be incorporated into the greenhouse gas

program’s mid-term review. (Board Resolution 12-11 directs the 
Page 55

Executive Officer to participate in USEPA’s mid-term review of the 2022 

through 2025 model year passenger vehicle greenhouse gas standards 

being proposed under the 2017 through 2025 MY National Program.)

71. Comment: ARB’s ISOR does not include the multiplier incentives for 

electric vehicles as proposed in the federal NPRM. According to ARB, 

the proposed ZEV regulation sets sufficient incentives for their market 

penetration and, therefore, additional incentives through e.g. multipliers 

are not needed. This view is not shared by BMW. Without multiplier 

incentives, standards compliance may be jeopardized due to the 

proposed very ambitious GHG standards for model years 2017-2025. 

BMW believes that any variation to the federal NPRM, such as different 

counting of upstream emissions or consideration of different flexibilities, 

is not goal-oriented towards achievement of single national standards. 

(Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas 

Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: Staff is not proposing any change. The multiplier 

incentives are not included in California’s LEV III GHG regulation, as 

they go against ARB’s principles for establishing technology-neutral 

performance standards, they inappropriately give additional artificial 

credit for vehicles that are already mandated by the ZEV regulation, and 

they erode the program’s intended GHG emission reductions. ARB staff 

notes that automakers do indeed get access to these special electric 

vehicle multiplier incentives if and when they comply with the federal 

GHG regulations, and compliance with those standards would be 

deemed as sufficient for compliance with the California GHG regulation. 

(Board Resolution 12-11 directs the Executive Officer to either propose 

modifications to the approved regulatory amendments, or to return to the 

Board with a new regulatory proposal, to accept compliance with the 

2017 through 2025 MY National Program as compliance with California’s 

greenhouse gas emission standards in the 2017 through 2025 model 

years, if the Executive Officer determines that USEPA has adopted a 

final rule that at a minimum preserves the greenhouse reduction benefits 

set forth in USEPA’s December 1, 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

for 2017 through 2025 model year passenger vehicles.)

72. Comment: BMW supports the option to convert measured N2O and CH4

emissions that are above the applicable standards into CO2-equivalent 

emissions for compliance purposes. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice 

President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of 

Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.
Page 56

73. Comment: From our point of view, adequate availability of R123yf is 

highly questionable. Therefore, we greatly appreciate CARB’s decision 

regarding the future adoption of this refrigerant. (Thomas C. Baloga, 

Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President 

of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

74. Comment: Regarding leakage related credits, we would like CARB to 

reconsider the so called “HiLeakDisincentives”. We feel that it must not 

be allowed to use any unintended fluid or refrigerant in any A/C system. 

If someone does so, then it would violate the law. So the effects of 

illegal refrigerant charge cannot be influenced by the manufacturer. 

Furthermore, this disincentive provokes discussions to use unintended 

refrigerants. We do not expect that vehicle manufacturers will shift to 

higher potential leakage rates when using R1234yf instead of R134a –

BMW would definitely not do so and our focus will remain on best quality 

refrigerant circuit tightness for any given refrigerant. (Thomas C. 

Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice 

President of Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: The purpose of the high leak penalty provisions is to 

incentivize continued efforts to reduce A/C leakage and to prevent 

backsliding of refrigerant containment when the industry transitions to 

using a low-GWP refrigerant. Any automobile manufacturer that utilizes 

high quality refrigerant containment technologies will not be at 

competitive disadvantage under these provisions.

The credit provisions and the related technical analysis in the Initial 

Statement of Reasons do not suggest or imply approval of using 

refrigerants for which an A/C system is not designed. However, the 

price disparity between HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf is likely to remain 

large, and further, HFO-1234yf is not currently allowed for use by do-ityourselfers. Therefore, if HFO-1234yf is chosen by the industry as the 

next generation automotive refrigerant, illicit recharging of HFO-1234yf 

systems with HFC-134a refrigerant will be a realistic possibility for some 

consumers. Maintaining low leak rate will help reduce the frequency of 

recharge events, which in turn reduces both the number of opportunities 

for illegal behavior and the financial incentive for illegal behavior, and 

which also reduces the environmental consequences of that illegal 

behavior to the extent it occurs. Therefore, the manufacturer’s system 

design can in fact influence the recharging of A/C systems with 

unintended refrigerants.
Page 57

75. Comment: There is a concern that the new AC17 test cycle tests for 

determining air conditioner efficiency improvements be limited due to 

facility constraints plus the significant testing burden (time required to 

complete the test sequence). Additionally with this new test cycle 

(AC17) there is a concern with existing test facilities meeting the tight 

ambient tolerances. With some minor modifications to the requirements 

these issues can be reduced or eliminated. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) 

Agency Response: Manufacturers are not required to conduct the AC17 

test procedure on every vehicle, but instead need only test one vehicle 

amongst all those that share a common air conditioning system. Based 

on discussions with automobile manufacturers, staff understands that 

most vehicles on a single platform use the same air conditioning system. 

Given that most automobile manufacturers have a limited number of 

platform lines, staff does not anticipate a facilities constraint issue due to 

testing of vehicles for the purpose of obtaining air conditioning efficiency 

credits. However, staff will continue to evaluate this issue and if there 

are indications that such an issue could arise in the future, staff may 

consider proposing revised regulatory language in a future rulemaking, 

which is anticipated to occur before the end of 2012.

76. Comment: We support the review of A/C-idle judgment as a function of 

engine displacement. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, 

and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, 

BMW Group)

Agency Response: Staff is appreciative of the supportive comment and 

no additional response is required because it is supportive.

77. Comment: The AC17 test conditions do not reflect typical average or 

moderately increased air conditioning loads. Especially the solar load is 

too high. Some of the powerful measures to lower all-the-year fuel 

consumption also can’t be evaluated at the currently suggested AC17 

test load – e.g. significant reduction of reheat. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice 

President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of 

Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: Staff does not agree that the solar loading should be 

reduced. The solar loading was chosen not as an average ambient 

temperature, but as a moderately high soak temperature based on both 

CA-specific and national conditions. Based on comparisons to realworld temperature rise within a parked vehicle, staff believes the 

proposed loading to be appropriate given the amount of soak time that 

was chosen. Additionally, testing confirms that vehicles generally 

achieve complete pull down during the SC03 portion of the test cycle, 
Page 58

allowing steady-state conditions to be evaluated during the HWFET 

portion of the test cycle. Thus, all credited AC efficiency technologies 

should be adequately evaluated through the AC17 test procedure as 

proposed.

78. Comment: The reliability of AC17 test data is expected to be not better, 

but similar to AC-idle-test. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, 

Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental 

Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees and is not proposing any change. 

As discussed in detail in the USEPA 2010 “Final Rulemaking to 

Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Joint Technical Support 

Document,” the primary issue with the Idle Test is not test-to-test 

variation, but scatter amongst the various vehicle models and types. As 

such, in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for the 2017-2025 MY light 

duty greenhouse gas rule, USEPA has proposed a correction factor that 

will allow all vehicles with A/C efficiency technologies to qualify for 

indirect emission credits using the Idle Test, regardless of engine 

displacement and type. Despite this correction factor, the Idle Test is 

still not an ideal test because it cannot evaluate the benefit of several 

A/C efficiency technologies, such as recirculation. In addition, the Idle 

Test does not reflect the range of A/C operation conditions, including 

steady-state operation. To address these issues staff has proposed the 

AC17 test procedure, which is an improvement on the Idle Test in that it 

better reflects the full range of efficiency technologies and operation 

conditions. The AC17 test procedure is based on two, regularly 

conducted test procedures, SC03 and HWFET, which have known levels 

of repeatability and acceptable test-to-test variability. Thus, no changes 

to the AC17 test procedures were proposed as a result of this comment.

79. Comment: We recommend adopting the definition of platforms or 

carlines according to the Alliance proposal. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice 

President, Engineering, and Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of 

Governmental Affairs, BMW Group)

Agency Response: The Alliance did not provide ARB with a comment 

suggesting a change in the definition of platforms or carlines, and as 

such, staff is not able to respond to the BMW comment. Thus, at this 

time no changes to the regulatory language have been made. However, 

staff will continue to evaluate this issue and may consider proposing 

revised regulatory language in a future rulemaking, which is anticipated 

to occur before the end of 2012.
Page 59

80. Comment: We are also concerned about determining fuel consumption 

improvements and credit calculations depending on baseline test 

results. The generation of baseline car results needs to be properly 

defined. BMW does not have baseline cars – especially focused on 

2017 – they have to be designed and built up for this single test. 

Therefore, we propose to test a baseline car once for each platform –

according to the Alliance car definition – and the use of these baseline 

results should be allowed during the entire model year 2017-2025 

timeframe. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

Agency Response: While staff understands BMW’s concerns, staff 

believes that there is significant flexibility in the regulatory language such 

that manufacturers will be able to obtain a vehicle for baseline testing. In 

particular, it is not required that the baseline vehicle be identical to the 

test vehicle with the credit-generating technologies, only that it not 

contain the credit generating technologies and be of a “similar” type. In 

order to ensure that manufacturers can demonstrate the benefit of the 

credit-generating technologies, it is necessary to compare a vehicle with 

an improved air conditioning system to one that does not contain the 

efficiency technologies. Thus, no changes to the regulatory language 

have been made in response to this comment. However, staff will 

continue to evaluate this issue and may consider proposing revised 

regulatory language in a future rulemaking, which is anticipated to occur 

before the end of 2012.

81. Comment: BMW has the following comment on the AC17 test 

procedure. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

• During the 30 minute soak, it is quite difficult to control temperature 

and humidity properly. A wider tolerance range in this phase of the 

cycle would help. Even more critical for some modern full automatic 

test benches is the combination of engine-off and 4 mph wind speed, 

because this has significant impact on exhaust gas analysis 

measurement devices. We would prefer a soak definition with a 

wider tolerance range of temperatures and, especially, humidity, and 

a speed definition of maximum 4 mph (instead of exactly 4 mph).

Agency Response: The tolerances for the ambient test cell conditions 

were based on the capabilities of the test cell as defined for the current 

SC03 test in 40 CFR § 86.161-00, and testing conducted during 

development of the AC17 test procedure demonstrate the ability of these 

environmental chambers to maintain the ambient conditions as specified 

in the proposed regulation. In addition, due to the influence of wind 
Page 60

speed on cabin heating and thus indirect emissions based on differing 

glazing properties, it is essential to specify a specific wind speed during 

the soak as opposed to simply a maximum speed as requested. Thus, 

no changes to the regulatory language have been made in response to 

this comment. However, staff will continue to evaluate this issue and 

may consider proposing revised regulatory language in a future 

rulemaking, which is anticipated to occur before the end of 2012.

82. Comment: BMW has the following comment on the AC17 test 

procedure. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

• Solar load during A/C-off phases causes extreme temperature 

exposure to test drivers. These working conditions are unacceptable 

and will lead to poor accuracy when trying to meet the given drive 

cycle requirements. We suggest running A/C-off phases without 

solar load. As A/C is turned off, this has no impact on A/C-off fuel 

consumption. 

Agency Response: Maintaining ambient conditions from the air 

conditioning-on test to the air conditioning-off test is vital to ensuring that 

benefit from the air conditioning efficiency technologies can be 

evaluated. Because of the influence of the solar loading on the heating 

of the engine compartment and other vehicle systems and the resultant 

impact on vehicle CO2 emissions, staff believes it is important to 

maintain the solar loading on both tests. In addition, the relatively mild 

ambient temperature conditions within the test cell should ensure some 

level of driver comfort, and as such no revisions to the regulatory 

language have been made in response to this comment. However, in 

order to further consider drivers’ working conditions, staff will continue to 

evaluate this issue and may consider proposing revised regulatory 

language in a future rulemaking, which is anticipated to occur before the 

end of 2012.

83. Comment: BMW has the following comment on the AC17 test 

procedure. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)

• Drive cycle definitions should be fully equal to currently used cycles 

(e.g., some seconds time shift @ HWFET). This would help to keep 

accuracy and test quality high and to avoid mistakes.

Agency Response: Although the AC17 test cycle is comprised of two, 

currently existing test cycles, it is in fact a new test cycle that will need to 

be managed by the manufacturers, and thus no changes to the test 

procedure are required. However, staff will continue to work with the 
Page 61

USEPA to attempt to make the new AC17 test cycle as close to currently 

existing test cycles as possible. Assuming the Federal program is 

substantially similar to that which was proposed in the NPRM, staff plans 

to return to the Board to align the California indirect air conditioning 

credit program with the Federal program once it is finalized.

84. Comment: SCAQMD staff believes that CARB can still establish a 6%

per year improvement rate at this time. Such a rate could take the form 

of an "optional" standard to further incentivize the early 

commercialization of cleaner vehicles (since the rate of performance is 

translated into a g/mile standard). This is similar to the optional 

NMHC+NOx exhaust standards CARB established for heavy-duty 

vehicles prior to the implementation of the 2007 exhaust emissions 

standard. As such, we urge CARB to propose an optional emissions 

standard for greenhouse gas emissions as part of the 15-day process. 

(Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, and Henry Hogo, 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD))

Agency Response: The structure and purpose of the suggested 

optional, more-stringent 6% per year set of standards is unclear. The 

proposed standards already allow for credit generation from automakers 

that choose to voluntarily over-comply with the standards in any model 

year. Any given automaker can over-comply in order to provide a buffer 

for their future year GHG emission levels, to sell excess credits at a 

profit to other automakers, or to over-comply with the GHG standards for 

corporate responsibility or marketing purposes. Functionally, it is difficult 

for ARB staff to see what publishing an optional, more-stringent 6% per 

year GHG standard accomplishes beyond the regulation’s existing ability 

to promote the deployment of low-GHG-emission vehicles.

85. Comment: ARB has committed to the Mid-Term Review of the 

greenhouse gas regulations. We therefore request that the Board 

memorialize this commitment by directing the Executive Officer to 

conduct a mid-term review in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA.

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: Mid-term evaluation of the greenhouse gas regulations will 

allow manufacturers and the agencies to consider whether the 

regulation is reasonable and on track in its assumptions. It is therefore 

imperative that the industry and the agencies review and consider the 

outcomes of our work in 2012 in relation to the joint plan at the midpoint. 

(Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo 

Car Corporation)
Page 62

Agency Response: This is not a comment directed at or suggesting a 

change to the regulatory text as proposed, and therefore no further 

response is needed. However, we note that Resolution 12-11 directs the 

Executive Officer to participate in USEPA’s mid-term review of the 2022 

through 2025 model year passenger vehicle greenhouse gas standards 

being proposed under the 2017 through 2025 MY National Program.

86. Comment: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the federal 

agencies (USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA)) should adopt a backstop mechanism to prevent the loss of 

benefits resulting from a significant shift towards larger vehicles and a 

reclassification of cars as trucks. As proposed in the staff report, CARB 

should continue to monitor the implementation of the standards and 

provide status updates to the board on an annual basis. (Don Anair, 

Senior Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees and is not proposing any change.

ARB staff has considered the concept of a backstop mechanism that 

would ensure that the projected GHG emission targets are achieved in 

future years. Staff’s analysis suggests that there is considerable 

uncertainty in the ultimate outcome of the GHG standards. Staff notes 

that the uncertainty is two-sided. As a result, the regulation could 

achieve greater GHG emission reduction than projected (e.g., if fuel 

prices were substantially higher than the approximate $4 per gallon 

estimation used in the analysis); yet shifts toward larger vehicles and 

reclassification of models as trucks would conversely increase GHG 

emissions. The lack of certainty is inherent to a regulatory framework 

that accommodates shifts in vehicle footprint and category, and, 

therefore, staff sees this simultaneously as both a strength and a 

potential weakness. Per direction from the Board (Resolution 12-11), 

ARB staff is committed to monitoring these fleet trends throughout the 

life of regulations, making the information publicly available, providing a 

status update to the Board by 2016, and addressing any such effects 

within the mid-term program evaluation.

87. Comment: We support CARB’s inclusion of upstream emissions 

accounting for electricity and hydrogen and urge CARB to continue to 

work with federal regulators as national standards are finalized to 

include federal accounting of upstream emissions. (Don Anair, Senior 

Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Agency Response: Staff will continue to work with USEPA on their 

upstream emission accounting for electric and hydrogen vehicles.

88. Comment: Ford supports the harmonization of California and federal 

Greenhouse Gas programs. We request that staff include language to 
Page 63

allow manufacturers to comply with the 2017-2025 MY One National 

Program for Greenhouse Gas / Fuel Economy (GHG/FE) in lieu of 

compliance with the California Greenhouse Gas program. (Bob 

Holycross, Manager, Regulatory Strategy & Planning Sustainability, 

Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company)

Comment: The current draft of the regulations does not make it clear 

that CARB intends to allow reciprocal recognition of the national 

greenhouse gas program, as was the case for model years 2012 to 

2016. Volvo seeks confirmation that CARB intends to make this 

commitment for model years 2017 through 2025. (Katherine H. Yehl, 

Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Comment: ARB has recognized the importance and benefit of a single 

national program for greenhouse gases. We recommend that ARB 

allow manufacturers to comply with the federal program in lieu of 

complying with the ARB program when the federal final rule is 

published. Additionally, we strongly urge ARB to conduct an extensive 

Mid-Term Evaluation to review the appropriateness of the standards and 

market acceptance. (Reginald R. Modlin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, 

Chrysler)

Comment: We request that the Board direct the Executive Officer to 

adopt regulatory changes necessary to allow manufacturers to comply 

with the USEPA greenhouse gas regulations in lieu of compliance with 

California once USEPA issues a final rule. Moreover, ARB should 

continue the practice of allowing manufacturers to certify vehicles in 

California by submitting federal certification test data. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Board Resolution 12-11 directs the Executive Officer 

to either propose modifications to the approved regulatory amendments, 

or to return to the Board with a new regulatory proposal, to accept 

compliance with the 2017 through 2025 MY National Program as 

compliance with California’s greenhouse gas emission standards in the 

2017 through 2025 model years, if the Executive Officer determines that 

USEPA has adopted a final rule that at a minimum preserves the 

greenhouse reduction benefits set forth in U.S. EPA’s December 1, 2011 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 2017 through 2025 model year 

passenger vehicles. Staff is unsure about what the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers is referring to by “ARB should continue the 

practice of allowing manufacturers to certify vehicles in California by 

submitting federal certification test data.” However, staff did not make 

any changes to the regulations that would prohibit ARB from accepting 

federal certification test data.
Page 64

89. Comment: CARB should engage with the federal agencies as part of the 

federally proposed mid‐term review. However, California must continue 

to retain its right to exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act to adopt 

more stringent standards than the federal government to protect the 

health of all Californians from poor air quality and climate change. (Don 

Anair, Senior Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Agency Response: Resolution 12-11 directs the Executive Officer to 

participate in USEPA’s mid-term review of the 2022 through 2025 model 

year passenger vehicle greenhouse gas standards being proposed 

under the 2017 through 2025 MY National Program. However, 

California reserves all rights to contest final actions taken or not taken by 

USEPA or NHTSA as part of or in response to the mid-term evaluation. 

In addition, nothing in ARB’s July 28, 2011 commitment letter or this 

rulemaking can be read to state or imply that California has conceded 

any right to adopt more stringent standards.

90. Comment: We believe that by removing incentives to produce flexible 

fuel vehicles (FFVs) for the model year 2016 and later years, the 

proposed amendments will cause automakers to cease production of 

FFVs, and that any greenhouse gas benefits of the Federal Renewable 

Fuel Standard will be lost. We recommend projecting ethanol usage 

factors for FFVs, so that the automakers can incorporate the projected 

usage into their planning decisions for the future. (Tom Buis, CEO, 

Growth Energy)

Agency Response: California’s GHG program for 2009-2016 included 

credits to manufacturers of FFVs who could demonstrate the usage of 

low carbon fuels, including E85. These credits were designed to 

account for the upstream GHG benefits provided by the use of low 

carbon fuels. However, in the interim ARB has adopted the Low Carbon 

Fuel Standard that requires fuel providers to lower the carbon content of 

fuels sold in California. This measure is an integral part of California 

efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Since the upstream GHG benefits for 

low carbon fuels are now assigned to the fuel providers, retaining these 

credits for FFVs would essentially result in double counting of those 

benefits. Accordingly, these credits were not retained in the LEV III

program.

Comments Concerning the Measurement of N2O

91. Comment: LEV III appendices C and D now require N2O 

measurements. Recent studies have shown that N2O measurement 

technology at such ultra-low levels (parts per billion range) is very much 

in its infancy and not well understood nor developed. OEM’s have a 
Page 65

high level of concern over measurement technology readiness, 

instrument availability (most are prototypes), measurement accuracy, 

implementation lead time (commencing many years after technology is 

proven accurate and robust), additional testing burden, costs to 

implement, etc. The LEV III regulations require this N2O measurement 

for the 2015 MY, which is not feasible for OEM’s to meet given N2O 

measurement technology readiness and required lead time. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

92. Comment: The LEV III regulations require this N2O measurement for 

the 2015 MY. Currently there is no equipment on the market that can 

measure N2O with a relevant repeatability. During 2012-2013, new 

technology will be introduced to the market, but this technology is still in 

the research stage, and it would be premature to commit to its use as a 

certification tool at this juncture. Volvo is concerned about technology 

readiness, instrument availability, measurement accuracy, and 

implementation lead time, including verifying that the instrument is 

robust enough for certification testing. Volvo and the Alliance addressed 

the same concern to USEPA, which has pushed implement date of its 

requirement to model year 2017. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of 

Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: The commenter appears to have misread the 

requirements. As noted in the section E.2.5 of the “California 2015 and 

Subsequent Model Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas 

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, 

Light Duty Trucks and Medium Duty Vehicles,” measurement of N2O 

emissions is required to demonstrate compliance with LEV III GHG 

requirements beginning in 2017, not 2015, consistent with federal 

requirements. 

5. Comments Concerning Size Definitions

93. Comment: Although Ferrari supports ARB’s proposal to strengthen its 

LEV III program and its approach to setting standards for small volume 

manufacturers (SVMs), Ferrari is proposing that ARB should include in 

the final statement of reasons a revision to the definition of SVM in 13 

CCR §1900 (22). The proposed language would allow a manufacturer 

to qualify as a SVM on the basis of its own sales if it can show that it is 

“operationally independent” from related manufacturers with which its 

sales would otherwise be aggregated. Ferrari’s proposed regulatory 

language would benefit small, operationally-independent vehicle 

manufacturers while still protecting the environment and mimimizing 

vehicle GHG emissions. Specifically, Ferrari proposed that ARB adopt 
Page 66

the operational independence criteria that are included at page 74,992 

of the EPA and NHTSA proposal, 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. 74,854 (Dec. 1, 2011) (Proposed 

Federal Rule). (Ing. Amedeo Felisa, CEO – Ferrari S.p.A)

Comment: Although Ferrari of Beverly Hills and Ferrari of Silicon Valley 

support ARB’s proposal to strengthen the existing programs and its 

approach to setting standards for SVMs, we urge ARB to issue a 15-day 

notice revisiting the definition of to include the operational independence 

criteria proposed by EPA and NHTSA proposal, 2017 and Later Model 

Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. 74,854 (Dec. 1, 2011). 

The federal language would allow a manufacturer to qualify as a SVM on 

the basis of its own sales if it can show that it is “operationally 

independent” from related manufacturers with which its sales would 

otherwise be aggregated. Specifically, a manufacturer with more than 

10 percent ownership by another vehicle manufacturer would have to 

demonstrate that its research, design, production, manufacturing, 

marketing, and other functions are operationally independent from the 

vehicle manufacturer owner. It is important that ARB maintain the 

consistency and uniformity between the state and federal regulatory 

programs by including these criteria in its rulemaking. (Giacomo 

Mattioli, Principal, Ferrari of Beverly Hills)

Comment: Ferrari of San Francisco supports this proposal and also 

urges the ARB to issue a 15-day notice containing the operational 

independence criteria proposed by EPA and NHTSA in the 2017 and 

Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. 74,854 

(Dec. 1, 2011). These criteria would allow a manufacturer to 

demonstrate that it is operationally independent from related 

manufacturers with which its sales would otherwise have to be 

aggregated under the California regulations. In order to maintain 

consistency and uniformity between the federal and California programs, 

it is important that ARB include these criteria in its rulemaking. (Greg 

Minor, President, Ferrari of San Francisco)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this suggestion on its merits and 

made the necessary modification to the regulatory language as part of 

the 15-day changes. However, it is important to note that EPA did not

include the aforementioned language in the regulatory language that 

was published with its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the 

2017 through 2025 national greenhouse gas rule. Rather, this language 

requested comments on the appropriateness of including this language 
Page 67

in the final rule, but there was no commitment on the part of EPA to do 

so. 

6. Comments Concerning Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Test Procedure

94. Comment: Appendix J (HD Otto), there are conflicting requirements 

between the specified NMOG procedures and Part 1065. Examples are 

NMHC density and CH4 instrumentation. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The new NMHC derivation was developed through a 

cooperative effort with USEPA to harmonize California’s test procedures 

with Parts 1065 and 1066 requirements currently under development. 

Staff will continue to work with USEPA to ensure that California’s 

requirements are consistent with the NMHC mass derivation and CH4 

instrumentation incorporated in the final Tier 3 regulations.

7. Comments Concerning Fuel Specifications

95. Comment: As part of the harmonization of vehicle emission programs, 

we recommend ARB allow manufacturers to use the federal Tier 3 

gasoline for certification to the California standards for exhaust and 

evaporative emissions testing. (Note that evaporative tests using 

federal fuel would also use the federal temperature profiles.) (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff is open to this suggestion, but will wait for the 

federal Tier 3 rule to be published before determination to propose such 

allowance in a future rulemaking.

96. Comment: It appears that there may be two different cert fuels (E15 for 

Federal Tier 3 and E10 for California). If so, then the Alliance strongly 

urges that each Agency agree to “two way” reciprocity, in which each 

Agency accepts the other’s test fuel and certification. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff is open to the idea of reciprocity with the 

USEPA Tier 3 rule, but cannot make a determination until EPA’s Tier 3 

rule has been finalized.

97. Comment: Considerable uncertainty still remains about the use of E15 

market fuel in light of ongoing litigation challenging the USEPA E15 

Waiver and corollary Mis-fueling Avoidance Rule, and because of the 

uncertainties about the pace of national investment in the retail 
Page 68

infrastructure to enable E15 use (e.g., new dispensers, etc.). At the 

point that E15 use is predominant in the national market and California 

market, then consideration of transitioning to a new cert fuel would be 

appropriate. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this comment and will consider 

reevaluating the certification fuel at the appropriate time.

98. Comment: ARB and USEPA should institute a coordinated formal 

review effort, with stakeholder involvement, to assess experience with 

the new cert fuel(s) and also developments in market fuels, perhaps in 

the 2017 timeframe. There is much new regulatory content in the ARB 

proposal, and a formal commitment to assess the full range of 

requirements for various fuel types is appropriate, especially in this 

period of rapid change in vehicle and fuel technologies. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff is open to the idea of a coordinated formal 

review effort with USEPA and stakeholders and will discuss the idea with 

EPA once their Tier 3 rule has been finalized.

99. Comment: The Alliance has pointed out that if USEPA and ARB each 

were to require testing at one of two octane grades (regular or premium, 

depending on what the OEM requires), then a company may have to 

obtain and track up to four different cert fuels (E10 regular and premium 

and E15 regular and premium) rather than the single fuel, single octane 

grade currently in use. This means there will be a reduction in the ability 

to make “apples to apples” comparisons across vehicles, as well as 

added cost and complexity for OEMs. ARB has not yet provided an 

economic analysis of the benefits vs. burdens/cost of this extra 

complexity, and should do so. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: See response to Comments #100 and #96. Staff is

going to provide auto manufactures with the flexibility to use the lower 

grade octane for all of their vehicle testing and is open to the idea of 

reciprocity concerning the use of certification fuel with the EPA Tier 3 

rule, but cannot make a final determination until the rule is published. 

Should staff determine that it is appropriate to provide reciprocity in the 

use of certification fuel manufacturers would not need to maintain 

multiple fuel stocks for emission testing. Accordingly, until USEPA has 

finalized its certification fuel requirements it is premature to provide an 

analysis of the economic impact of different California and federal 

certification fuels requirements. Nonetheless, ARB staff did performed 
Page 69

an economic analysis of the change to California’s certification fuel in 

this rulemaking.

100. Comment: To remedy this and allow flexibility to choose one octane 

grade, the word “shall” needs to be replaced with “may” in the first 

sentence of footnote (i) in the Table in Sec. 100.3.1.2 (Appendix D at II4). (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this comment and has made this 

change in the 15-day changes.

101. Comment: The new certification fuel specifications require the use of

two octane values. This leads to additional complications and costs at 

the testing facilities. Since using a lower octane will either have no 

effect or will result in worse case emissions, manufacturers would like 

the option to use the lower octane. We recommend revising this 

footnote to allow use of 91 octane for vehicles/engines that require 

premium gasoline as part of their warranty, but not require it. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees with this comment and has made this change 

in the 15-day changes.

102. Comment: The Alliance encourages both ARB and USEPA to consider 

moving market and cert fuel specifications to RON and MON in lieu of 

an AKI (R+M/2) metric, to provide greater flexibility in future years, and 

compatibility with other countries. A specified MON value is important 

along with RON. With the wide variety of engine designs available 

across the U. S. marketplace, there is strong evidence to support the 

need for both a RON and MON specification. The AKI simple average 

will not meet the needs for future technologies for some OEM products. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff designed the certification fuel to be reflective of 

the current in-use fuel. The octane level of the current in-use fuel is 

based on the AKI metric because the Department of Measurement 

Standards (DMS) regulates octane level using the AKI metric. 

Therefore, to ensure the certification fuel is representative of the in-use 

fuel, staff used the same metric to determine fuel octane level as used

by the DMS.

103. Comment: Market and certification fuel RON (Research Octane 

Number) and MON (Motor Octane Number) octane requirements should 
Page 70

be raised commensurate with the ethanol (or other bio-based fuel) 

octane contribution.

For purposes of E10 cert fuel, Alliance members requested that ARB 

use a higher RON and MON octane specification that would be 

commensurate with the octane enhancement provided by the 10% 

ethanol over and above the previous E0 octane cert fuel level. (The 

same principle would apply for any ethanol blend above the previous E0 

cert fuel.) This would have made the cert fuels “forward looking” to 

marketplace need. The Alliance is disappointed ARB has not done so in 

the proposed 87 [and 91 minimum] AKI for LEVIII E10 cert fuel in the

proposed Table in ARB Appendix D p.II-4. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff designed the certification fuel to be reflective of 

the current in-use fuel. According to the EIA1, in California, among the 

total 5.4 million gallons per day of gasoline sold to end users in May 

2011, 4.2 million gallons per day of gasoline (77%) were regular (87 

AKI), 500 thousand gallons per day of gasoline (9%) were mid-grade (89 

AKI), and 800 thousand gallons per day of gasoline (14%) were premium 

(91 AKI). Therefore, the certification fuel is designed around an 87 AKI 

and for those vehicles that have a warranty that requires 91 AKI, we 

allow for the vehicle to be tested using the certification fuel at 91 AKI.

104. Comment: Volvo agrees that there is a need to move the reference fuel 

to a blend of 10% ethanol, consistent with the current and foreseeable 

future U.S. market. This is also consistent with fuel developments in 

Europe and Asia. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs 

North America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: We thank Volvo for their support of E10 as a 

certification fuel.

105. Comment: Volvo supports a single certification fuel for USEPA and 

CARB. It is expensive and inefficient to develop and store several 

different fuels to meet two nearly identical regulations.

When USEPA and CARB require different fuels, it effectively doubles 

the amount of testing manufacturers are required to perform, while 

yielding limited, if any, additional environmental benefit. Even though it 

appears that 10% ethanol is likely to be the most common fuel on the 

U.S. market for the foreseeable future, it appears likely that USEPA will 

require E15.

 1 http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_c_SCA_EPMM_mgalpd_m.htm
Page 71

The consequence of this would be that CARB and USEPA will have 

different certification gasoline requirements. To eliminate unnecessary 

duplicative testing, Volvo is requesting that CARB accept certification 

using the USEPA proposed fuel from MY2017.

Volvo requests that CARB allow manufacturers to use the federal Tier 3 

gasoline for certification to CARB standards for exhaust and evaporative 

emissions testing. For evaporative testing, the use of USEPA 

temperature profiles is a necessity that must be part of this allowance. 

(Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo 

Car Corporation)

Agency Response: Staff is open to the idea of reciprocity with the 

USEPA Tier 3 rule, but cannot make a determination until USEPA’s Tier 

3 rule has been published.

106. Comment: The same criteria that govern the need for new test 

procedures to measure extremely low emissions adequately and 

correctly also dictate the need for low-sulfur fuel. It is essential to avoid 

sacrificing environmental gains achieved by use of advanced technology 

by failing to recognize the effect of higher quality fuel or the impact of 

sulfur on catalyst efficiency over time. Lower sulfur in fuel will also result 

in environmental gains for the existing fleet since the catalyst 

deactivation and the need to regenerate the catalyst will be minimized.

Volvo would prefer a flat 10 ppm cap instead of using the currently 

proposed range of 8.0-11.0. This would align with international 

standards, such as the current requirement in Europe. (Katherine H. 

Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car 

Corporation)

Agency Response: Sulfur level in fuels has a very strong relationship to 

oxides of nitrogen emissions. The average in-use sulfur level in 

California is about 9 ppm. The proposed range is reflective of what we 

are seeing in-use. To have a sulfur level significantly below the 

proposed range would not be representative of in-use fuels and in-use 

emissions.

107. Comment: USEPA's proposed Reid Vapor Pressure of 9 psi offers an 

opportunity to act on an achievable environmental opportunity that 

would positively influence on the vehicle evaporative systems. To that 

end, Volvo would encourage USEPA's harmonization with CARB's 7 psi. 

This is an environmental opportunity that would positively influence all 

vehicles nationwide. Volvo supports CARB's decision to remain at a 

more environmentally beneficial level of 6.9-7.2 psi. (Katherine H. Yehl, 

Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car Corporation)
Page 72

Agency Response: We thank Volvo for their support of our proposed 

Reid Vapor Pressure specification for E10 certification fuel.

108. Comment: Higher octane fuel would enable manufacturers to pursue 

strategies that better support development and introduction of advance 

vehicle technologies, and a consequent reduction in greenhouse gases 

and criteria emissions. To optimize engine fuel efficiency and minimize 

emissions, transitioning to higher octane regular and premium grade

market gasoline may be necessary. Volvo would support establishment 

of a minimum blend stock octane. In this way, adding ethanol would 

raise fuel octane without risk that blenders would make corresponding 

reductions in base blend stock octane, thereby undoing the octane 

benefit of ethanol addition. We recommend the Board direct staff to 

assess the environmental benefits of higher octane gasoline. (Katherine 

H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North America, Volvo Car 

Corporation)

Agency Response to Technical Part of Comment: The Department of 

Measurement Standards regulates octane level for in-use fuels. Octane 

is considered a consumer protection issue to prevent knocking and poor 

vehicle performance. ARB does not and has not regulated octane in 

gasoline because there is no evidence to suggest that octane affects 

criteria emissions in and of itself. Staff is unaware of any studies that 

have been designed to isolate octane as an independent effect on 

criteria emissions. It is very difficult to isolate octane at the same 

composition and volatility levels. Nonetheless, staff agrees with 

commenter that an increase in blend stock octane would allow engine 

operation at higher compression ratios, thereby provide a CO2 benefit. 

However, this is outside the scope of the notice and would require 

separate regulatory action by the Department of Measurement 

Standards.

Agency Response to Portion of Comment Raising Environmental Issues: 

For Agency response to the complete comment, see the document 

“Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars Environmental 

Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the Board at the 

March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – L38.”

109. Comment: The language in Appendix C Sec. 100.3.9 (p. 37) appears to 

omit some important language in this section compared with corollary 

language for Sec. 100.3.9 in Appendix D Part II, p.II-9. It doesn’t 

include the initial paragraph or section 100.3.9(a)(2) of the language in 
Page 73

Appendix D, which should be identical for both sections as well as in 

Title 13 Sec. 2317 (Appendix A p. 152-3). (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The language in question is already in Appendix C. 

Only the proposed changes to Appendix C are shown in the 45-day 

Notice language. So, the “omitted” language is still there. It appears as 

“* * * *” on the bottom of page 38. Since this language is specific to 

certification testing, it does not belong in Title 13 section 2317, which 

applies more generally to all substitute fuels sold in California.

110. Comment: The Alliance requests that ARB clarify that the phrase used 

in the first sentence of Sec. 100.3.9 of the Appendices C and D and in 

Appendix A for Sec. 2317, “to establish by regulation” means that any 

petition and Agency response to accept a new cert or market fuel will be 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking, and not a direct final 

regulation. Please add language to read “...establish by regulation (with 

notice and comment rulemaking)...” (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The proposed added language is unnecessary. 

California’s regulatory process requires ARB to use the “notice and 

rulemaking” process to establish all new regulations.

111. Comment: The Alliance particularly supports inclusion of the language 

in Appendix D, Section 100.3.9(a)(2) in both Appendix C and Appendix 

D, and also in Sec. 2317(a)(3)(C) in Appendix A, but include the 

following (underlined) addition: “Use of the new clean fuel in such 

existing motor vehicles would not result in increased deterioration of the 

vehicle, including “emission-related parts” as defined in Title 13 CCR 

Section 1900, and would not void the warranties of any such vehicles.” 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: ARB disagrees and no change was made in 

response. The proposed added language is unnecessary because: (1) 

the “emission-related parts” are part of the vehicle’s emission control 

system and (2) the “California Test Procedures for Evaluating Substitute 

Fuels and New Clean Fuels in 2015 and Subsequent Years,” states that

the fuel may not cause an increase in the deterioration of vehicles’ 

emission control systems.

112. Comment: Proposed Appendices M and N currently require a 50,000 

mile minimum mileage durability test. Given the 150,000 full useful life 

requirement proposed for LEV III, the same durability minimum mileage 

should be required for future clean fuels evaluation. (Steven Douglas, 
Page 74

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: It is appropriate to make this change to Appendix N, 

since it applies to LEV III vehicles, and LEV III vehicles must certify to 

150,000 mile emission standards. Therefore, this change was 

incorporated in the 15-day changes. Appendix M, however, only applies 

through the 2014 calendar year. Since there are no current applications 

for a new clean fuel and staff does not anticipate any applications for a 

new clean fuel prior to the start of LEV III in 2015, no changes were 

made to Appendix M

113. Comment: ARB should change the Table in Appendix D, Sec. 100.3.1.2 

(p. II-3, 4) benzene specification to 0.8 ppm maximum, and drop the 

range of 0.6-0.8 ppm maximum. Using a range just adds complexity 

and cost to the certification fuel preparation with no certification 

functional benefit. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Benzene plays a significant role in the potency of 

weighted toxic emissions. The average benzene level in staff’s analysis of inuse fuel was on the order of 0.79 volume percent. Staff believes that permitting 

the benzene level to approach 0 volume percent would misrepresent the potency 

of weighted toxic emissions of in-use fuel.

114. Comment: ARB should change the lower limit to the proposed Total 

Oxygen weight % (Appendix D Part II, Sec. 100.3.1.2., at II-3-4).from 3.3 

to 3.5, and the upper limit to the proposed Total Oxygen weight % from 

3.7 to 4.0 weight %. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff understands there is a wide range of fuel 

densities and that is why staff allows for a range from 3.3 to 3.7 weight 

percent oxygen. Staff believes that the 3.3 to 3.7 range is more than 

adequate to meet the ethanol specification. In addition, the maximum 

allowable oxygen content for in-use fuel is 3.7 weight percent. The 3.7 

weight percent is an absolute cap for in-use fuel and staff does believe the 

certification fuel should not exceed that absolute in-use cap because the 

certification fuel would not be representative of in-use fuels at levels greater 

than 3.7 weight percent.

115. Comment: The Alliance supports ARB’s use of the Multi-substituted 

Alkyl Aromatics cert fuel specification. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)
Page 75

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

8. Comments Concerning the Non-Methane Organic Gas Test 

Procedures

116. Comment: In appendix E there is a new NMHC mass derivation 

(density equation vs. today’s factor) which is a major departure from 

current practices (& USEPA). (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The new NMHC derivation was developed through a 

cooperative effort with USEPA to harmonize California’s test procedures 

with proposed CFR Part 1066 requirements. Staff will continue to work 

with USEPA to ensure that California’s requirements are consistent with 

the NMHC mass derivation that is used in the final Tier 3 regulations.

9. Comments Concerning Editorial Changes to Regulations and Test 

Procedures

117. Comment: The equations (Calculation of Fleet Average NMOG+NOx 

(§1961.2(b)(1)(B)1.a & b., page A-55) appear to contain an error. The 

first bracketed term in the equation below should subtract the number of 

off-vehicle charge capable HEVs from the number of vehicles in the test 

group in both (b)(1)(B)1.a. and (b)(1)(B)1.b. Additionally, the equation in 

1.b. uses Hybrid Electric Vehicle rather than PHEV. Appendix B differs. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The errors have been corrected as part of the 15-

day notice changes.

118. Comment: The equation for calculating the Vehicle Emission Credits 

(VECs) for medium-duty vehicles other than MDPVs contains a couple 

of errors. (1) LEVs are not included in the equation. (2) The multiplier 

(“1.2” should be on the outside of the bracket “{.” (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees. This error was corrected as part of the 

15-day notice changes. 

119. Comment: LEV III appendices C and D, and ZEV 2012 appendices A-2 

and A-4 test procedures (and others) have many references to CFR Part 

86, subparts B and C test procedures. USEPA is in the process of 

migrating these subparts B and C to Part 1066. Not being harmonized 
Page 76

with USEPA creates additional test burden for OEM’s by requiring 

duplication of testing and uncertainty as to the certification requirements. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Comment: USEPA proposed, under Tier 3, to consolidate all test 

procedure requirements of Parts 86 into Part 1066 in order to improve 

their organization. In doing so, some test procedures will remain as they 

are, some will evolve, and new ones will be introduced. Based on 

Volvo’s ongoing analysis of Part 1066, Volvo believes that these 

proposed processes would benefit from thorough revision, in 

cooperation with the industry, to minimize the risk of creating processes 

that will add very little value to the goals they are meant to achieve: 

good repeatability and accuracy. USEPA has recognized industry's 

challenges and therefore continues to work with industry on this issue. 

Volvo would welcome CARB's participation in that dialog. Currently 

there are crucial differences between CARB and USEPA advanced 

technology vehicle test procedures that would benefit from 

harmonization. (Katherine H. Yehl, Director of Government Affairs North 

America, Volvo Car Corporation)

Agency Response: As the commenter points out, EPA is “in the process 

of migrating these subparts B and C to Part 1066.” ARB is not able to 

align with EPA’s proposed changes until these changes have been 

finalized.

10. Comments Concerning On-Board Diagnostics Regulations

120. Comment: EMA supports the changes that ARB Staff has proposed to 

make to the OBD system requirements in the Proposed Regulation, as 

they are directionally appropriate and necessary to address certain 

limited technological feasibility concerns in the short term. 

Nevertheless, EMA also recognizes and acknowledges that these 

changes are short-term adjustments that require future modification. 

We understand that ARB Staff is committed to working with 

manufacturers to address those concerns in comprehensive, longerterm amendments to the medium- and heavy-duty OBD regulations 

during the upcoming heavy-duty OBD biennial review. EMA looks 

forward to working with ARB on those amendments. (Lisa A. Stegink, 

EMA Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA))

Agency Response: No change requested and none made, but ARB 

appreciates the comment.
Page 77

11. Comments Concerning California Environmental Performance 

Label

121. Comment: The 2012 Fisker Karma receives a Global Warming Score of 

5 under California’s Environmental Performance Label, which includes 

upstream emissions, and a Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating of 

10 on the EPA’s revised Fuel Economy and Environment Label, which 

does not include upstream emissions. (As a side point, there is also a 

discrepancy between the Smog Scores on the two labels.) While we 

applaud ARB’s decision to accept the EPA’s new label as compliant with 

California’s labeling requirement, we point out this discrepancy to 

illustrate that different approaches to upstream emissions can create 

confusion in the eyes of the public regarding the environmental benefit 

of electric vehicles. (Kellen Schefter, public policy analyst, Fisker 

Automotive, Inc.)

Agency Response: When a dual-fuel vehicle is certified in California, the 

Global Warming Score on the California Environmental Performance 

Label reflects the dirtiest fuel. In the case of the Fisker Karma, it is 

based on the greenhouse gas emissions of the gasoline engine. 

However, the Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating on the revised 

Federal Fuel Economy and Environmental Label is based on combined 

emissions from both the gasoline engine and the all-electric drive 

system. This will give the car a better score than the gasoline engine 

alone. All battery electric cars in California receive a 10 even when 

accounting for upstream emissions, so in this case, upstream emissions 

are not a factor.

122. Comment: ARB’s proposal for changes to the Environmental 

Performance Labeling requirements will align the California and federal 

vehicle labeling requirements allowing manufacturers to comply by using 

one nationwide label for vehicles. This is a giant step forward in 

providing consistent and clear information to consumers nationwide. 

(Michael J. Stanton, President & CEO, Global Automakers)

Agency Response: ARB staff appreciates your support for our 

harmonizing with the Federal Government on this requirement.

12. Comments Concerning Statements Made by ARB in ISOR

 

123. Comment: Volkswagen supports California’s intention to accept 

compliance with the Federal greenhouse gas program for light-duty 

vehicles. We do, however, wish to state that the existing proposal from 

USEPA and NHTSA contains elements for which Volkswagen will be 

offering suggested improvements and modifications. Volkswagen has 

stated our concern with both the annual stringency levels for passenger 
Page 78

cars and the market inequity resulting from less aggressive truck 

standards and targeted credits. It is the opinion of the Volkswagen 

Group that the 5% average annual stringency for passenger cars places 

an excessive burden on the segment of the market which already 

delivers some of the lowest fleet wide emissions. As illustrated in 

USEPA’s NPRM, the regulations are expected to place the highest cost 

burden on passenger cars, the result of which may impact market 

acceptance for mainstream passenger cars, VW has also expressed 

our concern with the lower stringency being offered for the larger lightduty trucks, the very segment of the fleet with some of the highest CO2

emissions. VW recognizes that these vehicles may feature duty cycles 

that demand a certain level of design, potentially impacting their 

capacity to employ fuel savings technology. Nevertheless, the lower 

stringency combined with additional targeted truck-specific credits may 

create unintended consequences in the marketplace, resulting in an 

inequitable playing field. (Stuart Johnson, Manager, Engineering and 

Environmental Office, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

Staff disagrees and is not proposing any changes. Staff notes that the 

GHG standards do not put undue burden on any particular portions of 

the light-duty vehicle fleet. As one way to clearly state the equity of the 

regulatory burden, the total required change in GHG emission level from 

model year 2008 to model year 2025 is nearly identical for the two main 

categories: 51% for cars and 50% for trucks. As a result, the demand 

from the regulation for each category to deploy low-GHG technologies 

will be approximately equal. Staff has identified many cost-effective 

technologies that can achieve the GHG levels across the various vehicle 

classes and sizes. As a result, ARB staff does not believe that the GHG 

standards are in any way “excessive.” In addition, staff notes that the 

proposed GHG stringency levels have received support from thirteen 

automakers that produce vehicles across all classes and sizes and 

represent approximately 90% of California vehicle sales. 

 

124. Comment: ARB noted their concern that fleet trends negative to CO2

emissions (increasing emissions) may impact the anticipated overall 

CO2 reductions. ARB raised concerns that OEMs may shift vehicles 

from the passenger car fleet to light truck, or that OEMs may increase 

the footprint of vehicles in order to reduce their calculated stringency. 

As a result, ARB stated that they intend to monitor vehicle classification 

and footprint averages over time through certification reports. If they 
Page 79

feel that manufacturers are straying from historic car/truck composition 

or average footprint sizes, they may propose an additional stringency 

linking a manufacturer’s compliance requirement to previous year fleets 

rather than to targets calculated from current year product mix and 

footprint size.

Volkswagen has several concerns with this discussion. Should the 

future prove that actions to alter fleet mix or footprint sizes have indeed 

eroded expected CO2 reductions...in lieu of a decision to scrap 

attributes, perhaps there could be potential with moving towards a flatter 

and more commonized car/truck footprint curve. (Stuart Johnson,

Manager, Engineering and Environmental Office, Volkswagen Group of 

America, Inc.)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

Staff is not proposing any changes. Staff’s analysis of the vehicle fleet 

and its potential future trends has led to the conclusion that closely 

monitoring any shifts in vehicle class and size for potential GHG impact 

is critical to the goals of the GHG regulation. Per direction from the 

Board (Resolution 12-11, January 26, 2012), ARB staff is committed to 

monitoring these fleet trends throughout the life of regulations, making 

the information publicly available, providing a status update to the Board 

by 2016, and addressing any such effects within the mid-term program 

evaluation. Staff notes that unexpected shifts in the fleet could be 

addressed in many ways in future GHG standards, including with 

adjustments to the overall regulatory stringency, category definitions, 

and the slopes of the car and truck attribute-based curves. 

125. Comment: Volkswagen offers the opinion that ARB should consider 

changing fleet mix and footprints in context of overall industry trends. It 

is more equitable to compare the trends of an individual OEM relative to 

industry benchmarks rather than against the history of the OEM....What 

is important to consider is the impact that “backsliding prevention” may 

have on the free movement of investment by an OEM into segments in 

which they have not previously competed. (Stuart Johnson, Manager, 

Engineering and Environmental Office, Volkswagen Group of America, 

Inc.)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 
Page 80

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

Staff is not proposing any changes. Staff did indeed consider overall 

industry trends in its analysis of potential shifts in the future fleet of new 

vehicles. Staff found that future industry trends could move upward, as 

well as downward, in size and category based on automaker offerings 

and consumer shifts. These potential and uncertain shifts are precisely 

the reason that staff will monitor and report upon how any such trends 

affect new vehicle GHG emissions, and especially if they are resulting in 

GHG levels that are significantly higher than projected in the ISOR. By 

developing the footprint-indexed GHG standard curves based on 

technology feasibility and cost-effectiveness, staff is fully confident that

any given auto company can shift over time to different sizes and 

classes and still achieve compliance with the standards. In fact, 

accommodating such trends is one of the inherent features of footprintindexed standards. 

126. Comment: Although we largely agree with the methodology that CARB 

staff utilized, we are concerned that the incremental price associated 

with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) out to 2025 is not reflective 

of a number of price mitigating technology factors and policies at the 

state and national level. Although the CARB staff has indicated that 

there are factors that mitigate price, none of these factors were included 

in the CARB assessment. These include:

• A pure ZEV fleet of vehicles would save about $1.6 Billion per year 

in societal damages, relative to a fleet of vehicles meeting current 

standards. This equates to about $3K-$4K per vehicle over the 

lifetime of the vehicle.

• The federal government does not count upstream emissions when 

calculating the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rating for 

PHEVs. The incremental value of the PHEV CAFE benefit is 

approximately $4,200 per battery-electric vehicle.

• Intensive analysis of the retail market for vehicles allowed access to 

high-occupancy vehicle lanes, even when there is only one 

passenger, indicates that such vehicles command a premium of 

$4K. These studies also indicate an incentive effect of 20 percent 

higher aggregate demand due to the HOV access.

• Reduced vehicle maintenance costs for pure battery-electric 

vehicles are approximately $1,200 per vehicle over its lifetime. The 

result is an incremental price that is significantly higher than 

CalETC believes is accurate. 

• The Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit value for electricity used in 

PEVs must be passed on to PEV owners as a result of CARB’s 

adopted amendments in December, 2011. The value of this credit 
Page 81

ranges from $75-$300 per vehicle per year, $750-$3,000 over the 

life of a PEV.

CalETC recommends the CARB staff include the value of these and 

other benefits associated with PEVs when assessing the incremental 

price associated with PEVs. (Eileen Wenger Tutt, Executive Director, 

California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC))

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

Staff is not proposing any changes. Staff agrees that ZEV technology 

may offer net benefits that could be far greater than those presented in 

the staff report. However, staff notes that adoption of all the “pricemitigating technology factors” as suggested could amount to an 

unconventional evaluation of the benefits. The ARB does quantify the 

emission-reduction benefits of ROG, NOx, and PM2.5 (see ISOR, p. 

177-178), but does not monetize those into avoided societal damage. 

Staff does, however, quantify the monetized GHG benefits under varied 

assumptions about the social cost of carbon (see ISOR, p. 203-207). 

However, due to the reduction of fleet average criteria and GHG 

pollutant standards (i.e., simultaneously including ZEV and non-ZEV 

vehicles) through 2025, it is not clear how to allocate such benefits to 

any particular types of vehicle technologies. In addition, although these 

types of impacts exist and can be monetized, these externality benefits 

do not directly fit within the accounting of “cost of compliance” 

(experienced by the regulated auto makers) or the direct “consumer 

impacts” (experienced by the vehicle user) – so they were not expressed 

in such per-vehicle terms.

It is even less clear how the other benefits should be included in the 

ARB regulatory assessment of ZEVs. The suggested “$4,200” federal 

regulatory upstream incentive impact is not necessarily going to translate 

into such a cost decrease in any given ZEV technology vehicle (and, to 

the extent that such an incentive exists, it would be inherently quantified 

in USEPA’s OMEGA modeling of federal fleet-wide compliance). 

Although staff acknowledges that owners of ZEV technology may 

continue to experience high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) access benefit for 

some time, there is no assurance that the HOV access would be 

continued through 2025 at the required ZEV volumes, so this benefit was 

conservatively excluded. Maintenance benefits were also conservatively 

excluded, in the absence of definitive supporting data to compare longterm conventional and battery-electric maintenance costs. Finally, the 
Page 82

suggested Low Carbon Fuel Standard benefits are not included, as 

these would amount to a monetary transfer within the California 

economy (in this case, from regulated fuel providers). 

127. Comment: The staff reports are actually quite dismissive of the 

performance and potential for natural gas. In the LEV III report staff 

writes: “Regarding alternative fuels other than electricity and hydrogen, 

the LEV III staff analysis does not project that CNG vehicles will be a 

significant strategy for LEV III GHG regulatory compliance.” This is 

really surprising to us given the consistent performance of natural gas 

vehicles in going beyond emission standards set by the Air Resources 

Board over the last decade. (Tim Carmichael, President, California 

Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

Staff is not proposing any changes. Staff acknowledges the 

approximately 30% lower fuel-cycle emission intensity of CNG versus 

gasoline and, therefore, the great potential of this fuel to contribute to 

reductions in climate-related emissions. In fact, the GHG standards 

promote CNG technology more than any previous regulatory standards 

have by publishing long-term standards for substantial GHG reduction 

from any viable low-GHG vehicle technology or alternative fuel that 

automakers choose to deploy. ARB has developed performance-neutral 

GHG LEVIII standards that neither exclude, nor preferentially select for, 

any particular technology type. Automakers, to the extent that they 

deploy CNG vehicles, would appropriately receive credit for CNG’s lower 

GHG emission intensity, which would be reflected in its directly 

measured exhaust emissions. As a result, the deployment of CNG 

technology – especially with an increasingly efficient powertrain – would 

offer a strong contribution toward compliance with the vehicle GHG 

standards.

Nonetheless, staff’s finding that CNG light-duty vehicles are not 

expected to play a critical role in GHG standard compliance is based on 

a number of factors, including automaker CNG product offerings and 

future plans, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the technology versus 

other competing low-GHG technologies that automakers are developing 

and deploying. Currently, one CNG model (Honda Civic GX) is offered, 

and it represents about 0.01% of the US automobile market. The CNG 

vehicle price premium, CNG fuel availability, and other factors have 

apparently negatively impacted the market viability for this vehicle 
Page 83

technology. Although some auto manufacturers have expressed interest 

in selling CNG vehicles, their public plans for light-duty vehicles are 

generally limited to small-volume sales to fleets, and the extent to which 

these small sales volumes would contribute toward overall GHG 

compliance is very limited. It is apparent to staff that the deployment of 

low-GHG gasoline vehicle technology can achieve at least the same 

level of GHG reduction, at lower cost and higher consumer acceptance, 

than CNG vehicles. However, staff’s assessment should in no way imply 

that CNG is not a viable GHG-reduction vehicle technology.

128. Comment: Alliance members understand that California will accept Tier 

3/ E15 in lieu of E10 certification based on the language in the ISOR at 

p. 17: “Staff also proposes to retain the option to certify on federal Tier 

3 certification fuel which staff understands will be based on E15.”

The Alliance, however, found no references in Appendices C or D that 

address the relationship of the ARB and the EPA cert fuels, probably 

because EPA has not yet published its proposed rule for Tier 3. It is our 

understanding that ARB has agreed to honor EPA cert fuel/testing in lieu 

of ARB/E10, consistent with the ISOR language quoted above. 

Therefore, we request that ARB be explicit in documenting in the final 

California regulatory language (and EPA should have reciprocal 

language in its Tier 3 final regulation) that OEMs may use Tier 3 USEPA 

cert fuel and certification in lieu of ARB E10 cert fuel and testing.

Furthermore, it should be made clear in the regulatory language that this 

option extends not only to criteria pollutant and GHG exhaust emissions, 

but also to evaporative (recognizing that evap. testing on federal 

certification fuel requires use of the federal temperature profiles for 

equivalence). The regulations and the relevant cross-referenced 

documents (appendices) should clarify that ARB would accept USEPA 

Tier 3/E15 certification in lieu of E10 ARB certification where otherwise 

E10 certification would be called for. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

See response to Comment #96. It is premature to bind ourselves 

through regulatory language to a rule that has yet to be finalized.

129. Comment: Our coalition's request is that as part of your adoption and 

your resolution today that you ask the staff to work with our industry and 
Page 84

take a look at the life cycle emissions again for natural gas, for 

renewable natural gas, and compare it to where we think these other 

fuels and technologies are going. (Tim Carmichael, President, 

California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition)

Agency Response: Because this comment is not directed toward a 

requested change to the proposed regulations or test procedures, ARB 

need not respond. However, in the interest of providing the commenter, 

stakeholders, and the public with additional information, we respond as 

follows:

While the Board declined in Resolution 12-11 to direct staff to work with 

the natural gas industry to further evaluate life cycle emissions of natural 

gas vehicles, ARB will continue to examine the life cycle emissions of all 

transportation fuels, including natural gas, and, if necessary, update the 

their carbon intensity value as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

requirements are implemented.

13. Comments In Support of Amendments

130. Comment: To the members of CARB, first of all, I want to take this 

opportunity to thank each and every one of you. And I want to offer my 

strongest support for the full suite of clean vehicle fuel policies that are 

under consideration today. (California State Senator Kevin de León)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

131. Comment: "It is rare that new regulatory action will result in such a big 

win for the economy, consumers, national security, and the 

environment. As the original author of California's landmark Clean Car 

Law that serves as our national standard, the advanced clean car 

standards will help clean our air, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 

and ensure automakers have certainty to create jobs and save 

consumers money at the pump....” (Rebekah Rodriguez-Lynn, District 

Director for California State Senator Fran Pavley)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

132. Comment: While I'm here today speaking on behalf of Vermont, many 

of Vermont's interests are shared by the other Section 177 states in the 

northeast. We strongly support California's proposed advanced clean

car rulemaking. (Elaine O’Grady, Vermont Air Pollution Control Division)
Page 85

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

133. Comment: Under the authority of Section 177 of the federal Clean Air 

Act, Pennsylvania adopted and incorporated by reference California’s 

Low-Emission Vehicle (CA LEV) regulations in 1998, except for the 

California Zero-Emission Vehicle and emissions control warranty 

systems statement provisions. The DEP supports CARB’s efforts to 

harmonize the proposed emission limits with current and future federal 

light-duty vehicle emission requirements in order to ease compliance for 

manufacturers and encourage the production of cleaner vehicles 

nationwide. The DEP supports CARB’s provision which provides 

flexibility to manufacturers, since flexibility will allow manufacturers to 

continue to provide a mixed fleet that meets standards. The DEP 

supports CARB’s efforts to reduce actual emissions, which provide 

environmental benefits in Pennsylvania, while improving the value to the 

consumer. (Michael L. Krancer, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP))

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

134. Comment: Through higher standards, the money small business 

owners and consumers will save on gas will better equip the American 

public to foster economic growth by patronizing businesses everywhere. 

We support raising fuel economy standards because they'll be a boon to 

our small businesses and our economy. (David Chase, California 

Outreach Director, Small Business Majority)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

 

135. Comment: We support both the staff proposal as well as the reasoning 

behind it. (Lance Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of 

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren 

Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

 

136. Comment: Volkswagen commends CARB staff for proposing a set of 

(LEV III criteria pollutant) standards with appropriate flexibility for all 

technologies through reasonable lead time, additional emission 

categories, fleet average options, and combining the NMOG and NOx 

pollutants. Similarly, Volkswagen also commends CARB staff for 

offering flexibility in the proposed zero evaporative emission standards 
Page 86

proposed under the LEV III regulation. Volkswagen supports and 

commends CARB staff and the Federal agencies for harmonizing the 

vehicle fuel economy label and eliminating the need for a separate 

California Environmental Performance label. (Stuart Johnson, Manager, 

Engineering and Environmental Office, Volkswagen Group of America, 

Inc.)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

137. Comment: Nissan has been an active participant in the GHG National 

Program and remains committed to the regulatory program as set forth 

in the notices of intent and proposed rule. As a complimentary policy, 

Nissan supports the ARB GHG program as it recognizes the importance 

of a National program and judges compliance with it as demonstrating 

compliance with the California requirements. (Tracy Woodard, Robert 

Cassidy, and Mark Perry, Nissan North America, Inc.)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

138. Comment: The LEV III program as it applies to precursor emissions is 

very detailed and technical. Nissan supports the program as proposed 

and has worked with the industry and ARB Staff to reach a wellbalanced plan which includes a significant reduction in emissions. The 

program also provides meaningful flexibility to allow manufacturers to 

phase-in the lower standards in conjunction with their product plans.

(Tracy Woodard, Robert Cassidy, and Mark Perry, Nissan North 

America, Inc.)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

139. Comment: Hyundai supports the Advanced Clean Cars Program. We 

also do not oppose other flexibilities that have been outlined in the 2016 

and 2025 national greenhouse gas and CAFE proposal that CARB has 

supported, even though these flexibilities likely will not be used by all 

OEMs. Hyundai particularly supports flexibilities such as the 

greenhouse gas overcompliance option that continue to maintain 

greenhouse gas reduction goals. (Michael O’Brien, Vice President of 

Corporate Product Planning, Hyundai America)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.
Page 87

140. Comment: In general, Mitsubishi Motors supports the proposed criteria 

pollutant regulations and the harmonization of GHG regulations except 

for some details important to our company. These details pertain to the 

ZEV and Clean Fuels Outlet elements of the Advanced Clean Cars 

Program. (David N. Patterson, Chief Engineer, Regulatory Affairs and 

Certification, Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc.)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

141. Comment: MECA agrees with ARB staff’s assessment that achieving 

the proposed LEV III exhaust and evaporative emission standards and 

associated emission reductions are both technically feasible and cost 

effective. MECA supports ARB’s proposed changes to their light-duty 

vehicle on-board diagnostic (OBD) requirements. MECA supports 

ARB’s proposed post-2016 greenhouse gas emission standards for 

light-duty vehicles. (Joseph Kubsh, Executive Director, Manufacturers 

of Emission Controls Association (MECA))

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

142. Comment: The Governing Board urges the State of California and the 

California Air Resources Board to continue its national and international 

leadership role in reducing greenhouse gases and promoting clean 

vehicle technologies by moving forward quickly to develop and adopt 

expanded Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV III) standards to reduce criteria 

air pollutants and greenhouse gases and to strengthen the state’s ZeroEmission Vehicle and Clean Fuels Outlet infrastructure programs to 

protect the health of California’s economy, environment, and its people. 

(Thomas Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

143. Comment: I’m here today to express the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District’s support of these proposed amendments that are 

intended to help our state transition to zero-emission vehicles and to 

help achieve the state’s greenhouse gas emission targets. (Karen 

Messina Schkolnick, Bay Area Air Quality Management District)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.
Page 88

144. Comment: I want to provide strong support to your California Advanced 

Clean Cars rulemaking package. We also agree with CARB’s proposed 

accounting for electric vehicle upstream emissions in the LEV III 

package. (Dr. Alan Lloyd, President, The International Council on Clean 

Transportation)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

145. Comment: We support the state's proposals to reduce global warming 

emissions for vehicles built between 2017 and 2025 to 166 grams per 

mile. (4,220 signatures to letter submitted by Union of Concerned 

Scientists)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

 

146. Comment: These standards are good for the environment, good for 

public health, and good for the economy. These standards will further 

protect public health from smog and particulate matter while cutting 

carbon pollution significantly. In addition, these standards will save our 

economy over $50 billion in fuel savings from 2017 to 2030, resulting in 

nearly 40,000 jobs being created in California. (Simon Mui, Ph.D., 

Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

147. Comment: We’d like to thank the staff for all their hard work, express 

our broad overall support for the program, although we do have couple 

suggestions that are in our submitted comments in terms of ways that 

we think the program could be improved. We support the CFO 

regulations and the PM standards. We appreciate keeping the one 

milligram per mile standard in there, although we think we'd like to see 

the hiatus period removed so we can accelerate that and urge you to 

look at it a little more closely. (John Shears, Research Coordinator, 

Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

148. Comment: I work out of the Fresno office, and I want to focus my 

testimony on the importance of these regulations for the San Joaquin 

Valley and how that importance has manifested itself in widespread 

support. I urge you to adopt the most health protective program 

possible. (Elizabeth Jonasson, Coalition for Clean Air)
Page 89

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

149. Comment: There are three critical reasons to be reducing oil use that 

these regulations will take us toward. First is, of course, the reality of 

global warming already manifesting in record temperatures in 

unprecedented drought in Texas. Second, health impacts of air 

pollution. Third, ZEVs and plug-in hybrids are critical to meeting the 

standards we must meet from mere thousands in 2011, to President 

Obama's goal of a million in 2015 to a major fraction of fleet by 2030.

(Darrell Clark, National Co-lead of the Sierra Club's Beyond Oil 

campaign)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

150. Comment: We are writing to express our strong support of the 

California Clean Cars Campaign....We urge the California Air 

Resources Board to move forward this year to protect public health by 

enhancing California’s Low-Emission Vehicle criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas regulations to reduce emissions from all new motor 

vehicles and by strengthening the state’s Zero-Emission Vehicle 

program. (Jessica Tovar, MSW, Project Manager, Long Beach Alliance

for Children with Asthma)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

151. Comment: QueensCare Family Clinics is writing to express our strong 

support of the California Clean Cars Campaign....We urge the California 

Air Resources Board to move forward this year to protect public health 

by enhancing California’s Low-Emission Vehicle criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas regulations to reduce emissions from all new motor 

vehicles and by strengthening the state’s Zero-Emission Vehicle 

program. (Barbara B. Hines, President and CEO, QueensCare Family 

Clinics)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

152. Comment: With your Advanced Clean Car Standards, California can 

reduce all major air pollution-related health impacts by up to 70 percent 

and avoid $7 to $8 billion in healthcare, environmental, and societal 

damages. With these standards, you are offering a beautiful, crucial, 

harm-preventing, and life-saving gift to us all. Public health at its best. 
Page 90

We urge you to run for it! And we thank you! (Robert Vinetz, MD, 

FAAP, on behalf of the Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

153. Comment: Higher fuel standards could help BM Builders save 

significantly on operational costs, savings that can be reinvested in the 

expansion of the business. Better standards would broaden the array of 

fuel-efficient vehicles available to our business, increasing choice and 

ultimately decreasing cost. The proposed fuel economy standards are a 

win-win for Californians and Americans at large. (John Ruud, co-owner, 

BM Builders)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 

154. Comment: I am here today to encourage you to move forward with your 

proposed Advanced Clean Cars Program and to commend the 

exceptional leadership CARB has shown over several decades in the 

effort to restore clean air to California. (Ernesto Pantoja, Laborers Local 

300)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

155. Comment: I speak today on behalf of Local 11 in support of the 

proposed Advanced Clean Cars Program that you have before you 

today. While I do not formally represent them, I would like to point out 

that the California State Association of Electrical Workers as well as 21 

separate International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) locals, 

including Locals 6, 9, my own Local 11, 40, 47, 100, 180, 234, 302, 332, 

340, 413, 440, 441, 477, 551, 569, 617, 639, 684, and 952, from all over 

the state of California, all have also endorsed this proposed clean air 

program. (Kevin Norton, IBEW Local 11)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

156. Comment: We support the updates to the Zero-Emissions Vehicle 

program, Low-Emissions Vehicle program, and the Clean Fuels Outlet 

program. (Emily Schneider, Green Technology Advocate, Professional 

Engineers in California Government (PECG))

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 
Page 91

157. Comment: As organizations representing millions of underprivileged 

and minority consumers across California, we urge you to vote “yes” on 

the strongest possible Advanced Clean Cars Program standards at your 

January board meeting. (Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, 

Consumer Action, San Francisco; Sharon Hillery, Executive Director, 

Fair Housing Consultants, Lakewood; Leticia Bejarano, YWCA, 

Monterey)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 

158. Comment: As nationally recognized consumer organizations that serve 

to protect the consumer interest at the policy level, we urge you to vote 

in favor the strongest possible Advanced Clean Cars Program standards 

at your January board meeting. (comments by Jack Gillis Director of 

Public Affairs, Consumer Federation of America, and author of The Car

Book)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 

159. Comment: Consumers are counting on California to lead America to a 

cleaner, more sustainable, more affordable future. All of the consumers 

that voiced their support for these standards join me in encouraging the 

Board to vote “yes” for the strongest possible Advanced Clean Cars

Program. (letter submitted by Jack Gillis and signed by: Mark Cooper, 

Director of Research for Consumer Federation of America; Rosemary 

Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; David 

Champion, Director of Auto Test Division at Consumer Reports)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 

160. Comment: The California Air Resources Board members must stand 

firmly by the proposed advanced vehicles package. If they do, 

California’s workers win, our job creating industries win, our environment 

wins, and our state and national economies get a big boost when we 

need it most. (letter submitted by Carol Lee Rawn and signed by Martin 

Lagod, Managing Director, Firelake Capital Management)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal. 

161. Comment: As major U.S. businesses, we are writing to voice our strong 

support for California’s proposed Advanced Clean Cars Rules. By 
Page 92

addressing greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions, supporting 

adoption of zero-emission vehicles, and promoting alternative vehicle 

outlets, the rules will promote economic growth, reduce dependence on 

oil, improve public health and mitigate climate risk. (letter submitted by 

Carol Lee Rawn and signed by Mindy S. Lubber, President, Ceres, on 

behalf of Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy [BICEP])

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

162. Comment: We support these efforts to reduce global warming 

emissions, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, reduce our 

dependence on oil, and protect public health by ensuring drivers have 

more choices for clean cars and light trucks through the use of strong, 

cost-effective standards. (114 signatures from Ph.D. economists to 

letter submitted by Miriam Swaffer, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

163. Comment: We write to urge California leaders to seize the opportunity, 

once again, to demonstrate that the nation can begin to meet the climate 

challenge by adopting strong policies that will further reduce heattrapping emissions from cars and trucks. (159 signatures from 

California scientists and engineers to letter submitted by Chris Carney, 

Union of Concerned Scientists)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

164. Comment: We support the proposed LEV III amendments and applaud 

California for bringing cleaner vehicles to our roads. (Hilary Sinnamon, 

Consultant to Environmental Defense Fund, and Erica Morehouse, 

Environmental Defense Fund)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

165. Comment: I appreciate and applaud the Air Resources Board’s strong 

leadership in expanding zero (and near-zero) emission vehicle 

technology. I urge you to adopt the proposed amendments, with the 

strongest possible provisions and timing, for both the ZEV and the LEV 

III Advanced Clean Cars regulations. (William E. Avery, PhD., Professor 

of Biological Sciences, California State University Sacramento)
Page 93

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

166. Comment: We appreciate the opportunity to convey Consumer Reports’ 

support for the proposed Advanced Clean Cars rules. We also called 

upon our network of consumer activists in California to voice their 

opinion on the Advanced Clean Cars program. We are pleased to 

report that 4,488 Californian activists wrote to the Board in support of 

the proposed rules. (Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Policy Counsel,

Consumers Union)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

167. Comment: The undersigned public health and medical professionals 

strongly support California’s efforts to reduce air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and urge the State of California 

to continue its national and international leadership in promoting clean 

vehicle policies and technologies. Without strong action to reduce 

emissions, global warming will exacerbate our existing air pollutionrelated public health crisis. (Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Executive Director, 

Air Quality and Public Health, and Dr. Michael Ong, member of the 

statewide Board of Directors, American Lung Association in California, 

and 144 other members of California’s public health and medical 

community)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

168. Comment: We support the American Lung Association in California’s 

recommendations that the California Air Resources Board must adopt 

strong Advanced Clean Cars Standards that will include the following 

requirements for new cars by 2025:

• Achieve a 75 percent reduction in smog-forming emissions and place 

stringent controls on particle pollution from vehicles;

• Achieve, at minimum, an overall 45 percent (6 percent per year 

starting in 2017) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 

vehicles;

• Achieve a new car fleet mix that includes at least 20 percent zeroemission vehicles.

(American Lung Association in California, letter with 350 signatures)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.
Page 94

169. Comment: California’s Clean Cars Program is set to bring the next 

generation of clean, low-polluting cars and light trucks into the driveways 

of California families. I urge the California Air Resources Board to adopt 

the strongest possible standards for all of the state’s important clean 

cars programs. (petition with 10,400 signatures, submitted by Sean 

Caroll, Environment California)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

170. Comment: Support for the Advanced Clean Cars Program is expressed 

by local governments and elected officials through numerous 

Resolutions, Proclamations, and letters, signed by 39 cities, 10 counties, 

17 local and regional elected officials, four air districts and Air Pollution 

Control Officers, and nine other government-related entities. (submitted 

by Judy Mitchell, member of the City Council from the City of Rolling 

Hills Estates, for California Clean Cars Campaign)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

171. Comment: California Clean Cars Campaign supports California’s Clean 

Cars Program. (letters of support from Consumer Organizations, 

Underprivileged and Minority Consumers, Public Health Organizations, 

Health Network for Clean Air, Faith Organizations, Scientists and 

Engineers, and Economists submitted by Wendy James for California 

Clean Cars Campaign)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

172. Comment: I'm here on behalf of California Faith Community. We 

submitted a faith letter that was signed by ten organizations which 

represent thousands of congregations in the state. We urge you to pass 

these clean car standards. We also submitted an electric letter signed 

by 159 of our faith advocates. (Allis Druffel, Southern California 

Outreach Director, California Interfaith Power and Light)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

173. Comment: The nation must follow the military’s commitment to the 

mission...energy independence. I hope this Board and the leaders of 

our great state will set aside politics for the greater good. I urge you to 

implement robust emission standards that will encourage American 

innovation and create jobs all while addressing the growing threats we 
Page 95

face due to climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels. (Cathy 

Jackson-Ervin, Operation Free)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

174. Comment: The amount of oil we use isn’t the only threat related to our 

fossil fuel use. The Central Intelligence Agency, National Security 

Agency, and Department of Defense all agree that climate change is a 

threat multiplier, and are working to take on that threat as well. Like the 

military, California has long been an example of leadership on clean 

energy issues. As a native Californian, and as a proud American 

veteran, I ask that you continue to support clean energy by adopting 

strong emission standards that help reduce our carbon emissions and 

make up energy independent from fossil fuels. (Mario Rivas, Operation 

Free)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

175. Comment: I am here today to encourage you to continue California’s 

tradition of leadership and implement robust emission standards that will 

help reduce our dependency on oil, cut heat trapping emissions, and 

make our country more secure. (Uduak Ntuk, Operation Free)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

176. Comment: As organizations representing millions of underprivileged 

and minority consumers across California, we urge you to vote “yes” on 

the strongest possible Advanced Clean Cars Program standards at your 

January board meeting. (Community groups, community group staff 

that serve low and middle income consumers, people of color, and

limited-English-speaking consumers)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

177. Comment: I came here today to urge you to approve these clean car 

regulations and tell you why they're so important to me. I hope you will 

adopt this regulation and send a signal to the industry and the rest of the 

world that we need to be prepared for the future. (Michael Strada, 

student at Cal State LA)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.
Page 96

178. Comment: Physicians for Social Responsibility in Los Angeles, together 

with our sister chapters in Sacramento and the Bay Area, strongly 

support the most stringent standards. The Advanced Clean Cars 

Program will clean up the air and protect public health. (Martha 

Arguello, Physicians for Social Responsibility)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it supports the staff proposal.

14. Comments Not Previously Addressed Pertaining to Environmental 

Issues

179. Comment: While fully supporting the spirit of the proposed LEV III 

Regulation, it doesn’t appear that the impacts of a significant shift to 

“ZEV” technology such as electric vehicles (EV) have been fully 

considered. A massive shift to EV/PHEV technology would potentially 

offset gains made from diesel PM emission reduction mandates. I 

support EV/PHEV technology for certain niches (e.g., urban commuter 

travel), but upstream emissions of this technology really need to be 

taken into account. (Loren Carl Marz, Certified Consulting Meteorologist 

(#591))

Agency Response: For Agency response to the complete comment, see 

the document “Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars 

Environmental Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the 

Board at the March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – L9.” 

180. Comment: ARB proposes the inclusion of upstream emissions in the 

compliance calculation of standards for automakers, which seems to be 

in contradiction to the federal NPRM. BMW requests that CARB not 

only set standards comparable to the federal ones, but also incorporate 

the same fundamental structure for achieving these standards. Any 

non-zero upstream crediting serves as a lesser relative incentive for 

battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles than the 

proposed ARB GHG crediting based on California’s low-GHG grid. 

Manufacturers are not able to influence the grid mix and, therefore, 

differentiating between CARB States and the others in regard to 

upstream emissions should be avoided. Every such vehicle needs to be 

counted as zero upstream emissions. Any crediting above zero is a 

disincentive. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, and 

Andreas Klugescherd, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BMW 

Group)
Page 97

Agency Response: For Agency response to the complete comment, see 

the document “Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars 

Environmental Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the 

Board at the March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – L34.”

15. Comments Outside the Scope of this Rulemaking

181. Comment: The Alliance agrees with the majority of the ARB’s CNG fuel 

specifications with the exception of a few important parameters. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Since the CNG specification was not changed 

during this rulemaking, this comment falls outside the scope of the 45-

day notice and therefore requires no further response. This rulemaking 

only addressed updating of the gasoline certification fuel specifications. 

Nevertheless, staff will consider the commenter’s request for 

consideration during future rulemaking efforts.

182. Comment: We used a USA 3rd party to test "The CARTENTIAL Effect"; 

attached please find the final report from the CAFEE Lab 

www.cafee.wvu.edu. The testing was conducted on "as new" 

equipment; meaning flushed, with none of the normal sediment, rust and 

other normal wear conditions. Cartential shows even better results 

when introduced into Vehicles manufactured on or before 2004. The 

purpose of Cartential is to make exhaust emissions a non-factor 

worldwide in Automotive, Commercial Trucking and other Industries 

where combustion motors are used. The up to 80% reduction in exhaust 

emissions will help California and other States reach the daily goal of 

removing an extra 100 tons of smog-forming emissions from the air; 

which will help the air quality worldwide. (Michael Jordan, NAFTA 

Region Market Consultant, ICT/Cartential)

Agency Response: ARB appreciates this comment. However, since 

ARB sets performance emission standards rather than mandate the use 

of specific emission control technology, it falls outside the scope of the 

45-day notice and therefore requires no further response. 

183. Comment: CARB and the EPA have long recognized that vehicle 

technology and the fuel employed with that technology need to work in 

concert as an integrated “system” so that vehicles can operate efficiently 

and achieve the lowest technologically emission targets. We believe 
Page 98

that CARB did not completely examine the impact of fuel parameter 

changes that could enable additional engine technologies to improve 

efficiency and ultimately improve emissions. Specifically, we are 

recommending one new fuel for vehicles model year 2017 and later (in 

addition to legacy FFVs) with an octane rating of 94 accomplished with a 

30 percent blend of ethanol (E30). This new fuel used in conjunction 

with new engine technologies would provide even more clean air 

benefits than CARB is currently proposing. CARB is obligated by the 

California Government Code, the California Environmental Quality Act, 

and the California Health and Safety Code to propose and adopt only 

those regulations that maximize public benefits, minimize public and 

private costs, and afford maximum protection to the environment in a 

cost-effective manner. Those requirements can only be met by reducing 

vehicular emissions through new fuel standards. (Tom Buis, CEO, 

Growth Energy)

Agency Response to Technical Part of Comment: The commenter 

advocates a new fuel standard to reduce vehicular emissions. 

Promulgation of such a fuel standard is outside the scope of the 

proposed rulemaking. The fuel standard being recommended may be 

appropriate for consideration under a separate regulatory action by 

ARB. Since the substantive aspects of this comment are outside the 

scope of the 45-day notice, no further response is required.

Agency Response to Portion of Comment Raising Environmental Issues: 

For Agency response to the complete comment, see the document 

“Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars Environmental 

Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the Board at the 

March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – L29.”

184. Comment: Growth Energy recommends that CARB put into place 

enforceable requirements for the gasoline marketing industry in 

California that will ensure the commercial availability of gasolines that 

have an octane value of 94, for use in optimizing the GHG performance 

of new vehicles certified to the proposed LEVIII emission standards. 

(Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy)
Page 99

Agency Response: This comment pertains to the in-use gasoline fuel in 

California. Consideration of in-use fuel requirements are outside the 

scope of the proposed rulemaking. The fuel standard being 

recommended may be appropriate for consideration under a separate 

regulatory action by ARB. Since the substantive aspects of this 

comment are outside the scope of the 45-day hearing notice, no further 

response is required.

185. Comment: CARB’s two currently proposed certification fuels are both 

E10 blends; one a “regular,” and the other “premium,” with the regular 

blend having an octane number of 87 (AKI) and premium having an 

octane number of 91 (AKI). Growth Energy’s proposal would provide for 

a certification and in-use fuel for 2017 and later LEVIII vehicles with an 

octane value of 94, accomplished with E30 instead of E10. This fuel 

would only be intended for the LEVIII vehicles, and not the legacy fleet 

(2016 and earlier), although legacy FFVs could also use it if doing so 

was consistent with the vehicle manufacturers’ instructions or 

recommendations to owners and approved by CARB on that basis. The 

non-FFV legacy fleet (i.e., LEV II, LEV I, Tier 1) would continue to 

operate on E10. (Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy)

Agency Response: Staff designed the certification fuel to be reflective of 

the current in-use fuel. The in-use fuel currently contains 10 volume 

percent ethanol. The maximum allowable ethanol content in California 

gasoline is 10 volume percent ethanol. E30 is not a fuel that is available 

for use in the California market. Furthermore, automobile manufacture 

warranties do not allow for the use of E30 in non-flex fuel vehicles. With 

regard to the modifications to the in-use fuel, staff may consider this in a 

future rulemaking. This issue is outside the scope of the 45-day hearing 

notice to enable action on this item. 

186. Comment: Staff does not appear to have examined the possibility of 

any ethanol concentrations above E10 as part of its regulatory package. 

Yet, as explained below, fuels with the higher octane levels that rely on 

higher ethanol blends would permit the automobile industry to meet 

CARB’s stringent GHG standards at lower costs. Those lower costs 

would benefit the public, insofar as they would reduce the initial 

purchase price of new vehicles. That omission does not comport with 

the California Government Code, which requires the consideration of 

alternatives to a proposed regulatory action that could be more or 

equally effective as the proposed action but less burdensome for 

affected parties. (See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 11346.5(a)(13); see also 

id. § 11346.9(a)(5) and Cal. Health & Safety Code S 57005.) 

Alternatives to more stringent vehicular emission control measures that 

utilize and rely on improved fuels must be considered to determine if 
Page 100

they would be less costly to the motoring public (including but not limited 

to small businesses). (Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy)

Agency Response: See response to Comment #185.

187. Comment: Growth Energy’s proposal for LEVIII certification fuel is 

shown in Table 2. This certification fuel is essentially the same as the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s proposal, but with the addition of

20 volume percent more ethanol, so that octane is higher, the distillation 

parameters are changed, and other parameters are lower by dilution.

Table 2. Growth Energy’s LEVII Certification Fuel Proposal

Property CARB regular Growth Energy

Octane (AKI or FON) 87-88.4 94

Sulfur (ppm) 8-11 7-8 max

RVP (psi) 6.9-7.2 6.2-6.8

Total Aromatics (vol%) 19.55-22.5 12-16

Multi Substituted Alkl 

Aromatics % (vol%)

13-15 10, max

Olefins 4-6 4

T50 205-215 150-190

T90 310-320 280-295

Benzene 0.6-0.8 0.4

Oxygen (wt%) 3.3-3.7 10-10.5

Ethanol (vol%) 9.75-10.25 29.5-30.5

Fuel marketers would be required to produce fuel that would be similar 

to this proposed fuel for LEVIII vehicles. The parameters could have 

latitude initially to allow flexibility. An E30 Predictive Model would be 

developed based on test data to allow flexibility and to ensure in-use 

emission reductions are being met with alternative market fuel formulas.

Other concepts of this proposal are as follows:

• Automakers would certify LEVIII vehicles only on E30, they would not 

be required to certify on E10. The legacy fleet would continue to 

operate on E10.

• The state would have to modify state regulations which limit blends to 

either E10 or just E85.

• Ramp-up of ethanol for E30 would build with the introduction of each 

successive model year of LEVIII vehicles. Ethanol would have to be 

used preferentially for E30, then for E10 in the legacy fleet.

• There may be a net positive impact on upstream GHG emissions 

from producing the base gasoline (normalized to gasoline volume); 

this would have to be evaluated. 

(Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy)
Page 101

Agency Response: See response to Comment #185.

188. Comment: We recommend the Board direct staff to assess the 

environmental benefits (criteria and GHG emission reductions) of higher 

octane gasoline. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental 

Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: This comment falls outside the scope of the 45-day 

notice because the notice only addressed certification gasoline, not 

commercial gasoline, and therefore requires no further response. 

Nevertheless, the commenter’s request has been forwarded to the 

program staff involved with the California gasoline regulation for 

consideration under future rulemaking efforts.

189. Comment: The Alliance does not believe it was the ARB’s intent to 

mandate the use of methanol in preparing the denatured ethanol for E85 

blending later regulated in Section 100.3.4 of this same Appendix D. 

For example, adding the maximum allowable ethanol content (98.5 

volume%) with the maximum allowable denaturant (1.1 volume%) 

equates to 99.6 v% of denatured ethanol and therefore requires at least 

0.4 volume% methanol or water addition. The Alliance suggests that the 

ethanol industry has controlled the methanol level very well in field fuels, 

based on E85 fuel survey data, and that no intentional methanol or 

water addition is necessary to match the cert fuel to the market. 

Additionally, it appears that the Section 100.3.3 E100 changes require 

the use of the proposed LEVIII California Cert Fuel gasoline as the 

denaturant to be added to spirit grade, undenatured ethanol; a very 

expensive and onerous fuel blend proposal. This section should simply 

state that the denatured E100 for use in LEVIII E85 Cert Fuel blending 

should meet the ASTM D4806 denatured fuel ethanol specification 

entitled, “Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.” (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The E100 specification was not changed during this 

rulemaking. This rulemaking was only targeted at updating the gasoline 

certification fuel and not the other fuels. We may consider your 

suggestions for the E100 specifications in another rulemaking. Since 

this comment falls outside the scope of the 45-day notice, no further 

response is required.

190. Comment: The Alliance recommends that the entire CCR Title 13 

section 2292.4 “Specifications for E-85 Fuel Ethanol” be revised to be 

consistent with the latest version of ASTM Specification D5798 “Ethanol 

Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark Ignition Engines.” The 
Page 102

benefits of making these two documents consistent can be seen when 

attempting to blend E85 to meet the required 8.0 – 8.5 psi RVP in 

Section 100.3.4 of the LEVIII Appendix D proposal. For example, undenatured ethanol has an RVP of approximately 2.2 psi and the 

proposed LEVIII Cert Gasoline specification is a nominal 7.0 psi RVP. 

These two fuels cannot be blended together to meet an 8.0 psi ethanol 

blend without the use of a third high vapor pressure component, such as 

butane, which is uncommon in the marketplace. See ASTM D5798, 

Appendix Figure X1.3 as a reference. As with the ARB direction with 

the gasoline certification fuel to match the typical blend of market fuel, 

the ARB E-85 certification fuel should utilize a specified higher vapor 

pressure California winter gasoline to be blended with denatured ethanol 

meeting ASTM D4806 to an ethanol content in the center of the 

allowable E85 marketplace gasoline, i.e. 67 vol. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: This comment falls outside the scope of the 45-day 

notice, because the notice only addressed specifications for certification 

gasoline and did not address E-85 fuel specifications, and therefore 

requires no further response. Nevertheless, the commenter’s request 

has been forwarded to the program staff involved with the E85 program 

for consideration during future rulemakings to amend current E85 

specifications.

B. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD

1. Comments Concerning the Criteria Pollutant Exhaust Regulations

Comments Concerning the Particulate Matter Standards

191. Comment: We believe that revisions to the proposed 15-day changes 

are needed to ensure that the full intent and benefits of the standard are 

achieved. The 15-day changes introduced a new section of the 

regulation that creates an alternative pathway for compliance specific to 

the adopted 100 percent implementation of a 3 milligram per mile (3 

mg/mi) particulate standard for 2021 and 1 milligram per mile (1 mg/mi) 

particulate standard for 2028. The original pathway phased-in the 

standard in increasing increments over time to ensure ongoing 

deployment of stronger PM control technologies. However, the 

alternative pathway could allow for a slower overall deployment of PM 

control technologies, increasing emissions over the originally proposed 

phase-in and threatening to weaken the public health benefits of the 

program. We recommend that the Board accept the following 

recommendations to address these issues and ensure that the 

particulate standard is implemented as intended:
Page 103

• Revise the alternative compliance pathway so that public health and 

air quality benefits are commensurate with the originally proposed 

pathway.

• Provide an analysis to ensure that the air quality and public health 

benefits of the original proposal are not diminished by an alternative 

compliance option.

• Specify that the alternate compliance pathway must also achieve 100 

percent fleetwide achievement of the 3 mg/mi standard in 2021 or the 

1 mg/mi standard in 2028.

(Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association in California; John 

Shears, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies; 

Nidia Bautista, Coalition for Clean Air; Daniel Gatti, Environment 

America; Tyson Eckerle, Energy Independence Now; Simon Mui, 

Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathryn Phillips, Sierra Club 

California; Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientists)

Comment: In this notice, staff propose an alternative compliance 

pathway for manufacturers of passenger cars and light-duty trucks 

required to be 100 percent compliant with a 3 mg/mi standard in 2021 

and a 1mg/mi standard in 2028. It establishes a crediting scheme that 

awards automakers for more rapid introduction of vehicles that meet 

these new standards. While we are not opposed in principle to 

alternative compliance pathways, since they do provide useful flexibility 

to automakers, we do question the need for this alternative for meeting 

the particulate matter standards. In our view, the proposed phase-in 

schedule for both the 3 mg/mi and the 1 mg/mi standards provides 

adequate flexibility that automakers are already well suited to meet. It is 

also our view that an alternative compliance scheme would be more 

appropriate in the 2017-2025 time period if credits were made applicable 

toward to the more stringent 1 mg/mi standard rather than the 3 mg/mi 

standard.

In summary, the proposed alternative compliance mechanism for 

meeting the proposed LEV III particulate matter standards is flawed and 

should not be adopted in its current form. Staff should reconsider and 

revise their proposal such that (1) 100% compliance with a 3mg/mi and 

1mg/mi standard is required in each of the years 2021 and 2028; and (2) 

either no alternative compliance pathway is provided, or a restructured 

alternative compliance pathway is provided that ensures no net increase 

in emissions relative to the original phase-in schedule. (Dr. Alan Lloyd, 

President, The International Council on Clean Transportation)
Page 104

Agency Response: The alternative compliance pathway was included to 

provide compliance flexibility and an incentive to manufacturers for early 

introduction of compliant vehicles. The structure of the alternative 

compliance pathway is identical to approaches used in previous 

programs such as LEV II and On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) compliance 

requirements. Staff believes the concern expressed by the comments 

springs from limited early data on low mileage vehicles showing a 

potential for higher PM emissions from an emerging GHG technology, 

gasoline direct injection (GDI), since conventional port fuel injection (PFI) 

easily meets the 3 mg/mi PM standard today. However, as noted in 

Appendix T to the ISOR, based on newer in-use data from higher 

mileage vehicles from the USEPA, PM factors for GDI and PFI vehicles 

have been revised such that the same emission factors are applied to inuse PM emissions of both GDI and PFI vehicles. Accordingly, there 

should be little or no emission impact on the PM inventory regardless of 

the mix of vehicle technology in the fleet meeting the 3 and 1 mg/mi 

standards. Furthermore, staff agrees that 100 percent compliance in 

model years 2021 and 2028 is required to assure equivalent emission 

reductions from the alternative compliance pathway. Nonetheless, ARB 

will continue to evaluate PM emissions from both GDI and PFI vehicles 

in response to Board Resolution 12-11 and to update the PM emission 

inventory. Should newer data indicate that PM emissions from GDI 

vehicles present a concern staff will revisit the alternative compliance 

pathway at a future Board hearing to clarify the phase-in requirements.

Comments Concerning Phase-in Requirements

192. Comment: This comment is submitted on behalf of Aston Martin 

Lagonda Limited, Lotus Cars Limited and McLaren Automotive Limited. 

Each of these companies is classified as a “small volume manufacturer” 

(SVM) under CARB regulations. We support the proposed changes in 

CARB’s 15-day notice dated February 22, 2012. The proposed modified 

text adds clarity to the timing of the LEV III FTP and SFTP requirements 

for SVMs. (Lance Tunick, Vehicle Services Consulting on behalf of 

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, Lotus Cars Limited, and McLaren 

Automotive Limited)

Agency Response: We appreciate this comment, for which no response 

is needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal.

193. Comment: The proposed 15 day modification couples LEV III SFTP 

certification with that of LEV III FTP. LEV II FTP certification is phased 

out in MY 2019 while LEV II SFTP certification is stated to phase out in 

MY 2018 in the Test Procedure (page E-8) but MY 2020 in the 

Regulation Order (page A-10). The 15 day modification proposes an 

alternative phase-in for PM at 100% in MY 2021. Depending on a 
Page 105

manufacturer’s product line up, the different phase-in requirements for 

PM, FTP, SFTP and EVAP (evaporative emissions) standards could 

lead to an unreasonably high burden for a number of model variants 

near the end of the model cycle. This affects in particular the niche 

models with low volumes and high development costs. BMW 

recommends allowing manufacturers who meet the fleet average 

standards for both FTP and SFTP the option of a harmonized phase-in 

for LEV III FTP, SFTP and PM. This option should require 100% phasein in MY 2021 for FTP, SFTP and PM and allow for an alternative 

phase-in BMW recommends allowing manufacturers who meet the fleet 

average standards for both FTP and SFTP the option of a harmonized 

phase-in for LEV III FTP, SFTP and PM. This option should require 

100% phase-in in MY 2021 for FTP, SFTP and PM and allow for an 

alternative phase-in. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, 

BMW Group)

Agency Response: Staff agrees that there was an inconsistency 

regarding the phase out of 4,000-mile SFTP standards between the Test 

Procedures and the Regulation. The phase out year in the Test 

Procedures has been corrected to align with the phase out year in the 

Regulation Order as part of the non-substantive changes.

Comments Concerning the Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (PZEV) 

Backstop Provision

194. Comment: ARB staff has expressed concerns that manufacturers could 

reduce the percentage of SULEVs and zero evap vehicles offered for 

sale while the LEV III regulations are being phased in. We understand 

this concern and agreed to the PZEV anti-backsliding provisions in the 

exhaust and evaporative sections of the regulation. Upon further review, 

however, manufacturers are concerned that the absolute percentage 

requirement for SULEV certified vehicles could be problematic if the 

markets unexpectedly shift (as was the case in 2008-2009). As written, 

while the minimum percentage can be based on projected sales, 

compliance is based on vehicles sold. To avoid this concern, we 

recommend one of two approaches:

a. Comply based on projected vehicle sales. This ensures that 

manufacturers make a good faith effort to meet the requirement, but 

would not result in a manufacturer being out of compliance if actual 

sales do not achieve the projections.

b. Base compliance on a 3-year average (2018-2020) (this was the 

approach used for the evaporative emission regulations). This would 

allow manufacturers to make up any shortfall in SULEV vehicles in a 

subsequent model year. 
Page 106

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: As part of the 15-day changes, staff revised the 

regulations to allow manufacturers to calculate the minimum percentage 

of PZEVs that a manufacturer must produce and deliver for sale in 

California based on projected sales rather than actual sales.

Comments Concerning LEV II Vehicle Requirements

195. Comment: The 15-day changes that allow a manufacturer to comply 

with a NMOG+NOx fleet average in the 2014 model year, in lieu of a 

NMOG fleet average requires manufacturers to include MDPVs in the 

NMOG+NOx fleet average. We recommend eliminating the requirement 

to include MDPVs in the 2014 fleet average NMOG+NOx calculation, 

since they are not included in the NMOG calculation. In addition, it 

appears that the word “life” should be added in between “useful” and 

“standards” in table in §1961(b)(1)(A) footnote 1. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: ARB made the 15-day change to accommodate 

manufacturers’ request to begin introduction of LEV III vehicles prior to 

the start of LEV III in 2015 and to encourage the early introduction of 

cleaner, more durable vehicles. Accordingly, in order to maintain 

consistency with LEV III requirements, staff included MDPVs in the 

NMOG plus NOx fleet average requirement.

Comments Concerning Calculations

196. Comment: The contribution of a Plug-in HEV to emission reduction is 

properly compensated with Zero-emission VMT Allowance through the 

proposed equations. The addition of a 1.0 cap in 15-day Notice 

incorrectly penalizes calculation of vehicles with higher Zero-Emission 

VMT in the fleet average and should be omitted. (Thomas C. Baloga, 

Vice President, Engineering, BMW Group)

Agency Response: As noted in the response to Comment #41, the 1.0 

cap for the Zero-emission VMT allowance was included in the 15-day 

changes to address a potential increase in the in-use emissions of these 

vehicles that would result in a dis-benefit to California’s air quality. 

Nonetheless, as directed by Resolution 12-11, staff will monitor the 

performance of these vehicles in-use and, if warranted, return to the 

Board with appropriate modifications to the treatment and credits for 

these vehicle types in 2016.
Page 107

197. Comment: Ford recommends that the ARB correct an error to the MDV 

VEC equation on Page A-30. In the third segment of the equation, the 

term “ULEV270” should be “ULEV400.” (Andre Welch, Regulatory 

Planning Engineer, Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, 

Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: This error has been corrected as one of the nonsubstantive changes submitted with this final rulemaking package, as 

described in Section I of this FSOR.

198. Comment: The multiplication factors used to calculate Vehicle emission 

credits (VECs) for medium-duty vehicles were revised downward in the 

15-Day Notice from the ISOR language. Some of the changes reduce 

the VECs a manufacturer could receive for a vehicle by 5 percent, 

effectively increasing stringency. We recommend retaining the values 

contained in the ISOR, since those were the values upon which industry 

and ARB worked to develop the regulations. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The multiplication factors originally proposed over 

valued the emission credits that could be accrued by MDVs. 

Accordingly, they were revised to two significant figures so that they 

more accurately reflect the value for these credits.

199. Comment: Regarding NMOG+NOx Contribution Factors: We 

understand that these equations (and the additional language added in 

the 15-Day Notice) were developed to ensure that when calculating fleet 

average, the value used for an off-vehicle charge capable vehicle 

(PHEV) could never be below the next lowest certification level (e.g., a 

ULEV125 could never be calculated to have emissions below a 

ULEV70). While we understand the rationale, it is possible that realworld emissions from a PHEV could be significantly below the next 

lowest emissions category. We would like to work with ARB staff to 

develop appropriate values that represent real-world emissions. 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: As noted in the response to Comment #4, staff will 

continue to evaluate the in-use performance of PHEVs to determine if 

modifications to the treatment and credits for these vehicles are 

warranted. Staff has taken a conservative approach to these vehicles 

since there is currently very limited data on how they are operated inuse. Staff anticipates working with industry in this effort to more 

accurately define their real world emission impact.
Page 108

Comments Concerning SFTP Requirement

200. Comment: SFTP Fixed Speed Cooling Fan Maximum Air Flow: These 

requirements were revised to allow a road speed modulated fan in 

addition to a fixed speed cooling fan. However, in modifying 40CFR159-

08(b)(9), ARB did not include the fixed speed fan maximum discharge 

flow rate of 15,000 cfm. We recommend retaining the requirement for 

maximum discharge flow rate in 40CFR159-08(b)(9). (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The requirement specifying the maximum discharge 

volume of the fixed speed fan has been removed primarily to 

accommodate larger MDVs, which have not been subject to SFTP 

standards in the past. Based on staff’s testing experience, a fixed speed 

fan with a maximum discharge volume of 15,000 cfm does not always 

provide sufficient cooling for heavier vehicles and can result in 

overheating when operating over SFTP cycles. That said, staff will 

continue evaluating the issue and may propose updated cooling 

requirements in a future rulemaking.

Comments Concerning Reporting Requirements

201. Comment: Proposed California exhaust emissions standards and test 

procedures require annual reporting of projected California sales and 

fuel economy data for all alternative fuel vehicles, even though the 

proposal limits the Clean Fuels Outlet regulations to hydrogen. It takes 

time and resources to gather the data for flexible-fuel vehicles, 

compressed natural gas, and other alternative fueled vehicles. In 

addition, manufacturers already submit projected sales data for all of our 

vehicles as part of the certification for application. Fuel economy data 

for all vehicles is also accessible on USEPA’s website. Therefore, if the 

ARB wanted to do a study on alternative fuel vehicles, that are not 

subject of the Clean Fuels Outlet, information is already available 

without requiring a separate report. Because the proposal limits the 

Clean Fuels Outlet to hydrogen fuel, Ford believes it is appropriate to 

provide more flexibility in the reporting requirements for other alternative 

fuel vehicles. We believe that these reports should only be required 

upon request. (Sara Rudy, Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: While the modifications to the Clean Fuels Outlet 

requirements are limited to hydrogen, ARB continues to have an interest 

in the production of alternative fuel vehicles. Historically, this is because 

of the criteria emission benefits these vehicles can provide. With the 

implementation of GHG emission requirements, ARB’s interest in their 

production is heightened since alternative vehicles can also provide 
Page 109

substantial GHG benefits. Nonetheless, staff is willing to work with 

industry to find other means of gathering this information.

2. Comments Concerning the Evaporative Emission Regulations

202. Comment: BMW requests that the limitations restricting hydrocarbon 

credit trading be removed, thus allowing manufacturers to offset 

hydrocarbon debits between all vehicle classes. They expressed that 

this would provide manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility 

without adversely affecting the environmental benefits of the fleet 

average reductions. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, 

BMW Group)

Agency Response: Limitations restricting hydrocarbon credit trading 

were included as part of the 45-day regulatory language. Therefore, the 

comment is outside the scope of the 15-day notice and no further 

response is needed. Nonetheless, staff provides the following response 

to explain why it is necessary to restrict credit trading such that it is 

allowed only between similar vehicle categories. Because current zeroevaporative emission certified vehicles are in the lighter categories only, 

the emission standards were set to be more stringent for the lighter 

categories than the heavier categories. Unrestricted credit trading would 

allow credits generated from the less stringent heavier categories to be 

used to ease requirements in the lighter categories. Staff believes that 

there is sufficient flexibility built into the current regulation already and 

therefore concludes that unrestricted credit trading as requested in this 

comment would unnecessarily reduce the emission benefits of the 

regulation.

203. Comment: BMW requests to extend carry-over of 2014 MY vehicles 

certified to the current Zero-Fuel Evaporative Emission Standards from 

2018 MY to 2019 MY. They contend that this would align with exhaust 

test procedures for PZEVs. (Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President, 

Engineering, BMW Group)

Agency Response: The carry-over of 2014 MY vehicles was not 

addressed as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, it is outside the 

scope of the notice.

204. Comment: Ford recommends that the ARB replace any references to 

the “1.08” Ethanol mass adjustment factor for evaporative HC 

measurement with the generic term “the Ethanol adjustment factor.” We 

further request that CARB staff work with industry to develop a 

comprehensive data set to generate a more representative factor, which 

could be communicated at a later date via MAC or Mail-out. (Andre 
Page 110

Welch, Regulatory Planning Engineer, Sustainability, Environment & 

Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: This optional factor was determined based upon 

internal testing and discussions with industry experts, and staff believes 

it appropriately accounts for the performance of current vehicles and test 

equipment. That said, staff is open to future communication with 

industry regarding this factor and may consider proposing modifications 

to the factor as part of a future rulemaking if sufficient data is supplied to 

support this.

205. Comment: Ford recommends that the ARB waive ethanol measurement 

for the Bleed Emission Test Procedure (BETP) HC measurements or 

provide a BETP-specific adjustment factor. (Andre Welch, Regulatory 

Planning Engineer, Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, 

Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: The regulatory language approved as part of the 

original 45-day notice already includes this provision. In the “California 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles,” the following statement is found in 

section III.D.12.9: “There is no requirement to separately measure for 

alcohol emissions in this bleed emission test.”

206. Comment: Evaporative Emission Ethanol Calculations: This section of 

the test procedures was revised to include equations and instructions for 

measuring evaporative emissions with fuel containing ethanol. 

Specifically, Part III.11.3.2 contains the final equations for calculating 

mass emissions from the Hot Soak, Diurnal, and Running Loss test. 

The recent USEPA greenhouse gas, and the existing ARB and USEPA 

regulations use the pre-carbon factors in their equations. To minimize 

confusion, we recommend ARB maintain this common convention. 

Additionally, the 10-6 multiplication factor may represent an error in the 

equation. Instead of the proposed equations, we recommend the 

following equations:

(1) Mhs = MHChs + (14.2284/23.034)*MC2H5OHhs

(2) Mdi = MHCdi + (14.3594/23.034)*MC2H5OHdi

(3) Mrl = MHCrlt + (14.2284/23.034)*MC2H5OHrlt 

(Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff agrees to adjust the numerical factors, which 

are shown as ratios above, to be expressed in a “per-carbon” format as 

the commenter has recommended in order to maintain consistency with 

current convention. These changes only alter the presentation of the 

equations and not their actual meaning or resultant values. As such, the 
Page 111

changes are being incorporated as non-substantive changes. The ”10-6

multiplication factor” noted in the comment, however, is necessary and 

should remain in the current equations because the ethanol mass input 

value needs to be converted from micrograms to grams prior to its 

addition to the hydrocarbon mass value, which is also expressed in 

grams.

Comments Concerning ORVR Requirements

207. Comment: ORVR Certification of Vehicles > 14,000 pounds GVWR 

(ISOR, §1978): The Alliance submitted comments to the ISOR regarding 

on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) requirements for incomplete 

vehicles ≤ 14,000 pounds GVWR. We appreciate the work by ARB staff 

to address our comments. However, we would request ARB confirm 

that §1978 does not apply to vehicles > 14,000 pounds GVWR and that 

there are no ORVR requirements for these vehicles (either complete or 

incomplete). (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: As part of the 15-day changes, staff revised the 

ORVR regulation and test procedure language to clarify that ORVR will 

only apply to complete vehicles up through 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

Incomplete vehicles and vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR 

are exempt from the ORVR requirements.

3. Comments Concerning the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations

208. Comment: Section § 1961.3 (a) (6) (B), page A-34, 15 day Regulation 

Order: BMW supports one common approach for CARB and USEPA to 

obtain approval of the A/C Direct Emissions Credit. Further, because it 

may be difficult for manufacturers to provide adequate documentation 

over the vehicle design phase regarding fittings, joints and leakage for 

every vehicle A/C, BMW recommends that the required engineering 

evaluation demonstration be limited to the following:

• the amount of the A/C Direct Emissions Credit;

• the credit calculation; and

• the calculation data for the A/C leakage rate.

In our view, this information should be sufficient to confirm that the A/C 

system under consideration reduces A/C direct emissions. (Thomas C. 

Baloga, Vice President, Engineering, BMW Group)

Agency Response: We consider the elements of engineering evaluation 

demonstration that we require under Section §1961.3(a)(6)(B) (Page A34 of the 15-day Regulation Order) critical to allowing corroboration of 

the credit calculation and ensuring accuracy of the credit request and 
Page 112

certification process. Those elements also allow us to track the industry 

status of technologies associated with A/C direct emissions. 

Although we agree that it may be difficult for manufacturers to provide 

adequate documentation regarding system specifications associated 

with A/C direct emissions during the vehicle design phase, we note that 

the regulation allows manufacturers to submit certification data by May 1 

of the calendar year following the close of the model year. Thus, BMW’s 

stated difficulty concerning the timeline is not applicable to the 

requirements of this regulation.

Therefore, we did not make revision to Section §1961.3(a)(6)(B) (Page 

A-34 of the 15-day Regulation Order) in response to these comments.

4. Comments Concerning Size Definitions

209. Comment: Ferrari S.p.A. and Ferrari North America (collectively Ferrari) 

greatly appreciates the inclusion of a definition in the proposed 15-

Day Notice regulatory language that would allow a small volume 

manufacturer (SVM) to demonstrate that it is “operationally 

independent” from other related manufacturers with which its sales 

otherwise would have to be aggregated. We nevertheless urge the Air 

Resources Board to make two additional changes to the regulatory 

language before finalizing the text. First, in the definition of “small 

volume manufacturer” in § 1900(b)(22), Ferrari recommends that the Air 

Resources Board clarify applicability of the transition period for an SVM 

that has lost or will lose this status due to a material change or 

aggregation requirements. Under the proposed 15-Day Notice Modified 

Text and existing aggregation requirements, it appears that Ferrari 

immediately could become part of a related manufacturer’s fleet for the 

2013 model year. As such, Ferrari immediately would have to begin 

complying with more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission 

standards with little prior notice. Furthermore, if USEPA finalizes its 

regulatory language on operational independence, Ferrari intends to 

apply for that status for MY2013. Assuming USEPA grants this 

application and California does not clarify the applicability of its own 

provision, Ferrari could be considered a small volume manufacturer for 

USEPA purposes but will not be for compliance with California 

regulations. This disparity could pose additional compliance difficulties 

for Ferrari, as well as related manufacturers. (Ing. Amedeo Felisa, CEO 

– Ferrari S.p.A)

Comment: Ferrari of Beverly Hills and Ferrari of Silicon Valley fully 

support ARB’s decision to include operational independence criteria for 

small volume manufacturers (“SVMs”) in the 15-day modified text, as we 

requested that such a provision be included in the rules. However, we 
Page 113

are concerned about the possible lack of a transition period for SVMs 

under the 15-day modified text. As we understand the language, model 

year (“MY”) 2013 and MY 2014 Ferrari vehicles could have to be 

counted as part of a related manufacturer’s fleet for purposes of the LEV 

II and III, ZEV, and GHG programs. Ferrari immediately would be

required to begin complying with more stringent exhaust and evaporative 

emission standards without sufficient lead time and planning. We hope 

that ARB clarifies that a transition period is necessary to protect current 

SVMs from a sudden, drastic change in applicable standards.

It is my understanding that Ferrari intends to apply to USEPA for SVM 

status for MY 2013 (assuming that USEPA finalizes its regulatory 

language on operational independence). If USEPA grants this 

application and California does not clarify the applicability of its own 

provision, Ferrari could be considered a SVM for USEPA purposes but 

not for compliance with California regulations. We respectively request 

that ARB make some accommodation to resolve this issue. (Giacomo 

Mattioli, Principal, Ferrari of Beverly Hills)

Comment: Ferrari of San Francisco greatly appreciates the inclusion of 

a definition in the proposed 15-day notice that would allow a small 

volume manufacturer (“SVM”) to demonstrate that it is “operationally 

independent” from other related manufacturers with which its sales 

otherwise would have to be aggregated under the California regulations. 

However, Ferrari of San Francisco urges ARB to make an additional 

change to the regulatory language before finalizing the text. Under the 

15-day notice as proposed, Ferrari would immediately become part of a 

related manufacturer’s fleet for the 2013 model year, and would have to 

begin complying with more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission 

standards with little prior notice. Such a requirement at short notice to 

the companies involved could create great logistical and practical 

difficulties. (Greg Minor, President, Ferrari of San Francisco)

Agency Response: Staff disagrees with the commenters that under the 

current regulations, small volume manufacturers would be required to 

comply with more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission standards 

for the 2013 model year “with little prior notice” due to current 

aggregation requirements. This is because, the requirement that 

manufacturer sales be aggregated under certain conditions was first 

adopted by the Board in 2001, as part of the “Rulemaking on the 

Amendments to the California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations 

Regarding Treatment of Majority Owned Small or Intermediate Volume 

Manufacturers and Infrastructure Standardization.” Then, in 2004, the 

Board added aggregation provisions that are applicable to the non-ZEV 

regulations as part of the “Pavley” greenhouse gas regulations. So, in 

2009, when Ferrari changed status because Fiat (the company that 
Page 114

owns Ferrari) acquired a greater than 10 percent ownership of Chrysler, 

all three of these manufacturers were subject to the aggregation 

requirements and obligations of aggregated manufactures. The 

longstanding definitions also make clear for these manufacturers that the 

onus of compliance for aggregated manufacturers falls on all of the 

aggregated manufacturers. A small volume manufacturer may also elect 

to purchase credits from another manufacturer, as an alternative to 

relying on the manufacturers with which it is aggregated. Finally, it is 

unknown whether or not USEPA will include the “operationally 

independent” language in their final 2017 through 2025 national 

greenhouse rule (see response to Comment #93), so it is premature to 

change California’s regulatory language based on what USEPA might do 

in the future.

210. Comment: Second, in the fourth paragraph of § 1900(b)(22), in the 

criteria for demonstrating operational independence, Ferrari 

recommends that (4) be revised to read “the applicant does not use any 

vehicle powertrains or platforms developed or produced by related 

manufacturers” in order to clarify the intent of this criterion. (Ing. 

Amedeo Felisa, CEO – Ferrari S.p.A)

Agency Response: The intent of criterion (4) is to exclude related 

manufacturers that share vehicle powertrains or platforms developed or 

produced by either of them. Because this is consistent with the current 

wording of (4), no revision was made.

211. Comment: Suzuki appreciates the proposed modifications to the 

definition of “Small Volume Manufacturer” (SVM) in Title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), § 1900 (b)(22). Suzuki is concerned, 

however, that even though Suzuki’s non-aggregated average annual 

sales volume in California is well below the SVM threshold, and Suzuki 

meets all of the criteria to qualify as “operationally independent,” the 

additional requirement to submit an Attestation Engagement from an 

independent certified public accountant could create an impediment to 

Suzuki’s ability to qualify as an SVM. As an alternative, Suzuki requests 

that this provision be replaced with a provision that a manufacturer 

applying for operational independence must submit a certification 

statement, signed by a company executive, that the listed conditions for 

a determination of operational independence have been met. (Kenneth 

M. Bush, Associate Director, Government Relations, American Suzuki 

Motor Corporation)

Agency Response: ARB, to the extent possible, structured the GHG 

provisions of the LEV III regulations to be consistent with the proposed 

federal GHG requirements for 2017-2025. Accordingly, the criteria for 

demonstration of operational independence mirrors provisions in the 
Page 115

federal Notice of Proposed Rule Making for 2017 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Fuel 

Economy Standards, published on December 1, 2011. Since ARB also 

extended the operational independence provisions to the criteria element 

of LEV III, similar language was included for manufacturers that wish to 

qualify for the slightly reduced criteria emission requirements provided to 

SVMs by LEV III. Additionally, most large corporations employ an 

independent auditing firm when submitting their annual financial 

statements. Since the Attestation Engagement requires an attestation to 

the accuracy of the information provided by the manufacturer by an 

independent auditing firm, staff believes this does not present an undue 

compliance burden. 

5. Comments Outside the Scope of the 15-day Notice

212. Comment: Chassis Certification of MDVs (15-Day Notice, Enc A, 

§1961.2 paragraph 3, page A-8; and ISOR Attachment D, Section E 

paragraph 2, page D-4): This paragraph appears to require that all 

MDVs < 10,000 pounds GVWR to chassis certify to the LEV III 

requirements starting in 2015MY. We understood that ARB would 

require MDVs < 10,000 pounds GVWR to chassis certify to the LEV III 

standards starting in 2022MY (as proposed in the ISOR Attachment D, 

Test Procedures also copied below). However, even the language in the 

ISOR Attachment D, Test Procedures is somewhat confusing, since it 

discusses LEV II, LEV III, and various MDV weights. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: Staff believes that the referenced text clearly states 

the intent of the regulations. Regardless, the text referenced by this 

comment was not modified as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, 

the comment is outside the scope of the notice and no further response 

is needed.

213. Comment: As noted on other portions of the regulations, we would like 

the option to comply with the LEV III regulations beginning in 2014MY. 

We appreciate all of the changes that ARB Staff has made to 

accommodate this request and it appears that the regulations 

accommodate optional early compliance for all of the PC/LDT 

requirements. There does not appear to be a method of calculating 

VECs for optional early compliance. We recommend the following 

changes that clarify the early compliance option for MDVs: (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)
Page 116

Agency Response: Early compliance of MDVs with the LEV III 

regulations was not modified as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, 

the comment is outside the scope of the 15 day notice and no further 

response is needed.

214. Comment: High-Mileage Testing (ISOR App D (test procedures), Part 1, 

Section I, paragraph 1.1.3, Page I-1): This paragraph specifies the 

minimum mileage for high-mileage testing. Minimum mileage has been 

75 percent of useful life, or 112,500 miles for a vehicle certified to 

150,000 miles. However, simply procuring customer owned vehicles 

meeting the requirements for testing with such high mileage is very 

difficult. Consequently, we recommend specifying a minimum odometer 

mileage of 105,000 miles. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: High mileage testing was not included as part of the 

15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is outside the scope of the 

notice and no further response is needed. Nonetheless, staff will work 

with industry to determine whether a reasonable solution to the problem 

presented by the commenter can be included in a future rulemaking.

215. Comment: Allow option to certify vehicles >14k in a 10-14k chassis test 

group (ISOR App D, Part I, A.1.1.3(b), pages A-1 and A-2): Depending 

on their intended use, some vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings 

(GVWR) that span both below 14,000 pounds (i.e., MDV) and above 

14,000 pounds (i.e., HDV). Since additional testing is burdensome, 

particularly in cases where the vast majority of these vehicles fall below 

14,000 pounds, manufacturers would like the option to certify all of these 

vehicles to the <14,000 pound (MDV) requirements. We recommend 

inserting, “Manufacturers may optionally certify heavy-duty vehicles of 

14,000 pounds GVWR or greater to the 10,001 - 14,000 pounds GVWR 

standards and test procedures in section E.1 of these test procedures” 

at the end of Section A.1.1.3. (Steven Douglas, Senior Director, 

Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The text on which the comment is based was not 

included as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is 

outside the scope of the notice and no further response is needed. 

Nonetheless, staff will work with industry to determine whether a 

reasonable solution to the problem presented by the commenter can be 

included in a future rulemaking.

216. Comment: Regarding specifications for fill pipes and openings of motor 

vehicle fuel tanks - Ford recommends that the ARB allow manufacturers 

with Capless fuel systems to comply with ISO-9158, SAE J285 or 

equivalent as an alternative to complying with ISO-13331-1995(E). 
Page 117

(Andre Welch, Regulatory Planning Engineer, Sustainability, 

Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company)

Agency Response: The text on which the comment is based was not 

addressed as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is 

outside the scope of the notice and no further response is needed.

217. Comment: Federally certified vehicles (ISOR, App D, H 1.4.1, Page H2): This section requires manufacturers to test federal vehicles to the 

50°F, California SFTP and California highway NMOG+NOx standards 

(see Figure 6). The old requirements (App C, Section H 1.5.1, Page 31) 

did not require 50°F testing and provided for compliance with federal 

SFTP and federal NOx standards. The new regulation would require 

manufacturers to recertify federally certified vehicles to 50F, California 

SFTP and California highway NMOG+NOx standards even if the vehicle 

is being carried over. We do not believe this is ARB staff’s intent, and 

recommend revising the regulation to allow carry-over of federally 

certified vehicle data and require 50°F, California SFTP and California 

highway NMOG+NOx testing only on new vehicle certifications. ARB 

could implement this by revising paragraph 1.4.1. (Steven Douglas, 

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The text on which the comment is based was not 

addressed as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is 

outside the scope of the notice and no further response is needed.

218. Comment: Emissions 2004-2014MY (ISOR App A, §1961(b)(1)(B)1.c., 

page A-22): This table contains the applicable emission standards to be 

used in fleet average calculations. The LEV and ULEV 2004-2014 

model year vehicles certified to the optional 150,000 mile “LEV II” 

standards were increased from 0.06 to 0.064 (LEV) and from 0.03 to 

0.034 (ULEV). This represents a 13 percent increase for ULEV and 6.7 

percent increase for LEVs. The changes proposed will only apply to the 

2014MY, since the 2013MY is already underway and the regulations 

cannot be applied retroactively. Consequently, we see no benefit to the 

proposed change and recommend ARB eliminate this change. (Steven 

Douglas, Senior Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The text on which the comment is based was not 

addressed as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is 

outside the scope of the notice and no further response is needed. 

Nonetheless, staff notes that the revisions to optional 150,000 mile 

standards were incorporated to correct a long standing discrepancy 

between the regulations and test procedures.
Page 118

219. Comment: 2018 PM review (Board Resolution, page 21): In the 16-

Feb-2012 Board Resolution, “the Board directs the Executive Officer to 

conduct a review of the 1 mg/mile PM in the 2015 timeframe and to 

report back to the board on the results.” However, the 27-Jan-2012 

transcript, page 13 suggests that ARB staff should conduct two reviews 

one in 2015 and another one in 2018 (see Figure 8). We recommend 

revising the Board resolution to so reflect. (Steven Douglas, Senior 

Director, Environmental Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers)

Agency Response: The Board Resolution is not part of the 15-day 

change notice. Therefore, the comment is outside the scope of the 

notice and no further response is needed.

220. Comment: At the January 27th Board Hearing, the Board directed staff 

to review PM technology advancements for earlier implementation. 

Honda notes that measuring PM at the 1.0 mg/mile is not yet technically, 

nor practically feasible. CARB staff should take this into consideration 

when reviewing the PM schedule. (Robert Bienenfeld, American Honda 

Motor Co., Inc.)

Agency Response: The Board’s direction to staff is not part of the 15-

day change notice. Therefore, the comment is outside the scope of the 

notice and no further response is needed.

221. Comment: Honda shared with staff its advances in researching the 

effects of fuel specifications on actual PM. Honda proposed using its 

PM Index methodology to a) create PM Index specifications for 

certification fuels and b) create PM Index specifications for market fuels. 

The certification fuel specifications will standardize the testing of 

engines across all OEMs, and the market fuel specifications have the 

potential to reduce PM emissions in the in-use fleet, both older light duty 

vehicles on the road, as well as new light duty vehicles. If the PM Index 

strategy is too difficult for ARB to implement, a similar result can be 

achieved by holding aromatics of C>9 to not less than 2 vol %, in which 

case the gasoline quality for PM measurements will stabilize. We 

recommend that ARB add this specification to certification gasoline for 

LEV III light-duty vehicles. (Robert Bienenfeld, American Honda Motor 

Co., Inc.)

Agency Response: Fuel specifications were not part of the 15-day 

change notice. Therefore, the comment is outside the scope of the 

notice and no further response is needed.

222. Comment: Labeling guidelines in the Appendix D 2015 Test 

procedures. ARB newly changed the required abbreviations of “wide 
Page 119

range/linear/air-fuel ratio heated oxygen sensor” to “WRHO2S.” Today, 

this technology is in wide use and commonly abbreviated on today’s 

label as “AFS.” Honda recommends that ARB continue using “AFS.” 

(Robert Bienenfeld, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.)

Agency Response: The text on which the comment is based was not 

addressed as part of the 15-day changes. Therefore, the comment is 

outside the scope of the notice and no further response is needed.

6. Comments Not Previously Addressed Pertaining to Environmental 

Issues 

223. Comment: Under the proposed alternative phase-in scheme for meeting 

the PM standards, a manufacturer would be permitted to introduce no 

more than 22% of new vehicles meeting a 3 mg/mi standard in the year 

2020, as opposed to the 70% that would be required under the current 

phase-in schedule. In addition, an automaker may choose to meet this 

with essentially no change to existing vehicle or engine technology until 

2021. Even more, an automaker would be permitted to introduce higher 

emitting vehicles in each of the five years leading up to 2021. These 

vehicles would be permitted to emit as much as 10 mg/mi, which some 

gasoline direct injection engines could approach2

. In a worst-case 

scenario, the proposed alternative compliance scheme could result in a 

significant net increase in particulate emissions compared with the 

current phase-in schedule. (Dr. Alan Lloyd, President, The International 

Council on Clean Transportation)

Agency Response: For Agency response to the complete comment, see 

the document “Responses to Comments on the Advanced Clean Cars 

Environmental Analysis,” released March 12, 2012, and approved by the 

Board at the March 22, 2012 board hearing, which is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. The 

response to this comment is included as “Response to Comments: LEV 

III – 15-Day – 11.”

7. Comments Submitted After the Close of the 15-day Comment 

Period

224. Comment: It seems that for 2017 model year only, all “carryover” LEV II 

SULEVs are required to be PZEVs. Mitsubishi Motors does not

understand the purpose of this specific requirement nor the method for 

compliance. Does this mean existing LEVII SULEVs must be recertified to the new LEVIII requirements in the 2017MY or will they be

reclassified with existing carryover data to become PZEVs for that one 

 2 See Table 3 in http://www.arb.c a.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappp.pdf
Page 120

model year? We request clarification or correction of this language.

(David N. Patterson, Chief Engineer, Regulatory Affairs and 

Certification, Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc.)

Agency Response: Since this comment was received after the close of 

the 15-day comment period, it requires no response from staff. 

However, since it includes a request for clarification of the regulatory 

language, this response is provided to explain that, beginning with the 

2017 model year, all SULEVs (i.e., both those that have previously been 

used to meet PZEV requirements and newly certified SULEVs) must be 

certified to LEV III standards. 
Page 121

III. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A/C: Air conditioning

AKI: Anti Knock Index

ARB: California Air Resources Board

ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials

BETP: Bleed Emission Test Procedure

CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CARB: California Air Resources Board

CCR: California Code of Regulations

cfm: Cubic feet per minute

CFO: Clean fuels outlet

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CH4: Methane

CNG: Compressed natural gas

CO2: Carbon dioxide

CO2e: CO2- equivalent

E10: Fuel that contains a mix of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline

E30: Fuel that contains a mix of 30% ethanol and 70% gasoline

E85: Fuel that contains a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline

E100: Fuel that contains 100% ethanol

EIA: U.S. Energy Information Administration

EV: Electric vehicle

FFV: Flexible fuel (or fuel flexible) vehicle

FTP: Federal Test Procedure

GHG: Greenhouse gas

g/mi: Grams per mile

GVWR: Gross vehicle weight rating

GWP: Global Warming Potential

HC: Hydrocarbons

HEV: Hybrid electric vehicle

HFC: Hydrofluorocarbon

HDV: Heavy-duty vehicle

HWFET: Highway Fuel Economy Test

ISO: International Organization for Standardization

ISOR: Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons

LA92: "Unified" Dynamometer Driving Schedule

Lbs.: Pounds

LDT: Light-Duty truck

LDT1: Light-duty truck with a loaded vehicle weight of 0-3750 pounds

LDT2: Light-duty truck with a loaded vehicle weight of 3751 pounds to a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 8500 pounds

LDT3: Subset of LDT2 with a gross vehicle weight greater than 6000 pounds to a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 8500 pounds
Page 122

LDT4: Subset of LDT2 with a gross vehicle weight greater than 6000 pounds to a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 8500 pounds

LEV: Low-emission vehicle

LVW Loaded vehicle weight

MAC: Manufacturer Advisory Correspondence

MDPV: Medium-duty passenger vehicle

MDV: Medium-duty vehicle

mg/mi: Milligrams per mile

MON: Motor octane number

MY: Model year

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NMHC: Non-methane hydrocarbons

NMOG: Non-methane organic gas

N2O: Nitrous oxide

NOx: Oxides of nitrogen

NPRM: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for USEPA’s “2017 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards” as published in the Federal Register on 

December 1, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 74854)

OBD: Onboard diagnostic

OEM: Original equipment manufacturer

ORVR: Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery

PC: Passenger car

PHEV: Plug-in (or off-vehicle charge capable) hybrid electric vehicle

PM: Particulate matter

PM2.5: Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter

PMP: Particulate Measurement Programme

ppm: Parts per million

PZEV: Partial zero-emission vehicle, as defined in the “California Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model 

Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger 

Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes”

ROG: Reactive organic gas

RON: Research octane number

RVP: Reid Vapor Pressure

SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers

SC03: A test procedure designed to determine emissions associated with the use 

of an air conditioner; A/C test procedure

SFTP: California Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

SULEV: Super-ultra-low-emission vehicle

SVM: Small volume manufacturer

ULEV: Ultra-low-emission vehicle

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

US06: A high-speed, high-acceleration, test procedure designed to measure offcycle emissions

VEC: Vehicle-equivalent credit
Page 123

VMT: Vehicle miles travelled

ZEV: Zero-emission vehicle

IV. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A: California Air Resources Board. “Responses to Comments on the 

Advanced Clean Cars Environmental Analysis.” March 12, 2012. Available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf.