State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NEW PASSENGER 

MOTOR VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS 

Public Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 

Agenda Item No.: 09-8-7 

 I. GENERAL 

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

entitled " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO NEW PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSION STANDARDS," released August 7, 20091, is incorporated by reference 

herein. 

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) is adopting amendments 

to California’s new passenger motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations. These 

amendments include the following primary elements: 

Allowing manufacturers to meet the fleet average greenhouse gas emission 

requirements by “pooling” the California and Clean Air Act Section 177 State Vehicle 

sales; 

Allowing the use of data from the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 

program to demonstrate compliance with California’s new passenger motor vehicle 

greenhouse gas regulations; and 

Incorporation of a number of administrative amendments to align them with current 

federal requirements. 

The rulemaking was initiated by the August 6, 2009 publication of a notice for a 

September 24, 2009 public hearing to consider the proposed amendments. A Staff 

Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (the Staff Report) was also made available for 

public review and comment starting August 6, 2009. The Staff Report, which is 

incorporated by reference herein, describes the rationale for the proposal. The text 

of the proposed amendments to title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) 

sections 1961 and 1961.1 was included as an Appendix to the Staff Report. These 

documents were also posted on the ARB’s Internet site for the rulemaking at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/ghgpv09/ghgpv09.htm . Also posted on the 

internet site were the proposed amendments to the “California Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” which is incorporated by reference in 

section 1961(d). 

On September 24, 2009, the Board conducted the public hearing, at which it 

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

 

1

 The “Date of Release” for this rulemaking was Friday, August 7, 2009. However, due to the 

implementation of the Governor’s Executive Order S-13-09 requiring furloughs on this and other 

Fridays, the actual posting date for this rulemaking was Thursday, August 6, 2009. 
2 

Board adopted Resolution 09-53, in which it approved the originally proposed 

amendments and one significant modification: Section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)1.d., has been 

modified to allow compliance with the fleet average greenhouse gas requirements to 

be based on the number of vehicles “produced and delivered for sale” in California 

and other states within the pooled average rather than on actual vehicle sales in 

those states. This modification makes these regulations consistent with the LowEmission Vehicle and Zero-Emission Vehicle program requirements. Sections 

E.2.5.1.1.4. and H.4.5(a)(iv) and (v) of the of the "California and Exhaust Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty-Vehicles," which also incorporate this 

requirement have similarly been changed. 

These modifications had been suggested by staff in two documents entitled 

“Proposed Modified Text of the Regulations to Amend the New Passenger Motor 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards” and “Staff’s Suggested Modifications 

to the Originally Proposed “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, 

and Medium-Duty Vehicles” that were distributed at the hearing and were 

Attachments C and D, respectively, to the Resolution. Attachments C and D showed 

excerpts of the originally proposed amendments to the regulations and incorporated 

documents, with the text of all suggested modifications clearly identified. In 

accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, the Resolution directed 

the Executive Officer to incorporate the modifications into the proposed regulatory 

text, with such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate, and to make 

the modified text available for a supplemental comment period of at least 15 days. 

He was then directed either to adopt the amendments with such additional 

modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, or to present 

the regulations to the Board for further consideration if warranted in light of the 

comments. 

A number of additional clarifying 15-day modifications were also made to the 

regulations, based on comments received during the 45-day comment period and 

during subsequent discussions with manufacturers that indicate that some of the 

regulatory language, as contained in the 45-day notice, was being incorrectly 

interpreted. These modifications included the addition of language to clarify how to 

calculate credits and how reporting requirements would apply for a manufacturer that 

elects to use CAFE data to demonstrate compliance with California’s greenhouse 

gas regulations. All of these changes were included in the amended 15-day 

regulatory language and test procedure language. 

The text of all of the modifications to the originally proposed amendments to the 

regulations and incorporated documents was made available for a supplemental 15-

day comment period by issuance of a “Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text” 

and supporting documents. Four comments were received during the supplemental 

comment period that ran from November 24, 2009 to December 9, 2009. After 

considering these comments, the Executive Officer issued Executive Order 

February 22, 2010, adopting the amendments to CCR, title 13, and amending or 

adopting the incorporated documents.

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

providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed 

regulatory text. The FSOR also contains a summary of the comments the Board 
3 

received on the proposed regulatory amendments during the formal rulemaking 

process and the ARB’s responses to those comments. 

Receipt of the pooled states’ sales data, including California sales, enables ARB to 

track compliance with the new alternative compliance option. Because this is 

essential to determining whether the greenhouse gas reductions mandated by AB 

1493 to reach its environmental goals are actually occurring, it is clearly related to 

the regulatory aim of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the people of 

California. In adopting this Final Statement of Reasons, the Executive Officer hereby 

finds this to be the case. 

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

any local agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant 

to part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government 

Code, or other nondiscretionary savings to state agencies. 

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

small businesses will not be impacted by these proposed amendments. 

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 nine written letters and/or e-mails commenting on the proposal 

during the 45-day comment period prior to and/or at the September 24, 2009 

hearing. At the hearing, the Board received oral testimony from the Association of 

International Automobile Manufacturers. 

A. COMMENTS PRESENTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING 

Comments Addressing “Pooling” Amendments

1. Comment: The proposed requirement for reporting state-specific data for 

each Section 177 state is inconsistent with the goal of reducing compliance 

burdens through fleet pooling. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, 

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)) 

Agency Response: A manufacturer that chooses to demonstrate compliance 

with the Pavley regulations using the “pooling” option will be required to 

submit data to ARB, which shows that the mix of vehicles delivered to states 

(including the District of Columbia) within the pool meets the fleet average 

requirements each year. Manufacturers will also be required to provide ARB 

with a state-by-state breakdown of this data. This is needed to identify the 

portion of the greenhouse reductions that may be credited towards meeting 

the goals of California’s AB 32 and similar programs in the other pooled 

states. Furthermore, ARB does not believe that this reporting requirement 

imposes an undue burden on manufacturers. Since manufacturers know 

where they send their vehicles, this data is available. 
4 

2. Comment: Sales in Pennsylvania should not be included in the pooling 

because that state does not have its own fleet-average GHG emissions 

requirements. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment for the pool for the 

reasons given in Comment 3. This same commenter also stated (Comment 

26) that the relevant regulatory section need not specifically list each Section 

177 state – a comment with which ARB agrees – because the language of 

Clean Air Act Section 177 speaks for itself. See also Agency Response to 

Comment 4. 

3. Comment: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

understands that an automobile manufacturer has questioned whether 

Pennsylvania’s regulations incorporate California’s GHG standards for motor 

vehicles, and that the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers 

(AIAM) questions whether Pennsylvania sales should be included in the pool 

of vehicle sales in Section 177 states. Please be assured that 

Pennsylvania’s regulations do include California’s GHG standards and that 

Pennsylvania sales belong in the pool. Under Pennsylvania law, 

Pennsylvania’s 1998 adoption and incorporation by reference of California 

regulations automatically incorporated all later amendments and additions 

California has made and will make to its regulations. Pennsylvania Statutory 

Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1937(a). Consequently, Pennsylvania has in 

place the current California LEV II program, including the California GHG 

regulations. 

Additionally, the reports required to be submitted to demonstrate compliance 

with the non-methane organic gas fleet average in Pennsylvania include 

reports of annual sales in Pennsylvania, contrary to the assertion of AIAM 

that our regulations do not require separate reporting of sales in 

Pennsylvania.” (Kenneth R. Reisinger, Acting Deputy Secretary, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with this comment. 

4. Comment: The District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey do not 

have regulations authorizing them to enforce fleet average GHG standards 

for vehicles delivered for sale within their borders. Therefore, vehicles 

delivered for sale in these states should not be included in the volumes used 

for purposes of determining compliance with Option 2. (Robert D. Brown, 

Director, Vehicle Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety 

Engineering, Ford Motor Company) 

Comment: We do not find that the GHG regulations are effective in the 

District of Columbia. Therefore, references to the District of Columbia should 

be eliminated from the GHG regulations. (Naoyuki Osaki, General Manager, 

Environmental & Safety Engineering Department, Mazda) 

Agency Response: The pooling amendments apply to sales in those states 

(and the District of Columbia) that have adopted California’s greenhouse gas 

program in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and their 

own state-specific laws. Section 177 is self-executing, that is, at any given 

time the states that can enforce California’s standards in their state exists as 
5 

a matter of law and requires no specific state listing and no further response 

here. Nevertheless, ARB disagrees with the commenters’ assertions 

regarding Pennsylvania, as discussed in response to Comments 2. and 3. 

above. The commenter’s assertion regarding New Jersey is puzzling and 

appears to be in error because their highlighted portion within Section 7:27-

29.13(g) specifically includes the subject Section 1961.1 and because, like 

Pennsylvania, subsections (b) and (f) of that Section prospectively 

incorporates by reference future amendments – such as the subject 

amendments – to California’s standards. It appears that the commenter may 

be correct regarding the District of Columbia, at least as to model years 

before 2012. 

5. Comment: Section 177 of the Clean Air Act allows a state to “adopt and 

enforce” California’s vehicle emission standards for a particular model year, if 

“California and such State adopt such standards at least two years before 

commencement of such model year.” Thus, a state is not authorized under 

the Clean Air Act to “enforce” a California vehicle emissions standard unless 

it has promulgated regulations that meet the two-year lead-time requirement 

of Section 177. The National Program agreement in principle provides that 

only vehicles in states that can enforce the California GHG standards should 

be included in the aggregated total for purposes of determining compliance. 

Therefore, California’s regulations should clarify: 1) that the vehicles counted 

under Option 2 must be from states that can enforce the California GHG 

standards, and 2) that one prerequisite for enforcement is that the two-year 

lead-time requirement of Section 177 is satisfied. (Robert D. Brown, Director, 

Vehicle Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, 

Ford Motor Company) 

Agency Response: The pooling amendments apply to sales in those states 

(and the District of Columbia) that have adopted California’s greenhouse gas 

program in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and their 

own state-specific laws. It is not clear whether the commenter is arguing 

that the pooling amendments cannot apply until two years after Board 

approval or adoption, but that interpretation would both run counter to the 

manufacturers’ stated desire to exercise Option 2 as amended herein, and 

would unduly impede other States from exercising their rights under Section 

177. See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. v. New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation, 810 F.Supp. 1331, 1347-48 (U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. 

NY (1993)) (holding Section 177 state may adopt California regulations that 

have not received a Section 209(b) waiver). 

6. Comment: AIAM recommends that the regulatory amendments specifically 

provide that vehicle sales in a Section 177 state shall not be included in the 

calculation of debits that are subject to penalties unless such state has had 

its program in place for at least five model years. Thus, for example, vehicle 

sales in Maryland or New Mexico will not be used in calculating any penalties 

under the regulations until the 2016 model year, and vehicle sales in Arizona 

will not be used in calculating any penalties under the regulations until the 

2017 model year. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: Debits that are subject to penalties are calculated 

separately for California, the District of Columbia, and each individual state 

that is included in the fleet average greenhouse gas requirements for a given 
6 

model year. Penalties accrue if greenhouse gas debits are not equalized 

within five model years after they are earned. Since the greenhouse gas fleet 

average does not apply in Maryland or New Mexico until the 2011 model 

year, penalties would not be calculated for these states prior to the 2016 

model year. The recommended change is therefore unnecessary. 

7. Comment: The expanded definition of “California” to include the Section 177 

States should therefore also apply to subsection 1961.1(a)(1)(A). (Michael J. 

Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: The definition of “California” has only been expanded to 

identify and clarify those sections of the regulations to which the Option 2 

pooled sales apply. Subsection 1961.1(a)(1)(A), contains requirements for 

both Option 1 (individual state) and Option 2 (pooled) in certification. Since 

the expanded definition of “California” does not apply to Option 1, it is not 

necessary to expand the definition of “California” for this entire subsection. 

8. Comment: In section 2.5.1.1.4 of the draft regulatory language, it states that 

a manufacturer that selects Option 2 must provide to the Executive Officer 

production, delivery, and sales values separately for District of Columbia and 

for each individual state within the average. Because manufacturers do not 

track dealer sales or dealer trades, Ford recommends that this language be 

revised to remove the sales reporting requirement. (Robert D. Brown, 

Director, Vehicle Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety 

Engineering, Ford Motor Company) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with this recommendation and has modified 

the regulatory language accordingly. 

9. Comment: In section 3.2.3.1., CARB modified the language for calculating 

the number of passenger cars and LDT1s not meeting the state board’s 

emission standards to reference California vehicles only, but did not do the 

same for the number of LDT2s and MDPVs. Ford recommends that 

consistent language is used for all vehicles. (Robert D. Brown, Director, 

Vehicle Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, 

Ford Motor Company) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees with this recommendation and has modified 

the regulatory language accordingly. 

10. Comment: It is unclear from this language how CARB intends to address the 

question of the enforcement of the GHG emissions regulations and the 

collection of statutory penalties under the California Health and Safety Code 

for those manufacturers that choose the pooling option. AIAM believes that 

CARB should consult further with the Section 177 States and the industry to 

develop an approach that is legally defensible and workable. (Michael J. 

Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: The comment is addressed by the proposed 

modifications to title 13, CCR section 1961.1 (b)(3)(A), which state that for a 

manufacturer demonstrating compliance using the pooling option, the 

emission debits that are subject to a civil penalty under Health and Safety 

Code section 43211 shall be calculated separately for California, the District 
7 

of Columbia, and each individual state that is included in the fleet average 

greenhouse gas requirements. The civil penalty for non-compliance in a 

Section 177 state or in the District of Columbia will be based on the emission 

debits calculated for that individual state or in the District of Columbia in 

accordance with the applicable non-compliance penalties for that state or for 

the District of Columbia. 

Comments Addressing CAFE Amendments

11. Comment: Mazda believes that the calculation using CAFE data should be 

based on the Model Type Group instead of the GHG vehicle test group 

because CAFE is calculated based on Model Type Group (referred to 40 

CFR Part 600 Subpart F) while the California fleet GHG is calculated with 

CO2 for each GHG vehicle test group. (Naoyuki Osaki, General Manager, 

Environmental & Safety Engineering Department, Mazda Motor Corporation 

(Mazda)) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees that it is appropriate to modify this section to 

better accommodate language used in the CAFE program. However, the 

“Model Type Group” is too large a group to allow ARB to verify a 

manufacturer’s fleet average calculations. Instead, ARB has modified this 

section to allow a manufacturer that elects to demonstrate compliance with 

California’s greenhouse requirements using CAFE data to calculate the CO2-

Equivalent Values based on the vehicle “subconfigurations,” which are 

smaller groupings used in the CAFE program. 

12. Comment: We request that CARB allow an option to calculate the grams per 

mile CO2 from CAFE data using the carbon content of gasoline or diesel. 

(Naoyuki Osaki, General Manager, Environmental & Safety Engineering 

Department, Mazda) 

Agency Response: ARB does not believe that a third compliance option is 

needed. CAFE program data covers all passenger vehicles sold in California. 

So, a manufacturer that elects to demonstrate compliance with California’s 

greenhouse gas regulations using this data will be able to do so using 

available CAFE data, without the need for additional testing. 

13. Comment: Ford agrees with CARB’s revision in section 2.5.2.1 that allows 

manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with GHG requirements by 

substituting the term 1.9 CO2 - equivalent grams per mile for the terms “296 x 

N2O + 23 x CH4” in the CO2 - equivalent value calculation. Ford believes that 

further clarification regarding the use of CAFE Program data is required in the 

section. Ford recommends that the regulatory language should be amended 

to specify that “metro-highway grams per mile average CO2 - equivalent 

values may be used in lieu of “city” and “highway” grams per mile average 

CO2 - equivalent values. Both methods will yield identical CO2 - equivalent 

values. (Robert D. Brown, Director, Vehicle Environmental Engineering, 

Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company) 

Agency Response: Automobile manufacturers are required to submit both 

city and highway fuel economy results to U.S. EPA in order to demonstrate 

compliance with CAFE, the federal fuel economy program. It would, 

therefore, not be a burden to manufacturers to submit both city and highway 
8 

data to ARB. This data is needed for ARB to audit a manufacturer’s 

greenhouse gas data using U.S. EPA’s CAFE database. 

14. Comment: In section 3.4, CARB states that a manufacturer that elects to use 

CAFE Program emissions data to demonstrate compliance with the 

greenhouse gas requirements must use all of the data that is used by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine a manufacturer’s 

corporate average fuel economy for the applicable model year, may forego 

testing of the “worst case“ configuration. In some cases there may be 

Federal-only model type groups, if such a case exists, then the California 

volume would be zero, thus this model type group would not contribute to the 

greenhouse gas fleet average. For this reason, Ford recommends that the 

language be revised as follows: “A manufacturer that elects to use CAFE 

Program emissions data to demonstrate compliance with the greenhouse gas 

requirements may use, as appropriate, the data used by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency...” (Robert D. Brown, Director, Vehicle 

Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company) 

Agency Response: ARB is requiring all CAFE data be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the fleet average greenhouse gas requirements, in order to 

avoid the potential for “cherry picking” of data. This could be possible if the 

overly vague qualifier “may use, as appropriate” was added to the regulatory 

language. 

15. Comment: In section 4.5(v), Ford believes that manufacturers that have 

elected to demonstrate compliance under Option 2, should be given the 

option to use Model Type Group. Ford recommends that the regulatory 

language be modified accordingly. (Robert D. Brown, Director, Vehicle 

Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees that it is appropriate to modify this section to 

accommodate language used in the CAFE program. However, in order to 

verify a manufacturer’s fleet average calculations, ARB needs more data than 

“Model Type Group” will provide. ARB has, therefore, modified this section to 

allow a manufacturer to report data from the CAFE program using the CAFE 

term “subconfiguration,” which is the smallest vehicle group for which CAFE 

data is available. 

Comments In Support of Amendments

16. Comment: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

supports the proposed amendments to California’s greenhouse gas emission 

standards for new passenger motor vehicles and test procedures for lightand medium-duty vehicles. (Kenneth R. Reisinger, Acting Deputy Secretary, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) 

Agency Response: This comment is supportive of the staff proposal. No 

response needed. 

17. Comment: The North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) supports the Proposed Amendments to New Passenger Vehicle 
9 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards. (Coralie Cooper, Transportation 

Program Manager, NESCAUM) 

Agency Response: This comment is supportive of the staff proposal. No 

response needed. 

18. Comment: The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) strongly 

supports CARB’s proposed amendments. NMED appreciates CARB’s 

inclusion of New Mexico as part of the multi-state compliance averaging 

option beginning in the 2011 model year despite the fact that there is ongoing litigation challenging New Mexico’s Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Standards. (Jim Norton, Director, Environmental Protection Division, State of 

New Mexico Environment Department) 

Agency Response: This comment is supportive of the staff proposal. No 

response needed. 

Comments Outside the Scope of this Rulemaking

19. Comment: My family is totally against any additional regulation of Motor 

Vehicles with respect to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. There is absolutely 

zero evidence that CO2 emissions propose any hazard whatsoever on our 

environment, but an amazing amount of evidence on how such regulations 

hurt our families and state economy. (Robert J. Sandor) 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. In AB 1493 the Legislature required ARB to adopt greenhouse 

gas emission standards for motor vehicles, and ARB adequately estimated 

economic impacts that could occur from these amendments. No response 

needed. 

20. Comment: High efficiency ethanol engines could offer an additional 20 to 30 

percent reduction to carbon over the numbers being discussed today. Along 

with this, ethanol has the potential to displace 25 percent more oil by 

approaching the next generation of FFV’s from the perspective of efficiency 

and mileage capabilities. By listing the emission of carbon per horsepower 

hour, this is the most straight forward approach to evaluating cars, trucks or 

any other engine application. Carbon per horsepower hour would see 

significant reduction when ethanol is used. Ethanol can achieve much higher 

efficiency then gasoline and has demonstrated higher efficiencies of even the 

most advanced diesels with significant reductions of not only carbon but other 

harmful emissions. What many need to realize at the California ARB is that 

in order for cellulose ethanol to be successful, we need to raise the value for 

ethanol. (Steve Vander Griend, ICM Inc.) 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. No response needed. 

21. Comment: We request that the A/C direct emission reduction credits and/or 

A/C indirect emission reduction credits, which are approved based on MAC 

2009-01, be accepted for the GHG standard A/C direct emission allowance 

and the A/C indirect emission allowance. (Naoyuki Osaki, General Manager, 

Environmental & Safety Engineering Department, Mazda) 
10 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. No response needed. 

22. Comment: The ISOR states that in the “unlikely” event a manufacturer has 

accrued net debits at the end of the 2011 model year and then transitions to 

the federal program for the 2012 model year and beyond, “California will likely 

require that manufacturers opting into the federal program will offset any 

debits incurred in California by earning a commensurate number of credits in 

the federal program and retiring those credits rather than using them to meet 

their federal obligations....” ISOR at 4. AIAM believes that this issue should 

be addressed in connection with EPA’s GHG rulemaking in consultation with 

CARB and the industry. The most equitable solution would be to allow for 

both credits and debits accrued in the California program to be carried over 

into the EPA program. The regulatory mechanism for achieving this result, 

however, should be a matter for the federal program and related rulemaking 

and not the CARB rulemaking. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, 

AIAM) 

Agency Response: This comment does not pertain to proposed regulatory 

changes for this rulemaking. The issue raised by the commenter will be 

addressed in a future rulemaking. No additional response needed. 

23. Comment: CARB should seek a within the scope determination for these 

amendments. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking in that it does not seek a regulatory text change, and therefore no 

response is needed. ARB notes that Board Resolution 09-53 directs the 

Executive Officer to seek this determination post-adoption if appropriate. 

24. Comment: In describing the regulatory and legal background for these 

proposed amendments, the ISOR states that “[m]anufacturers agreed to 

ultimately drop current, and forego similar future legal challenges, including 

challenging a waiver grant, which occurred June 30, 2009.” Although it is not 

part of the actual regulatory amendments, AIAM feels that this statement is 

an inaccurate description of the commitments undertaken by the automobile 

industry and, thus, merits comment to avoid future confusion. The industry 

never committed to foregoing all “similar future legal challenges.” Rather, the 

industry only agreed “to dismiss all such litigation (and not to renew any such 

litigation) with respect to MYs 2009-2016. (Michael J. Stanton, President and 

CEO, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees that this comment addresses issues outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. No response needed. 

B. COMMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD 

Comments Addressing Proposed 15-day Changes

25. Comment: For the 2011 and later model years, a manufacturer that selects 

compliance Option 2 must notify the Executive Officer of that selection, in 

writing, prior to the start of the applicable model year or must comply with 
11 

Option1. Since the 2011 model year officially begins on January 2, 2010, and 

it is unlikely that these amendments will be effective before that date, AIAM 

recommends that the 2011 model year be moved to subsection a. along with 

2009 and 2010, and that subsection b. be revised to apply to 2012 and later 

model years. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, Association of 

International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)) 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. However, it should be noted that since these amendments will 

not become effective prior to January 2, 2010, a manufacturer will not be 

required to notify the Executive Officer of its selection of Option 2 prior to the 

start of the 2011 model year. Rather, ARB will enforce the aforementioned 

reporting requirement once these amendments have been approved by 

California’s Secretary of State. 

26. Comment: The State of Pennsylvania opted into the California LEV II 

program but expressly stated its intent not to enforce the fleetwide 

greenhouse gas emissions standards in Pennsylvania. While it is 

unnecessary to amend this section to specifically list each Section 177 state, 

auto manufacturers do need direction from CARB on which states CARB 

expects to be included in the annual reports. AIAM recommends that CARB 

address this matter in a subsequent Manufacturer Advisory Circular (MAC), 

which can be updated from year-to-year, as needed, to reflect which states 

should be covered by the annual report. (Michael J. Stanton, President and 

CEO, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)) 

Agency Response: See responses to comments 2, 3, and 4, above. ARB 

agrees that it is unnecessary to amend this section to specifically list each 

Section 177 state, as those state requirements exist independently as a 

matter of law. We will consider the commenter’s suggestion for a MAC or 

similar guidance document. 

27. Comment: In Subsection 1961.1 (a)(1)(B)1.a., the proposed new language 

for Option B reads: Option B: For a manufacturer that elects to demonstrate 

compliance with the greenhouse gas requirements using CAFE data, “GHG 

vehicle test group” shall mean “subconfiguration” in this subsection 

1961(a)(1)(B)1.a. 

While AIAM agrees with this change generally, one clarification is needed. 

While CAFE data is usually available at the subconfiguration level (especially 

for higher sales volume subconfigurations), CAFE data is not always 

available for lower sales volume subconfigurations. Therefore, the regulation 

should provide for these cases by adding the following language to the end of 

this provision: “. . . except where CAFE subconfiguration data do not exist 

manufacturers may substitute available CAFE configuration data.” (Michael 

J. Stanton, President and CEO, Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM)) 

Agency Response: In cases where EPA allows a manufacturer to submit 

configuration data rather than subconfiguration data to demonstrate 

compliance with CAFE requirements, ARB will also accept configuration data 

to demonstrate compliance with California’s greenhouse gas regulations. 
12 

28. Comment: CARB should revise the regulations to clarify that actual sales 

data may be used to calculate fleet averages as long as the approach is 

consistent with respect to all states. (Frank J. Diertl, General Manager, 

Engineering Services and Anthony P. La Spada, Associate General Counsel 

and Assistant Secretary, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC) 

Agency Response: ARB modified the regulation to specify that a 

manufacturer calculate its greenhouse gas fleet average based on the 

number of vehicles produced and delivered for sale in California. This 

proposed language is consistent with the requirement for determining 

compliance with a manufacturer’s non-methane organic gas fleet average 

requirement and with determining compliance with zero-emission vehicle 

requirements. Therefore, in those cases where actual sales data is used by a 

manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with these other two programs, 

ARB will also accept sales data to demonstrate compliance with the 

greenhouse gas regulations. 

29. Comment: The proposed requirement to do calculations and report data at 

the “subconfiguration” level would create unnecessary and costly burdens. 

Ford suggests modifying the proposed regulations to replace the term 

“subconfiguration” with the term “model type,” a change that would reduce the 

burden on manufacturers while still providing CARB with all of the data it 

needs for purposes of administering and enforcing its GHG regulations. 

(Cynthia Williams for Robert D. Brown, Director, Vehicle Environmental 

Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company) 

Agency Response: ARB is requiring that a manufacturer report data from the 

CAFE program using the CAFE term “subconfiguration,” because it is the 

smallest vehicle group for which CAFE data is available. EPA is also 

proposing to require that a manufacturer report subconfiguration data to 

demonstrate compliance under the proposed National greenhouse gas 

program for passenger vehicles, which will take effect in the 2012 model 

year. Data at the subconfiguration level is needed in order to verify a 

manufacturer’s fleet average greenhouse gas emission calculations for 

California, since “Model Type Group” data has already been sales weighted 

several times based on national sales and may not reflect the mix of vehicles 

in California. 

General Comment

30. Comment: I do not support any more restrictions on our vehicles. You are 

wasting tax dollars and it needs to stop. I do not support this. Let the people 

decide what they want to drive by what they choose to purchase. Get 

government out of our lives! (Nicole Hickey) 

Agency Response: This comment addresses issues outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. No response needed. 
13