TITLE 13. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUIRING CERTAIN CALIFORNIA

LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TIER 2

EXHAUST STANDARDS, AND ADOPTING ADDITIONAL EXHAUST EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLES AND ENGINES

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) will conduct a public hearing at the time and

place noted below to consider amendments to its exhaust emissions regulations for

light-, medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. One set of amendments would

require that where a manufacturer has certified a light- or medium-duty vehicle model to

a federal Tier 2 emissions bin that is more stringent than a California emissions

category and does not have an identical California emissions category counterpart, the

equivalent model in California would have to be certified either to a more stringent

California vehicle emissions category or to the federal standards for the Tier 2

emissions bin. The second set of amendments would adopt additional exhaust

emission standards for heavy-duty gasoline engines to align with recently promulgated

federal standards. These proposed amendments are designed to implement the

principle that only the cleanest available vehicles should be offered in California

because of the state’s unique air quality challenges.

DATE: December 7, 2000

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Air Resources Board

Board Hearing Room, Lower Level

2020 L Street

Sacramento, California

This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of the Board, which will commence at

9:00 a.m., December 7, 2000, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., December 8, 2000. This

item may not be considered until December 8, 2000. Please consult the agenda for the

meeting, which will be available at least 10 days before December 7, 2000, to

determine the day on which this item will be considered.

This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. If accommodation is needed,

please contact the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594, or TDD (916) 324-9531 or

(800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area by November 22,

2000, to ensure accommodation.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION AND PLAIN ENGLISH POLICY

STATEMENT OVERVIEW
2

Sections Affected: Amendments to title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR),

section 1961 and the incorporated "California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test

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

Medium-Duty Vehicles," and section 1956.8 and the incorporated "California Exhaust

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1987 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty

Otto-Cycle Engines and Vehicles." Adoption of the incorporated new "California

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model

Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engines and Vehicles."

Proposed Amendments Affecting Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles

Background – The California LEV I and LEV II Programs. The Board adopted the

second phase of its Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV II) program for passenger cars, lightduty trucks and medium-duty vehicles following a November 1998 hearing. These

regulations are a continuation of the original Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV I) program

adopted in 1990. Both the LEV I and LEV II regulations include three primary

elements: (1) tiers of exhaust emission standards for increasingly more stringent

categories of low-emission vehicles, (2) a mechanism requiring each manufacturer to

phase-in a progressively cleaner mix of vehicles from year to year with the option of

credit banking and trading, and (3) a requirement that a specified percentage of

passenger cars and lighter light-duty trucks be ZEVs, vehicles with no emissions.

The LEV I regulations. The LEV I program established four low-emission vehicle

categories to which a car or light truck could be certified: Transitional Low-Emission

Vehicle (TLEV), Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV), Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) and

ZEV. The medium-duty vehicle categories are LEV, ULEV, Super Ultra Low-Emission

Vehicle (SULEV) and ZEV. Vehicles could also be certified to the preexisting “Tier 1”

exhaust emission standards. Each low-emission vehicle category has a progressively

more stringent standard for exhaust emissions of nonmethane organic gas (NMOG), a

precursor of ozone pollution. For example, passenger car LEVs and ULEVs have to

meet standards for NMOG that are respectively about one-third and one-sixth of the

corresponding 1994 Tier 1 standard. The identical LEV and ULEV standard for oxides

of nitrogen (NOx) represents a 50% reduction from the 1994 Tier 1 NOx standard.

All cars have been subject to the same low-emission vehicle standards, regardless of

weight. However, heavier light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles were allowed to

have greater emissions for a given low-emission vehicle category. There were two

weight categories for light-duty trucks (LDT1 and LDT2) and four weight categories for

medium-duty vehicles (MDV2, MDV3, MDV4 and MDV5).

Under LEV I, each year a manufacturer may produce cars and LDT1s certified to any

combination of emission categories – TLEV, LEV, etc. – as long as its full model line

meets the annual NMOG fleet average requirement. The required fleet average NMOG
3

emissions level starts at the Tier 1 level for the 1994 model year. It then becomes

incrementally more stringent through the 2003 model year, when the level for cars and

LDT1s was derived from a potential mix of 75% LEVs, 15% ULEVs and 10% ZEVs. 

The heavier light trucks in the LDT2 category are subject to numerically higher fleet

average NMOG emissions requirements reflecting the numerically higher TLEV, LEV

and ULEV standards and the absence of a ZEV requirement for these vehicles. 

Medium-duty vehicles have separate requirements based on a percent phase-in

schedule. The standards for chassis-certified medium-duty vehicles are phased in

between the 1998 and the 2004 model years, at which point a manufacturer is required

to certify at least 60% LEVs and 40% ULEVs.

The LEV II regulations. The LEV II amendments include three major interrelated

exhaust emissions elements. The first is restructuring the light-duty truck category so

that all former light-duty trucks, and all former medium-duty vehicles having a gross

vehicle weight (GVW) of less than 8,500 lbs., will generally be subject to the same

exhaust emission standards as passenger cars. Only vehicles having a GVW of 8,500-

14,000 lbs. would remain as medium-duty vehicles in LEV II. These include the

heaviest SUVs and pickup trucks, such as the Ford Excursion and Dodge Ram 2500.

Second, the Board adopted new LEV II standards for the LEV, ULEV and SULEV

categories which are more stringent than the corresponding LEV I standards in several

respects. Most importantly, the NOx standard for LEV and ULEV cars was reduced by

75% compared to LEV I. The Board eliminated the car and light truck TLEV standards

after the 2003 model year; it concluded that the more stringent standards for the

remaining vehicle emission categories could be met by a full range of gasoline and

alternative fuel vehicles, making it inappropriate to allow substantially higher NOx and

particulate levels to assure availability of diesel cars and light trucks. The overall LEV

II emission standards for medium-duty vehicles were tightened to be substantially

equivalent in stringency to the light-truck standards (although numerically higher).

Manufacturers are generally required to phase-in certification of vehicles to the LEV II

emission standards in place of the LEV I standards between the 2004 and 2007 model

years. Car and current light truck models are to be certified to the LEV II standards at a

rate of at least 25/50/75/100% during 2004-2007, although alternative plans can be

approved. A manufacturer of vehicles classified as medium-duty under both LEV I and

LEV II (8501-14,000 lbs. GVWR) must phase-in at least one test group a year to the

LEV II standards, with full compliance by 2007. Vehicles that are medium-duty under

LEV I but will be in the light truck category under LEV II do not have to be certified to

the LEV II standards until the 2007 model year, when 100% compliance is required.

Third, the LEV II regulations provide for continuing yearly reductions in the annual fleet

average NMOG requirement from the 2004 through 2010 model years. The 2010 level

for cars and LDT1s was derived from a possible mix of 18% LEVs, 47% ULEVs, 25%
4

SULEVs and 10% ZEVs. LEV II changes the required mix of medium-duty LEVs and

ULEVs to at least a 40/60 starting with the 2004 model year. Because of the stringent

LEV II NOx standards, most of the LEV II emission benefits are NOx reductions.

The Federal Tier 2 Program. On December 21, 1999, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued its Tier 2 regulations, which establish new more

stringent exhaust emission requirements for all U.S. light- and medium-duty vehicles

not subject to the California standards, starting with the 2004 model year. They are

contained in 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart S. Although differing in several respects from the

California program, the regulations were designed to be compatible with LEV II and to

allow harmonization of federal and California vehicle technology. The Tier 2

regulations establish 10 different emission standard “bins” for cars and light trucks that

function in the same manner as the vehicle emission categories (e.g., LEV and ULEV)

in the California program. The emission levels for some federal bins fall between those

for California’s vehicle emission categories, and the least stringent bins allow

emissions greater than is allowed for any California LEV II emission category. It is

expected that moderately well-controlled diesel engines in SUVs and pickup trucks

could meet the federal Tier 2 standards for the least stringent bins.

The Tier 2 regulations employ a fleet average requirement for NOx instead of NMOG. 

When phase-ins are complete in the 2009 model year, all of the vehicles subject to the

LEV II standards for cars and light trucks, along with heavier “medium-duty passenger

vehicles” (MDPVs) such as the Ford Excursion, will have to meet a fleet average NOx

requirement of 0.07 gram per mile (gm/mi) for each manufacturer. In earlier years

there are “interim non-Tier 2” fleet average NOx requirements that must be met by

various vehicle categories. All 2004 and later model-year cars, light-trucks and MDPVs

must be certified to one of the Tier 2 bins (including an eleventh bin for pre-2008

MDPVs only). There are also mechanisms for early banking of NOx credits.

U.S. EPA’s “heavy light-duty truck” category, or HLDT, is equivalent to what California

has called MDV2 and MDV3 – the vehicles that are treated as medium-duty vehicles

under LEV I but as light-duty trucks under LEV II. Under Tier 2, none of these vehicles

can be certified to a NOx standard greater than 0.6 g/mi after the 2003 model year.

During the 2004-2006 model years an increasing proportion (25/50/75%) are grouped

with the manufacturer’s MDPVs and made subject to an “interim non-Tier 2” fleet

average NOx requirement of 0.20 g/mi. They do not all become subject to the Tier 2

fleet average NOx requirement of 0.07 g/mi until the 2009 model year.

The Proposed Regulatory Action. Although the LEV II program is ultimately more

stringent than Tier 2, U.S. EPA’s treatment of the HLDT category during 2004-2006 is

significantly more aggressive than under LEV II. Instead of adopting interim

requirements or a graduated phase-in, the ARB chose to allow manufacturers to focus

most resources on developing emission control systems to meet the LEV II light truck
5

standards. This meant the vehicles could be certified to 120,000 mile LEV I NOx

standards of 0.6 g/mi (for MDV2) and 0.9 g/mi (for MDV3) until the 2007 model year

when the LEV standard for these vehicles will be 0.07 g/mi. In estimating the emission

impacts of the LEV II program, the ARB staff projected that manufacturers would in

practice certify at least one model to the LEV II light-duty truck standards each year to

avoid excessive workload demands for the 2007 model year. But now that

manufacturers will be required to make progressively cleaner federal HLDTs during

2004-2006 under Tier 2, staff is proposing amendments to assure that these cleaner

vehicles are marketed in California.

The proposed amendments would provide that, whenever a manufacturer federallycertifies a 2004 or subsequent model-year passenger car, light-duty truck or mediumduty vehicle model to a federal Tier 2 emissions bin that is more stringent than an

applicable California emissions category and does not have an identical California

emission counterpart, the equivalent model in California will have to be certified either

to a more stringent California emissions category or to the federal standards for the

Tier 2 emissions bin. Model equivalency would be determined based on whether the

federal model is identical to the California with respect to manufacturer, make and

model, cylinder block configuration (L-6, V-8 etc.), displacement, combustion cycle, and

transmission class. Comparative stringency would be based on the combined NMOG

plus NOx standards for 100,000 or 120,000 miles. For purposes of compliance with the

fleet average NMOG requirements and calculating vehicle emission credits, the

vehicles would be considered to be certified to the next less stringent LEV II vehicle

emissions category. The manufacturer would still be required to meet other applicable

California emissions and phase-in requirements, such as evaporative emission

standards, on-board diagnostics, emissions warranty, and California emission labels.

Since the Tier 2 program allows manufacturers to build higher-emitting SUVs and

pickup trucks as long as their emissions are offset by cleaner cars, staff expects

manufacturers may at times certify federal vehicles with especially low emissions. The

amendments would assure that equivalent California models would have the same

emissions performance. The Tier 2 requirements may also trigger some lower-emitting

MDPVs in the 2004-2006 model years, and these vehicles would also be covered.

Staff is also proposing several minor amendments to the LEV II provisions to correct

errors and update the certification language consistent with the Tier 2 requirements. 

For example, proposed amendments would eliminate unintended instances where

requirements for small volume manufacturers are more stringent than those for other

manufacturers. As with LEV I, small volume manufacturers would be allowed to delay

implementation until the end of the phase-in years.

Proposed Amendments Affecting Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles and Engines
6

On July 31, 2000, U.S. EPA issued new regulations reducing the exhaust emission

standards for non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) plus NOx from heavy-duty Ottocycle (gasoline) engines (over 8,500 pounds GVW) from 4.0 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) to 1.0 g/bhp-hr. Although the existing California 2003 and

later model standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr is more stringent than the preexisting federal

standard, California would benefit by adopting the new federal 1.0 g/bhp-hr standard. 

Therefore, staff is proposing that California’s standards be harmonized with the more

stringent emission standards now being required federally.

There are three compliance options in the federal rule that allow a manufacturer to

select the best approach for its product line. Option 3 has been designated as the

primary NMHC plus NOx standard at 1.0 g/bhp-hr and is scheduled for introduction with

the 2005 model year. The other two options allow manufacturers to delay compliance

with this standard by certifying to an interim emission level in the 2003 or 2004 model

years but at a less stringent level of 1.5 g/bhp-hr. Staff is proposing adoption of all of

these options with a few minor adjustments. 

Although the federal regulations treat all heavy-duty engines over 8,500 pounds GVW

as one category, the California regulations divide these engines into two categories –

one for engines used in incomplete medium-duty gasoline vehicles 8,500 to 14,000

pounds GVW and another for engines used in all gasoline vehicles over 14,000 pounds

GVW. The new federal standards apply to both categories of engines for NMHC and

NOx. However, staff is proposing that the existing California medium-duty carbon

monoxide (CO) standard of 14.4 g/bhp-hr be retained for ULEVs, and is proposing new

standards of 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC + NOx, 7.2 g/bhp-hr CO, and 0.025 g/bhp-hr

formaldehyde for optional medium-duty SULEV engines.

Finally, staff is also proposing a reorganization of the test procedures that govern the

certification of heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines. These modifications follow the approach

used in the earlier revisions to the test procedures for light- and medium-duty vehicles,

tracking the organizational structure of the federal certification procedures to make it

easier for manufacturers to compare them.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND AGENCY CONTACT PERSON

The ARB staff has prepared a Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the

proposed regulatory action that includes a summary of the environmental and

economic impacts of the proposal. Copies of the Staff Report and the full text of the

proposed regulatory language may be obtained from the ARB's Public Information

Office, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990. The Board staff has

also compiled a record that includes all information upon which the proposal is based. 

This material is available for inspection upon request to the agency contact person

identified below.
7

The ARB staff has determined that it is not feasible to draft the regulation in plain

English due to the technical nature of the regulation; however, a plain English summary

of the regulation is available from the agency contact person named in this notice, and

is also contained in the ISOR for this regulation action.

To obtain the ISOR in an alternate format, please contact the Air Resources Board’s

ADA Coordinator at (916) 323-4916, TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 for TDD

calls from outside the Sacramento area. This notice, the ISOR, and subsequent

regulatory documents will also be available on the ARB's Internet site for this

rulemaking at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/mdv-hdge/mdv-hdge.htm.

Further inquiries regarding the proposed amendments should be directed to the agency

contact person for this rulemaking, Paul Hughes, Manager, LEV Implementation

Section, Mobile Source Control Division at (626) 575-6977.

COSTS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES AND TO BUSINESSES AND PERSONS AFFECTED

The determinations of the Board's Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings

necessarily incurred in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulations are

presented below.

The Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not

create costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any

state agency or in federal funding to the state, costs or 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 local agencies. 

In developing this regulatory proposal, the ARB staff evaluated the potential economic

impacts on private persons and businesses. The Executive Officer has determined that

proposed regulatory action will not have a significant cost impact on directly affected

persons or businesses. With regard to the LEV II amendments, the requirements

would only apply to vehicles that have already been certified to the federal standards;

they accordingly do not independently require any California model to be certified to a

new standard. Since the models will already have been federally-certified, the

additional costs from marketing the vehicles should be minimal. With regard to the

heavy-duty standards, U.S. EPA estimated that the new federal standards will result in

a less than $300 cost increase for heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines by 2010. Since a

manufacturer will already have to incur these costs for engines sold in the rest of the

country, and there are significant costs incurred in certifying federal and California

engines to different standards, adoption of the standards for California should not result

in increased costs for manufacturers.
8

The Executive Officer has also determined that the proposed regulatory action will not

have a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of

California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. In accordance with

Government Code section 11346.3, the Executive Officer has determined that the

proposed regulatory action will not affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the

State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses

within California, or the expansion of businesses currently doing business within

California. An assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action

can be found in the Staff Report.

The Executive Officer has also determined, pursuant to Government Code section

11346.5(a)(3)(B), that the proposed regulatory action will affect small business.

Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must determine

that no alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the

purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome

to affected private persons or businesses than the proposed action.

SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS

The public may present comments relating to this matter orally or in writing at the

hearing, and in writing or by e-mail before the hearing. To be considered by the Board,

written submissions must be addressed to and received by the Clerk of the Board, Air

Resources Board, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, or 2020 L Street, 4th Floor,

Sacramento, California 95814, no later than 12:00 noon, December 6, 2000, or

received by the Clerk of the Board at the hearing. To be considered by the ARB, e-mail

submissions must be addressed to mdv-hdge@listserv.arb.ca.gov and received at the

ARB no later than 12:00 noon, December 6, 2000.

The Board requests but does not require 30 copies of any written submission. Also the

ARB requests that written and e-mail statements be filed at least 10 days prior to the

hearing so that ARB staff and Board Members have time to fully consider each

comment. The ARB encourages members of the public to bring to the attention of staff

in advance of the hearing any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory

action.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

This regulatory action is proposed under that authority granted in sections 39600,

39601, 43013, 43018, 43101, 43104, 43105, and 43806 of the Health and Safety Code;

and section 28114 of the Vehicle Code. This action is proposed to implement, interpret

and make specific sections 39002, 39003, 39667, 43000, 43009.5, 43013, 43018,
9

43100, 43101, 43101.5, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43107, 43204, 43205, 43205.5,

and 43806 of the Health and Safety Code.

HEARING PROCEDURES

The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the California Administrative

Procedure Act, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340)

of the Government Code. Following the public hearing, the Board may adopt the

regulatory language as originally proposed, or with nonsubstantial or grammatical

modifications. The Board may also adopt the proposed regulatory language with other

modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently related to the originally proposed text

that the public was adequately placed on notice that the regulatory language as

modified could result from the proposed regulatory action; in such event the full

regulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available to the

public, for written comment, at least 15 days before it is adopted. The public may
10

request a copy of the modified regulatory text from the Board's Public Information

Office, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Michael P. Kenny

Executive Officer

Date: October 10, 2000