APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENTS
1

APPENDIX C

A. Summary of Proposed Modifications to §1961, title 13, CCR and to the “California

Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles”

The proposed regulatory language setting forth the criteria for certifying certain cleaner

federally-certified vehicles in California is contained in Appendix A of this Staff Report. The

proposed modifications to subparagraphs (a)(14) and (b)(1)(B)3 amend the California LEV II

program standards to allow a manufacturer to certify a cleaner federal vehicle in California (see

the Staff Report for a full description on the proposed modification). The certification

requirements for these cleaner vehicles are set forth in Section H of the “California Exhaust

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles (hereinafter LDV/MDV TPs),” which is set forth below

(in italics for clarity). 

1.4 Certification of a Federal Vehicle in California. Whenever a manufacturer

federally-certifies a 2004 or subsequent model-year passenger car, light-duty truck or mediumduty vehicle model to the standards for a particular emissions bin that are more stringent than

the standards for an applicable California vehicle emissions category, the equivalent California

model may only be certified to (i) the California standards for a vehicle emissions category that

are at least as stringent as the standards for the corresponding federal emissions bin, or (ii) the

exhaust emission standards to which the federal model is certified. However, where the federal

exhaust emission standards for the particular emissions bin and the California standards for a

vehicle emissions category are equally stringent, the California model may only be certified to

either the California standards for that vehicle emissions category or more stringent California

standards. The federal emission bins are those contained Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR

section 86.1811-04(c) as adopted February 10, 2000. A California vehicle model is to be

treated as equivalent to a federal vehicle model if all of the following characteristics are

identical:

(a) Vehicle make and model;

(b) Cylinder block configuration (e.g., L-6, V-8);

(c) Displacement;

(d) Combustion cycle; and

(e) Transmission class.

The comparative stringency of the standards for the federal exhaust emissions bin and for the

California vehicle emissions category shall be based on a comparison of the sum of the 100,000,

120,000, or 150,000 mile standards for NMOG and NOx.

1.4.1 If a federally-certified vehicle model is certified in California in

accordance with subparagraph 1.4, the model shall be subject to the federal

requirements for exhaust emissions, SFTP emissions, cold CO emissions and highway

NOx. The vehicle model shall be subject to all other California requirements including

evaporative emissions, OBD II, and emissions warranty. 
2

1.4.2 Prior to certification of a 2004 or subsequent model-year vehicle, a

manufacturer must submit information sufficient to enable the Executive Officer to

determine whether there is a federally-certified vehicle model for that model year that is

equivalent to the California vehicle model based on the criteria listed in subparagraph

1.4. 

1.4.3 If the Executive Officer determines that there is a federally-certified

vehicle model for that model year that is equivalent to the California vehicle model, the

following information shall be submitted with the Part I or Part II Application for

Certification as set forth below: 

(a) Part I Application for Certification: (i) Evidence of federal

certification including, but not limited to, federal certification exhaust emission levels

and compliance with federal SFTP, cold CO and highway NOx emission levels; and (ii)

evidence of compliance with California evaporative emission requirements and

California OBD II requirements.

(b) Part II Application for Certification: evidence of a warranty on

emission-related parts in accordance with sections 2035 et seq., title 13 CCR as they

apply to vehicles certified under the primary California standard.

1.4.4 For purposes of meeting the California NMOG fleet average phase-in

requirements or for determining vehicle equivalent credits, the applicable California

NMOG value for passenger cars and light-duty trucks or vehicle equivalent credits for

medium-duty vehicles shall be determined as follows:

(a) The sum of the federal full useful life (100,000, 120,000 or 150,000)

NMOG and NOx value shall be compared with the next less stringent California full

useful life NMOG plus NOx value to determine which emission category (e.g., LEV,

ULEV or SULEV) is to be used for the fleet average value or vehicle equivalent credit

calculation.

(b) For passenger cars and light-duty trucks, once the equivalent

California emission category is determined (e.g., whether the vehicle is considered a

LEV, ULEV or SULEV), the applicable NMOG value to be used in the fleet average

calculation is set forth in the table in section E.2.1.2 of these test procedures for

passenger cars and light-duty trucks. For example, if the full useful life (120,000 miles)

NMOG plus NOx standard to which the federal vehicle is certified is 0.110 grams per

mile, that vehicle would be considered a LEV II ULEV for fleet average purposes

because the combined LEV full useful life NMOG plus NOx value is 0.125 and is the next

less stringent emission category. The applicable emission standard to be used in the fleet

average calculation would therefore be 0.040 grams per mile. 

1.4.5 The vehicle shall be subject to the federal in-use requirements and the

emission standard applicable for in-use compliance purposes shall be the federal

standard to which the vehicle was federally-certified.

1.4.6 The tune label shall meet the federal requirements applicable to such a

vehicle with an additional sentence which reads: “This vehicle conforms to federal

regulations and is certified for sale in California.” The value used in the smog index

label shall be the California emission category to which the vehicle was deemed certified
3

for fleet average NMOG purposes.

In addition to the requirements for cleaner federal vehicles, there are several proposed

minor amendments to the LEV II provisions to correct errors and update the certification

language consistent with the Tier 2 requirements in keeping with the CAP 2000 harmonization

process that began several years ago more closely aligning the U.S. EPA and California

certification requirements to reduce the compliance burden on a manufacturer. The proposed

modifications to subparagraph (b)(1)(B)1 amend the existing language for the fleet average

NMOG calculation to clarify that there are two calculations -- one for passenger cars and lightduty trucks (0-3750 pounds loaded vehicle weight (LVW)) and another for light-duty trucks from

3751 pounds LVW to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. Staff is also proposing a clarification

to the implementation requirements for medium-duty vehicles that specifies that a manufacturer

must certify at least one test group per model year to the LEV II standards. 

Amendments to subsection 1961(b)(C) eliminate unintended instances where phase-in

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

manufacturers. As with LEV I, small volume manufacturers of passenger cars and light-duty

trucks would be allowed to delay implementation until the end of the phase-in years in model year

2007. During the 2004-2006 model years, small volume manufacturers of these vehicles would be

subject to the preexisting LEV I requirements. In the case of medium-duty vehicles, small volume

manufacturers would be able to market vehicles subject to the MDV Tier 1 standards through the

2003 model year; starting with the 2004 model year, they would have to be certified to the MDV

LEV standards in a quantity equivalent to 100 percent of its MDV fleet. During the 2004-2006

model years, the medium-duty vehicle could be certified to the LEV I LEV standards (or the

equivalent using vehicle emission credits). Starting in the 2007 model years, they could only be

certified to the LEV II standards or the equivalent.

Subsequent to the adoption of the LEV II program, U.S. EPA adopted the federal Tier 2

standards which incorporate substantial portions of the LEV II program. The majority of the

modifications in the California test procedures update the California provisions to align with the

Code of Federal Regulations. 

Finally, staff is proposing a correction to the LEV I NMOG and formaldehyde standards

at 50 F. The values in the current table double the 120,000 mile standard rather than the 50,000 o

mile standard as set forth in the original LEV I proposal.
4

B. Summary of Proposed Modifications to §1956.8, Title 13, CCR and to the

“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent

Model Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engines”

The proposed addition of subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) amends the medium- and heavy-duty

Otto-cycle (gasoline) engine exhaust emission standards to align with the recently promulgated

federal exhaust emission standard of 1.0 gram per brake horsepower-hour non-methane

hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen. The test of the proposed modification is in Appendix A to

this staff report.

In addition, staff is proposing a reorganization of the test procedures that govern the

certification of medium- and 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. Part I contains the requirements for certification (40 CFR

Subpart A) and Part II contains the engine test procedures (40 CFR Subparts N and P and

Appendices I and XII). The new test procedures would apply to 2004 and subsequent model year

engines, and the existing test procedures would sunset after the 2003 model year.

In the current version of the test procedures, reference is made to a specific Code of

Federal Regulation (CFR) section in the text. If the section is applicable to several model years,

all the CFR sections are listed. In the new test procedures, if a CFR section for a specific model

year is set forth and that section references previous CFR sections, then all previously referenced

CFR sections are deemed to be incorporated unless otherwise noted. Thus, if §86.098-10 is the

governing section, and that section references previous sections, those previous sections are

deemed incorporated in the California test procedures. In order to facilitate a comparison of these

test procedures to the 1987 and subsequent heavy-duty Otto-cycle test procedures, only the

proposed regulatory modifications and any language that differs from the 1987 version have been

indicated in underline and strikeout. Please note that some of the text indicated by strikeout has

been deleted because the exact requirement is set forth in the corresponding CFR section so that

inclusion in these test procedures would be redundant.

In some cases there are several entries for the same section of the CFR (e.g., for different

model years). For this reason, the generic notation §86.xxx-#, is used followed by the appropriate

reference. For example, §86.xxx-1 is used in the title and §86.001-1 and §86.005-1 are used in

the text. 

The CFR sections referenced in Part II of the Test Procedures have also been updated. 

Under the new numbering proposal, previous sections of the CFR are no longer listed but still

apply if referenced in the most current CFR section. In addition, the fuel specifications language

has been reorganized and updated consistent with the language contained in the light- and

medium-duty test procedures. 
5