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 FOR MODEL YEARS 

2012-2016 TO PERMIT COMPLIANCE BASED ON FEDERAL GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSION STANDARDS 

Public Hearing Date: February 25, 2010 

Agenda Item No.: 10-2-3 

 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 FOR MODEL YEARS 2012-2016 TO PERMIT 

COMPLIANCE BASED ON FEDERAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION

STANDARDS," released January 7, 2010, 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 allow manufacturer compliance with United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) standards to be deemed as compliant with California’s 

standards for the 2012 through 2016 model years. 

The rulemaking was initiated by the January 7, 2010 publication of a notice for a 

February 25, 2010 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 January 7, 2010. 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 Appendix A to the Staff Report. The text 

of 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), was 

included as Appendix B to the Staff Report. The Staff Report and its attachments 

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

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/ghgpv10/ghgpv10.htm . 

On February 25, 2010, the Board conducted the public hearing, at which it received 

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

adopted Resolution 10-15, in which it approved the originally proposed amendments. 

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

directed the Executive Officer to incorporate any 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. 
2

Subsequent to the hearing, staff determined it appropriate to issue a 15-day notice, 

accommodating a number of modifications based on comments received during the 

45-day comment period, before U.S. EPA publishes its Final Rule. These 

modifications provide manufacturers with compliance flexibility by allowing them to 

demonstrate to ARB their compliance with the National greenhouse gas program by 

providing ARB with any documentation provided to them by EPA verifying 

compliance, rather than requiring an “official” document from EPA. Modifications 

were also made to the regulatory language that allow manufacturers to submit this 

documentation to ARB within 30 days after receiving approval by U.S. EPA, rather 

than requiring them to submit it by May 1. These changes also included the addition 

of language to clarify what factors the Executive Officer will consider in reviewing for 

approval a manufacturer’s plan to offset greenhouse debits, and conforming changes 

to indicate the status of the National greenhouse gas program in the Federal 

Register. 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. Three sets of comments were received during the 

supplemental comment period that ran from March 11, 2010 to March 26, 2010. 

After considering these comments, the Executive Officer issued Executive Order 

R-10-006, adopting the amendments to CCR, title 13, and amending or adopting the 

incorporated documents.

Subsequent to the release of the 15-day notice, staff noticed a couple of 

inconsistencies in the proposed modified regulatory language and test procedure 

language. These non-substantive mistakes to the test procedure language, 

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

Non-Substantive Corrections to the Regulations

Throughout the regulations, instances of “greenhouse requirements” have been 

made consistent with “greenhouse gas requirements” by using the latter consistently 

throughout. 

 Non-Substantive Corrections to the Test Procedures

1. In response to the 45-day comment in section II.A.1, below, in the regulatory 

text accompanying the 15-day notice the word “official” was removed from 

the two places in which it appeared in section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b.. 

Language that should be identical to this section of the regulations also 

appears in section E.2.5.1(ii)(b) of the test procedures. However, when the 

proposed 15-day changes to the test procedures were released, the word 

“official” was only removed from one place in section E.2.5.1(ii)(b). The 

final, adopted regulations correct this oversight and maintain consistency by 

also removing the second instance of “official” in test procedure section 

E.2.5.1.(ii)(b). 

2. In response to the 45-day comment in section II.A.2, below, clarifying 

language was added to section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)c. of the regulations to 

provide greater guidance as to a manufacturer’s obligations in the event of a 
3

net debit situation in model years 2009-2011. The new regulatory language, 

as modified in the 15-day notice became: 

c. If a manufacturer has outstanding greenhouse 

gas debits at the end of the 2011 model year, as calculated in 

accordance with 1961.1(b), the manufacturer must submit to the 

Executive Officer a plan for offsetting all outstanding 

greenhouse gas debits by using greenhouse gas credits earned 

under the National greenhouse gas program before applying 

those credits to offset any National greenhouse gas program 

debits. Upon approval of the plan by the Executive Officer, the 

manufacturer may demonstrate compliance with this section 

1961.1 by demonstrating compliance with the National 

greenhouse gas program. Any California debits not offset by 

the end of the 2016 model year National greenhouse gas 

program reporting period are subject to penalties as provided in 

this Section 1961.1.

Language that should be identical to this section of the regulations also 

appears in section E.2.5.1(ii)(c) of the test procedures. However, the wording 

of the proposed 15-day changes to the test procedures is slightly different 

than that of the regulations. E.2.5.1(ii)(c) of the test procedures says: 

(c) If a manufacturer has outstanding greenhouse 

gas debits at the end of the 2011 model year, as calculated in 

accordance with E.3.2, the manufacturer must submit to the 

Executive Officer a plan for offsetting all outstanding 

greenhouse gas debits by using greenhouse gas credits earned 

under the National greenhouse gas program before applying 

those credits to offset any National greenhouse gas program 

debits. Any California debits not offset by the end of the 2016 

model year National greenhouse gas program reporting period 

are subject to penalties as provided in section E.3.2. Upon 

approval by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer may 

demonstrate compliance with this section E.2.5 by 

demonstrating compliance with the National greenhouse gas 

program.

There are two non-substantive differences between the proposed 15-day 

language in section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)c. of the regulations and section 

E.2.5.1(ii)(c) of the test procedures that have been corrected in the final 

adopted version of the test procedures. First, the words “of the plan” that 

were added to the second sentence of the regulatory language have also 

been added to the test procedure language. This is nonsubstantive both 

because it aligns with the controlling regulatory text, and because it simply 

restates what the Executive Officer would be approving. Second, the last 

sentence that was added to the regulations – and also to the middle of the 

test procedure paragraph – was simply moved from the middle to the end of 

that test procedure paragraph, in parallel with the regulatory text. 
4

3. As in the regulations, throughout the test procedures, instances of 

“greenhouse requirements” have been made consistent with 

“greenhouse gas requirements” by using the latter consistently 

throughout. 

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 

received on the proposed regulatory amendments during the formal rulemaking 

process and the ARB’s responses to those comments. 

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 thirteen written letters and/or e-mails commenting on the 

proposal during the 45-day comment period prior to and/or at the February 25, 2010 

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

International Automobile Manufacturers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

the Clean Cars Coalition, the American Lung Association, and Sierra Club California. 

A. COMMENTS PRESENTED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING 

Comments Concerning the Regulations

1. Comment: Under 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b., for manufacturers that select the 

National program as a compliance pathway, CARB requires the manufacturer 

to submit a copy of the official EPA determination of compliance to CARB. 

First, the word “official” seems to imply the issuance of a formal document by 

EPA, but this is not the case in our experience. Second, it is possible that a 

manufacturer may not receive a confirmation letter from EPA until some time 

after the CARB required reporting deadline of May 1st. Ford recommends 

that 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b. be revised to remove the word “official,” so that any 

documentation verifying compliance from the EPA to a manufacturer is 

deemed sufficient. We also recommend eliminating the May 1st deadline and 

replacing it with a requirement that the documentation verifying compliance 

from the EPA be submitted to CARB within 30 days of receipt by the 

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

Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company ) 
5

Comment: CARB should provide greater guidance as to the requirements for 

showing compliance with the joint National Program. Proposed Section 

1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b. provides that manufacturers opting into the joint National 

Program must, no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the close of 

the model year “submit to ARB a copy of the official report that it submitted to 

EPA as required under 40 CFR §86-1865-12 for demonstrating compliance 

with the National greenhouse gas program and the official EPA determination 

of compliance.” It is not clear what CARB means by the term “compliance” 

with the federal GHG standards. Because of the provisions for carrying 

credits back, “compliance” with the EPA program for a specific model year 

may not be determined until several years after the close of the model year. 

Moreover, administrative delays could cause a final determination of 

compliance to occur after May 1 of the next calendar year. CARB should 

clarify that “compliance” with the joint National Program required under 

Section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b. does not mean that manufacturers must meet 

the standard every single model year, but rather is based on compliance as 

determined by EPA under its regulations. (Michael J. Stanton, President and 

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

Agency Response: ARB has modified the proposed regulatory language as 

requested by Ford. This language should also address AIAM’s concerns. 

2. Comment: The regulations should provide greater guidance as to a 

manufacturer’s obligations in the event of a net debit situation in model years 

2009-2011. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: ARB agrees and has added regulatory language to 

address this comment. 

3. Comment: If a manufacturer that opts out of the California program were to 

fail to comply with Federal standards in the 2012-16 period, that manufacturer 

would be subject to Federal enforcement, probably by both EPA and NHTSA. 

There would be no justification for California and potentially the Section 177 

states to “pile on” such a manufacturer by seeking to enforce this situation as 

a separate violation of state standards, and no environmental or energy 

security benefits would result from separate state enforcement. We urge 

CARB to clarify its regulations by stating that it does not intend to pursue 

duplicative enforcement in such a situation. (Michael J. Stanton, President 

and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with the premise of the commenter’s

hypothetical that a manufacturer can “opt out” of the California program. 

Both currently (as waived by U.S. EPA at 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009) 

and after these Amendments are finalized a manufacturer cannot “opt out” of 

the California program. Instead, the subject amendments will permit a 

manufacturer to use compliance with the National Program for certain model 

years to suffice as compliance with California’s program. A manufacturer 

availing itself of this option to obtain the purported cost savings and logistical 

benefits manufacturers have sought in this rulemaking thus indeed runs the 

risk of being in violation of both programs; failure to show compliance with the 

National Program, if chosen, would mean they are not in compliance with 

California’s standards. Therefore, no change to the regulation is warranted. 

 
6

4. Comment: CARB proposes to adopt references to EPA’s requirement for a 

manufacturer in-use testing program. Given the lack of any indication that 

carbon dioxide emissions rates will deteriorate in-use, there is no 

environmental need that would justify such a program. It is our understanding 

that CARB does not intend to adopt its own in-use test program, but we urge 

CARB to make clear in the final rulemaking notice that there is no such intent. 

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

Agency Response: ARB agrees and has modified the proposed regulatory 

language to address this comment. 

Comments Concerning Statements Made by ARB in ISOR

5. Comment: Emissions from electricity generation should be accounted for 

upstream, not attributed to electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The Alliance 

supports, for the 2012-2016 timeframe, EPA’s decision to assign a fleet 

average of zero grams per mile CO2 for electric vehicles, the electric portion 

of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and extended range electric vehicles. 

While the Alliance understands that ARB staff advocated upstream emissions 

accounting for these vehicles, we do not believe this is appropriate. (Julie 

Becker’s testimony at hearing, Vice President, Environmental Affairs, Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)) 

Comment: The accurate evaluation of and accounting for upstream (fuel 

production) emissions are an important step in reducing green house gas 

emissions from transportation. However, we believe that upstream emissions 

should be addressed outside the vehicle regulatory environment since they 

are outside the direct control of automobile manufacturers. Therefore, we 

believe that the 0 g/mi value proposed in the NPRM is appropriate for the 

vehicle GHG regulation. (Michael Lord, Manager, Vehicle Regulation and 

Certification Engineering, Toyota) 

Agency Response: This comment refers to background statements made by 

ARB in the Initial Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, rather than to 

specific proposed regulatory changes and does not make any textual change 

recommendation. Therefore, the comment does not require an ARB 

response. We note, however, that ARB continues to support the position 

that it is appropriate to assign a non-zero grams per mile of CO2 value to 

these types of vehicles based on upstream emissions. 

6. Comment: In the January 7, 2010, Staff Report/Initial Statement of Reasons 

(“ISOR”), CARB restated its concerns with certain aspects of the Federal 

proposal. In particular, it questioned the advanced technology credits and 

credit multipliers, the criteria for qualifying for early credits, and advocated the 

need for a backstop standard. In our view, the advanced technology and 

early credits under the Federal system are essential to assure the feasibility 

of the proposed standards. Manufacturers’ needs for such credits should be 

evaluated in the context of the historic nature of the proposed standards (in 

terms of the dramatic changes the standards will necessitate in vehicle 

design) and the economic environment in which manufacturers are being 

called upon to implement these changes. The early credits provide an 

essential safety valve for the transition to the aggressive new standards 

program. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 
7

Comment: EPA is proposing National advanced technology vehicle (ATV) 

credits for battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), 

and fuel cell electric vehicles during the 2012-2016 model year timeframe to 

promote these important technologies. Toyota fully agrees and supports this 

direction, including the inclusion of PHEVs. Since PHEVs will be in an early 

stage of commercialization during the 2012-2016 model years, Toyota 

believes that PHEVs should continue to be incentivized through eligibility for 

ATV credits through this timeframe. (Michael Lord, Manager, Vehicle 

Regulation and Certification Engineering, Toyota) 

Agency Response: This comment refers to background statements made by 

ARB in the Initial Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, rather than to 

specific proposed regulatory changes and does not make any textual change 

recommendation. Therefore, the comment does not require an ARB 

response. We note, however, that ARB continues to support the position that 

credits assigned to advanced technology vehicles should strike a balance 

between advanced vehicle development and protecting greenhouse gas 

reductions. 

7. Comment: Toyota does not support the addition of a backstop requirement 

as requested by CARB. While EPA appears to have broad discretion in 

setting the structure of GHG standards under the Clean Air Act, we believe 

NHTSA’s ability to set backstop standards is limited to the domestic 

passenger car fleet. The addition of backstops by EPA would represent a 

further lack of harmonization between the two federal regulations. (Michael 

Lord, Manager, Vehicle Regulation and Certification Engineering, Toyota) 

Agency Response: This comment refers to background statements made by 

ARB in the Initial Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, rather than to 

specific proposed regulatory changes and does not make any textual change 

recommendation. Therefore, the comment does not require an ARB 

response. We note, however, that ARB continues to support the position that 

a backstop measure should be included in the final National greenhouse gas 

rule to guarantee that emission reductions are achieved, regardless of any 

unforeseen changes in the fleet mix. 

8. Comment: At several points in the ISOR, CARB suggests that its continued 

support for the National Program may depend on whether EPA makes 

changes to its proposed standards that CARB believes are necessary to 

ensure that the federal standards are of equivalent stringency to the Pavley 

standards. However, the commitment letters or “Rose Garden agreements”, 

as some refer to them, do not require that the federal standards be of 

equivalent stringency to the Pavley standards. (Michael J. Stanton, President 

and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: This comment refers to background statements made by 

ARB in the Initial Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, rather than to 

specific proposed regulatory changes and does not make any textual change 

recommendation. Therefore, the comment does not require an ARB 

response. Nonetheless, the commenter is too selective here in its 

representations from the Letter of Commitment signed by Chairman Nichols 

and the Joint Notice of Intent. The statements cited from the ISOR merely 
8

reflect, as noted in the Letter of Commitment, California’s expectation that the 

National program would be substantially equivalent to the standards cited in 

the Joint Notice of Intent which ARB determined would be equivalent on a 

fleet wide basis to the Pavley regulations. 

9. Comment: The bases and underlying assumptions for a determination by 

CARB that the National Program does not achieve equivalent or greater 

greenhouse gas benefits than the Pavley regulations should be transparent. 

The benefits analysis in the ISOR purports to show the comparative benefits 

of the proposed National Program as compared with the Pavley regulations. 

However, these two regulatory programs are structured differently and 

measure compliance differently. For example, the National Program is based 

on a footprint approach whereas the Pavley regulations provide unitary 

standards. Also, the programs have different provisions for accruing credits 

and debits and different vehicle classifications between the passenger car 

and light truck fleets. The California program exempts intermediate sized 

manufacturers from compliance requirements for several years, while the 

federal program provides only limited “alternative” standards for these 

manufacturers. The ISOR does not explain the assumptions and 

methodology underlying its evaluation of these and other differences in the 

programs or its comparison of the benefits of the two programs. (Michael J. 

Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: The basis and underlying assumptions used to calculate 

the relative benefits of the Pavley regulations and the National program were 

clearly explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR). The data 

sources, spreadsheets and baseline values against which the emission 

benefits of the two programs were calculated were identified and referenced 

in the ISOR and readily available to the Commenter. Concerning the 

structural differences between the two programs noted by the Commenter, as 

explained in the ISOR, the values used for the National program were derived 

from a table in the Federal Register listing federal fleet emissions that 

addressed those differences. Regarding the treatment of Intermediate 

Volume Manufacturers by the Pavley regulations, staff determined that most 

manufacturers currently meeting this classification will become Large Volume 

Manufacturers (LVM) in the time frame of the federal program, thus subject to 

the requirements for LVMs. 

10. Comment: CARB proposes to require manufacturers to submit to it the same 

emissions data the manufacturers must submit to EPA under the Federal 

GHG program. In addition, CARB proposes to require manufacturers to 

submit separate emissions test and sales data for California and each of the 

section 177 states. Such a reporting requirement is inconsistent with the 

commitment letters and the National Program, and is unnecessary. 

According to the commitment letters, these regulatory amendments are to 

provide that “compliance with the GHG emissions standards adopted by EPA 

shall be deemed compliance with the California GHG emissions standards.” 

The ISOR provides no justification for requiring manufacturers to provide data 

for each individual state, and such data is not needed to show compliance 

with the amended regulations. In the event that a manufacturer opts into the 

federal program, all that should be required to verify compliance is to 

demonstrate compliance with the federal program as determined by EPA 

under its regulations. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 
9

Agency Response: This comment refers to statements made by ARB in the 

Initial Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, regarding reporting 

requirements for manufacturers electing to comply with the National 

greenhouse gas program for model years 2012-2016. However, for the 

2012–2016 model years, a manufacturer that complies with California’s 

greenhouse gas regulations by demonstrating compliance with the National 

greenhouse gas program does not have to submit separate emissions test 

and sales data for California and each of the section 177 states. 

11. Comment: The ISOR states that “[u]pon release of the Final Rule, Board 

staff will issue 15-day changes, which will finalize California’s adoption of this 

rule.” ISOR at 4 (emphasis added). However, this is not what California law 

requires for finalization of regulations. Before the regulatory amendments 

become final and have the force of law, California’s Office of Administrative 

Law must approve them. See Cal. Govt. Code §§ 11343, 11343.4, 

11349.1(a), 11349.3. See, e.g., July 24, 2007, letter from Tom Cackette to 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Re Waiver of Preemption at 27 

(“ARB’s regulations indeed are not final and enforceable under state law until 

California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approves them and submits 

them to California’s Secretary of State.”) Cal. Gov. Code Secs. 11349.3 and 

11343-11343.8.”). (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: This comment refers to background statements 

regarding rulemaking procedure made by ARB in the Initial Statement of 

Reasons for this rulemaking, rather than to specific proposed regulatory 

changes and does not make any textual change recommendation. 

Therefore, the comment does not require an ARB response. We note, 

however, that because the Board approved the subject regulatory 

amendments at its February 25, 2009 public hearing with direction to the 

Executive Officer to make minor modifications thereto available for comment, 

ARB’s final “adoption” of the amendments will be by Executive Order issued 

by its Executive Officer. We agree with the commenter that the amended 

regulations will then become operative or effective under state law after OAL 

review and approval. 

Comments In Support of Amendments

12. Comment: I support the CARB on this issue 500%. (Robert E. Fisher, MSW) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

13. Comment: The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

supports the proposed amendments to California’s greenhouse gas emission 

standards for new passenger motor vehicles, which would allow vehicle 

manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with CARB’s greenhouse gas 

standards by demonstrating compliance with the National Program. 

DEP agrees that CARB’s proposal should be contingent on EPA and US 

DOT maintaining the stringency of the greenhouse gas standards in the final 

rulemaking for the National Program. DEP supports CARB’s position that 
10

early emission credits should be limited to electric and fuel cell vehicles, and 

that these credits should only be generated when manufacturers meet or 

exceed California’s standards. DEP also supports CARB’s position that EPA 

should reevaluate the approach currently proposed by EPA for generating 

additional emission credits for advanced technology vehicles. EPA’s current 

proposal could allow manufacturers to earn unreasonably numbers of credits 

and could result in lower actual emission reductions than anticipated at the 

onset of the National Program. DEP also supports CARB’s position that EPA 

should include a backstop measure to ensure emission reductions are 

achieved, regardless of unanticipated changes to the vehicle fleet. (Kenneth 

R. Reisinger, Acting Deputy Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

14. Comment: I applaud the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for setting a 

high national bar for greener vehicles. As CARB acts to accept compliance 

with new national standards for a clean cars program, CARB should ensure 

that we get what we have been promised -- national standards that deliver 

the equivalent reductions to California’s strong standards. 

I encourage CARB to keep up the hard work and urge the Board to make 

sure that national standards are as stringent as California’s for new vehicle 

models from 2012 to 2016. I also support CARB’s setting new standards for 

model years 2017-2025. California must continue being a leader when it 

comes to greener vehicles. (Megan Norris and 4,602 Sierra Club California 

members) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

15. Comment: Our organizations are pleased to submit these comments in 

support of the ARB staff’s proposed amendment to the California Clean Cars 

program to allow automakers to demonstrate compliance for model years 

2012 through 2016 by complying with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards (yet to be finalized). 

Unfortunately, it is unclear at this time whether the final rule will preserve the 

emission benefits of the California program. While we strongly support Board 

approval of the proposed amendment, we recommend ARB staff immediately 

report to the Board if the final U.S. EPA rule does not adequately address the 

concerns staff expressed in their Initial Statement of Reasons published 

January 7, 2010. We share staff’s concerns on the following: 

1. In its final rule, U.S. EPA must maintain the stringency of the GHG 

standards proposed in the NPRM. 

2. An emissions backstop is needed to ensure the U.S. EPA greenhouse 

gas program delivers its forecasted emission benefits. 

3. The rule should include upstream emissions for electric, plug-in and 

hydrogen vehicles, and adjust credits assigned to these vehicles. 

4. Early action credits should be limited. 

(oral testimony: Jamie Knapp, Clean Cars Coalition and Bill Magavern, Sierra 

Club California; written submittal signed by: Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American 
11

Lung Association in California; John Shears, CEERT; Shankar Prasad, 

Coalition for Clean Air; Bernadette Del Chiaro, Environment California; 

Danielle Fugere, Friends of the Earth; Roland Hwang, NRDC; Bill Magavern, 

Sierra Club California; Patricia Monahan, Union of Concerned Scientists) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

16. Comment: We feel strongly these regulations offer critical clean air, climate 

change and health benefits. And we're very enthusiastic that the leadership 

of the Board is bringing a program that broadcasts these benefits across the 

country. So we applaud CARB staff for acting in good faith to harmonize our 

rules with the national rules so we can finalize next month. We also share 

CARB's concerns that equivalent emission reductions must be achieved in 

the final rule and staff should be monitoring that to make sure you come back 

and ensure that all the reductions are guaranteed in the final project. (Will 

Barrett, American Lung Association California) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

17. Comment: We fully support that program, the harmonized national program, 

and we greatly appreciate the commitments that California has made to align 

your program with the national program. And we support the proposal today 

which provides the option of compliance with the federal program as an 

option in California. We did submit a few (written) questions to the staff 

where we believe some clarifications are in order in the regulations. And we'll 

be working with staff on clarifying those in the 15-day process. Nothing is 

major; just little edits here and there we think would improve the readability 

and understandability of the regulation. And finally, we believe, as we've said 

before, we believe it is very imperative for all of us to work together. (oral 

testimony: John Cabaniss, Director, Environment & Engineering, AIAM) 

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

needed because it is supportive of the staff proposal. 

Comments Against Amendments

18. Comment: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed new rules 

regulating emissions in California. Although I believe the science of global 

warming is sound, I think the direction the board is taking is draconian and 

will do nothing to solve the problem worldwide. (Tom Magdaleno) 

Agency Response: In AB 1493 the Legislature required ARB to adopt 

greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles, thereby establishing 

the necessity and authority for both the original regulations adopted in 2004 

and the subject amendments thereto. These amendments are not “new 

rules” to make the 2004 greenhouse gas standards more stringent, but rather 

provide manufacturers with additional flexibility to show compliance with the 

original regulatory standards. 
12

19. Comment: I find this regulation a massive intrusion into the lives of citizens 

and an unreasonable requirement. I do not see how California taking this 

action can have any impact on man caused Global Warming (assuming such 

a phenomenon even exists). All I see is an attempt by the State to collect 

fines. 

I also do not see how enforcement will work. This is a meaningless action 

which will only drive away people and businesses from a State which already 

has too many regulations and laws. (Aynov Tanaka) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

20. Comment: I oppose this proposal. This gives one more opportunity for the 

ASP to charge for something. I always inflate my tires to the maximum 

recommended pressure. (Charlene Saunders) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

21. Comment: Let’s stop this job killing proposal now! California contributes less 

than 1% of all global green house gases worldwide. These mandates will 

have zero impact on the any climate change. All this does is drive tax paying 

business to leave our state and is a job Killer! (Preston Riseling) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

22. Comment: Government Employees and entities make up a majority of our 

collective carbon emitters and so, in California, create the "overwhelmingly 

evident climate change we all fear". As such I propose that, before we further 

tax the populace who is already overburden with financial hardship, we 

perform two actions: 1) Mandate a part-time legislative body; this would 

reduce the significant carbon emissions generated by travel by 

"representatives" by air and car to Sacramento. 2) Reduce the amount of 

Government employees, this will accomplish two basic principals, reducing 

pollution generated by their vehicles, and reduce the tax burden on the tax 

payers allowing them to invest in green technology. (Patrick Patton) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

23. Comment: My advice to ARB Bureaucrats (YOU!) is to REDUCE emissions 

by have manufacturing done in California. Reduce costs to employers 

drastically! Create employment, here! Reduce your impact on California 

taxpayers starting with these emissions standards. (Don Heichel) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

Comments Outside the Scope of this Rulemaking

24. Comment: Toyota supports the proposed standards for the 2016 model year 

with the caveat that the rate of increase in the proposed passenger car 

targets for 2011-2012MY seems to be inconsistent with the subsequent 

model years. Therefore, Toyota recommends that this be adjusted by 
13

“smoothing” the curves between 2011 and 2016 model years to be more 

consistent with product and technology development cycles. This concern 

does not apply to the truck curves since there is a different shape of the base 

(2011 model year) curve. (Michael Lord, Manager, Vehicle Regulation and 

Certification Engineering, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North 

America, Inc. (Toyota)) 

Agency Response: The fleet average emission curves to which Toyota refers 

are part of the National passenger vehicle greenhouse gas regulations. ARB 

need not respond to this comment because it is not directed at the subject 

proposed action. 

25. Comment: The standards embodied in the May 19, 2009 agreement pose a 

substantial challenge for the industry, and EPA should provide as much 

flexibility as possible so long as credits are based on actual overcompliance. 

Therefore, Toyota supports EPA’s proposed early credit pathways. (Michael 

Lord, Manager, Vehicle Regulation and Certification Engineering, Toyota) 

Agency Response: The early credit pathways to which Toyota refers are part 

of the National passenger vehicle greenhouse gas regulations. ARB need 

not respond to this comment because it is not directed at the subject 

proposed action. 

26. Comment: As part of a September 2009 rulemaking, amendments to 

California’s passenger vehicle greenhouse gas regulations were adopted that 

allow a manufacturer to use Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) data 

to demonstrate compliance with California’s regulations. These amendments 

require a manufacturer that elects to use CAFE data to calculate the CO2-

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

smallest vehicle group for which CAFE data is available. Ford suggests 

modifying this regulatory language to replace the term “subconfiguration” with 

“model type.” (Cynthia Williams for Robert D. Brown, Director, Vehicle 

Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company ) 

Agency Response: ARB need not respond to this comment because it is not 

directed at the subject proposed action. ARB will continue to work with 

industry to address their concerns, as appropriate. No additional response 

needed. 

27. Comment: Currently, 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(i)1, Option 2b., requires manufacturers 

to notify CARB of their intent to elect compliance with Option 2 for the 2011 

and later model years “prior to the start of the applicable model year.” 

Because a model year may begin January 2nd of the calendar year preceding 

the model year, manufacturers may already be producing 2011 MY vehicles 

in advance of the adoption of these amendments. Ford recommends that 

1961.1(a)(1)(A)(i)1, Option 2b. be revised to allow the manufacturer to notify 

the Executive Officer of their intent to elect compliance with Option 2 for the 

2011 and later model years within 30 days of the effective date of the 

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

Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor 

Company ) 
14

Comment: The regulations state that manufacturers must notify CARB prior 

to the start of the 2011 model year if they intend to comply with 2011 

standards on the basis of their combined California plus section 177 state 

fleet. For some vehicles the 2011 model year could begin as early as 

January 2, 2010, before CARB’s rule takes effect. CARB should specify a 

date certain for the deadline for a manufacturer to request fleet combination 

for the 2011 model year as it did for the 2009 and 2010 model years. 

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

Agency Response: ARB need not respond to this comment because it is not 

directed at the subject proposed action. However, we note 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. No 

additional response needed. 

28. Comment: Further clarification regarding the use of CAFE Program data is 

needed in section H.4.5(a)(i) of the test procedures. The proposed language 

states that a manufacturer choosing Option B “must submit a comprehensive 

list of all emission test results used to calculate its Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy, including the test vehicle description and identification number, for 

each subconfiguration and the number of vehicles produced and delivered for 

sale under Option 1 and 2 in section E.2.5.1.1, as applicable, that are 

represented by the subconfiguration.” (Cynthia Williams for Robert D. Brown, 

Director, Vehicle Environmental Engineering, Environmental & Safety 

Engineering, Ford Motor Company ) 

Agency Response: ARB need not respond to this comment because it is not 

directed at the subject proposed action. ARB will continue to work with 

industry to address their concerns, as appropriate. 

29. Comment: ARB requires manufacturer to submit emission test results of all 

sub configurations used to calculate CAFE and actual sales volume 

represented by those sub-configurations. In addition, ARB is requiring that 

the data be broken down state-by-state. Since the data is not currently 

available state-by-state at the sub-configuration level, it is extremely 

burdensome to prepare this data as proposed in the regulation. If ARB 

insists on requiring this data, optional methods such as submission by 

configuration using the average of subconfiguration values should be 

permitted. Another alternative could be the use of a state average for each 

manufacturer’s fleet (car/truck) multiplied times the already submitted 

manufacturer’s sales volumes. (Michael Lord, Manager, Vehicle Regulation 

and Certification Engineering, Toyota) 

Agency Response: ARB need not respond to this comment because it is not 

directed at the subject proposed action. ARB will continue to work with 

industry to address their concerns, as appropriate. 

B. COMMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE 15-DAY COMMENT PERIOD 
15

Comments Addressing Proposed 15-day Changes

30. Comment: No on this bill. We already have one in place it been working just 

fine you are just trying to find more ways to take our money and jobs from us. 

The more you fine our business in California, the more they are just going to 

leave. Now I don't know where you are from, I know you are not even 

thinking about how to make more money in California or even thinking how 

our kids going to make money in this state, they can't make money if there's 

no jobs or if they want to start a business they got to deal with all the fine you 

are posing. Think about it if no one is working you can't get PAY.......... 

(Kelvin Johnson) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

31. Comment: The GISS/HADCRU/IPCC models are so flawed as to be totally 

worthless. They fail to model the reality of conditions on Earth. They misapply the Greenhouse Warming Effect. If more CO2 does NOT cause more 

warming, then there is no reason to Cap or reduce emissions. However as 

Hansen points out, the increasing temperature data is complete enough to 

document that warming exists, the data on incoming energy, the sole source 

used in the models, has essentially not increased since the 1960s, so there 

MUST be some other source of energy, eg gravity, that is causing the very 

real warming. (John Dodds) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 18. 

32. Comment: Section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(i)1.b states that manufacturers must 

notify ARB in writing prior to the start of MY 2011 regarding a manufacturer’s 

intent to combine its fleets under Option 2. We recommend that ARB revise 

section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(i)1.b to require the manufacturer to notify the 

Executive Officer of its intent to comply with Option 2 before the beginning of 

the model year or, in the case of the 2011 model year, 30 days following the 

effective date of these regulations, whichever occurs later. (Michael J. 

Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: See response to comment 27. 

33. Comment: Section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)c states that any manufacturer that has 

outstanding California GHG debits remaining at the end of model year 2011 

must submit to ARB a plan for offsetting those debits. This provision goes on 

to state that the plan must show that all remaining ARB debits are offset “by 

using greenhouse gas credits earned under the National greenhouse gas 

program before applying those credits to offset any National greenhouse gas 

program debits.” California has no direct regulatory authority over the 

Federal program, and AIAM therefore does not believe that CARB has the 

power to require a forfeiture of Federal credits, even if this requirement is set 

forth in a compliance plan. Moreover, AIAM continues to believe that this 

requirement is inconsistent with the May 2009 commitment letters, which 

provide that in the 2012 model year and thereafter, compliance with the 

federal program will be “deemed” to be compliance with the California 

program, should a manufacturer opt for this compliance path. 
16

We urge ARB to delete the sentence in paragraph c that states “[u]pon 

approval of the plan by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer may 

demonstrate compliance with this section 1961.1 by demonstrating 

compliance with the National greenhouse gas program.” There is no basis 

for conditioning access to the National program option on compliance with 

2009-2011 ARB standards. (Michael J. Stanton, President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: ARB disagrees with this comment and is making no 

changes in response to it. Offsetting debits for the 2009-2011 model years – 

which again ARB believes manufacturers are unlikely to accrue – is not 

directly regulating the Federal program but is ensuring compliance with 

California’s 2009-2011 model year standards. Because nothing in the 

parties’ respective commitment letters directly addresses the issue of the 

interplay between California’s commitments for the 2009-2011 and 2012-

2016 model years, ARB has properly interpreted the letters to to make each 

part meaningful and effective. Without a debit offset mechanism, 

manufacturers could accrue unlimited debits in those years thus rendering 

those standards null, which would conflict with our commitment that the 

effective emissions limits for these years “...do not change....” ARB has thus 

provided a rational basis for the subject language. 

34. Comment: To the extent that the amended regulation contains any provision 

concerning outstanding California GHG debits at the end of model year 2011, 

it should account for the fact that the existing ARB greenhouse gas 

regulations allow other methods for offsetting debits in addition to accruing 

credits in subsequent years. Manufacturers should be able to avail 

themselves of the full range of methods provided under ARB regulations. 

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

Agency Response: ARB believes that the 15-day modifications to the

regulations provide sufficient flexibility to allow manufacturers to tailor their 

compliance plans to incorporate reasonable strategies for achieving 

compliance. 

35. Comment: ARB’s section 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii)b allows manufacturers to 

demonstrate compliance with EPA standards by providing ARB the applicable 

model year CAFE Report and documentation provided to them by EPA 

verifying compliance. ARB modified this provision to eliminate a requirement 

for submittal of an “official” document from EPA. The section was also 

modified to allow manufacturers to submit the documentation to ARB within 

30 days after receiving approval by EPA, rather than requiring them to submit 

it by May 1. These changes are helpful, but it is still not clear that any EPA 

“determination of compliance” document will exist for a given model year. 

Instead, we believe it is likely that EPA will issue end-of-model year status 

reports which indicate the GHG level achieved by a given manufacturer along 

with credits earned or used, and the manufacturer’s credit balance. Rather 

than requiring manufacturers to submit a “determination of compliance” 

document (which may or may not exist), ARB should revise the regulation to 

refer to “end-of-model-year reports from EPA.” (Michael J. Stanton, 

President and CEO, AIAM) 

Agency Response: ARB believes that the 15-day modifications to the

regulations are appropriate for providing manufacturers with sufficient 
17

flexibility for demonstrating compliance with the National greenhouse gas 

program. Upon release of the final rule for the National greenhouse gas 

program, ARB will re-examine whether additional regulatory changes are 

appropriate.