1 State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE 2008 AME NDMENTS

TO THE CALIFORNIA ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE REGULATION

Public Hearing Date: March 27, 2008 Public Availability Date: July 25, 2008 Deadline for Public Comment: August 15, 2008

At its March 27, 2008 public hearing, Air Resources Board (ARB or the Board) approved staff’s proposed amendments with modificat ions to title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 1900, 1961, 196 2, 1962.1 and associated test procedures. The Board also approved with modi fications the adoption of the new title 13, CCR, section 1962.1 and its new assoc iated test procedures. These regulations relate to the Board’s Zero Emissi on Vehicle (ZEV) program which requires auto manufacturers to develop and co mmercialize ZEV technologies. The Board’s directed modifications t o staff’s original proposal will bring between 25,000 to 66,000 ZEVs and enhanced ad vanced-technology partial ZEVs (Enhanced AT PZEV) to market during th e 2012 to 2014 timeframe, while reducing criteria pollutants and climate chan ge emissions.

The Board’s Action:

At the hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 08-24, approving along with other modifications, the amended regulations originally p roposed in the Staff Report released on February 8, 2008. The Board’s modifica tions respond to comments received during the 45-day public comment period as well as comments and testimony received at the public hearing. The modi fications include (1) increasing flexibility within the regulation by allowing auto manufacturers to meet their ZEV or gold requirement by producing the ir portion of a minimum number (7,500) of ZEVs and backfilling the rest of their requirement with Enhanced AT PZEVs (up to 58,000) during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, (2) creating a higher credit earning ZEV type, and (3) directing full transparency within the ZEV credit bank, including trades betwee n manufacturers beginning with 2010 model year (MY).

The Board also directed staff to consider additiona l items and make modifications as appropriate in the Executive Officer’s discretio n, including (1) granting additional credit to a plug-in hybrid electric vehi cle (PHEV) that could drive the US06 cycle on electricity, (2) reviewing the commen ts submitted on March 26, 2008, by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council as well as other non-governmental organizat ions (NGO), (3) applying a multiplier to ZEV credits earned during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe by2

intermediate volume manufacturers (IVM) to meet non -gold obligations, and (4) allowing IVMs to accrue gold credits for use up to three years after the transition to large volume manufacturer (LVM) statu s.

In Resolution 08-24, the Board further directed the Executive Officer to incorporate the approved modifications into the reg ulatory text, with such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate, and to make the modified text available for a supplemental comment period.

Modified Text Being Made Available

Staff has prepared regulatory text that includes th e Board’s approved and directed modifications and other conforming modific ations needed to clarify regulatory intent and harmonize the regulatory prov isions as directed by the

Board. Attachment A includes the technical modific ations that staff suggested and made available at the public hearing. Attachme nt B presents staff’s proposed revised regulatory text reflecting Attachm ent A’s technical modifications, modifications directed by the Board, and staff’s additional conforming modifications for clarity and harmonizat ion with the Board’s direction. Attachment C presents staff’s assessment, as the Bo ard directed, of each of the nine “loopholes,” submitted on March 26, 2008 by Un ion of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other NGOs. With this notice, the modified text in Attachment B is being made availab le for public comment prior to final action by the Board’s Executive Officer to al l who commented or testified on the original proposal or who requested notification . All of the documents are available online for public inspection at ARB’s int ernet website for this rulemaking

at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/zev2008/zev2008.h tm . They are also available from the ARB’s Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990.

Summary of Proposed Modifications

The following sections summarize the proposed subst antive modifications and the rationale for making such modifications. The s ection numbers and paragraphs are referenced as numbered in the modifi ed attached regulation text (Attachment B).

1. Number of Vehicles Required for the Pure ZEV (Go ld) Floor 2012-2014 Annual Requirement Percentage

Staff’s original proposal increased flexibility in the regulation by giving LVMs the option, during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, to meet their pure ZEV obligation by producing a minimum number of ZEVs (2,500 Type IV Z EVs) and backfilling the rest of the gold requirement with Enhanced AT PZEVs (75,000).3

The Board increased the minimum number of ZEVs a ma nufacturer is required to produce to comply with the regulation. The minimum floor was increased from 2,500 to 7,500 Type IV ZEVs for the 2012 to 2014 ti meframe. Though the number of Enhanced AT PZEVs required to backfill th e pure ZEV requirement decreases due to this direction, the modification f urthers ZEV technology development and encourages commercialization. The r egulatory text in section 1962.1(b)(2)(D) and associated percentages in the table in section 1962.1(b)(2)(D)3. reflect these Board direc ted modifications.

2. New ZEV Type

The Board directed staff to create a new Type V ZEV . This is a vehicle with a 300 mile or greater range and 15-minute fast refuel ing capability. The new Type V earns 7 credits in 2009 through 2017 MYs. I n 2018 MY and later, a Type V ZEV will earn 3 credits. The Board’s direct ion recognized that a long driving range ZEV would better meet consumer needs. Criteria and appropriate credit level for a Type V ZEV has been added to tab les in 1962.1(d)(5)(A) and (d)(5)(C), and to all sections of the regulation th at reference ZEV Types.

3. Transition for IVMs

The Board did not approve staff’s proposal to lengt hen the IVM transition as the IVM becomes subject to LVM requirements. The modif ication to section 1962.1(b)(7)(A) reflects this decision. Other mino r conforming modifications were also made in this section to clarify regulator y intent.

4. PHEV Multiplier During 2009 to 2011 Timeframe

At the March 27, hearing, the Board gave direction to staff on two issues relating to Enhanced AT PZEV credits. First, the Board dire cted staff to consider the nine loopholes presented by NGOs in their March 26 comment letter. The following loophole relates to Enhanced AT PZEV credits:

Loophole #2: “Extend carry forward provision to Enh anced AT-PZEVs to ensure that banked credits do not create long “blac kout” periods when none of these vehicles are produced.”

Staff does not agree that the carry forward provisi on should apply to Enhanced AT PZEV credits. Staff does not expect large numbe rs of Enhanced AT PZEV credits to be banked and carried forward during the 2009 to 2011 time frame. These vehicles have never been produced in large pr oduction volumes, and it is unlikely that a sudden ramp up of volumes would occ ur. Additionally, if a manufacturer were to be successful in their product ion of an Enhanced AT PZEV, it would be unlikely that they would stop production during the 2012 through 2014 timeframe. However, staff does believ e that the 3.0 multiplier offered to PHEVs delivered for sale during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe could4

create an artificial bank of credits that could be used to comply during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. This multiplier would allow a manu facturer to earn 3 times the credit for each PHEV delivered for sale, which redu ces the number of vehicles

and increases the number of credits.

Second, the Board directed staff to consider applyi ng a multiplier to battery electric vehicle credits earned during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe that are used to meet non-gold obligations for IVMs, in order to ass ure there is not a disincentive to produce gold vehicles. Staff concluded that addi ng an additional multiplier to allow ZEV credits to be used in place of AT PZEV cr edits for IVMs was not considered advisable as it would increase program c omplexities.

Staff chose to approach both issues in the context of credit multipliers and to address the overall credit discrepancy between PHEV s and pure ZEVs during

the 2009 to 2011 timeframe.

Under the current regulation and under staff’s prop osed amendments presented at the Board hearing, a PHEV earns a 3.0 multiplier if produced and delivered for sale in California. Because of this multiplier, a PHEV could earn more than a ZEV during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe.

Staff has proposed instead to decrease the value of the 3.0 multiplier to 1.25 for PHEVs in the 2009 through 2011 MYs. The decreased value reflects a value of a similar multiplier offered to ZEVs during the 200 9 to 2011 timeframe. An additional modification requires that in order to q ualify for the multiplier, the PHEV must be sold or leased for three years, with a lease option for two additional years. Reducing the 3.0 multiplier to 1 .25 limits the potential for an

excessive number of banked credits which could caus e a blackout during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. The modification provides additional credit, though less than the vehicle would have received in the origina l proposal, to PHEVs produced and delivered for sale during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe while ensuring that pure ZEVs would not be put at a compa rative disadvantage.

Section 1962.1(c)(7)(B) has been modified to reflec t these changes to the original proposal.

5. Plug-in Hybrid Allowances

The Board directed staff to consider giving additio nal overall credit for PHEVs

that can achieve 10 miles in all-electric mode on t he US06 Driving Cycle. Staff

made several modifications that affect HEV allowanc es that include (1) making use of a corrected Utility Factor (UF) that will al so be used in the next version of the SAE Hybrid Test Procedure, (2) revising the zer o-emission vehicle miles traveled (VMT) allowance equation, and (3) adjustin g advanced componentry allowances for Type F hybrids, and adding a new Typ e G HEV with an increased advanced componentry allowance.5

Utility Factor. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) committee working on revisions to the HEV test procedures (SAE J1711) di scovered mathematical

errors in the UF derivation described in the March 1999 version of SAE J1711. Subsequent to the staff’s original proposal, staff developed a revised zero-emission range allowance determination method based on the newly revised UF that will soon be published in SAE J2841 . The revised UF will affect the blended PHEVs by increasing the overall credit earned by this category of vehicles. Staff has incorporated by reference the draft SAE procedure but understands and anticipates that SAE will finalize the procedure without substantive changes before ARB submits the final ru lemaking file to OAL. Therefore, ARB anticipates incorporating by referen ce the final SAE procedure in ARB's final rulemaking order as a non-substantive m odification to the regulatory text. The draft procedure is referenced herein as SAE J2841 PropDft 2008 in the modified regulatory text.

Zero-Emission VMT Allowance Equation. The former constant of 14.6 has been revised downward to 11.028 to compensate for the ch ange in the revised UF as well as yield a Type G 40-mile PHEV overall allowan ce of 2.5, an increase of 0.1 over that proposed in the ISOR. The credit allowan ce has also been made constant for PHEVs with actual charge depleting ran ges greater than 40 miles. As modified, these higher range PHEVs will earn the same as a PHEV with exactly 40 miles capability. The equation in secti on 1962.1(c)(3)(A) has been modified to reflect the new constant and a new equa tion has been added to specify the allowance earned by a HEV with greater than 40-mile actual charge depleting range (R cda ).

Advanced Componentry. Staff has added an additional high-power Type G category for HEVs and has allocated an increased ad vanced componentry allowance of 0.95 to this new category. This new T ype G requirement requires a drive and energy storage system that is sufficient to propel a vehicle on the more aggressive US06 driving cycle for 10 miles. The advanced componentry allowance for Type F HEVs has been decreased by 0.0 8 from what was presented at the Board Hearing to make overall cred it levels consistent, as well as account for the modified UF and modified equatio n. The following table shows the advanced componentry allowance earned by Type F and Type G

HEVs.

Proposed HEV Advanced Componentry Allowance Schedul e

Year Type C

10 kW Type D

10 kW Type E

50 kW Type F (NEW)

>= 10 mile UDDS Capable Type G (NEW)

>= 10 mile US06 Capable

2005-2011 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.72 0.95

2012-2014 0.15 0.35 0.45 0.67 0.90

2015+ 0.1 0.25 0.35 0.57 0.806

Regulatory language in section 1962.1(c)(4)(B)7. ha s been modified to reflect the increased advanced componentry allowance for Type F and Type G HEVs. These changes to HEV allowances result in the follo wing changes in overall

credit for AT PZEVs:

Prior Proposal 15-Day Proposal

AT PZEV Types Credit

‘09-‘11 Credit

‘12-‘14 Credit

‘09- ‘11 Credit

‘12-‘14

Other AT PZEV CNG 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

H2ICE 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30
Type E Non PHEV 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.65

B12.5/0.8 BPHEV 1.24 1.19 1.35 1.30

B20 /0.8 BPHEV 1.45 1.40 1.56 1.51

B22 /0.8 BPHEV 1.50 1.45 1.60 1.55

B40 /0.8 BPHEV 1.78 1.73 1.78 1.73
Type F P10 AER PHEV 1.62 1.57 1.62 1.57 (>=10 mile UDDS P20 AER PHEV 1.99 1.94 2.00 1.95 Capable) P40 AER PHEV 2.40 2.35 2.27 2.22
Type G P10 AER PHEV 1.62 1.57 1.85 1.80 (>=10 mile US06 P20 AER PHEV 1.99 1.94 2.23 2.18 Capable) P40 AER PHEV 2.40 2.35 2.50 2.45

6. High Pressure Storage System Requirements

One of the nine “loopholes” in the NGOs March 26 comment letter pointed out potential ways for manufacturers to flood the marke t with cheaply made hydrogen internal combustion engine (HICE) vehicles

.

Loophole # 1: “Limit hydrogen internal combustion e ngine vehicles to AT-PZEV (non-Enhanced) and PZEV credits due to thei r limited benefit and potential for gaming.”

Staff did not feel it was necessary to limit HICEs to the AT PZEV category. These vehicles provide large emission benefits and promote tank and infrastructure development. However, to ensure tha t only the most advanced HICE vehicles are placed, staff has increased the r equirements for the hydrogen storage system on HICE vehicles from 3600 to 5000 p ounds per square inch. This will promote the use of advanced hydrogen stor age systems and further development and commercialization of hydrogen tanks that could also be used on a fuel cell vehicle. Regulatory language in sec tion 1962.1(c)(4)(A) was modified to reflect this change.7

7. Travel Provision

The Board directed staff to include suggestions fro m the State of New York and other states that asked for a modification to the p rovision that gives credit in California to ZEVs placed in another state (the tra vel provision) that has adopted California’s ZEV program regulations pursuant to se ction 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (section 177 states). Because Califo rnia’s vehicle market is much larger than any section 177 state and because a man ufacturer’s production volumes vary between section 177 states, credits ge nerated by California ZEVs

could overwhelm the other section 177 state’s ZEV r equirements, including the state’s AT PZEV and PZEV requirements. Therefore, staff has modified the travel provision to provide for proportionality of California’s credits to the section 177 state’s credits. This is achieved by multiplyi ng the required credits by the ratio of a LVM’s total sales in the state receiving credit to the LVM’s total sales in California. This still allows manufacturers to pla ce a vehicle in a section 177

state and receive full ZEV credit in California. T his change only affects the value

of the credit earned in the section 177 state in wh ich the vehicle is placed or the value of the ZEV credit which is being used to comp ly with a section 177 state’s requirement. The language in section 1962.1(d)(5)( E) has been modified to reflect these changes.

8. Advanced Demonstration Credits

Staff modified the original proposal to include Enh anced AT PZEVs along with ZEVs as eligible for advanced demonstration credit. Since no manufacturer has released an Enhanced AT PZEV for commercial sale, s taff thinks it appropriate to

allow these vehicles to earn advanced demonstration credit. Also, as submitted and available at the March 27 hearing as Attachment B, and included in this notice as Attachment A, staff increased the cap on the allowable number of

advanced demonstration credits from 6 to 25 vehicle s, per state, per model, per year. This increase responds to a manufacturer comment that the 6-vehicles cap was too low to adequately demonstrate vehicle t echnology. All advanced demonstration credit continues to be subject to Exe cutive Officer approval. Section 1962.1(g)(4) has been modified to reflect t he additional vehicle category and the revised cap on vehicles earning credit.

9. Credit Transparency

The Board directed staff to make the ZEV credit ban k fully transparent including trades beginning in 2010. In the original proposal staff had not specified that trades would be fully transparent. Section 1962.1( l)(2) has been modified to reflect this change, with specific language relatin g to the transparency of

transactions within the ZEV credit bank.8

10. Use of Transportation Systems Credits

Transportation systems credits provide vehicles ext ra ZEV credit if the vehicle is placed in a shared use application, and/or provide linkage to mass transit. Staff has modified the original proposal to exclude extra credits earned by ZEVs in transportation systems to be used in compliance wit h the portion of the obligation that must be met with ZEVs during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. The modification preserves a limitation that has been in ZEV require ments for LVMs on the alternative path since the 2005 model year. During the hearing, the Board clearly indicated concern that the minimum gold floor be me t with real vehicles rather than banked credits. This change also ensures the Board’s directed 7,500

minimum ZEV floor will be met with vehicles rather than credits. This provision has been added to 1962.1(b)(2)(D) as subsection 4.

11. Inclusion of Enhanced AT PZEVs into ZEV Credits for Transportation Systems

Staff’s modifications include Enhanced AT PZEVs in provisions relating to ZEV credits for transportation systems. Like AT PZEVs, Enhanced AT PZEVs will earn 4 credits, through 2011 MY, if the vehicle is in a project demonstrating shared use and the application of intelligent techn ologies. Also, Enhanced AT PZEVs will earn an additional 2 credits through 2011 MY, if the vehicle is used in a project that includes linkage to transit.

Enhanced AT PZEVs will continue to qualify for tran sportation system credits in 2012 and subsequent MYs, earning 1 credit for share d use and application of intelligent technologies, and 1 additional credit f or linkage to transit. Section 1962.1(g)(5) has been modified to reflect t hese changes.

12. Banking of Gold Credits Until Subject to LVM Re quirements

The Board directed staff to make necessary modifica tions to allow manufacturers who are not subject to LVM requirements to bank 200 8 and subsequent model year gold credits without having the limited carry forward provision apply until the manufacturer becomes subject to LVM requirements. Staff modified section 1962(g)(6) and section 1962.1(g)(6) to include a pr ovision that allows a manufacturer other than an LVM, who produces gold c redits, to bank those gold credits until they are subject to LVM ZEV obligatio ns. The limited carry forward provision in each respective regulation will then a pply, beginning with the year the manufacturer becomes subject to the stepped up LVM requirements. Below is an example of how this provision would work for an IVM who produces a gold credit in 2010, but does not become subject to LVM requirements until 2014:9

If a manufacturer other than an LVM chooses to trad e their gold credits, then the limited carry forward provision applies to the cred its traded and begins in the MY

in which the credits were earned. Below is an exam ple of a credit earned by an IVM (e.g., Manufacturer A) in 2009 that is traded t o another manufacturer (e.g., Manufacturer B) in 2011:

13. Use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Cred its

Historically, NEV production generated credits that created long blackout periods in the ZEV program. This was commented on by NGOs in their March 26

comment letter:

Loophole #8: “Prevent product blackouts caused by N EV credits for the pure ZEV minimum requirement and early introduction of enhanced AT-PZEVs. This can be accomplished by limiting the use of NEV credits 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 and Beyond

Gold

Credit

Produced IVM Subject

to LVM Requirements 2010 Earned Gold Credit only allowed

in Enhanced or

lesser credit earning categories

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Manufacturer A Credit Earned Credit Traded to

Manufacturer B

o Limited carry

forward provision applies to the

traded credit

Manufacturer B Credit Earned

by

Manufacturer A Traded Credit

Received

o May be used to

meet Gold Obligation Traded credit

may only be applied to

Enhanced

AT PZEV or

lesser credit earning categories Gold Credit

Gold Credit Carries Forward 2 Years

Enhanced AT PZEV or Less Gold Credit Retains Full Value10 earned before 2008 to the (non-enhanced) AT-PZEV or PZEV categories after 2011 and restricting NEV credits earned after 2008 from the pure

ZEV floor.”

Staff considered the comment and modified the regul ation to clarify the limits and allowed use of NEV credits in complying with the ZE V program. The following tables have been added to section 1962.1(g)(6) as a new subsection (A):

(2001 through 2005 Banked NEV Credits)

Years ZEV Obligation that: Percentage limit for

NEVs allowed to meet each Obligation:

2009 – 2011 Must be met with ZEVs 50%

2009 75%

2010 – 2011 May be met with AT PZEVs but

not PZEVs 50%

2009 – 2011 May be met with PZEVs No Limit

Must be met with ZEVs 0%

May be met with Enhanced

AT PZEVs and AT PZEVs 50% 2012 – 2014

May be met with PZEVs No Limit

(2006 and subsequent MY NEVs)

Years ZEV Obligation that: Percentage Limit for

NEVs allowed to meet each Obligation:

May be met through compliance with Primary Requirements No Limit

May be met through compliance with Alternative Requirements,

and must be met with ZEVs 0%
2009 - 2011

May be met through compliance

Alternative Requirements, and may be met with AT PZEVs or

PZEVs No Limit

Must be met with ZEVs 0%

2012 – 2014 May be met with Enhanced

AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, or PZEVs No Limit11

With these modifications, 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV credits are not available to meet the portion of the obligation that must be met with ZEVs in 2012 through 2014. Also, the 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV banked cr edits are capped at 50% usage within the obligation that may be fulfill ed with Enhanced AT PZEVs or

AT PZEVs for the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. These mo difications limit the use of 2006 and beyond NEV credits within the minimum ZEV floor during the 2012 to 2014 timeframe while still allowing them to be full y used to meet requirements that may be met with Enhanced AT PZEVs, AT PZEVs, a nd PZEVs.

14. Additional NEV Requirements

In conjunction with the modifications on the use of 2001-through-2005-MY-NEV credits and 2006-and-subsequent-MY-NEV credits, sta ff added more stringent requirements for 2010 and subsequent MY NEVs. This was also in response to the NGOs previously mentioned “Loophole #8.” The r equirements include minimum technical specifications including accelera tion, top speed, and constant speed range requirements. Staff based these requir ements on the U.S. Department of Energy’s “NEV America Technical Specifications” (Version 2) document, released on December 1, 2004, found at th e following link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/p dfs/nev/nev_tech_spec.pdf

. Staff slightly altered the NEV America requirements to better fit with the intent of the ZEV program. Additionally, staff added languag e which points to test procedures developed by the U.S. Department of Ener gy. These can be found at the following links:

o Acceleration: ETA-NTP002 (revision 3) “Implementat ion of SAE Standard J1666 May93: Electric Vehicle Acceleration, Gradeab ility, and Deceleration

Test Procedure” found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/p dfs/nev/ntp002.pdf

o Constant Speed Range: ETA-NTP004 (revision 2) “Ele ctric Vehicle Constant Speed Range Tests” found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/p dfs/nev/ntp004.pdf

Also, 2010 and subsequent MY NEVs are required to b e equipped with sealed, maintenance-free batteries, and meet minimum warran ty requirements. Staff added sections 1962.1(d)(5)(F)(1),(2), (3) and 1962 .1(h)(2) to reflect these

modifications.

15. Other Technical and Minor Modifications

Other post-hearing conforming modifications were ma de to the regulation for clarification and simplification:12

1962(c)(5)(A): The provision relating to the fast refueling requirements in the

table have been modified to reflect the number of m iles needed to be replaced rather than the percentage maximum rate energy capa city for Type III ZEVs.

1962(c)(5)(B): For clarification, language in this section has been modified to specify the calendar year rather than the MY in whi ch the vehicle was placed. The table heading in the same section was also modi fied.

1962.1(b)(1)(B): The marketing manufacturer provisi on states that a passenger vehicle or light-duty vehicle produced by a manufac turer but marketed by another manufacturer under the other manufacturer name plac e will count towards the marketing manufacturer’s production for purposes of determining any manufacturer’s obligation. This provision was modi fied to apply to all manufacturers, rather than to only small volume man ufacturers.

1962.1(b)(1)(B): The regulation has been modified t o specify the MYs (2003 through 2005) that a manufacturer will use to determine its ZEV obligation during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe.

1962.1(b)(1)(B)1.b.: The percentage ZEV requirement has been corrected for the Alternative Path during the 2009 to 2011 timeframe. As released in staff’s notice errata, the percentage has been adjusted from .80 t o .82.

1962.1(c)(6)(B)1. The MY affected by the 3.0 cap on the value of an AT PZEV allowance has been changed from 2012 MY to 2009 MY. The modification in the applicable MY makes the cap for 2009 through 2011 M Y vehicles consistent with the cap for 2012 and subsequent MY vehicles.

1962.1(d)(5)(A) and (B): Fast refueling requirement s for Type IV ZEVs has been modified to correct the refueling time to 15 minute s instead of 10 minutes.

1962.1(f): Staff has added extended service multip lier language found in section 1962(f) into section 1962.1 as subsection ( f) because the provision still applies through 2011 MY.

1962(j) and 1962.1(j): The abbreviations sections h ave been updated to accurately reflect the abbreviations applicable to each regulation.

Other minor conforming and harmonizing modification s have been incorporated.

Comments and Subsequent Action

In accordance with section 11346.8 of the Governmen t Code, the Board directed the Executive Officer to adopt section 1900, 1961, 1962, and 1962.1 and associated test procedures, and the new title 13, C CR, section 1962.1 and its associated test procedures, along with other modifi cations, after making them13

available to the public for comment for a period of at least 15 days. The Board further provided that the Executive Officer shall c onsider such written comments as may be submitted during this period, shall make such modifications that may be appropriate in light of comments received, and s hall present the regulations to

the Board for further consideration if warranted.

Written comments on the modifications approved by t he Board may be submitted by postal mail, electronic mail, or facsimile as fo llows:

Postal mail: Clerk of the Board, Air Resources Boar d 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814

Electronic submittal: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php

Facsimile submittal: (916) 322-3928

Please note that under the California Public Record s Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.), your written and oral commen ts, attachments, and associated contact information (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to th e public upon request. Additionally, this information may become available via internet search engines.

In order to be considered by the Executive Officer, comments must be directed to

ARB in one of the three forms described above and r eceived by ARB by 5:00 p.m. on the deadline date for public comment l isted at the beginning of this notice. Only comments relating to the above-descri be modifications to the text of the regulations shall be considered by the Executiv e Officer.