BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In the Matter of California’s Request for 

Waiver Action Pursuant to Clean Air 

Act Section 209(b) for Amendments to 

California’s Zero Emission Vehicle 

Regulation and Low Emission Vehicle 

Regulations 

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

CLEAN AIR ACT § 209(b) WAIVER SUPPORT DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

May 2012

I. INTRODUCTION

California’s Air Resources Board (CARB or the Board) has developed the Advanced 

Clean Cars program, a pioneering approach of a “package‟ of regulations that, although 

separate in construction, are related in terms of the synergy developed to address 

interrelated ambient air quality needs and climate change.

The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog, soot causing 

pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of 

requirements for model years (MY) 2015 through 2025 and assures the development of 

environmentally superior passenger vehicles. The Advanced Clean Cars package 

includes amendments to three regulations: the Low Emission Vehicles regulation 

(LEV), the Zero Emission Vehicles regulation (ZEV), hereinafter “2012 ZEV/LEV

Amendments,” and the Clean Fuels Outlet regulation. Two of these regulations, LEV 

and ZEV, require a federal waiver submittal under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The earliest requirements of the LEV regulation as amended are set to affect MY 2014 

vehicles. Consequently, manufacturers would benefit from the increased lead time that 

an expedited consideration of this waiver request would allow. The remainder of this 

support document provides background for California’s LEV and ZEV regulations, 

details their recent amendments, and gives the basis for CARB’s waiver or within the 

scope request for each. 

II. ZEV REGULATION 

A. BACKGROUND AND WAIVER HISTORY

In 1990, CARB adopted an ambitious program to significantly reduce the environmental 

impact of light-duty vehicles through the commercial introduction of ZEVs into the California 

fleet. The ZEV program, which was a part of California’s first-generation low-emission
2

vehicle regulations (LEV I), has been modified five times since its inception – in 1996, 

1998/1999, 2001, 2003, 2008, and most recently in 2012.

1

 

The 2012 ZEV amendments flow from the Board’s 2008 direction to CARB staff to redesign 

the 2015 and subsequent MY requirements for the ZEV regulation. The Board directed its 

staff to strengthen the regulation above what was currently required and focus primarily on 

zero emission drive, that is battery electric vehicle (BEV), hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle 

(FCV), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) technologies. The goal of the Board 

direction was to maintain California as the central location for moving advanced, low 

greenhouse gas (GHG) technology vehicles from the demonstration phase to 

commercialization. 

In 2009, CARB staff analyzed pathways to meeting California’s long term 2050 GHG 

reduction goals in the light-duty vehicle subsector. The analysis showed that ZEVs would

need to reach nearly 100 percent of new vehicle sales between 2040 and 2050, with 

commercial markets for ZEVs launching in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. The analysis 

concluded that even widespread adoption of advanced conventional technologies, like nonplug-in hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), would not be enough to meet the 2050 GHG targets. 

Staff presented its findings at the December 2009 Board hearing. 

At the December 2009 hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 09-66, reaffirming its 

commitment to meeting California’s long term air quality and climate change reduction 

goals through commercialization of ZEV technologies. The Board further directed staff to 

consider shifting the focus of the ZEV regulation to both GHG and criteria pollutant 

emission reductions, commercializing ZEVs and PHEVs in order to meet the 2050 goals, 

and to take into consideration the new LEV fleet standards and propose revisions to the 

ZEV regulation accordingly. 

In addition to the Board’s directives, in 2010, President Barack Obama directed the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) to work with California to develop GHG fleet standards 

for MY 2017 through 2025 LDVs. The Joint Technical Assessment Report (TAR), which 

was developed by EPA, NHTSA, and CARB, was released in September 2010. The 

report concluded “electric drive vehicles including hybrid(s)...battery electric 

vehicles...plug-in hybrid(s)...and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles...can dramatically reduce 

petroleum consumption and GHG emissions compared to conventional technologies.... 

The future rate of penetration of these technologies into the vehicle fleet is not only 

related to future GHG and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, but also 

to future reductions in HEV/PHEV/EV [electric vehicle] battery costs, [and] the overall 

performance and consumer demand for the advanced technologies....”

2

 Manufacturers 

confirmed in meetings leading up to the release of the TAR their commitment to develop 

 1 A detailed account of these modifications, and their waiver history, can be found in 71 Fed Reg 78190-

78191(Dec. 28, 2006) and 76 Fed Reg 61095-61096 (Oct 3, 2011). 2 EPA, 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Safety and Traffic Administration 

and California Air Resources Board. September 2010. “Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report: Light-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 

2017-2025” (p. vii).
3

ZEV technologies. “...[A] number of the firms suggested that in the 2020 timeframe 

their U.S. sales of HEVs, PHEVs, and EVs [electric vehicle] combined could be on the 

order of 15-20 percent of their production.”3

For the California ZEV rulemakings described above, the Board sought and obtained 

waivers of federal preemption from the EPA under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 209(b). 

EPA granted California an initial waiver of federal preemption for California’s original 

1990 ZEV requirements in January 1993 as part of the LEV I waiver.4 In January 2001, 

it found that the Board’s 1996 ZEV amendments, which amended manufacturer ZEV 

production mandates for MY 1998 through 2002, were within the scope of the originally 

granted 1993 waiver.5

 In December 2006, EPA determined that the 1999, 2001, and 

2003 ZEV amendments as they applied to 2007 and prior MY passenger cars and lightduty trucks equal to or less than 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight (LDT1) also fell 

within the scope of the 1993 waiver.6 It further granted California a new waiver for MY 

2007 through 2011 passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including light-duty trucks with 

a loaded vehicle weight greater than 3,750 pounds (LDT2).7 

In its December 2006 decision, EPA expressly made no finding as to MYs 2012 and 

later.8 In September 2009, CARB submitted a Waiver request to EPA seeking 

confirmation that amendments to the ZEV regulation adopted in 2008, as they relate to 

the vehicles of 2011 and earlier MYs, were within the scope of EPA’s prior ZEV waivers. 

Additionally, CARB sought confirmation that its 2008 ZEV amendments, as they relate 

to 2012 and later MYs, were within the scope of EPA’s prior waivers or otherwise met 

the criteria for a waiver of preemption. On October 3, 2011, EPA determined that 

amendments to the ZEV regulations, as they affected 2011 and prior MYs, were within 

the scope of previous waivers for the ZEV regulations (or in the alternative qualified for 

a new waiver).9 At that time EPA also granted a waiver allowing California to enforce 

the 2008 ZEV amendments as they affected 2012 and later MYs.

10

B. 2012 ZEV AMENDMENTS

The subject amendments to California’s ZEV regulation are described below in two parts 

based on the timeframe during which they apply. These timeframes are: 1) MY 2012 

through 2017; and 2) MY 2018 and beyond. The amendments identified in this section B.

represent the most significant changes during each of these timeframes.

 3 Id. at pp. 2-5. 4 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (Jan. 13, 1993).

5 66 Fed.Reg. 7751 (Jan. 25, 2001). See section IV.A.1., infra, for discussion of EPA’s within the scope 

analysis.

6 71 Fed.Reg. 78190 (Dec. 28, 2006). In the alternative, EPA found that the amendments affecting these 

vehicles also met the requirements for a granting of a full waiver. Id., Decision Document accompanying 

waiver decision at p. 61.

7 Id. 

8 Id. 9 76 Fed.Reg. 61095 (Oct. 3, 2011).

10 Id.
4

1. 2009 through 2017 Model Year Amendments

CARB’s goal for amendments affecting the current ZEV regulation through MY 2017

was to make minor mid-course corrections and clarifications and to enable 

manufacturers to successfully meet 2018 and subsequent MY requirements. These

amendments included:

a. Provision of Compliance Flexibility: Removed carry forward credit limitations 

for ZEVs, allowing manufacturers to bank ZEV credits indefinitely for use in 

later years. Slightly reduced the 2015 through 2017 credit requirement for 

intermediate volume manufacturers (IVM, less than 60,000 vehicles produced 

each year), to allow them to better prepare for requirements in 2018. 

Extended the provision that allows ZEVs placed in any state that has adopted 

the California ZEV regulation to count towards the ZEV requirement through 

2017 (i.e. extending the “travel provision” for BEVs through 2017). 

b. Adjustment of Credits and Allowances: Increased credits for Type V (300 

mile FCV) ZEVs to appropriately incentivize this longer-term technology. 

c. Addition of New Vehicle Category: Added Type I.5x and Type IIx vehicles

(collectively “BEVx” vehicles) as a compliance option for manufacturers to 

meet up to half of their minimum ZEV requirement. The proposed vehicle

types are closer to a BEV than to a PHEV, in that they are vehicles primarily

designed for zero-emission operation but are equipped with a small nonZEV fuel auxiliary power unit (APU) to be used only for limited range 

extension if the zero-emission capacity is depleted.

2. 2018 and Subsequent Model Year Amendments

CARB’s goal for amendments affecting 2018 and subsequent MYs is to achieve ZEV 

and transitional zero-emission vehicle (TZEV; most commonly a PHEV) 

commercialization through simplifying the regulation and pushing technology to higher 

volume production in order to achieve cost reductions. The amendments included:

a. Increased ZEV Requirement for 2018 and Subsequent MYs: Increased

requirements which push ZEVs and TZEVs to over 15 percent of new sales 

by 2025. This will ensure production volumes are at a level sufficient to bring 

battery and fuel cell technology down the cost curve and reduce incremental 

ZEV prices. 

b. Regulation Focused on ZEVs and TZEVs: Removed PZEV (near-zero 

emitting conventional technologies) and advanced technology PZEV

(AT PZEV, typically non-plug-in HEVs) credits as compliance options for 
5

manufacturers because these technologies are now commercialized and their 

emissions are better reflected in the LEV III program. Allowed manufacturers 

to use banked PZEV and AT PZEV credits earned in 2017 and previous MYs, 

but discount the credits, and place a cap on usage in 2018 and subsequent 

MYs. Focused the 2018 and subsequent MY requirements on ZEVs and 

TZEVs 

c. Amended Manufacturer Size Definitions, Ownership Requirements, and 

Transitions: Amended IVM and large volume manufacturer (LVM) size 

definitions to bring all but the smallest manufacturers under the full ZEV 

requirements by MY 2018. Aligned LEV III and ZEV ownership 

requirements, so that manufacturers who own more than 33.4 percent of each 

other are considered as the same manufacturer for determination of size. 

Modified transition periods for manufacturers switching size categories. 

These changes result in applying the ZEV regulation to manufacturers that 

represent 97 percent of the light-duty vehicle market.

d. Modified Credit System: Based credits for ZEVs on range, with 

50 mile BEVs earning 1 credit each and 350 Mile FCVs earning 4 credits 

each. Allowed extended range BEVs (BEVx) which have a limited 

combustion engine range extender to meet up to half of a manufacturer’s 

minimum ZEV requirement. The range of credit reflects the utility of the 

vehicle (i.e. the zero emitting miles it may travel) and its expected timing for 

commercialization. Simplified and streamlined TZEV credits based on the 

vehicle’s zero-emission range capability, and their ability to perform at least 

10 miles on the more aggressive US06 drive schedule. In addition to 

simplifying the program, reducing the spread of credits makes the 

technologies more evenly treated and reduces the variation in compliance 

outcomes (numbers of vehicles produced to meet the regulation 

requirements).

e. Modified Travel Provision: Ended the Travel Provision for BEVs after MY

2017. Extended the Travel Provision for FCVs until sufficient 

complementary polices are in place in states that have adopted the California 

ZEV regulation. This will allow FCV technology to continue to mature and 

provide time for Section 177 states to build infrastructure and put in place 

incentives to foster FCVs.

 

f. Added GHG-ZEV Over-Compliance Credits: Allows manufacturers who 

systematically over comply with the proposed LEV III GHG fleet standard to 

offset a portion of their ZEV requirement in 2018 through 2021 MYs only. 
6

3. Effect of Amendments

As a result of the 2012 amendments, over 1.4 million ZEVs and TZEVs are expected to 

be produced cumulatively in California by 2025, with 500,000 of those vehicles being 

pure ZEVs (BEVs and FCVs) as represented in the top two wedges in the figure below. 

Expected ZEV Regulation Compliance for 2018 through 2025 Model Years

During this timeframe, the incremental price of a ZEV or TZEV is expected to rapidly 

decline, yet remain higher than a conventional vehicle by approximately $10,000 (highend estimate in 2025). 

The 2012 amendments will also result in an emissions benefit as compared to the 

earlier ZEV regulations and will likely provide benefits beyond one achieved by 

complying with the LEV III criteria pollutant standard with conventional vehicles only. 

This is due to increased electricity and hydrogen use that is more than offset by

decreased gasoline production and refinery emissions. 
7

III. CALIFORNIA’S LOW EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM FOR LIGHT-DUTY 

VEHICLES 

A. BACKGROUND

Despite significant progress in reducing smog-forming and particulate matter criteria 

emissions from the passenger vehicle fleet, California needs further reductions in order 

to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards. Additionally, climate change 

continues to pose a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural 

resources, and environment of California. To address the challenge presented by 

climate change, vehicle GHG emissions must be drastically reduced to meet our state

goal of an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. To address these issues,

CARB adopted its LEV III program as described below. 

1. Criteria Emissions

In 1990, CARB established the LEV program that contained the most stringent exhaust 

emission regulations ever for light-duty passenger cars and trucks. The regulations 

included three primary elements: 1) tiers of increasingly stringent exhaust emission 

standards; 2) a fleet-average emission requirement for 1994-2003 that required 

manufacturers to phase-in a progressively cleaner mix of vehicles from year to year;

and 3) a requirement that a specified percentage of passenger cars and lighter lightduty trucks be ZEVs, vehicles with zero emissions of any pollutants. EPA granted 

CARB’s associated waiver request on February 13, 1993.11 

In 1999, CARB adopted the second phase of the LEV program. These amendments, 

known as LEV II, set more stringent fleet average non-methane organic gas (NMOG) 

requirements for MYs 2004-2010 for passenger cars and light-duty trucks and 

established a new more stringent super ultra-low emission vehicle (SULEV) standard. 

In addition, a partial zero-emission vehicle (PZEV) category was established for 

vehicles meeting the SULEV emission standard that also included extended 150,000-

mile durability, zero fuel evaporative emissions, and extended emission warranty 

requirements. PZEVs could be used to meet a portion of the zero-emission vehicle 

requirement. The amendments also expanded the light-duty truck category to include 

trucks and sports utility vehicles (SUV) up to 8,500 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) and required these vehicles to meet the same emission standards as 

passenger cars and extended full useful life from 100,000 miles to 120,000 miles. The 

LEV II amendments also established more stringent emission standards for mediumduty vehicles (MDV) between 8,501-14,000 lbs. GVW. EPA granted CARB’s 

associated waiver request on August 5, 1999.12 EPA has also found that CARB’s other 

amendments to the LEV program were either within the scope of previous waivers or 

qualified for a waiver on their own. EPA took final action on these waiver requests on 

April 22, 200313, April 28, 200514, and July 30, 2010.

15

 11 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (January 13, 1993). 12 64 Fed.Reg. 42689 (August 5, 1999). 13 68 Fed.Reg. 19811 (April 22, 2003).
8

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Recognizing the increasing threat of climate change to the well-being of California’s 

citizens and the environment, in 2002 the legislature adopted and the Governor signed 

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes 2002, Pavley). AB 1493 directed 

CARB to adopt the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions 

from light-duty vehicles. Vehicle GHG emissions included carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) that are emitted from the tailpipe, as well as 

emissions of HFC134a, the refrigerant then currently used in most vehicle air 

conditioning systems. 

As directed by AB 1493, CARB adopted what is commonly referred to as the Pavley 

regulations, the first in the nation to require significant reductions of GHGs from motor 

vehicles. These regulations, covering the 2009-2016 and later MYs, call for a 17

percent overall reduction in climate change emissions from the light-duty fleet by 2020 

and a 25 percent overall reduction by 2030. They also formed the foundation for the 

federal GHG program for light-duty vehicles for 2012-2016 MYs. EPA granted CARB’s 

associated waiver request on July 8, 2009.

16

After the Board adopted the Pavley regulations, the legislature adopted and the 

Governor signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Chapter 488,

Statutes 2006, Nuñez/Pavley). AB 32 charges CARB with the responsibility of 

monitoring, regulating, and reducing GHG emissions in the State. AB 32 also directed 

CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan outlining the State’s strategy to achieve the maximum 

feasible and cost-effective reductions in furtherance of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 

levels by 2020. Measure T1 of the Scoping Plan anticipates an additional 3.8 million 

metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) reduction by 2020 from the subject 

regulatory amendments, beyond the GHG reductions arising from the 2009-2016 

AB 1493 standards.

In addition, in 2005, in order to mitigate the long-term impacts of climate change, the 

Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05. Among other actions, the Executive Order 

called for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This 

ambitious yet achievable reduction path and goal are considered necessary to stabilize 

the long-term climate. The subject amendments’ 2021-2025 MY requirements will 

further both AB 32 and the 2050 reduction goal.

As mentioned earlier, in 2010, President Barack Obama directed the EPA and NHTSA 

to work with California to develop GHG fleet standards for MY 2017 through 2025 

LDVs.17 The resulting jointly developed report concluded “electric drive vehicles 

 14 70 Fed.Reg. 22034 (April 28, 2005). 15 75 Fed.Reg. 44951 (July 30, 2010). 16 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009). 17 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiencystandards
9

including hybrid(s)...battery electric vehicles...plug-in hybrid(s)...and hydrogen fuel cell 

vehicles...can dramatically reduce petroleum consumption and GHG emissions 

compared to conventional technologies.... The future rate of penetration of these 

technologies into the vehicle fleet is not only related to future GHG and CAFE 

standards, but also to future reductions in HEV/PHEV/EV [electric vehicle] battery costs, 

[and] the overall performance and consumer demand for the advanced 

technologies....”18 Following development of this report, NHTSA and EPA formally 

issued a Notice of Joint intent to develop strong greenhouse gas and fuel economy 

standards for the 2017 to 2025 timeframe,19 and 14 automobile manufacturers have 

joined CARB in submitting letters to EPA committing to a continued national program of 

light-duty GHG and CAFÉ standards20. 

B. SUMMARY OF RECENT LEV III AMENDMENTS INCLUDING GHG 

COMPONENTS

In order to achieve further emission reductions from the light- and medium-duty fleet,

CARB adopted several amendments that together represent a significant strengthening 

of the LEV program. Specifically, the criteria emission requirements of the program are 

made substantially more stringent, and the GHG requirements are restructured to 

provide for later acceptance of the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) proposed 2017-2025 federal GHG emission and fuel economy 

standards for light-duty vehicles as compliance with CARB standards.

21 Effectively, 

these amendments will do the following:

Criteria Pollutants:

• Reduce fleet average emissions of new light-duty vehicles to SULEV levels 

by 2025, an approximate 75 percent reduction from 2010 levels;

• Replace separate NMOG and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standards with 

combined NMOG plus NOx standards, in order to provide manufacturers 

with compliance flexibility to more cost-effectively meet SULEV emission 

levels across their light-duty fleets;

• Establish additional emission standard categories, such as ULEV70, 

ULEV50, and SULEV20 in order to provide additional options for compliance

with the SULEV fleet average;

• Eliminate intermediate useful life (50,000 miles) standards;

• Increase full useful life durability requirements from 120,000 miles to 150,000 

miles;

 18 EPA, 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Safety and Traffic Administration 

and California Air Resources Board. September 2010. “Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report: Light-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 

2017-2025” (p. vii). 19 76 Fed.Reg. 48758 (August 9, 2011). 20 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/letters.htm#2011al 21 CARB Resolution 12-11, January 26, 2012 (p. 6).
10

• Provide a backstop to help ensure continued production of SULEVs after 

PZEVs migrate from the ZEV program to the LEV program in 2018. Without 

a backstop, beginning in 2018, manufacturers would not need to produce 

SULEVs until 2023 in order to meet the fleet average requirement;

• Establish more stringent emission requirements for MDVs;

• Require all MDVs between 8,501-10,000 lbs., GVWR to certify on a chassis 

dynamometer, which would greatly enhance the ability to perform in-use 

compliance evaluation of these vehicles;

• Establish more stringent 3 mg/mi and 1 mg/mi particulate matter (PM) 

standards for light-duty vehicles and more stringent PM standards for 

medium-duty vehicles;

• Establish zero fuel evaporative emission standards for light-duty vehicles, 

and more stringent evaporative emission standards for medium-, and heavyduty vehicles;

• Establish more stringent supplemental federal test procedure (SFTP, 

reflecting more aggressive driving) standards for light-duty vehicles and, for 

the first time, require medium-duty vehicles to meet SFTP standards;

• Allow pooled fleet average NMOG plus NOx emissions from California and 

the federal CAA Section 177 States that adopt the LEV III program; and

• Revise the NMOG Test Procedures.

Greenhouse Gases:

• Reduce new light-duty CO2 emissions from new light-duty regulatory MY

2016 levels by approximately 34 percent by MY 2025, and from about 251

grams of CO2 per mile to 166 grams, based on the projected mix of vehicles 

sold in California;

• Set emission standards for CO2, CH4, and N2O;

• Establish footprint based CO2 emission standards, as distinguished from the 

current California GHG requirement of a fleet average GHG standard. This 

will allow manufacturers’ new vehicle fleet CO2 emissions to fluctuate 

according to their car-truck composition and sales according to vehicle 

footprint and will align the requirement with current federal GHG 

requirements;

• Provide credits toward the CO2 standard if a manufacturer reduces 

refrigerant emissions from the vehicle’s air-conditioning system;

• Provide credits toward the ZEV standards if a manufacturer over complies 

with the LEV III GHG fleet requirement;

• Provide credits towards the CO2 standards if a manufacturer produces full 

size pickups with high efficiency drivetrains;
11

• Provide credits for deployment of technologies that reduce off-cycle CO2

emissions; and

• Unlike the proposed federal GHG program for 2017-2025, require upstream 

emissions from zero-emission vehicles to be counted towards a 

manufacturer’s light-duty vehicle GHG emissions.

IV. WAIVER ANALYSIS

A. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AMENDMENTS QUALIFY FOR A 

WAIVER OF PREEMPTION OR ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PREVIOUS 

WAIVERS OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION

1. The Clean Air Act Section 209(b) Waiver Mechanism

CAA section 209(a) preempts states from adopting or enforcing any emission standard 

for new motor vehicles and from requiring certification, inspection, or any other approval 

relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle as a condition of 

registration or titling in the states. However, section 209(b) directs the Administrator to 

waive federal preemption for new motor vehicle emission standards adopted and 

enforced by California22 if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal 

standards. The Administrator is to deny a waiver on a finding: (1) that the 

protectiveness determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious, (2) that California 

does not need separate State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions, or (3) that the State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures 

are not consistent with CAA section 202(a). With regard to the consistency criterion, the 

Administrator has stated that California’s standards and accompanying test procedures 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the 

development of technology to meet those requirements, giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance within that timeframe, or (2) the federal and 

California test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make 

manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle.23 

For nearly 30 years, EPA has administered a mechanism under which, in appropriate 

cases, no new waiver is needed for amendments to California’s motor vehicle emission 

control regulations for new motor vehicles because the amendments are within the 

 22 The section 209(b) waiver provisions apply to any state which has adopted standards (other than 

crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

engines prior to March 30, 1966. (Clean Air Act §209(b)(1).) California is the only state that meets this 

condition. (S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 532 (1967); Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

Ass'n v. EPA [MEMA I], 627 F.2d 1095, 1100 note 1 (D.C.Cir. 1979).). 23 See, e.g., 46 Fed.Reg. 26371 (May 12, 1981). Even where there is incompatibility between the 

California and federal test procedures, EPA has granted a waiver under circumstances where EPA 

accepts a demonstration of federal compliance based on California test results, thus obviating the need 

for two separate tests. (43 Fed.Reg. 1829, 1830 (Jan. 12, 1978); 40 Fed.Reg. 30311, 30314 

(July 18, 1975).).
12

scope of previously issued waivers.24 As the Assistant Administrator stated in the 2001

finding that repeal of the ZEV sales requirements for MYs 1998-2002 was within the 

scope of previous waivers, an amendment may be considered to be within the scope of 

a previously granted waiver if it does not undermine California’s determination that its 

standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as 

comparable Federal standards, does not affect the consistency of California’s 

requirements with CAA section 202(a), and raises no new issues affecting EPA’s 

previous waiver determination.25

The individual elements of section 209(b) are discussed below as follows. CARB’s 

protectiveness determination for the 2012 amendments to both the ZEV and LEV 

regulations is discussed below in Section IV. B. The necessity of the amendments to 

both the ZEV and LEV regulations to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions is 

discussed in Section IV. C. The ZEV amendments’ consistency with section 202(a) is 

discussed in Section IV. D. and E. The ZEV amendments’ qualifications for a waiver if 

they are not deemed to qualify as within the scope are discussed in Section IV. F. The 

LEV amendments’ qualifications for a waiver are discussed in Section IV. G. 

2. The Scope of EPA’s Inquiry in a Waiver Proceeding Is Limited

The scope of the Administrator’s inquiry in determining whether to deny a waiver or 

within-the-scope request is limited by the express terms of CAA section 209(b). Thus, 

once California determines that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, the 

Administrator must grant the waiver request unless one of the three specified findings 

can be made. As Administrator Ruckelshaus stated in a 1971 decision:

The law makes clear that the waiver request cannot be denied unless the 

specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The 

issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in 

only marginal improvement in air quality not commensurate to its costs or 

is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally 

pertinent to my decision under Section 209, so long as the California 

requirement is consistent with Section 202(a) and is more stringent than 

applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some 

further reduction in air pollution in California.26

 24 See, e.g., 46 Fed.Reg. 36742 (July 15, 1981); 51 Fed.Reg. 12391 (April 10, 1986). 25 Decision Document accompanying scope of waiver determination in 66 Fed.Reg. 7751 (Jan. 25, 2001) 

at 9.

26 36 Fed.Reg. 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971), quoted on pp. 8-9 of the Decision Document accompanying 

66 Fed.Reg. 7751 (Jan. 25, 2001), which notes that the “more stringent” terminology reflected the 

section 209(b) requirement before the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act substituted the reference to 

California standards that are, in the aggregate, at least as protective as comparable Federal standards.
13

3. Deference Should be Given to California’s Policy Judgments

In granting waivers to California’s motor vehicle program, EPA has routinely deferred to 

the policy judgments of California’s decision makers. The agency has recognized that 

the intent of Congress in creating a limited review of California’s determinations that 

California needs its own State separate standards was to ensure that the federal 

government would not second-guess the wisdom of State policy.27 Administrators have 

recognized that the deference is wide-ranging:

The structure and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate 

both a Congressional intent and an EPA practice of leaving the decision 

on ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy to California’s 

judgment.

* * * * * *

It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California 

approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the 

federal level in my own capacity as a regulator. The whole approach of 

the Clean Air Act is to force the development of new types of emission 

control technology where that is needed by compelling the industry to 

“catch up” to some degree with newly promulgated standards. Such an 

approach . . . may be attended with costs, in the shape of a reduced 

product offering, or price or fuel economy penalties, and by risks that a 

wider number of vehicle classes may not be able to complete their 

development work in time. Since a balancing of these risks and costs 

against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy 

decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined 

above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to 

California’s judgments on this score.

28

In 2009, EPA reiterated its recognition that Congress intended EPA to show great 

deference to California’s decision making when analyzing a waiver request for

California’s GHG standards for new vehicles.29 In that decision, the administrator 

considered the fact that Congress had the opportunity to restrict CAA’s waiver provision 

as part of its 1977 amendments to the CAA and had instead elected to highlight the 

utility of California’s flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission 

controls as the state saw fit. The administrator interpreted Congress’ act as showing its 

intent “to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means 

to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.”30

 27 40 Fed.Reg. 23102, 23103 (May 28, 1975). 28 40 Fed.Reg. 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975; emphasis added). See also Decision Document 

accompanying waiver determination in 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (Jan. 13. 1993).

29 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009). 30 Id. at p. 32748.
14

4. The Burden of Proof Is On Those Opposed to the Waiver Request

It is well settled that the burden to demonstrate that EPA should not grant a waiver is on 

the opponents of the waiver. The MEMA I Court expressly held that the burden of proof 

to show that there is a basis for making one of the three findings is squarely on the 

opponents of a waiver: 

It is not necessary for the Administrator affirmatively to find that these 

conditions do not exist before granting a waiver. The statute does not say 

“the Administrator shall grant a waiver only if” he makes the negative of 

these findings. That he must deny a waiver if certain facts exist does not 

mean that he must independently proceed to make the opposite of those 

findings before he grants the waiver regardless of the state of the record. 

. . . The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that 

California’s regulations, and California’s determination that they comply 

with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to 

satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is 

on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and 

findings at the hearing, and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver 

request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver 

request should be denied.31 

B. PROTECTIVENESS REQUIREMENT OF CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 209

Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds 

that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its State standards 

will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable 

Federal standards. Historically, EPA has simply compared the California standards to 

any comparable Federal standard, and that comparison has been undertaken within the 

broader context of the previously waived California program, which relies upon 

protectiveness determinations that EPA has previously found were not arbitrary and 

capricious.32

Traditionally, EPA’s evaluation of the stringency of California's standards relative to 

comparable EPA emission standards has followed the instruction of section 209(b)(2), 

which states: “If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable 

applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as 

protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of 

[209(b)(1)].”33 A finding that California's determination was arbitrary and capricious 

under section 209(b)(1)(A) would need to be based upon “‘clear and compelling 

evidence’ to show that proposed [standards] undermine the protectiveness of 

California's standards.”34 Even if EPA's own analysis of comparable protectiveness or 

 31 MEMA I, supra, 627 F.2d at 1120-1121.

32 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, at p. 32749 (July 8, 2009). 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid.
15

that suggested by a commenter might diverge from California's protectiveness finding, 

that is not a sufficient basis on its own for EPA to make a section 209(b)(1)(A) finding 

that California's protectiveness finding is arbitrary and capricious.35

Additionally, in granting California’s past waiver requests EPA has acknowledged that a 

given California standard may, by itself, be less protective than comparable federal 

standards so long as California’s regulations in the aggregate are at least as protective 

of comparable federal standards.36 “California could enforce emission control standards 

which it determined to be in its own best interest even if those standards were in some 

respects less stringent than comparable federal ones.”37

1. PROTECTIVENESS OF ACC PACKAGE

Here, California made a protectiveness determination with regard to the 2012 ZEV and 

LEV amendments in CARB’s Resolution 12-11, finding that the amendments would not 

cause the California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards. This 

protectiveness determination is the logical extension of the comparable findings that 

were found to be sufficient in the analysis of California’s previous protectiveness 

determinations for its ZEV regulation38, its LEV regulation39, and its GHG regulation.40 

In analyzing CARB’s protectiveness finding for the 2012 ZEV and LEV amendments,

EPA should consider that – as was the case with the granted waivers cited above -

there are either no comparable Federal standards or the Federal standards that exist 

are quantifiably less protective than those included in the 2012 ZEV and LEV 

amendments. 

Moreover, as detailed below, the ACC program will result in reductions of both criteria 

pollutants and GHG emissions that, in the aggregate, are more protective than the 

federal standards that exist. Criteria pollutant emission benefits for the ACC program 

are fully realized in the 2035-2040 timeframe when nearly all vehicles operating in the 

fleet are expected to be compliant with the proposed standards. By 2035, reactive 

organic gas (ROG) emissions would be reduced by an additional 34 percent, and NOx 

emissions by an additional 37 percent, compared to 2035 without the proposed ACC 

rules. Under the amended rule, the new PM2.5 standard is reduced to 3 mg/mi in 2020 

and 1 mg/mi in 2028. With these standards, PM2.5 emissions will be essentially 

unchanged between 2010 and 2040 despite growth in vehicle miles traveled.

There is no criteria emissions benefit from including the ZEV proposal in terms of 

vehicle (tank-to-wheel or TTW) emissions. The LEV III criteria pollutant fleet standard is 

responsible for those emission reductions in the fleet; the fleet would become cleaner 

 35 Ibid. 36 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009). 37 Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 464 (D.C. Cir. 1998, citation omitted). 38 76 Fed.Reg. 61095 (October 3, 2011). 39 68 Fed.Reg. 19811 (April 22, 2003). 40 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009).
16

regardless of the ZEV regulation because manufacturers would adjust their compliance 

response to the standard by making less polluting conventional vehicles. However, 

since upstream criteria and PM emissions are not captured in the LEV III criteria 

pollutant standard, net upstream emissions are reduced through the increased use of 

electricity and concomitant reductions in fuel production. 

The table below presents the emissions impacts in well-to-wheel (WTW) criteria 

pollutant and PM emissions in 2030 due to the 2012 Amendments. 2030 was chosen 

as a reference year to account for a significant amount of fleet turn-over. 

Statewide Criteria and PM Emissions in 2030 (tons per day)

2030 ROG NMOG+ 

NOx PM

LEVIII fleet WTW emissions without new ZEV proposal 231 233 56.4

LEVIII fleet WTW emissions with new ZEV proposal 225 229.5 56.2

The upstream emissions from the production of hydrogen and electricity represent a 

very small fraction of the combined vehicle and upstream emissions impacts of the fleet, 

and are far outweighed by the reduction in gasoline production emissions. Additionally, 

a portion of these upstream emissions are in non-urban areas. 

Criteria and PM emission benefits will vary by region throughout the state depending on 

the location of emission sources. Refinery emission reductions will occur primarily in 

the east Bay Area and South Coast region where existing refinery facilities operate. As 

refinery operations reduce production and emissions, the input and output activities, 

such as truck and ship deliveries, will also decline. This includes crude oil imported 

through the Los Angeles and Oakland ports, as well as pipeline and local gasoline truck 

distribution statewide.

As noted below in the discussion on the criteria emission element of LEV III (Section 

IV.G.3.a.(i)), the primary fleet average emission requirement, beginning in 2015, 

declines every year to a fleet average NMOG plus NOx emission standard of 0.030 g/mi 

in 2025. Clearly, this is significantly more stringent than the current federal Tier 2 fleet 

average NOx emission requirement of 0.07 g/mi NOx41, with its implied fleet average 

NMOG plus NOx emission requirement of 160 g/mi (a 0.07 g/mi NOx emission level is 

equal to the NOx emission standard for Tier 2 Bin 5 (0.090 g/mi NMOG, 0.07 g/mi 

NOx)42, implying a Tier 2 NMOG plus NOx fleet average requirement of 0.160 g/mi). 

LEV III PM standards of 0.003 g/mi and 0.001 g/mi are also significantly more stringent 

than the Tier 2 PM standards of 0.02 g/mi and 0.01 g/mi43.

The ZEV regulation does not provide GHG emission reductions in addition to the 

LEV III GHG regulation given that ZEV emissions are included in determining 

compliance with the GHG standard. Specifically, because the California GHG standard 

 41 40 C.F.R. section 86.1811-04(d) 42 40 C.F.R. section 86.1811(c)(6) 43 Id.
17

includes upstream emissions, in addition to the vehicle emissions, there is no difference 

in GHG emissions under varying ZEV scenarios. However, the ACC program as a 

whole – i.e. the California fleet - would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 

2025, CO2 emissions would be reduced by almost 14 million metric tonnes (MMT) per

year, which is 12 percent from baseline levels. The reduction increases in 2035 to 32 

MMT which is a 27 percent reduction from baseline levels. By 2050, the proposed 

regulation will reduce emissions by more than 42MMT per year, which is a reduction of 

33 percent from baseline levels. Currently, there are no federal GHG standards for 

these 2017-2025 MYs, though CARB understands they will soon be finalized.

 

For these reasons it is clear that California’s fleet under these amendments will be at 

least as protective as a comparably sized fleet of vehicles that only meet the existing 

federal rules. Should CARB adopt an amendment later this year to allow federal GHG 

compliance to serve as compliance with California’s LEV (including GHG) standards, 

California’s program will be necessarily as protective as the federal program.

C. THE 2012 ZEV AND LEV AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO MEET 

COMPELLING AND EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS

Under section 209(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator may not grant a waiver if they 

find that California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions.” EPA has traditionally interpreted this provision to require a 

consideration of whether California needs a separate motor vehicle program to meet 

compelling and extraordinary conditions.44 In granting past waivers, EPA has noted that 

“Congress requires EPA to allow California to promulgate individual standards that, in 

and of themselves, might not be considered needed to meet compelling and 

extraordinary circumstances, but are part of California’s overall approach to reducing 

vehicle emissions to address air pollution problems.”45 EPA has repeatedly determined 

that CARB has demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle program to address 

compelling and extraordinary conditions in California and has based such 

determinations on the fact that California’s essential “geographic and climactic 

conditions” remained the same as they were under earlier determinations.46

The relevant inquiry under this criterion is whether California needs its own motor 

vehicle pollution control program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, not 

whether any particular standards are necessary to meet such conditions.47 The 

Administrator has determined that the phrase "compelling and extraordinary conditions" 

refers to:

... certain general circumstances, unique to California, primarily 

responsible for causing its air pollution problem [including] . . . 

geographical and climatic factors [as well as] ... the presence and growth 

 44 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, at p. 32759 (July 8, 2009). 45 Id. at p. 32761. 46 Id. at pp. 32761-32762.

47 See, e.g., 49 Fed.Reg. 18887, 18889-18890 (May 3, 1984). 
18

of California's vehicle population, whose emissions were thought to be 

responsible for ninety percent of the air pollution problem in certain parts 

of California.48

Thus, the Administrator has stated,

It is evident from [the legislative history of the Clean Air Act] that 

“compelling and extraordinary conditions” does [sic] not refer to levels of 

pollution directly, but primarily to the factors that tend to produce them: 

geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with large 

numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious air 

pollution problems.49

In granting previous waiver requests, EPA has noted that CARB has repeatedly 

demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle program to address compelling and 

extraordinary conditions in California.50 To explain this, EPA has previously referenced 

the fact that California—the South Coast and San Joaquin Air basins in particular—

continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation and that California

had an ongoing need for dramatic emission reductions generally and from passenger 

vehicles specifically.

51 EPA also referenced California’s unique geographical and 

climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in the vehicle population and use which

had initially moved Congress to authorize California to establish separate vehicle 

standards in 1967.

52 In granting previous waivers, EPA has noted that – as in 1967 -

California then continued to have geographic and climatic conditions that, when 

combined with the large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, created a 

serious pollution problem.53 

For purposes of the instant request for the 2012 ZEV and LEV amendments, CARB 

submits that those same compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying previous

waivers continue to exist in California and so the requirements of section 209(b)(1)(B) 

are satisfied.

 48 49 Fed.Reg. at 18890. 49Id. 50 Id. at p. 32762. 51 Ibid. 52 Id. at pp. 32762-327623.

53 Id. at p. 32763.
19

D. THE 2012 ZEV AMENDMENTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2009

THROUGH 2017 MODEL YEARS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE 

PREVIOUS WAIVERS FOR CALIFORNIA’S ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE 

STANDARDS54

For the reasons detailed below, CARB believes that the 2012 ZEV amendments for MY 

2009 through 2017 are within the scope of previous waivers. Specifically, the 2012 ZEV 

amendments related to MY 2009 through 2017 fall within the scope of the waiver 

granted in October 2011.

55 

Changed circumstances prompted California to amend the original ZEV requirements 

since the Administrator’s issuance of the initial waiver of preemption in 1993.56 Those 

changed circumstances were the driving force behind the substantial changes CARB 

made to the ZEV requirements in the 1999-2003 ZEV amendments and again in the 

more limited changes adopted in the 2008 ZEV amendments.

Corresponding with CARB’s amendments to the ZEV requirements, EPA has issued a 

series of waiver determinations after its issuing of the original 1993 waiver. Most 

recently, in 2011, EPA determined that California’s ZEV standards for passenger cars 

and light-duty trucks were either within the scope of earlier waivers or covered by a new 

waiver of preemption under CAA section 209(b).57 

Past EPA waiver and within-the-scope findings make it clear that the 2012 ZEV 

amendments fall within the scope of the previous waivers granted in 1993, 2006, and 

2011. In its 2006 waiver determination, EPA stated that it will conduct a two-part inquiry 

when considering whether CARB amendments to a previously waived regulation fall 

within the scope of the previously granted waiver or require a new waiver:

EPA believes it is important to distinguish between the threshold issue of

whether CARB's amendments should be subjected to either the within-thescope criteria or the full waiver, and separately determining whether the 

same amendments actually meet the applicable criteria for actually 

confirming the within-the-scope request or granting a full waiver of federal 

preemption. 58

In determining the threshold question, EPA will consider whether the 

amendments make minor technical revisions or provide compliance 

flexibility to manufacturers on the one hand or whether the amendments 

 54 CARB respectfully submits that no reasonable basis exists for the Administrator not to confirm that the 

2012 ZEV amendments as they apply to MYs 2012 through 2017 do not fall within the scope of the 

waivers previously granted in 1993, 2008, and 2011. If the Administrator determines otherwise, a new 

waiver should be granted for the reasons set forth in section IV. F. 

55 76 Fed.Reg. 61095 (Oct. 3, 2011). 56 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (Jan. 13, 1993). 57 76 Fed.Reg. 61095 (Oct. 3, 2011). 58 Decision Document accompanying waiver determination in 71 Fed.Reg. 78190 (Dec. 28, 2006), at 17.
20

add new or more stringent pollutant standards or new motor vehicle 

categories on the other. 59

Following this precedence, the 2012 ZEV amendments as applied to MYs 2009 to 2017

should be analyzed under the within-the-scope criteria – that is, do the amendments 

undermine CARB’s original protectiveness determination, and, as amended, does the 

regulation remain consistent with CAA section 202(a)? As described above, the 2012 

ZEV amendments as applied to MYs 2009 to 2017 are a critical component of the ACC 

package which will result in fleet standards that are at least as protective as would exist 

under federal standards, so the protectiveness determination requirement should be 

deemed satisfied. The 2012 ZEV amendments’ consistency with section 202(a) is 

discussed next. 

1. Consistency with CAA Section 202(a)

a. Effect of the Amendments on Lead Time Considerations

The first prong of the two-part consistency analysis requires those opposed to California 

obtaining a favorable within-the-scope determination to show that the regulation, as 

amended, provides insufficient lead time to permit the development of technology to 

meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance 

within the time provided for compliance. It is incontrovertible that if the amendments 

make compliance more feasible for a regulation for which EPA has already weighed 

feasibility and waived preemption then the amendments meet the lead-time element of 

the CAA section 202(a) consistency test applied to within-the-scope determinations. 

Even in situations where a regulatory amendment shortens lead time, EPA has found 

the amendments to be within the scope where there would be a “lengthy” time period 

(e.g. five years) before compliance was required, and CARB has addressed any 

theoretical objections claiming that the amendment was technologically infeasible.

60

CARB’s goal for amendments affecting the current ZEV regulation through 2017 was in 

part to make compliance with the regulation more feasible. Specifically, the removal of 

the limitations on carrying ZEV credits forward, the reduction of the credit requirements 

for IVMs during MYs 2015 through 2017, and the extension of the section 177 state 

“travel provision” for BEVs through 2017 will make it more feasible for regulated parties 

to comply. Additionally, the increase in credits for Type V (i.e. 300 or greater mile 

FCVs) vehicles and addition of two new types of qualifying ZEVs (i.e. Type I.5x and 

Type IIx vehicles) will create more favorable conditions for compliance. 

 59 Id. at 18-19.

60 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32768 (July 8, 2009). Citing National Resources Defense Council v. EPA 655 

F.2d 318, 331 (D.C. Cir.1981).
21

Consequently, the amendments do not materially affect the lead time provided to 

manufacturers under earlier iterations of the ZEV program, which EPA has found to be 

consistent with CAA section 202(a) in the 1993, 2006, and 2011 waivers.61 

b. Test Procedure Consistency

The second prong of the consistency criteria requires that the federal and California test 

procedures not impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make 

manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle.62 The 

test procedures for certifying ZEVs are contained in the ZEV Standards and Test 

Procedures documents incorporated by reference in sections 1962.1(h) and 1962.2(h).

The 2012 ZEV amendments primarily affect only the standards portions of the 

incorporated documents and hence do not generally change the pre-existing testing 

requirements for certification. Accordingly, there also are no inconsistencies in the 

federal and California test procedures for PZEVs and AT PZEVs that would preclude a 

manufacturer from conducting one set of tests to demonstrate compliance or would 

prohibit a confirmation that the 2012 ZEV amendments are within the scope of 1993,

2006, and 2011 waivers. 

2. New Issues Affecting Previous Waiver Determinations

CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previous waiver determinations that 

are raised by the 2012 ZEV amendments as they affect MYs 2009-2017. 

E. THE 2012 ZEV AMENDMENTS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2018 AND 

LATER MODEL-YEAR VEHICLES ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EXISTING

WAIVERS FOR CALIFORNIA’S ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE STANDARDS

1. Consideration of the Amendments Applicable to 2018 and Later 

Model-Year Vehicles as Within the Scope of Existing Waivers

In light of EPA’s earlier decisions waiving preemption of the ZEV standards, the 

2012 ZEV amendments are also within the scope of the previous waivers63 as they 

apply to 2018 and later MY vehicles because the standards contained in the 2012 

amendments are at least as protective as those in earlier versions of the waived ZEV 

standards.

64 In those earlier versions, manufacturers’ 2018 and subsequent MY ZEV 

 61 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (Jan. 13, 1993), 71 Fed.Reg. 78190 (Dec. 28, 2006), 76 Fed.Reg. and 61095 (Oct. 

3, 2011).

62 Id.

63 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (January 13, 1993) and 71 Fed.Reg. 78190 (Dec. 28, 2006), and , and 76 Fed.Reg. 

61095 (Oct. 3, 2011). 

64 There is one aspect of the 2012 ZEV amendments as applied to MYs 2018 and later that opponents 

could argue is not within the scope of earlier waivers. Specifically, there is a group of current IVMs that 

will become subject to LVM requirements in 2018, due to the 2012 amendments to the definition 

thresholds. Some of these current IVMs are closer to becoming an LVM under the current definition of 

60,000 vehicles sold, and others will only become an LVM due to the amended definition changes. The 
22

requirements were held at the same percentage each year, as shown in the table 

below. 

2018 and Subsequent ZEV Credit Requirement Before 2012 Amendments

Credit Category Credit Requirement

Minimum ZEV 5.0%

Maximum TZEV* 3.0%

Maximum AT PZEV* 2.0%

Maximum PZEV 6.0%

Total ZEV Requirement 16.0%

*The regulation did not specify the split between TZEVs and AT PZEVs. For 

this analysis, staff assumed AT PZEV and TZEV credit requirements would 

remain the same from the 2015 through 2017 requirements. The PZEV and AT 

PZEVs (highlighted in grey) were moved to the LEV III program so the 

remaining ZEV requirement under the current regulation would be 8 percent.

To address one of the program’s primary objectives (i.e. ZEV technology 

commercialization and long-term GHG and criteria emission goals), CARB’s 2012 ZEV 

amendments increased each manufacturer’s compliance requirements for 2018 and 

subsequent MYs, ultimately reaching credit requirements of 6 percent for TZEVs and 

16 percent for pure ZEVs in 2025. This increase is outlined in the table below. 

ZEV Credit Requirement for 2018 and Subsequent After 2012 Amendments

Model Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and 

Subsequent

Overall ZEV 

Requirement 4.5% 7.0% 9.5% 12.0% 14.5% 17.0% 19.5% 22.0%

Min. ZEV 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%

Max. TZEV 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%

As shown in the post-2012 Amendment table above, while the overall ZEV credit 

requirement between MY 2018 and MY 2022 is less than the current program, CARB 

has revised the number of credits earned per vehicle (typically by one half), and PZEVs 

and AT PZEVs no longer count towards meeting a manufacturer’s ZEV obligation. 

Accordingly, it is more illustrative to compare the actual number of ZEVs required to be 

produced given the current and proposed crediting structure. This is shown in the figure 

below.

 purpose of the 2012 amendments is to bring a larger percentage of manufacturers under the full ZEV 

requirements. This amendment to the lead time provision ensures a level playing field, making 

manufacturers close to the current definition thresholds (60,000 vehicles per year), subject to LVM 

requirements at the same time as manufacturers affected by staff’s proposed definition change. CARB 

agrees that this aspect of the 2012 ZEV amendments can be analyzed as qualifying for a new waiver as 

detailed in the alternative analysis below in section IV. F.
23

2012 Amendments vs. Earlier Regulation – Annual Sales Requirements

2. 2012 ZEV Amendment’s Protectiveness for Model Years 2018 and Later

As described above, the 2012 ZEV Amendments as applied to MYs 2018 and later are 

a critical component of the ACC package which will be at least as protective as federal 

standards, so the protectiveness determination requirement should be deemed 

satisfied. The 2012 ZEV amendment’s consistency with section 202(a) is discussed 

immediately below.

3. Consistency with CAA 202(a) – Effect of the Amendments on Lead-Time 

Considerations and on Test Procedure Consistency

The 2012 Amendments do not affect lead time except as described below. Before the 

2012 Amendments, manufacturers were given five years of lead time when transitioning 

into a larger size definition. For example, if a manufacturer were to increase its sales, 

such that their 2011 through 2013 sales average exceeded the current LVM threshold of 

60,000 sales, the manufacturer would be subject to the full ZEV requirements in MY

2019. With the 2012 amendments, manufacturers starting their transition before 2018 

will be subject to full ZEV requirements starting in the 2018 MY. This means, for 

example, if a manufacturer’s 2013 through 2015 sales average (for the first time) is 

61,000 vehicles, then instead of being subject to LVM requirements in 2021, the 

manufacturer will be subject to LVM requirements in 2018. 
24

These facts are relevant to the analysis EPA has previously applied in similar

situations.65 Specifically, the lack of objections from the regulated parties and the 

regulated parties’ announcement of their planned ability to comply, show that the 2012 

Amendment’s decrease in lead time should not stand in the way of EPA determining 

that CAA 202(a) is satisfied.

The federal Tier 2 regulations require manufacturers to measure emissions from ZEVs 

in accordance with the California test procedures.66 Accordingly, a manufacturer’s 

adherence to the California test procedures will allow them to use the same test results 

to demonstrate compliance with federal certification emission standards, so there are 

effectively no inconsistencies between the federal and California test procedures. 

4. New Issues Affecting Previous Waiver Determination

CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previous waiver determinations that 

are raised by the 2012 ZEV Amendments as they affect MYs 2018 and later.

F. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2012 ZEV AMENDMENTS APPLICABLE TO 2018 

AND LATER MODEL-YEAR VEHICLES AS MEETING THE CRITERIA FOR A 

WAIVER OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION

Should EPA determine that a new waiver is needed for the 2012 ZEV Amendments as 

applied to 2018 and later MY vehicles, what follows is a discussion of how the 2012 

ZEV Amendments meet the requirements for a waiver.

1. Public Health and Welfare – CARB’s Protectiveness Determination Is 

Not Arbitrary or Capricious

As detailed in section IV. B., the Board found that that the ACC program was at least as 

protective as any applicable Federal standards

2. California Continues to Need Separate Emission Standards for New 

Motor Vehicles In Order to Meet Compelling and Extraordinary

Conditions 

As detailed in section IV. C. above, California continues to need separate emission 

standards for new motor vehicles in order to meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions in the state.

 65 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32768 (July 8, 2009). Citing National Resources Defense Council v. EPA 655 

F.2d 318, 331 (D.C. Cir.1981). 66 40 C.F.R § 86.1811-04(n).
25

3. The 2012 ZEV Amendments to the Requirements for 2018 and Later

Model-Year Vehicles Are Consistent With Clean Air Act Section 202(a)

a. Technological Feasibility in Consideration of the Cost of Compliance 

within the Lead Time Provided

i. The Technological Feasibility Test

As discussed below, the technological feasibility of the standards for PZEVs and 

AT PZEVs has already been abundantly demonstrated in commercially available, 

California-certified vehicles. Where substantial lead time is available, standards are 

considered technologically feasible and consistent with CAA section 202(a).

67 In 

granting past waiver requests, EPA has noted that the “whole approach of the Clean Air 

Act is to force development of new types of emission control technology,” and to that 

end “California must be given substantial deference when adopting motor vehicle 

emission standards which may require new and/or improved technology to meet 

challenging levels of compliance.”68 It is well established that EPA will find a regulation 

to be technically feasible if “a reasonable basis [exists] that a new technology will be 

available and economically achievable” in the time provided for compliance. 69 To this 

end, EPA has followed the D.C. Circuit’s analysis that the time provided is reasonable if: 

[the agency adopting the regulation] answers any theoretical objections to 

the [to the projected control technology], identifies the major steps 

necessary in refinement of the [technology], and offers plausible reasons 

for believing that each of those steps can be completed in the time 

available. 70

As a rule, greater deference will be accorded when a regulation provides substantial 

lead time for development before manufacturers must commit themselves to mass 

production of a chosen prototype.71 Such lead time gives the agency greater leeway to

modify its standards if the actual future course of technology diverges from 

expectation.72

The only relevance of costs in a Section 209(b) waiver proceeding is in the context of 

technological feasibility. Past EPA waiver determinations have made clear that for the 

cost of compliance to be found excessive it would need to be “very high” such that the 

 67 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32777 (July 8, 2009) 68 Id. at p. 32768 (citations omitted).

69 Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 331-2 (D.C. Cir., 1981) (NRDC). 70 See Decision Document accompanying EPA’s granting California a waiver for its OBD II regulation 

(61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (Oct. 11, 1996)), at 73. 71 NRDC, 655 F.2d at 329. 

72 Id.
26

cost to consumers who purchased a complying vehicle would be doubled or tripled.73 

Additionally, the relevance of the cost of compliance analysis is limited to the question 

of whether such costs will adversely affect the timing of an emission standard.74

ii. Technological Feasibility of the ZEV Requirements for MY 2018 

and Later

In granting earlier waivers, the administrator found the requirements of earlier versions 

of the ZEV regulation to be technologically feasible. As described below, manufacturers 

have been able to adopt technologies satisfying the earlier ZEV requirements, and the 

recent changes will allow manufacturers greater technological flexibility in meeting the 

ZEV requirements; this will presumably only increase the technological feasibility of the 

regulation. 

The four categories of vehicles used to meet the ZEV regulation are ZEVs, TZEVs, 

AT PZEV, and PZEV. Table 1.2, below, shows the cumulative number of vehicles 

placed in compliance with the ZEV regulation through MY 2010.

Table 1.2: Cumulative Vehicle Placement Through Model Year 2010

ZEV Credit Category Technology Type Quantity of 

Vehicles

ZEV Fuel Cell 350

Battery Electric 5,200

Neighborhood Electric 28,800

AT PZEV Hybrid or Compressed Natural 

Gas

380,000

PZEV Conventional Gas 1,750,000

*On-road number is less for FCVs and NEVs.

Manufacturer Compliance Status and Near-term Production Plans

All manufacturers have complied with ZEV regulation requirements. For the 2012 MY, 

six LVMs are required to comply with the entire regulation, meaning these 

manufacturers must produce pure ZEVs: Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General 

Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. Ten IVMs have the option to meet their entire 

requirement with credits from PZEV. These ten manufacturers include: BMW, Hyundai, 

Jaguar-Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Subaru, Volkswagen and Volvo. 

Most manufacturers have near-term production plans to meet or over comply with the 

regulatory requirements through MY 2017. Additionally, several other non-regulated 

 73 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32774 (July 8, 2009, citations omitted). 74 MEMA I, supra, 627 F.2d at 1105, 1114 n. 40 (“[T]he ‘cost of compliance’ consideration relates to the 

timing of standards and procedures.”) U.S. EPA has recognized that the only relevance of costs is there 

impact on timing, e.g. “Manufacturers do not contend that the cost of compliance will be significantly 

reduced by extending lead time beyond the minimal period required for compliance.” (36 Fed.Reg. 17459 

(Aug. 31, 1971)).
27

manufacturers are actively producing ZEVs and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) 

and earning ZEV credits. This means there will be a sufficient number of credits 

available to those regulated manufacturers that are still developing technologies to 

comply with the ZEV regulation requirements.

Recently, a number of manufacturers have announced aggressive production plans for 

PHEVs and BEVs for the next three MYs. These announcements reflect technological 

advancement in lithium-ion battery technology and a general shift in customer demand 

and corporate environmental stewardship. The following table provides a summary of 

manufacturers’ current ZEV and TZEV program commitments, by technology category, 

as publicly stated. 

Table 1.3: Manufacturer ZEV and TZEV Announcements

Manufacturer Model Type Timeframe Reference

BMW 

ActiveE BEV 2011 BMW, 2011a

i3 BEV

2013

BMW, 2011b

i3 Rex PHEV BMW, 2011c

i8 PHEV 2014 BMW, 2011b

BYD e6 BEV 2012 BYD, 2010

CODA (unknown) BEV 2011 PopularMechanics, 2011

Chrysler Fiat 500 EV BEV 2012 Chrysler, 2010

Fisker Karma PHEV 2011 Fisker, 2011

Ford

C-MAX Energi PHEV 2012 Ford, 2011a

Focus Electric BEV 2011 Ford, 2011b

Transit 

Connect 

Electric

BEV in production n/a

GM

Cadillac ELR PHEV (unknown) GM, 2011a

Spark BEV 2012 GM, 2011b

Volt PHEV in production n/a

(unknown) FCV 2015 USA TODAY, 2010

Honda

Fit EV BEV 2012

Honda, 2011

(unknown) PHEV 2012

Clarity FCX FCV in production n/a

Hyundai Tucson IX FCV 2015 Bloomberg, 2010

Mercedes Benz (unknown) BEV 2012 Mercedes, 2011

F-Cell FCV in production Autobloggreen, 2010

Mitsubishi

i BEV in production n/a

Outlander PHEV 2013 Motor Trend, 2011

Nissan LEAF BEV in production n/a

Smart fortwo ED BEV in production n/a

Tesla Model S BEV 2012 Tesla, 2011

Think City BEV in production n/a

Toyota

Prius Plug-In PHEV 2012 Toyota, 2011b

RAV-4 EV BEV 2012 Toyota, 2011c Scion iQ-EV BEV 2012
28

Manufacturer Model Type Timeframe Reference

(unknown) FCV 2015 Toyota, 2011d

Volkswagen e-up! BEV 2013 Volkswagen, 2011

Wheego Whip LiFe BEV in production n/a

The table reveals that nearly every manufacturer will be introducing production BEV and 

PHEV products within the next one to three years, and five manufacturers will 

commercially introduce FCVs by 2015. If manufacturers produce TZEVs and ZEVs at 

production levels announced in the table above, the requirements for MY 2012 through 

2017 are therefore also feasible. 

The technological sophistication of ZEVs currently being produced is anticipated to 

continue to advance, making commercial production and compliance of these vehicles 

by MY 2018 and later more feasible. Additionally in MYs 2018 and later, manufacturers 

are allowed to comply with any type of ZEV, meaning BEV or FCV, making compliance 

still more feasible. As noted above, during the rulemaking proceedings for the adoption 

of the 2012 ZEV amendments, CARB did not receive any comments questioning the 

overall technological feasibility of the amended standards. For these reasons, the 

finding of technological feasibility of the ZEV requirements within the lead time in 

MYs 2018 and later is well supported and a finding of inconsistency with CAA 

section 202(a) is not warranted.

4. Consistency of Certification Procedures

The test procedures for certifying ZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs are contained in the 

ZEV and LEV Standards and Test Procedures incorporated by reference in 

sections 1962.1(h) and 1962.2(h) and are largely un-amended by the 2012 ZEV 

Rulemaking. The federal Tier 2 regulations require manufacturers to measure 

emissions from ZEVs in accordance with the California test procedures.75 Further, 

there are no inconsistencies in the test procedures for PZEVs and AT PZEVs that would 

justify the denial of a waiver. Accordingly, there are no inconsistencies between the 

federal and California test procedures that would preclude a manufacturer from 

conducting one set of tests to demonstrate compliance with the federal and California 

certification emission standards for ZEVs, TZEVs, AT PZEVs, and PZEVs. 

G. THE 2012 AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA’S LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE 

REGULATION MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A WAIVER OF FEDERAL 

PREEMPTION76

As noted above, in Resolution 12-11 the Board found that the 2012 LEV amendments 

do not cause the California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be 

less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards, are 

 75 40 C.F.R. section 86.1811-04(n).
29

needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and do not cause the 

California requirements to be inconsistent with CAA section 202(a). Each of the 

required elements for a waiver under section 209(b) is addressed in turn below.

1. Public Health and Welfare – CARB’s Protectiveness Determination Is 

Not Arbitrary or Capricious

In Resolution 12-11, the Board made the determinations section 209 requires, finding 

that the ACC program was at least as protective as any applicable Federal standards. 

The basis for this protectiveness determination is detailed in section IV. B. above.

2. California Continues to Need Separate Emission Standards for New 

Motor Vehicles In Order to Meet Compelling and Extraordinary 

Conditions 

As detailed in section IV. C. above, California continues to need separate emission 

standards for new motor vehicles in order to meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions in the state.

3. Consistency with CAA Section 202(a)

The Administrator has stated that California’s standards and accompanying test 

procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: 1) there is inadequate lead time to 

permit the development of technology to meet those requirements, giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance within that timeframe; or 2) the federal and 

California test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make 

manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle.77 As 

the following discussion demonstrates, the LEV III amendments are fully consistent with 

section 202(a) of the CAA.

a. Technological Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations

In developing the LEV III emission requirements CARB considered several factors that 

would impact a manufacturer’s ability to meet the requirements. These factors include 

technical feasibility, lead time available to meet the requirements, cost of compliance 

and the technical and resource challenges manufacturers face in complying with the 

requirement to simultaneously reduce criteria and GHG emissions. Regarding technical 

feasibility, ARB considered emission control technologies that are currently deployed on 

 77 ”Neither the court nor the agency has ever interpreted compliance with section 202(a) to require more.” 

MEMA II, 142 F.3d at 463 (citations omitted). See also 46 Fed.Reg. 26371 (May 12, 1981). Even where 

there is incompatibility between the California and federal test procedures, EPA has granted a waiver 

under circumstances where EPA accepts a demonstration of federal compliance based on California test 

results, thus obviating the need for two separate tests. (43 Fed.Reg. 1829, 1830 (January 12, 1978); 40 

Fed.Reg. 30311, 30314 (July 18, 1975).).
30

vehicles manufactured today. CARB also anticipated continuing improvements in these 

deployed technologies, and in technologies already under development by vehicle 

manufacturers or component suppliers for future vehicle applications. 

Concerning lead time, CARB considered the pace of implementation manufacturers 

would need in order to incorporate these technologies across their model lines. 

Implementation for the criteria emission element of LEV III occurs over an 11-year 

period from 2015 through 2025, while the GHG emission element is implemented over a 

9-year period from 2017 through 2025. This extended implementation period provides 

manufacturers with regulatory certainty and lead time to incorporate new technologies 

across their vehicle models at a pace consistent with normal vehicle development and 

production. In addition to an extended implementation period and lead time, LEV III 

also provides manufacturers with significant compliance flexibility that will assist them in 

managing their resources when implementing new requirements to reduce both criteria 

and GHG emissions in the same timeframe.

The LEV III standards should be deemed technologically feasible and consistent with 

CAA section 202(a) if the CARB identifies or predicts the technology that can be used to 

comply with the standards, “answers any theoretical objections to the [projected control 

technology], identifies the major steps necessary for the refinement of the [technology], 

and offers plausible reasons for believing that each of these steps can be completed in 

the time available.”78

(i) Criteria Pollutant Emission Standards.

What follows in Section (A) is a discussion of technologies, while section (B) is a 

discussion of lead times for those technologies.

(A)Technological Feasibility

There are two key elements of the criteria pollutant emissions portion of the LEV III 

program: 1) proposed amendments to California’s exhaust emission standards and 

2) proposed amendments to California’s evaporative emission standards. 

Exhaust Emission Standards Generally:

The technological feasibility demonstration for the exhaust emission requirements is set 

forth in Section II.A.3 of the Staff Report (pp. 29-37). The technological feasibility 

demonstration for the evaporative emission requirements is set forth in Section II.B.3 of 

the Staff Report (pp. 52-54). While emission control technology has undergone 

dramatic improvement over the last decade and is well understood by the industry, we 

provide a brief discussion of the technology and recent advancements that have been 

made by both vehicle manufacturers and emission control component suppliers.

 78 Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 655 318, 331-2 (D.C. Cir., 1981). 
31

The emission control technologies that can be used to meet the LEV III criteria pollutant 

standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles consist of technologies that have already 

been developed for use in complying with the LEV II standards and expected 

improvements to mature LEV II technologies that will help assure compliance with the 

LEV III criteria pollutant standards. In its Staff Report, staff identified and discussed 16 

different low-emission technologies that are currently available to reduce exhaust 

emissions (pp. 29-37) and three different strategies/technologies that are currently 

available to reduce evaporative emissions (pp. 52-54); although, it is unlikely any single 

vehicle will feature all of these improvements. These currently-available LEV II 

technologies fall into four basic categories – improvements to the fuel control system, 

improvements in fuel atomization and delivery, improvements in catalyst performance, 

and methods to reduce engine-out emission levels. Many of the technologies discussed 

in the Staff Report are already in use on selected vehicle models, and during the 

California rulemaking no affected manufacturer questioned the overall technological 

feasibility of these standards. The additional improvements that are expected to be 

employed to comply with LEV III include increased catalyst volume and substrate cell 

density, increased catalyst loading and improved washcoats, and improved catalyst 

light-off with secondary air injection and retarded spark timing.

CARB also recognized that achieving SULEV emission levels across the light-duty fleet 

presents a significant challenge to vehicle manufacturers and, therefore, incorporated

the provisions described below to provide compliance flexibility without compromising 

needed emission reductions.

NMOG and NOx Standards:

LEV III replaces separate NMOG and NOx emission standards with combined NMOG 

plus NOx standards. These standards were combined in part because of the inherent 

challenge to achieve SULEV emission levels for larger vehicles with larger displacement 

engines. Specifically, achieving very low levels of NMOG is more problematic for 

vehicles equipped with larger displacement engines than achieving very low levels of 

NOx. By providing an opportunity to offset marginal increases in NMOG emissions with 

lower NOx emissions, a combined NMOG plus NOx standard enables manufacturers to 

more cost-effectively tailor their emission control systems while still achieving SULEV

emission levels across their light-duty fleet. In contrast, vehicles with smaller engines 

tend to be easier to control for NMOG emissions, but with more stringent GHG 

standards, these smaller engines will be under higher average loads, making NOx 

emission reductions comparatively more challenging. Second, LEV III establishes three 

additional light-duty vehicle emission standards (ULEV70, ULEV50, and SULEV20) to 

which manufacturers may certify their vehicles when meeting the fleet average emission 

requirement. Combined with an extended phase-in period and combined NMOG plus 

NOx emission standards, providing these additional emission standards will allow 

manufacturers to phase-in additional emission componentry across their fleet more 

cost-effectively.
32

Particulate Matter Standards

In the CARB rulemaking, some manufacturers commented that the 3 mg/mi and 

1 mg/mi PM standards are technically infeasible and that current test procedures are 

inadequate for measuring PM emissions at these low levels. CARB believes that both 

the stringency and implementation schedules for the 3 mg/mi PM standard and the 

1 mg/mi PM standard are technologically feasible within the proposed timeframe. (See 

the Staff Report and its Appendix P: Technical Support Document – Development of 

PM Standards for further discussion.) CARB test data have demonstrated PM levels 

from current port fuel injected (PFI) engines below 1 mg/mi and from late model 

gasoline direct injection engines (GDI) approaching 1 mg/mi. Staff expects that further 

technical improvements in GDI engines during the lead time provided will enable GDI 

engines to achieve parity with PFI engines in terms of their PM emissions. However, it 

is staff’s intent, in accordance with the Board’s direction (Resolution 12-11, p. 21), to 

conduct a review of the 1 mg/mi PM standard in the 2015 timeframe and report back to 

the Board on the results. If the outcome of that review indicates that modifications to 

the 1 mg/mi PM standard are warranted, staff will return to the Board soon after to 

propose changes to the standard and/or the implementation schedule. If instead the 

results of that review are inconclusive, staff will continue to monitor manufacturers’ 

technical progress and measurement capabilities towards meeting the 1 mg/mi PM 

standard and report back to the Board at such time as more information becomes 

available.

Some manufacturers have also commented that the supplemental federal test 

procedure (SFTP) PM standard is infeasible, particularly for vehicles with low power to 

weight ratios. The SFTP PM standards were based on testing of a wide range of 

vehicles, including high mileage, older vehicles with direct injected engines, a 

technology projected to dominate powertrains in the near future that are known to have 

high PM emissions. Based on the test data, CARB is confident that manufacturers will 

not have difficulty meeting the proposed 10 mg/mi standard. Thus, despite the fact that 

a small number of manufacturers have raised the concern that potential future vehicles 

with low power-to-weight ratios may not be able to meet the proposed standard, based 

on testing and discussions with other manufacturers, CARB firmly believes that with 

properly designed engines the 10 mg/mi standard is achievable.

Evaporative Emission Standards

The emission control technologies that can be used to meet the LEV III evaporative 

emission standards for most vehicles consist of technologies that have already been 

developed for use in complying with the LEV II optional zero-evaporative standards. 

These technologies can be grouped into three basic strategies- improvements to the 

carbon canister system, improvements to the fuel storage/delivery system, and addition 

of air intake system evaporative controls. In the Staff Report, CARB described the 

various technologies that fall into these three basic strategies, from which 

manufacturers can choose to comply with the LEV III requirements. Hybrid vehicles 

may require some additional technology to meet the proposed canister bleed emission 
33

standard, because they have less available purge to regenerate the carbon canister. A 

partially pressurized fuel tank and heated purge are both examples of technology which 

could be employed to compensate for a hybrid vehicle’s reduced purge.

CARB recognized that achieving the LEV III objective of zero-evaporative emission 

levels across the fleet presents a significant challenge to vehicle manufacturers and,

therefore, incorporated provisions to provide compliance flexibility without compromising 

needed emission reductions. One such provision is the availability of two compliance 

options for LEV III. Option 1 is essentially a duplicate of the LEV II zero-evaporative 

standards, whereas in Option 2, the fuel system rig test of Option 1 is omitted to 

address manufacturers’ concern regarding the rig test’s burden. Option 2 instead has a 

slightly lower whole vehicle standard as well as the canister bleed emission 

test/standard, which is a condensed version of the rig test. In order to provide additional 

flexibility, LEV III Option 2 allows manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed diurnal plus hot soak emission standard through fleet averaging. In contrast, 

the LEV II evaporative emission standards do not have a fleet averaging option. The 

various compliance options inherent in the LEV III evaporative emission program will 

enable manufacturers to achieve the standards in a more cost-effective manner.

(B)Lead Time Considerations 

Exhaust Emission Standards (excluding particulate standards)

As noted above, implementation of the exhaust emission requirements for LEV III 

occurs over an 11-year period from 2015 through 2025. While LEV III implementation is 

scheduled to start within two MYs, the percentage emission reduction required by the 

exhaust fleet average emission requirement for LEV III is relatively minor in the first 

years of implementation. In addition, LEV III provides considerable compliance 

flexibility to manufacturers towards meeting the fleet average requirement by 

incorporating a combined NMOG plus NOX fleet average requirement, expanding the 

credit mechanism to a five-year carry forward and three-year carry back mechanism, 

providing additional emission standards and providing interim in-use emission standards 

for these additional standards. Therefore, manufacturers will need to incorporate only 

minor emission control improvements to their vehicles in the early years of LEV III. In 

fact, several manufacturers have indicated that they wish to take advantage of the early 

opt-in provision for LEV III by meeting the fleet average requirement for MY 2015 with 

their MY 2014 vehicles79; this is an important reason for EPA to act on this waiver 

submission before the end of 2012. 

Specifically, manufacturers must phase-in vehicles certified to the LEV III criteria 

pollutant exhaust emission standards ULEV70, ULEV50, SULEV30 and SULEV20 

 79 While CARB is generally requesting that a new waiver be granted for the 2012 LEV Amendments, 

there is one portion of the amendments that is no more stringent than the earlier standards and so might 

be considered as being within the scope of previous waivers. Specifically, the 2014 LEV Criteria 

provisions could be considered as within the scope of EPA’s April 22, 2003 waiver of preemption (68 

Fed.Reg. 19811 (April 22, 2003).).
34

beginning with the 2015 MY. All other vehicles, including SULEV30 vehicles that are 

certified using “carryover” of emission test data from a previous MY can certify to LEV II 

requirements. In MY 2020, all vehicles must be fully phased-in to LEV III requirements 

(i.e., E10 certification fuel, 150,000 mile full useful life, 50 oF emission standards). The 

LEV III standards are listed in the following table.

Exhaust Federal Test Procedure Emission Standards for New 2015 and Subsequent 

Model Year LEV III Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks

LEV III Exhaust Mass Emission Standards for New 2015 and Subsequent Model

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

Vehicle Type

Durability 

Vehicle 

Basis (mi)

Vehicle 

Emission 

Category

NMOG + 

Oxides 

of 

Nitrogen

(g/mi)

Carbon 

Monoxide

(g/mi)

Formaldehyde

(mg/mi)

All PCs;

LDTs 8500 lbs. GVWR 

or less; and

MDPVs

Vehicles in this category 

are tested at their 

loaded vehicle weight

150,000

LEV160 0.160 3.4 4

ULEV125 0.125 1.7 4

ULEV70 0.070 1.7 4

ULEV50 0.050 1.7 4

SULEV30 0.030 1.0 4

SULEV20 0.020 1.0 4

In addition, the fleet average NMOG plus NOx standards for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles become incrementally more stringent each 

MY from 2015 through 2025 as shown in the following table.

Fleet Average NMOG Plus NOx Exhaust Emission Requirements for Light-Duty Vehicles 

(150,000 Mile Durability Basis)

Model Year

Fleet Average NMOG plus NOx

(grams per mile)

All PCs; LDT1s LDT2s; MDPV

2015 0.100 0.119

2016 0.093 0.110

2017 0.086 0.101

2018 0.079 0.092

2019 0.072 0.083

2020 0.065 0.074

2021 0.058 0.065

2022 0.051 0.056

2023 0.044 0.047

2024 0.037 0.038

2025 0.030 0.030
35

Since small volume manufacturers are more resource limited than large volume 

manufacturers, LEV III provides these smaller manufacturers with slightly less stringent 

emission standards and a delayed phase-in period. Specifically, beginning in 2022,

small volume manufacturers must meet a fleet average requirement equal to LEV III 

ULEV125 and, beginning in 2025, a fleet average requirement equal to LEV III ULEV70.

In the case of medium-duty vehicles, a manufacturer would be required to certify 

20 percent of its fleet to the LEV III ULEV250 or ULEV400 standards in the 2016 MY. 

For each subsequent MY, an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s medium-duty 

vehicle fleet must be certified to increasingly more stringent LEV III criteria pollutant 

exhaust emission standards. For the 2022 and subsequent MYs, all medium-duty 

vehicles must be certified to LEV III standards. The table below lists the emission 

standards for MDVs. 

Medium-Duty Vehicles 8,500-14,000 lbs. GVWR Federal Test Procedure Exhaust Emission 

Standards (150,000 Mile Durability Basis)

Vehicle Type

Durability 

Vehicle 

Basis 

(mi)

Vehicle 

Emission 

Category2

NMOG + 

Oxides of 

Nitrogen

(g/mi)

Carbon 

Monoxide

(g/mi)

Formaldehyde

(mg/mi)

MDVs

8501 - 10,000 lbs. 

GVWR

Vehicles in this category 

are tested at their 

adjusted loaded vehicle 

weight

150,000

LEV395 0.395 6.4 6

ULEV340 0.340 3.2 6

ULEV250 0.250 2.6 6

ULEV200 0.200 2.6 6

SULEV170 0.170 1.5 6

SULEV150 0.150 1.5 6

MDVs

10,001-14,000 lbs. 

GVWR

Vehicles in this category 

are tested at their 

adjusted loaded vehicle 

weight

150,000

LEV630 0.630 7.3 6

ULEV570 0.570 3.7 6

ULEV400 0.400 3.0 6

ULEV270 0.270 3.0 6

SULEV230 0.230 1.7 6

SULEV200 0.200 1.7 6

Particulate Matter Standards

Substantial lead time has been provided toward compliance for the LEV III particulate 

matter (PM) standards of 3 mg/mi and 1 mg/mi. Specifically, for the 2017-2021 MYs, a 

percentage of each manufacturer’s passenger car, light-duty truck, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicle fleet must comply with the LEV III 3 mg/mi particulate matter 

standards. From 2025 through 2028 MYs, a percentage of each manufacturer’s 
36

passenger car, light-duty truck, and medium-duty passenger vehicle fleet must comply 

with the LEV III 1 mg/mi particulate matter standards. Recognizing that improvements 

to current engine technology are needed to meet the 1 mg/mi standard, a four year 

period of stability is provided before phase-in of the standard begins in 2025 in order to 

provide manufacturers time to deploy low PM engine technology across their fleet. The 

phase-in schedule for these standards is as follows.

LEV III Particulate Emission Standard Values 

and Phase-in for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

Model 

Year

% of vehicles 

certified to a

3 mg/mi 

standard

% of vehicles 

certified to a

1 mg/mi 

standard

2017 10 0

2018 20 0

2019 40 0

2020 70 0

2021 100 0

2022 100 0

2023 100 0

2024 100 0

2025 75 25

2026 50 50

2027 25 75

2028 and 

subsequent

0 100

 

For the 2017 and subsequent MYs, a percentage of each manufacturer’s fleet of 

medium-duty vehicles, other than the medium-duty passenger fleet, must comply with 

the LEV III 8 mg/mi particulate matter standard (for medium-duty vehicles 8,501-10,000 

lbs. GVWR) or 10 mg/mi particulate matter standard (for medium-duty vehicles 10,001-

14,000 lbs. GVWR), as applicable. Manufacturers must phase in vehicles meeting the 

LEV III particulate matter standards between the 2017 and 2021 MYs at a rate of at 

least 10 percent in 2017, 20 percent in 2018, 40 percent in 2019, 70 percent in 2020, 

and 100 percent in 2021 and subsequent MYs.

Evaporative Emission Standards 

Manufacturers must phase in vehicles meeting the LEV III evaporative emission 

standards between the 2015 and 2022 MYs. For the 2015-2017 MYs, a manufacturer 

would be required to certify the same percentage of vehicles to the zero-evaporative 

emission standards each year that it certified to these standards in the 2012-2014 MYs. 

Since LEV III allows for carry over and carry across of LEV II certification data for these 

vehicles, compliance to LEV III evaporative requirements is not expected to present a 

compliance problem for manufacturers. Since LEV III requires manufacturers to certify 
37

a set percentage of their fleets to LEV III evaporative emissions standards at a rate of at 

least 60 percent in 2018 and 2019, 80 percent in 2020 and 2021, and 100 percent in 

2022 and subsequent MYs, substantial lead time is provided before manufacturers will 

need to certify the majority of their vehicles to the new evaporative emission 

requirements. 

(ii). Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards.

Throughout the development of the LEV III GHG regulations, California coordinated with 

the EPA and NHTSA on technical and economic areas, and CARB has moved in 

parallel with the federal rulemaking in terms of stringency of the standards and lead time 

for compliance. Given this coordination, EPA clearly cannot determine that the LEV III 

GHG regulations are technologically infeasible or that the lead time provided is 

inadequate. This is true now, even before CARB proposes to amend its LEV III GHG 

regulations to allow National Program80 compliance to serve as compliance in 

California. It will be undeniably true should California adopt its “deemed to comply” rule 

as planned. (Resolution 12-11. p. 20.) However, the following discussion presents an 

overview of these issues. Additional information can be found in the LEV III Staff 

Report for this rulemaking.

 

(A). Technological Feasibility

In May of 2010, a Presidential Memorandum directed EPA and NHTSA to work jointly to 

develop continuing GHG standards for MYs 2017-2025. The Memorandum requested 

that EPA and NHTSA work closely with CARB on a technical assessment that would 

assess technologies and costs to achieve varying levels for GHG emission reduction 

through MY 2025. The result was a September 2010 Interim Technical Assessment 

Report81(TAR), jointly authored by EPA, NHTSA, and CARB. The TAR relied on an 

extended series of meetings by the agencies with vehicle manufacturers, component 

suppliers, environmental organizations and the United Autoworkers Union. Subsequent 

to that collaborative technical work, CARB closely monitored the work of EPA and 

NHTSA, and the agencies continued to jointly hold meetings with stakeholders, 

examined updated technical materials, and developed consistent technology 

assumptions. In November 2011, EPA and NHTSA proposed 2017-2025 federal 

standards for light-duty GHG emissions and fuel economy, respectively82. The relevant 

GHG technologies that CARB and the federal agencies identified for reducing GHG 

emissions are briefly described below.

The LEV III greenhouse standards are predicated on many existing and emerging 

technologies that increase engine and transmission efficiency, reduce vehicle energy 

loads, improve auxiliary and accessory efficiency, and incorporate increasingly 

electrified vehicle subsystems with hybrid and electric drivetrains. A comprehensive list 

of these technologies and the GHG reductions they provide can be found in Table III-A-

 80 http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/ldv-ghg-tar.pdf 81 Id. 82 76 Fed.Reg. 74854 (December 1, 2011).
38

4-8 of the ISOR. The previous GHG rulemakings (i.e., California’s 2009-2016 MY and 

federal 2012-2016 MY standards) established an original technical basis for the 

proposed greenhouse standards. The LEV III GHG regulations build on this existing 

technical foundation with new technical data and understanding of evolving state-of-theart engine, transmission, hybrid, and electric-drive technologies. 

Several technologies particularly stood out as providing significant emission reductions 

at favorable costs. These include dual cam phasing, turbocharging with engine 

downsizing, automated manual transmissions, and cam-less valve actuation. Potential 

improvements in the air-conditioning system include an improved variable displacement 

compressor with revised controls, reduced leakage systems, and the use of an 

alternative refrigerant (e.g. HFO- 1234yf). The table below lists the technologies 

examined and their GHG reduction potentials. 

CO2 reduction from individual technologies from 2008 reference

Area Technology Small 

car

Mid-size 

car

Small 

light-duty 

truck

Large 

light-duty 

truck

Engine Engine friction reduction 3.5% 4.5% 3.4% 4.2%

technologies Cylinder deactivation - 6.1% 4.7% 5.7%

Dual cam phasing (DCP) 4.1% 5.2% 4.1% 4.9%

Discrete variable valve lift (DVVL) 4.1% 5.2% 4.0% 4.9%

sGDI (18-bar, 33% downsize) 12.2% 14.2% 12.1% 13.6%

sGDI+DCP+DVVL (18-bar, 33% TDS) 14.9% 17.5% 14.8% 16.8%

cEGR sGDI+DCP+DVVL (27-bar, 56% TDS) 21.4% 24.3% 21.2% 23.5%

Compression-ignition DCP diesel 19.8% 21.3% 19.1% 21.3%

Transmission Torque convertor lock-up 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

technologies Aggressive shift logic 2.0% 2.5% 1.9% 2.4%

High efficiency gearbox 3.3% 3.9% 3.8% 4.3%

Optimized shifting 5.2% 6.6% 5.1% 6.2%

6-speed automatic 1.8% 2.2% 1.7% 2.1%

8-speed automatic 6.5% 7.8% 6.8% 7.8%

Wet dual clutch 8-speed 9.7% 11.5% 10.5% 11.9%

Dry dual clutch 8-speed 10.3% 12.2% 11.1% 12.6%

Continuously variable 11.0% 6.3% 6.0% -

Vehicle load Low drag brakes 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

and accessory Secondary axle disconnect 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.6%

technologies Electric power steering 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8%

Improved accessory efficiency 3.3% 3.0% 2.6% 3.5%

Mass reduction (-10% curb mass) 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%

Mass reduction (-20% curb mass) 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%

Tire low rolling resistance (-10% Crr) 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

Tire low rolling resistance (-20% Crr) 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%

Aerodynamics (-10% CdA) 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%

Aerodynamics (-20% CdA) 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%

Hybrid system 12V stop-start 6.1% 6.8% 5.6% 6.5%

technologies High-voltage belt-alternator system 7.4% 7.6% 6.8% 8.0%

Parallel hybrid (23-40 kW) 34.3% 34.6% 32.8% 31.9%

Reference Test weight (lb) 2625 3625 4000 6000

vehicle Rated power (hp) 106 158 169 300

characteristics Rated torque (ft-lb) 103 161 161 365

Notes: All potential CO2 improvements are from 2008 US baseline technology based on the combined US test procedure (55% 

UDDS, 45% highway); sGDI= stoichiometric gasoline direct injection; DCP=dual cam phasing; DVVL=discrete variable valve 

lift; TDS = turbocharged downsize; cEGR= cooled exhaust gas recirculation; DCT = dual clutch transmission

 
39

The rulemaking demonstrates that packages containing these and other technologies 

can provide substantial emission reductions at prices that typically deliver net cost 

savings to vehicle consumers in most cases within one to three years.

Estimates of Total Annualized Incremental Costs of the Proposed Advanced Clean Cars 

Program for 2015 through 2030 (millions of 2009 Dollars)

Year

Annualized 

GHG Costs 

to PC 

Consumers

Annualized 

GHG Costs 

to LDT 

Consumers

Annualized 

Criteria 

Pollutant 

Costs to LDV 

Consumers

Annualized 

Criteria 

pollutant 

Costs to 

MDV 

Consumers

Total 

Annualized 

Compliance 

Costs

Cumulative 

Annualized 

Incremental 

Cost

2015 $0 $0 $1 $0 $1 $1 

2016 $0 $0 $2 $0 $2 $4 

2017 $16 $9 $4 $0 $29 $33 

2018 $48 $15 $5 $0 $67 $100 

2019 $98 $20 $6 $0 $124 $225 

2020 $134 $25 $8 $0 $166 $392 

2021 $176 $32 $9 $0 $217 $609 

2022 $213 $36 $10 $0 $259 $868 

2023 $244 $40 $11 $0 $295 $1,163 

2024 $276 $44 $12 $0 $331 $1,495 

2025 $270 $49 $13 $1 $332 $1,827 

2026 $264 $49 $13 $0 $325 $2,153 

2027 $262 $48 $12 $0 $322 $2,475 

2028 $260 $48 $12 $0 $320 $2,796 

2029 $258 $48 $12 $0 $318 $3,114 

2030 $256 $47 $12 $0 $316 $3,430 

Note: Sum of individual columns may not match totals due to rounding.

Nearly all technology combinations modeled provide reductions in lifetime operating 

costs that greatly exceed the retail price of the technologies (Staff Report pp. 194-196). 

(B). Lead Time Considerations 

As noted above, LEV III provides manufacturers an extended lead time to phase in their 

light-duty vehicles to the LEV III GHG emission requirements over the 2017-2025 MYs, 

and as noted repeatedly throughout the rulemaking documents, the LEV III GHG 

regulations rely less on traditional “technology-forcing” than on repackaging a 

combination of “off-the-shelf” technologies to meet the adopted standards. With few 

exceptions, lead time to develop these individual technologies is simply not an issue. 

The issue is whether they can be combined in time across manufacturer fleets to meet 

the standards. There is abundant evidence in the record showing that they can.83 Also, 

during the rulemaking proceedings for the adoption of the 2012 LEV amendments, 

CARB did not receive any significant comments questioning the overall technological 

feasibility of the amended standards. 

 83 http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/ldv-ghg-tar.pdf
40

(C). Test Procedure Consistency

We are not aware of any instances in which a manufacturer is precluded from 

conducting one set of tests on a motor vehicle to determine compliance with both 

California and federal procedures for both criteria and GHG emissions. As part of the 

LEV II rulemaking formally adopted by Executive Order G-99-059 on August 5, 1999, 

CARB adopted federal Compliance Assurance Program (CAP) 2000 requirements 

virtually identical to those adopted by EPA (64 Fed.Reg. 23906, May 4, 1999), 

significantly reducing any test inconsistencies between the two agencies. 

There, however, remain differences for exhaust and evaporative emission testing under 

California and federal programs. LEV III vehicles are required to certify to exhaust 

emission standards using a certification fuel containing 10 percent ethanol. In addition, 

for evaporative emission testing, EPA requires a more volatile gasoline test fuel with an 

ethanol content of zero (E0) and a lower test temperature profile, while LEV III requires 

a lower volatile gasoline test fuel with an ethanol content of 10 percent (E10) and a 

higher temperature test temperature profile. However, it is CARB’s intention to evaluate 

whether manufacturers could conduct both exhaust and evaporative testing using 

federal test fuel and procedures when EPA finalizes its Tier 3 program. 

To conclude the consistency discussion, then, neither of the two considerations EPA 

may consider in reviewing consistency with section 202(a) applies here. There is 

adequate lead time giving appropriate consideration to costs, and there are no 

inconsistent test procedures. Thus, there is no basis for the Administrator to deny 

California’s waiver request for inconsistency with CAA section 202(a).

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this document, the Administrator should confirm CARB’s 

determination that the 2012 ZEV and LEV amendments are respectively within the 

scope of the previous waivers of preemption or otherwise qualify for a waiver of 

preemption.

In support of the CARB’s request, the following documents pertaining to the ACC 

Package are enclosed on compact disc:

1. Board Resolution 12-11, January 26, 2012.

2. Board Resolution 12-21, March 22, 2012.

3. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the 2012 California Zero 

Emission Vehicle Regulation, issued November 29, 2011.

4. Initial Statement of Reasons for Amendments to the California Zero Emission

Vehicle Regulation, issued December 7, 2011, (and associated appendixes).
41

5. Notice of Availability of Modified Text for Amendments to the California Zero 

Emission Vehicle Regulation, issued February 22, 2012, (and associated 

attachments).

6. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the 2012 California Low

Emission Vehicle Regulation, issued December 7, 2011.

7. Initial Statement of Reasons for Amendments to the California Low Emission 

Vehicle Regulation, issued December 7, 2011, (and associated appendixes).

8. Notice of Availability of Modified Text for Amendments to the California Low

Emission Vehicle Regulation, issued February 22, 2012, (and associated 

enclosures).

9. Form 400 Notice of Filing Adopted Regulations with California’s Office of 

Administrative Law June 25, 2012, for ZEV. Under California Government Code 

section 11349.3 the Office of Administrative law must take action on the adopted 

regulations– see Final Regulation Orders in Items 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 below –

no later than August 7, 2012. 

10. Form 400 Notice of Filing Adopted Regulations with California’s Office of 

Administrative Law June 25, 2012, for LEV. Under California Government Code 

section 11349.3 the Office of Administrative law must take action on the adopted

regulations – see Final Regulation Order in Item 16 below – no later than August 

7, 2012. 

11. Final Regulation Order: Section1962.1 Zero Emission Vehicle Standards for 

2009 through 2017 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and 

Medium-Duty Vehicle.

12. Final Test Procedure: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2009 through 2017 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty 

Vehicle Classes.

13. Final Regulation Order: Section1962.2 Zero Emission Vehicle Standards for 

2018 and subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and 

Medium-Duty Vehicles.

14. Final Test Procedure: California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 2018 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles and Hybrid 

Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty 

Vehicle Classes.

15. Final Regulation Order: Section 1962.3 California Vehicle Charging 

Requirements.
42

16. Final Regulation Order: California Low Emission Vehicle Standards.