6 NYCRR Part 218, 252, and 200 Regulatory Impact Statement

1. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this amendment is the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Sections 1-0101, 1-0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19-0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-0303, 19-0305, 19-1101, 19-1103, 19-1105, 71-2103, 71-2105 and section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7507).

Section 1-0101(1) outlines the policy declaration for the Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) regarding the protection of New York State's environment and natural resources including the control of "air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well being." Section 1-0101(3)(e) states:

It shall... be the policy of the state to foster, promote, create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can thrive in harmony with each other, and achieve social, economic and technological progress for present and future generations by... [p]roviding that care is taken for the air... and other resources that are shared with the other states of the United States and with Canada in the manner of a good neighbor.

Section 1-0303(19) of the ECL defines "pollution" as:

the presence in the environment of conditions and or contaminants in quantities of characteristics which are or may be injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property or which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property throughout such areas of the state as shall be affected thereby.

Section 3-0301(1)(a) of the ECL gives the Commissioner authority to "[c]oordinate and develop policies, planning and programs related to the environment of the state and regions thereof..." Pursuant to Section 3-0301(1)(b) of the ECL, the Commissioner is charged with promoting and protecting the air resources of New York including providing for the prevention and abatement of air pollution.

Section 3-0301(2)(a) permits the Commissioner to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of the ECL. Section 3-0301(2)(g) allows the Commissioner to enter and inspect sources of air pollution and to verify compliance. Section 3-0301(2)(m) gives the Commissioner authority to "adopt rules, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary, convenient, or desirable to effectuate the purposes of this chapter." Under Section 3-0301(2)(n) of the ECL, the Commissioner has the authority to "study, monitor, control and regulate pollution from motor vehicle exhaust emissions." The Commissioner's authority under Section 3-0301(2)(n) is expressly granted to further the State's policy to "[c]onserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment and control . . . air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state . . . ".

Section 19-0103 is a declaration of the State's policy with specific reference to air pollution.

It is declared to be the policy of the State of New York to maintain a reasonable degree of purity of the air resources of the State . . . and to that end to require the use of all available practical and reasonable methods to prevent and control air pollution.

Section 19-0105 sets out the purpose of Article 19, "to safeguard the air resources of the State from pollution" consistent with the policy expressed in section 19-0103 and in accordance with other provisions of Article 19.

Under ECL Section 19-0107(2) "air contaminant" is defined as "a dust, fume, gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor, pollen, noise or any combination thereof." Under ECL Section 19-0107(4) "air contamination" is defined as "the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants which contribute or which are likely to contribute to a condition of air pollution." Under ECL Section 19-0107(3) "air pollution" is defined as:

the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in quantities, of characteristics and of a duration which are injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property or which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property throughout the state or throughout such areas of the state as shall be affected thereby...

The definition of "air contamination source" found in ECL 19-0107(5) specifically includes motor vehicles.

Sections 19-0301(1)(a) and (b) of the ECL state that:

1. Consistent with the policy of the state as it is declared in section 19-0103; the department shall have power to:

a. Formulate, adopt and promulgate, amend and repeal codes and rules and regulations for preventing, controlling or prohibiting air pollution in such areas of the state as shall or may be affected by air pollution . . .

b. Include in any such codes and rules and regulations provisions establishing areas of the state and prescribing for such areas (1) the degree of air pollution or air contamination that may be permitted therein, (2) the extent to which air contaminants may be emitted to the air by any air contamination source...

Section 19-0301(2)(a) of the ECL provides:

2. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the department to: Prepare and develop a general comprehensive plan for the control or abatement of existing air pollution and for the control or prevention of any new air pollution recognizing various requirements for different areas of the state.

Section 19-0305 provides the Commissioner with enforcement power. Section 19-0305(1) states "[t]he commissioner is hereby authorized to enforce the codes, rules and regulations of the departments established in accordance with this article." In addition, pursuant to section 19-0305(2)(l) the Commissioner may "do such other things as he may deem necessary, proper or desirable in order that he may enforce codes, rules or regulations which have been promulgated under this article."

Sections 19-1101, 19-1103, and 19-1105 set forth the provisions for the environmental performance labels.

Sections 71-2103 and 71-2105 set forth the civil and criminal penalty structures for violations of Article 19.

In addition to the above New York State authority, section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7507) permits states other than California to adopt and enforce standards for motor vehicle emissions, provided that such standards are identical to California's standards.

2. Legislative Objectives

Articles 1 and 3 of the ECL set out the overall state policy goal of reducing air pollution and providing clean, healthy air for the citizens of New York. They provide general authority to adopt and enforce measures to do so, including the regulation of mobile sources of air pollution.

In addition to the general powers and duties of the Department and Commissioner to prevent and control air pollution found in Articles 1 and 3 of the ECL, Article 19 of the ECL was specifically adopted for the purpose of safeguarding the air resources of New York from pollution. To facilitate this purpose, the Legislature bestowed specific powers and duties on the Department, including the power to formulate, adopt, promulgate, amend, repeal and enforce regulations for preventing, controlling and prohibiting air pollution. The Department is "expressly authorized to promulgate extensive regulations limiting exhaust emissions from motor vehicles including adoption of California certification standards." (See MVMA v. Jorling, 152 Misc.2d 405 (N.Y. Sup. September 3, 1991.) This authority also specifically includes promulgating rules and regulations for preventing, controlling or prohibiting air pollution in such areas of the State as shall or may be affected by air pollution, and provisions establishing areas of the State and prescribing for such areas (1) the degree of air pollution or air contamination that may be permitted therein, and (2) the extent to which air contaminants may be emitted to the air by any air contamination source. In addition, this authority also includes the preparation of a general comprehensive plan or the control or abatement of existing air pollution and for the control or prevention of any new air pollution recognizing various requirements for different areas of the State. The Commissioner is also expressly authorized to enforce duly promulgated regulations adopted pursuant to Article 19 and do such other things as may be necessary to enforce such regulations.

Based on the above, the Commissioner has very broad authority to adopt and enforce regulations concerning air pollution, including emissions from motor vehicles. The Department is proposing to incorporate California's latest low emission vehicle (LEV) standards, zero emission vehicle (ZEV) standards, greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, emissions warranty and recall requirements, new aftermarket catalytic converter requirements, and environmental performance label requirements into its existing LEV program. This regulation package will further the goals of reducing air pollution from motor vehicles by requiring cleaner vehicles be sold in New York.

In choosing to adopt and implement California standards, states are limited to identical emission standards and may not do anything that would create an undue burden on the manufacturer by either preventing the sale of a car certified to California standards, or by requiring the creation of a "third vehicle." New York has chosen to adopt California's more stringent motor vehicle standards, since the early 1990's, in order to obtain emission reductions from new motor vehicles not provided by federal new motor vehicle standards in furtherance of the Department's mission and obligation to control air pollution.

3. Needs and Benefits

New York has made significant progress over the years in improving its air quality, however, several areas of the State still do not meet federal health based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and have been categorized as non-attainment areas. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) lowered the maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. During the 2010 ozone season, the New York Metropolitan Area (NYMA) had 16 days that exceeded the 8-hour standard. The remaining 53 counties in New York had 17 days that exceeded the 8-hour standard¹.

Ground-level ozone is formed by photochemical reactions when emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) mix under sunny, hot conditions. On-road mobile sources emit a substantial portion of ozone precursors. In 2008, passenger cars (PC), light-duty trucks (LDT), and medium-duty vehicles (MDV) up to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) emitted approximately 290 tons of VOC and 270 tons of NO_x per ozone season day (OSD) in New York State. On an annual basis, these vehicles emitted approximately 93,130 tons of VOC and 109,520 tons of NO_x. It is essential that the Department continue to adopt stringent mobile source emissions standards to protect human health and the environment.

Increased concentrations of ground-level ozone can promote respiratory illness in children and the elderly, exacerbate pre-existing respiratory illnesses, and impair lung function in otherwise healthy people. These illnesses can result in significant hospitalization costs and mortality rates. In 2008, approximately 1.3 million adults and 475,000 children had asthma². Hospitalization and mortality rates in New York State have been higher than the national average since 2002³. In 2007, the total cost of asthma related hospitalization in New York State was approximately $535 million⁴. Further, an average of 255 people per year died from asthma during the 2005 to 2007 timeframe⁵.

Ground-level ozone can also cause severe damage to vegetation. It is estimated that ground-level ozone results in $500 million in reduced crop production annually in the United States⁶. The damage caused by ground-level ozone can result in reduced growth, increased susceptibility to diseases or pests, and aesthetic damage to landscaping and natural ecosystems.

Reduction of fine particulate matter equal to, or less than, 2.5 microns (PM_2.5) is also important due to various adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Adverse health effects include increased respiratory irritation, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, and premature death for individuals with preexisting lung or heart diseases. Adverse environmental effects include acidification of lakes and streams; aesthetic damage to buildings, monuments, and statues; and reduced visibility due to haze.

PM_2.5 is produced by combustion processes and chemical reactions between gases including NO_x, VOC, and sulfur oxides (SOx). The NAAQS for PM_2.5 is 35 micrograms per meter³ (µg/m³) for the 24-hour average and 15 µg/m³ for the annual average. The entire State is currently in compliance with both the 24-hour and annual standards. Various stationary and mobile source emissions reductions programs were implemented to attain and maintain compliance with the standards. One mobile source control program being implemented involves retrofitting in-use heavy-duty diesel engines with diesel particulate filters (DPF), or other emission control technology, to enable the engine to meet 2007 emission certification levels.

The Department is also tasked with mitigating the effects of global climate change. The transportation sector accounts for approximately 40 percent of all GHG emissions in New York State⁷. The Department has the obligation to regulate and mitigate GHG emissions from mobile sources in order to safeguard the health of State residents and protect the State's environment.

Global climate change can have adverse impacts on human health. Intensified and prolonged heat waves can result in increased mortality and heat illnesses, especially in cities due to the heat island effect. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, heat related illnesses result in 160 hospital admissions and 440 emergency department visits annually between May and September⁸. In the summer of 2011, 11 people died during a heat wave in New York City that occurred between July 22 and August 4⁹. Increased GHG emissions contribute to conditions favorable for the formation of ground-level ozone, specifically by increasing temperature through global warming. Increased temperature and precipitation levels also produce conditions favorable to the introduction or spread of vector-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Equine Encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases spread by mosquitoes, ticks, and rodents. These conditions include warmer winters, hotter summers, and more frequent summer dry periods with periods of heavy rainfall¹⁰.

New York's shoreline could be adversely affected by climate change. As sea level rises, erosion and flooding due to storm surge can increase. Sea level rise can lead to beach erosion, damage to coastal ecosystems, and flood damage to infrastructure including sanitary and water treatment facilities, subways, and roads resulting in billions of dollars in damages. New York has approximately $1.9 trillion in insured coastal property¹¹. Salinization of coastal ecosystems in New York, such as the Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge or the Great South Bay for example, would destroy habitat for commercial and game species, migratory birds, and other wildlife.

New York's water supply could also be stressed by changes in temperature and precipitation. The majority of water is obtained from surface flow, which can be highly variable. According to data obtained from the NYS Department of Health (NYSDOH)¹², approximately 16.1 million people obtain drinking water from surface water sources. The remaining population, approximately 4.7 million people, obtains drinking water from ground water sources. The total of approximately 21 million people is greater than the actual population of the state since exchanges of water between systems results in counting the same population multiple times.

The Great Lakes are a critical water source to New York State which would be threatened by climate change. New York relies on the Great Lakes for drinking water, hydroelectric power, commercial shipping, and recreation including boating and fishing. Climate change is likely to lower the water levels of the Great Lakes through increased evaporation. Each loss of one inch in draft in the Great Lakes shipping channels causes the ships used for inter-lake transportation to lose 270 tons of cargo capacity¹³.

Agriculture and forests in New York will also be affected by climate change. New York's agricultural industry generates approximately $2.7 billion in revenue annually. Dairy accounts for approximately $1.6 billion in revenue, fruit and vegetable crops account for approximately $500 million, and the remainder is comprised of hay, grains, and nursery commodities¹⁴. The majority of crops grown in New York should be able to withstand the changing climate with the exception of cold weather crops. These include apples, grapes, potatoes, sweet corn, and others which would shift to the north, or have reduced growing seasons, which would eventually result in a different crop mix. Climate change could further impact crop productivity by increasing the growth of weeds, increasing the populations and ranges of insect pests, and altering precipitation patterns.

Forest mix in New York is also likely to change from the current mixed forest to a temperate deciduous forest. Suitable habitat for spruce, fir, hemlock, maple, birch, and beech trees is expected to shift northeast approximately 350 to 500 miles¹⁵. Changes in forest mix could impact wildlife habitat, agriculture, tourism, and water supplies.

Low emission motor vehicle technology is important to achieving and maintaining the long term air quality of New York. While motor vehicle technology has continued to improve, the number of vehicles and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has continued to increase. While vehicles emit pollutants at a lower level when new, the increases in VMT, as well as deterioration of vehicle emission control systems over vehicle life, have resulted in the mobile sector being a major contributor to air quality degradation.

Part 218 is being revised to incorporate California's latest amendments to the LEV program. The California LEV III regulations take effect for all vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR beginning with the 2015 model year. The amendments will: require fleet average super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) emissions performance from new vehicles by model year 2022; increase the stringency of the PC and LDT standards and restructure them into a combined NMOG+NO_x standard (NMOG is non-methane organic gas); increase the stringency and restructure the standards for chassis certified MDV; increase the stringency of the PM standards; increase the durability requirements; increase the stringency and coverage of the evaporative emission standards; allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the fleet average NMOG+NO_x standard based on new vehicles produces and delivered for sale in California and Section 177 states, including the District of Columbia; revise the fuel standards to include ethanol fuels.

Part 218 is also being revised to incorporate California's amendments to the ZEV program. The California regulations take effect for all vehicles up to 10,000 pounds GVWR beginning with the 2012 model year. The amendments for the 2012-2017 timeframe will: create new ZEV types; extend the travel provision for Type I, I.5, II, and III ZEV; increase the credit amount for Type V fuel cell vehicles; reduce the ZEV requirement for intermediate low volume manufacturers (IVM); remove credit carry forward restrictions; decrease the value of transportation system credits; no longer use NMOG fleet average in the calculation of ZEV credits; revise lead time provisions; clarify vehicle credit eligibility.

The amendments for the 2018-2025 timeframe will: amend manufacturer size definitions, aggregated ownership criteria, and lead time provisions; eliminate partial zero emission vehicles (PZEV) and advanced technology PZEV (ATPZEV) as compliance options; increase ZEV compliance requirements; allow IVM to meet entire ZEV requirement with transitional ZEV (TZEV, previously Enhanced ATPZEV); limit the use of banked PZEV, ATPZEV, and NEV credits to meet ZEV requirements; adjust the credit range; simplify the TZEV credit system; eliminate the travel provision for Type I, I.5, II, and III ZEV; allow GHG over-compliance credits to be used to offset a portion of a manufacturer's ZEV requirement; amend the sales volume determination method; amend the credit carry back provision; remove the placed in service requirement.

Part 218 is also being revised to incorporate California's amendments to the GHG standards. The California regulations take effect for all vehicles up to 10,000 pounds GVWR beginning with the 2017 model year. The amendments will: establish separate footprint indexed carbon dioxide (CO₂) grams per mile emission standards for PC and LDT harmonized with proposed federal GHG standards; establish separate emission standards for methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) to harmonize with federal standards; include mandatory requirements for motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) refrigerants; include MVAC fleet average leak rate limits; include MVAC indirect emission limits; create off-cycle credit provisions similar to federal provisions; create incentives for full-size pickup truck emission reductions; create optional credit provisions for upstream emissions.

Part 218 is being revised to incorporate requirements for new aftermarket catalytic converters that are identical to those adopted by CARB. This regulation prohibits the sale of used catalytic converters and requires more stringent emissions reduction performance and durability requirements for new aftermarket catalytic converters. A new aftermarket catalytic converter is constructed of all new materials and is not an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) converter. The new aftermarket catalytic converters are required to achieve exhaust emissions that comply with the emissions standards to which the vehicles were certified. The durability requirement was extended from 25,000 miles to 50,000 miles and the catalytic converters must be warranted to be free from defect for five years. The new aftermarket catalytic converters also must be compliant with OBDII systems on 1996 and newer vehicles. New aftermarket catalytic converters are required to display a permanent label or stamp indicating the CARB Executive Order approval number, the part number, date of manufacture, and an arrow indicating the proper installation direction.

Part 218 is also being revised to incorporate revisions to California's environmental performance label standards. Theses revisions will apply to all 2013 and subsequent model year PC, LDT, and MDV up to 10,000 GVWR. The standards will harmonize California's label with the recently adopted federal fuel economy and environmental performance label. If the national label does not meet California's requirements, the existing California label will be updated to reflect new LEV and GHG emission standards. The environmental performance label standards were originally adopted by New York in 2009 and promulgated in Part 252. They are being moved to Part 218 to consolidate all of the emissions regulations for new on-road motor vehicles within a single Part. Part 252 will be repealed.

The Department is also revising Part 218 to incorporate California's warranty and recall regulations for California certified vehicles delivered for sale and registered in New York State. These regulations will apply to 2016 and subsequent model year vehicles and will not be retroactive.

Low Emission Vehicle Standards

The LEV III amendments consist of the following:

1) Fleet average SULEV emissions requirement. Manufacturers will be required to extend SULEV emissions performance across their new vehicle fleets on an average basis by the 2022 model year. Manufacturers will be able to sell any mix of vehicles as long as their fleet average does not exceed SULEV emission certification levels. The current LEV II certification levels are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. LEV II Criteria Pollutant Emission Standards (PC/LDT1 and LDT2)
Vehicle emission category	Durability basis (miles)	NMOG (g/mi)	NO_x (g/mi)	CO (g/mi)	HCHO (g/mi)	PM (g/mi)
LEV	50,000	0.075	0.05	3.4	0.015	-
LEV	120,000	0.090	0.07	4.2	0.018	0.01
ULEV	50,000	0.040	0.05	1.7	0.008	-
ULEV	120,000	0.055	0.07	2.1	0.011	0.01
SULEV	120,000	0.010	0.02	1.0	0.004	0.01
PZEV^a	150,000	0.010	0.02	1.0	0.004	0.01

^a PZEV has same test emission levels as SULEV but also includes additional evaporative emissions controls and a 150,000 mile warranty.

Source: CARB. Preliminary discussion paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 3. Table 1.

3) Creation of new emission categories and combined NMOG and NO_x standards for PC and LDT up to 8,500 pounds GVWR. The LEV program will be expanded from three emission categories in the current program to six to increase compliance flexibility. The current emission categories are LEV, ultra low emission vehicle (ULEV), and SULEV. The new categories will be ULEV50, ULEV70, and SULEV20. The existing and proposed categories are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. LEV III NMOG+NO_x Emission Standards for PC & LDT
Vehicle emission category	Existing NMOG standards^a (g/mi)	Existing NO_x standards^a (g/mi)	Combined NMOG+NO_x standards (g/mi)	New NMOG+NO_x emission standards^b (g/mi)
LEV	0.090	0.070	0.160	0.160
ULEV	0.055	0.070	0.125	0.125
ULEV70	-	-	-	0.070
ULEV50	-	-	-	0.050
SULEV	0.010	0.020	0.030	0.030
SULEV20	-	-	-	0.020

^a These emission certification levels are for a 120,000 mile durability basis
^b These proposed emission certification levels are for a 150,000 mile durability basis

Source: CARB. Preliminary discussion paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 5. Table 2.

The existing NMOG and NO_x standards will be combined into a single, declining fleet average NMOG+NO_x standard, shown in Table 3 below. The declining fleet average indicates that the standards increase in stringency with each successive model year until SULEV average emissions are reached in model year 2025. The LEV III standards will be phased-in from 2015 through 2019 starting with 10 percent of a manufacturer's PC, LDT, and MDPV in 2015 and increasing to 100 percent in 2019.

Table 3. Fleet Average NMOG Plus NO_x Exhaust Emission Requirements for Light-Duty Vehicles (150,000 mile Durability Basis)
Model Year	Fleet Average NMOG Plus NO_x (grams per mile)
Model Year	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

Source: CARB. Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for proposed rulemaking, public hearing to consider the "LEV III" amendments to the California greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant exhaust and evaporative emission standards and test procedures and to the on-board diagnostic system requirements for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles, and to the evaporative emission requirements for heavy-duty vehicles (LEV III ISOR). December 7, 2011. Page 5. Table II-A-2-1.

The combined standard will provide manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility since many of the new emission control technologies are better at controlling one pollutant than the other. Available technology options include, but are not limited to, close-coupled three-way catalysts, heated oxygen sensors, sequential fuel injection, and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Potential emerging technologies include, but are not limited to, secondary air injection, engine management modifications, charge modification, catalyst upgrades, direct ozone reduction, advanced EGR, and lean NO_x aftertreatment. Averaging, trading, and banking of NMOG+NO_x credits will also be allowed as in the current NMOG program.

4) Certification requirements for MDV. Emissions standards for engine dynamometer certified MDV will not be modified at this time. Manufacturers will still be required to certify all of these vehicles to the ULEV standard. Complete MDV between 8,501 and 10,000 pounds GVWR will be required to chassis certify. The current LEV II standards for chassis certified MDV are shown in Table 4. The existing NMOG and NO_x standards for chassis certified MDV will be combined into an NMOG+NO_x standard based on weight. The new standards for chassis certified MDV are shown in Table 5. The MDV SULEV requirement will be phased-in starting with the 2015 model year. The required percentages are shown in Table 6 and 7.

Table 4. LEV II MDV Emission Standards (Chassis Certified)
Weight Class (lbs GVWR)	Vehicle Emission Category	NMOG (g/mi)	NO_x (g/mi)	CO (g/mi)	HCHO (g/mi)	PM (g/mi)
8,501-10,000	LEV	0.195	0.2	6.4	0.032	0.12
	ULEV	0.143	0.2	6.4	0.016	0.06
	SULEV	0.100	0.1	3.2	0.008	0.06
10,001-14,000	LEV	0.230	0.4	7.3	0.040	0.12
	ULEV	0.167	0.4	7.3	0.021	0.06
	SULEV	0.117	0.2	3.7	0.010	0.06

Source: CARB. Advanced Clean Cars Update and Exhaust Emission Requirement. November 16, 2010. Page 12.

Table 5. LEV III Medium-Duty Vehicle Chassis Emission Standards
Proposed LEV III Exhaust Mass Emission Standards for New 2016 and Subsequent Model Medium-Duty Trucks
Vehicle Type	Durability Vehicle Basis (mi)	Vehicle Emission Category	NMOG + Oxides of Nitrogen (g/mi)	Carbon Monoxide (g/mi)	Formaldehyde (mg/mi)	Particulates (g/mi)
MDVs 8,500-10,000 lbs. GVWR, excluding MDPVs	150,000	LEV395¹	0.395	6.4	6	0.008
		ULEV340¹	0.340	6.4	6	0.008
		ULEV250	0.250	6.4	6	0.008
		ULEV200	0.200	4.2	6	0.008
		SULEV170	0.170	4.2	6	0.008
		SULEV150	0.150	3.2	6	0.008
MDVs 10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR,	150,000	LEV630¹	0.630	7.3	6	0.010
		ULEV570¹	0.570	7.3	6	0.010
		ULEV400	0.400	7.3	6	0.010
		ULEV270	0.270	4.2	6	0.010
		SULEV230	0.230	4.2	6	0.010
		SULEV200	0.200	3.7	6	0.010

¹ These certification levels would no longer be available from 2022 on

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 14. Table II-A-2-6.

Table 6. Medium-Duty Vehicles 8,500-10,000 lbs. GVWR Federal Test Procedure Exhaust Emission Standards
Medium-Duty Vehicles 8,500-10,000 lbs. GVWR (g/mi NMOG + NO_x)
Year	LEV	ULEV340	ULEV250	ULEV200	SULEV170	SULEV150	Phase-in
Year	0.395	0.340	0.250	0.200	0.170	0.150	150K, E10, SFTP
2016	20%	60%	20%				20%
2017	10%	50%	40%				40%
2018		40%	50%		10%		60%
2019		30%	40%		30%		70%
2020		20%	30%		50%		80%
2021		10%	20%		70%		90%
2022			10%		90%		100%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 15. Table II-A-2-7.

Table 7. Medium-Duty Vehicles 10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR Federal Test Procedure Exhaust Emission Standards
Medium-Duty Vehicles 10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR (g/mi NMOG + NO_x)
Year	LEV	ULEV340	ULEV250	ULEV200	SULEV170	SULEV150	Phase-in
Year	0.395	0.340	0.250	0.200	0.170	0.150	150K, E10, SFTP
2016	20%	60%	20%				20%
2017	10%	50%	40%				40%
2018		40%	50%		10%		60%
2019		30%	40%		30%		70%
2020		20%	30%		50%		80%
2021		10%	20%		70%		90%
2022			10%		90%		100%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 15. Table II-A-2-8.

5) Increased stringency for the PM standard. The current PM standard is 0.01 g/mi, or 10 milligrams per mile (mg/mi), for LEV, ULEV, and SULEV certification levels. Gasoline powered vehicles typically emit no more than 1 mg/mi. Diesel powered vehicles typically require some form of emissions control technology, such as DPF, to achieve compliance with the PM standard.

A more stringent PM standard of 3 mg/mi is being created to prevent backsliding that could potentially occur as a result of new advanced technologies used to achieve compliance with the GHG emission standards. Examples of these emerging technologies include gasoline direct injection (GDI), charge modification, diesel compression ignition (DCI), homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), and lean-burn technology. As with NMOG and NO_x control technologies, some of these technologies control GHG emissions better than PM emissions, and vice versa. The new PM standard will be phased-in starting with 10 percent of a vehicle manufacturer's sales in model year 2017 and 100 percent in model year 2021.

6) Durability requirements. Under these amendments, the 50,000 mile intermediate useful life requirement will be eliminated. This is due to the fact that emissions control systems tested at 50,000 miles are at levels significantly below the standard. The average vehicle life of California vehicles approaches 200,000 miles¹⁶. Elimination of the 50,000 mile requirement will reduce compliance costs for manufacturers, monitoring costs for CARB, and will not compromise fleet emissions. The useful life durability requirement will be increased from 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles to more accurately reflect actual vehicle lifetimes. The 150,000 mile durability requirement will apply to all vehicles, rather than just PZEV as in the current program.

7) Incentives to continue PZEV level 15 year or 150,000 mile emissions warranties. The existing 15 year or 150,000 mile emissions warranty requirement for PZEV will be discontinued as a result of moving this vehicle category from the existing ZEV program to the LEV program. PZEV are being eliminated from the ZEV program to refocus the ZEV program on the development of pure ZEV. A credit of 0.005 g/mi NMOG+NO_x is proposed for manufacturers that voluntarily continue to offer the extended 15 year or 150,000 mile useful life emissions warranty.

8) Expanding coverage of more stringent evaporative emission standards. The current LEV program includes an optional zero evaporative emissions standard for PZEV certified conventional gasoline powered vehicles. This provision enabled manufacturers to earn credits to meet their ZEV obligations. As mentioned previously, PZEV will no longer be included in the ZEV program which eliminates any incentive for manufacturers to comply with the optional zero evaporative emission standards.

In order to prevent potential backsliding, CARB is requiring mandatory compliance with the zero evaporative emission standards for all light-duty vehicles by the 2022 model year. CARB estimates this change will result in at least a 30 percent reduction from current evaporative emissions¹⁷. The current PZEV zero evaporative emission standard consists of a fuel evaporative emissions component of 0.0 grams per test and a whole vehicle evaporative emissions component of 0.35 grams per test. Higher levels for whole vehicle evaporative emissions are permitted for larger vehicles. CARB is establishing a whole vehicle evaporative emission standard of 0.15 grams per test for PC, and numerically higher standards for heavier vehicle categories. Available control technologies include carbon canisters with hydrocarbon scrubbers, canisters with low bleed activated carbon, canisters with multi-chamber design, activated carbon in the engine intake element, reduced permeability materials, and improved system design.

9) Revised baseline reactivity factor (RFA). CARB is updating the certification gasoline specifications to reflect the discontinued use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and to account for the presence of ethanol. Certification fuel is intended to represent the average fuel sold at gas stations. Current certification fuel does not contain any ethanol, but commercial gasoline contains ethanol in quantities up to 10 percent by volume (E10).

California's 2008 new vehicle sales total approximately 1.6 million vehicles comprised of 1,000,000 PC and LDT up to 3,750 pounds; 560,000 LDT between 3,751 and 8,500 pounds; and 29,000 MDV between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds¹⁸. Based on 2008 model year California vehicle sales and corresponding emission certification levels shown in Table 1, CARB estimates that the current California fleet has an equivalent NMOG+NO_x level of 0.122 grams per mile (g/mi). The fully phased-in NMOG+NO_x level is 0.030 g/mi in model year 2025. This results in an estimated emissions reduction of 75 percent from current NMOG+NO_x levels in California¹⁹.

California's criteria pollutant emission reductions for reactive organic gas (ROG), NO_x, and PM_2.5 will be fully realized in the 2035-2040 timeframe once the vehicle fleet turns over and is comprised primarily of advanced technology vehicles. CARB estimates that by 2035 the standards will reduce ROG emissions by 47.4 tons per day (TPD), NO_x emissions by 50.4 TPD, and PM_2.5 emissions by 2.9 TPD. These represent reductions of 37 percent, 34 percent and 10 percent, respectively. California's emissions benefits resulting from the new standards are shown in Tables 8, 9, and 10.

Table 8. Statewide and Regional Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Reactive Organic Gas (ROG)
Statewide ROG (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	189.6	182.9	6.6	3%
2025	175.5	164.4	11.1	6%
2035	141.1	93.6	47.4	34%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page ES-8. Table ES-4.

Table 9. Statewide and Regional Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Oxides of Nitrogen (NO_x)
Statewide NO_x (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	201.3	185.6	15.7	8%
2025	183.6	161.2	22.4	12%
2035	136.8	86.4	50.4	37%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page ES-9. Table ES-5.

Table 10. Statewide and Regional Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Oxides of Particulate Matter (PM_2.5)
Statewide PM_2.5 (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	26.7	26.0	0.6	2%
2025	27.2	26.3	0.9	3%
2035	29.7	26.8	2.9	10%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page ES-9. Table ES-6.

The Department is adopting LEV standards and credit mechanisms that are identical to those adopted by CARB. The revisions to Part 218 will apply to all 2015 through 2025 model year vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR.

New York's 2008 new vehicle sales total approximately 825,000 vehicles consisting of 470,000 PC and LDT up to 3,750 pounds; 343,000 LDT between 3,751 and 8,500 pounds; and 12,000 MDV between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds. The equivalent NMOG+NO_x level for the New York vehicle fleet is estimated to be 0.113 g/mi. The estimated emissions reduction in New York is approximately 75 percent when fully phased-in.

New York State's criteria pollutant emission reductions for ROG, NO_x, and PM_2.5 will also be fully realized in the 2035-2040 timeframe. The Department estimates that by 2035 the standards will reduce ROG emissions by approximately 21 tons per day (TPD), NO_x emissions by approximately 23 TPD, and PM_2.5 emissions by approximately 1 TPD. New York State's emissions benefits resulting from the new standards are shown in Tables 11, 12, and 13.

Table 11. New York State Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Reactive Organic Gas (ROG)
Statewide ROG (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	85.3	82.3	3.0	3%
2025	79.0	74.0	5	6%
2035	63.5	42.1	21.4	34%

Table 12. New York State Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Oxides of Nitrogen (NO_x)
Statewide NO_x (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	90.6	83.5	7.1	8%
2025	82.6	72.5	10.1	12%
2035	61.6	38.9	22.7	37%

Table 13. New York State Emission Benefits of the Advanced Clean Car Program: Particulate Matter (PM_2.5)
Statewide PM_2.5 (tons/day)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2023	12.0	11.7	0.3	2%
2025	12.2	11.8	0.4	3%
2035	13.4	12.1	1.3	10%

Zero Emission Vehicle Standards

CARB's ZEV amendments for the 2012-2017 timeframe consist of the following:

1) Creation of new ZEV types. CARB has created two new ZEV types, I.5x and IIx, to increase compliance flexibility. These new vehicle types are range extended battery electric vehicles referred to as BEVx. These vehicles will operate primarily as a BEV with a small, non-ZEV fuel auxiliary power unit (APU) providing limited range extension. These ZEV types are expected to achieve 80-100 miles of all electric range (AER) and the APU range will be equal to, or less than, the AER. The purpose of the APU is to power the vehicle in a reduced performance mode enabling it to reach a charging station after the battery has been drained. The intent of BEVx is to promote the introduction of advanced vehicle technology and alleviate consumer concerns regarding range anxiety. BEVx will be required to meet the same minimum range requirements as full function Type I.5 and II BEV and will receive the same amount of credits. These credit amounts are 2.5 and three, respectively. A manufacturer will be allowed to meet up to 50 percent of their ZEV requirement with Types I.5x and IIx and the vehicles will qualify for the travel provision through the 2017 model year.

2) Extension of the Travel Provision. The current ZEV regulation allows all ZEV types, with the exception of Type 0 and NEV, placed in California to earn ZEV credits as if placed in a Section 177 state and vice versa. This provision was created to provide manufacturers with compliance flexibility and the ability to reduce compliance costs by reducing the required number of vehicles. The current travel provision was scheduled to sunset following the 2014 model year. The travel provision will be extended for Type I, I.5, I.5x, II, IIx, and III ZEV through the 2017 model year. The basis for this decision is that some manufacturers will need time to produce a sufficient number of vehicles to meet the combined ZEV requirements in California and the Section 177 states, as well as the fact that several of the Section 177 states do not currently have sufficient fueling infrastructure to handle a significant quantity of ZEV.

3) Increased incentives for Type V fuel cell vehicle production. Under the current ZEV regulation, ZEV credits earned by Type V fuel cell vehicles (FCV) are allowed to travel through the 2017 model year. CARB is concerned that the extension of travel for Types I-III ZEV through the 2017 model year will reduce, or eliminate, any incentive for manufacturers to produce FCV. Type V FCV currently earn seven credits per vehicle. CARB is increasing the allowable credit to nine credits per vehicle to account for the increased production costs of FCV and to provide an incentive without significantly reducing the number of vehicles produced.

4) Reduced ZEV requirements for intermediate volume manufacturers. The current ZEV regulation allows intermediate volume manufacturers (IVM) to meet their entire ZEV obligation with PZEV credits. The revised manufacturer size definitions will result in IVM transitioning to large volume manufacturer (LVM) status by model year 2018. In order to provide IVM with some flexibility, CARB is reducing the IVM ZEV requirement for the 2015-2017 timeframe from 14 percent to 12 percent. This change will allow IVM to meet up to 60 percent of their ZEV requirement with PZEV, which is significantly more than LVM are allowed. It is expected that this change will enable IVM to focus on developing ZEV technology to meet their 2018 requirements.

5) Removal of the credit carry forward provisions. The current ZEV regulations allow the banking and trading of credits to meet future requirements. The credits can be used to meet the ZEV obligation for the model year in which they were earned and for up to two additional years after. Starting with the third model year, the banked ZEV credits may only be used to offset a portion of a manufacturer's TZEV requirement. The new regulation will allow ZEV credits to be banked and used to meet the ZEV requirement in any future model year. This provision will create an incentive for manufacturers to produce vehicles in early years of the program to bank excess credits and will provide flexibility in later years when the required ZEV percentage increases and manufacturers will most likely have difficulty banking large numbers of ZEV credit.

6) Revised transportation system credits. The current ZEV regulation permits transportation system programs to earn ZEV credits. The original intent of this provision was to provide vehicle manufacturers with an alternative compliance method of placing ZEV without requiring them to be purchased or leased by individual consumers. These ZEV were usually placed in a car sharing program located at, or near, mass transit locations such as train stations. The provision was later expanded to include third party car sharing companies. In order to earn transportation system credits, the program must include shared use of vehicles, as well as "intelligent" technologies including reservation management, card systems, charge billing, and real-time wireless information systems. Additional credit is given to programs that linked to mass transit systems. The new ZEV regulations are focused on placing actual ZEV in service and as a result will limit credits not associated with vehicle placement. As a result, transportation system credits for the 2012-2017 model years will be reduced by 50 percent from current levels and will sunset following the 2017 model year.

7) Conversion of banked ZEV credits. The current ZEV regulation uses NMOG fleet average values to calculate ZEV credits. This was done to encourage early compliance since the NMOG values are a declining fleet average that decreases each year, resulting in fewer ZEV credits each year. Starting with the 2015 model year NMOG values will no longer be used in the ZEV calculations since the LEV III standards will be a combined NMOG+NO_x standard. Existing credit balances will be divided by a conversion factor, 0.035 g/mi, to convert to straight ZEV credits.

8) Revised lead time provisions. The current ZEV regulations provide manufacturers with five years lead time when they transition to LVM status. The new ZEV regulations redefine LVM status and require all LVM to meet the ZEV requirements starting in model year 2018. These changes will provide six years lead time to all transitioning manufacturers and place them on equal footing starting in model year 2018. The existing five year lead time provision will be eliminated.

9) Clarified vehicle credit eligibility. The current ZEV regulations provide one credit for ZEV delivered for sale and the remaining credits when the vehicle is placed in service. CARB is clarifying the credit eligibility by requiring a vehicle to be delivered for sale and placed in service in the state to earn full credit. This clarification is being made to account for internet sales where there is uncertainty regarding whether the vehicle was delivered or placed in the state. In addition, 2012 and prior model year ZEV must be placed in service within five years to earn the placed in service credit. This provision is intended to prevent deterioration of advanced components and to ensure that current technologies are offered to consumers.

10) Optional Section 177 ZEV compliance path. CARB is including an optional ZEV compliance alternative to the base ZEV requirements. New York State and other Section 177 states engaged in discussions with OEM representatives and CARB staff to develop an alternative compliance option that would meet the states' interests in placing BEV and PHEV in Section 177 states earlier than would be required under the base program, while also providing vehicle manufacturers with a smoother ramp-up in the number of vehicles required and a reduced ZEV obligation over the life of the program. Under the current ZEV program, no vehicles were required to be physically placed in Section 177 states for the 2015-2017 model years due to the travel provision. Essentially, all vehicles could be placed in California and would be treated as if they were placed in all states for compliance purposes.

California's ZEV volume is not affected by the alternate compliance option. In the Section 177 states, the alternative compliance option would be in addition to the new ZEV requirements. Vehicle manufacturers would be required to deliver increased numbers of ZEV for model years 2016 and 2017. These requirements constitute a 25 percent increase in the base ZEV requirement for model year 2016 and a 50 percent increase in model year 2017. The base ZEV requirements, adjusted Section 177 state alternative ZEV requirements, and minimum Section 177 State ZEV requirements are shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Optional Compliance Path Section 177 State Minimum ZEV Percentage
	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Existing Minimum ZEV Requirement	3%	3%	3%	2%	4%	6%	8%
Section 177 State Adjustment for Optional Compliance Path	0%	25%	50%	62.5%	75%	87.5%	100%
Minimum Section 177 State ZEV Requirement	0%	0.75%	1.5%	1.25%	3%	5.25%	8%

The increased Section 177 state ZEV requirements for the 2016-2017 model years cannot be met with traveled credits; however, the existing base path ZEV requirements may still be met with traveled credits. The existing credit carry forward and carry back provisions will remain.

This alternative option also reduces the TZEV obligation in a similar manner for the 2015-2018 model years for vehicle manufacturers that opt in. The base TZEV requirements, adjusted Section 177 state alternative TZEV requirements, and minimum Section 177 State TZEV requirements are shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Optional Compliance Path Section 177 State Minimum TZEV Percentage
	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Existing Minimum TZEV Requirement	3%	3%	3%	2.5%	3%	3.5%	4%
Section 177 State Adjustment for Optional Compliance Path	75%	80%	85%	90%	100%	100%	100%
Minimum Section 177 State TZEV Requirement	2.25%	2.4%	2.55%	2.25%	3%	3.5%	4%

In exchange for increased ZEV numbers in model years 2016 and 2017, Section 177 states agreed to allow manufacturers to pool vehicle sales when determining compliance. Manufacturers selecting the alternate compliance option would be allowed to pool ZEV sales for the 2016-2021 model years and TZEV sales for the 2015-2021 model years. There will be an East Region pool and a West Region pool. The East Region pool will consist of Section 177 states east of the Mississippi River and the West Region will consist of states west of the Mississippi River. Credit trading between the pools to offset deficits will be allowed at a 30 percent premium. For example, a manufacturer seeking to offset a 100 credit deficit in one pool may transfer 130 credits from the other pool.

Manufacturers choosing to opt in to the alternate compliance path will be required to provide written notification of their decision not later than September 1, 2014. No manufacturer will be allowed to opt in to the alternate path after September 1, 2014. A manufacturer that opts in will be required to comply with the alternative requirements through model year 2021.

CARB's ZEV amendments for the 2018-2025 timeframe consist of the following:

1) Amended manufacturer size definitions, ownership criteria, and lead time provisions. Manufacturer size definitions are based on a manufacturer's average sales of PC, LDT, and MDV sales in California. The current size definitions and applicable regulations are shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Current Size Definition Categories and Applicable California Regulations
Current Size Category	Current Definition (PC, LDT, MDV Avg Sales)	Applicable Regulations
Small Volume (SVM)	Between 1 and 4,500	Limited LEV II, Limited Pavley
Independent Low Volume (ILVM)	Less than 10,000 (must apply to Executive Officer)	Limited LEV II, Limited Pavley
Intermediate Volume (IVM)	Between 4,501 and 60,000	Full LEV II, Full Pavley Compliance by 2016, Limited ZEV (PZEV only)
Large Volume (LVM)	60,001 and greater	Manufacturers subject to full regulations

Source: CARB. Initial Statement of Reasons: Advanced Clean Cars, 2012 proposed amendments to the California zero emission vehicle program regulations (ZEV ISOR). December 7, 2011. Page 25. Table 2.7.

Currently, LVM are required to comply with the ZEV requirements by producing a minimum amount of pure ZEV while IVM are allowed to meet their entire ZEV requirement with PZEV. The new ZEV regulation is decreasing the LVM sales threshold from 60,000 vehicles per year to 20,000 vehicles per year on average. Manufacturers will determine their ZEV requirement based on 2015-2017 model year sales averages. In addition, the ownership provisions will be aligned with the new GHG ownership provisions. The new provision will aggregate two manufacturers' sales to determine size if one manufacturer owns more than 33.4 percent of the other manufacturer. Lastly, the lead time provision will be changed to three years. Basically, any manufacturer with average sales above the threshold for three consecutive years will be subject to the higher requirements in the fourth model year. These changes will result in the new ZEV regulations being applied to manufacturers representing 97 percent of the light-duty vehicle market and remove competitive disadvantages by requiring all major manufacturers to meet the same standards.

2) Eliminating PZEV and ATPZEV as compliance options. PZEV and ATPZEV were allowed to earn credits under previous ZEV regulations as a way to encourage widespread use of ZEV enabling technologies and to provide compliance flexibility to manufacturers. More than 1.7 million PZEV and 350,000 ATPZEV have been delivered for sale in California. CARB believes these numbers indicate that PZEV and ATPZEV are mature technologies that have achieved commercial success. As a result, CARB is removing them as ZEV compliance options following the 2017 model year to refocus the ZEV regulations on pure ZEV such as BEV and FCV, as well as TZEV. PZEV and ATPZEV will continue to be used as a means of complying with the LEV III and GHG standards, thereby ensuring their continued production.

The Department notes that approximately 822,600 PZEV and 70,500 ATPZEV have been delivered for sale in New York State according to NMOG compliance reports submitted by manufacturers.

3) Increased ZEV percentage requirements for 2018 and subsequent model years. The current ZEV regulation capped the total ZEV requirement (ZEV+TZEV) at 16 percent for 2018 and subsequent model years. The total requirement will drop to eight percent when PZEV and ATPZEV are removed from the ZEV program. The current credit categories and credit requirements are shown in Table 17. The new ZEV regulation will increase the required percentage each year until 2025 when it reaches a total ZEV requirement of 22 percent. The new credit requirements are shown in Table 18.

Table 17. Current 2018 and Subsequent ZEV Credit Requirement
Credit Category	Credit Requirement
Minimum ZEV	5.0%
Maximum TZEV	3.0%
Maximum ATPZEV	2.0%
Maximum PZEV	6.0%
Total ZEV Requirement	16.0%

Source: CARB. ZEV ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 28. Table 2.2.3.

Table 18. Proposed ZEV Credit Requirement for 2018 and Subsequent
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%

Source: CARB. ZEV ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 29. Table 2.10.

The total ZEV credit requirement between model years 2018 and 2022 is less than the requirement for the current regulation, however, more ZEV will be produced due to decreased credits per vehicle and the elimination of PZEV and ATPZEV as compliance options. Overall, CARB estimates that the new requirements will result in ZEV and TZEV accounting for 15 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales by 2025

4) Revised requirements for IVM. Under the current regulations, IVM are allowed to meet their entire ZEV requirement with PZEV. This will no longer be a compliance option under the new regulations. As a result, IVM will be allowed to meet their ZEV requirement for 2018 and subsequent model years without any limits on the type of ZEV, with the exception of NEV. This provision would enable an IVM to meet its entire obligation with TZEV if it so chooses.

5) Limited use of banked PZEV, ATPZEV, and NEV credits. The new regulation will limit the use of banked PZEV, ATPZEV, and NEV credits to attain compliance as a means force manufacturers to place vehicles in service. PZEV and ATPZEV credits would be discounted and then their use would be capped at 25 percent of a manufacturer's ZEV requirement that could be met with TZEV credits. NEV credits would not be discounted, but they would be subject to the same cap as PZEV and ATPZEV credits for the 2018-2025 model years.

6) Adjusted credit levels. The current ZEV Types and credit levels are shown in Table 19.

Table 19. Current ZEV Types and Credit Levels
	Definition	2009 through 2017	2018 and Subsequent
NEVs	Low Speed Neighborhood Electric Vehicles	0.30	0.03
Type 0	<50 Mile BEVs	1	1
Type I	>50 - <75 Mile BEVs	2	2
Type I.5	>75 - <100 Mile BEVs	2.5	2.5
Type II	>100 Mile BEVs	3	3
Type III	>100 Mile FCVs (with fast refueling) OR >200 Mile BEVs	4	3
Type IV	>200 Mile FCVs (with fast refueling)	5	3
Type V	>300 Mile FCVs (with fast refueling)	7	3

Source: CARB. ZEV ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 35. Table 2.13.

The new regulation will simplify the program by adjusting credits so they range from one to four credits per vehicle based on the vehicle's AER. A Type I BEV with a minimum 50 mile range would earn one credit while a FCV with 350 mile range would earn four credits. These adjusted credits are approximately half as much credit as was earned under the current regulation. NEV credits will be reduced by 50 percent, going from 0.30 credits per vehicle to 0.15 credits. BEVx will earn the same credits per vehicle as Types I.5 and II ZEVs based on range and can be used to meet up to 50 percent of a manufacturer's ZEV requirement.

7) Simplified TZEV credits. TZEV are included in the new ZEV regulations as a way to encourage further development of ZEV technologies and lead to increased sales of advanced technology vehicles. TZEV credits will be based on zero emission VMT capability and a vehicle must be capable of at least 10 miles AER. Additional credits will be given for additional AER and use of various technologies.

8) Elimination of the travel provision. As discussed previously, the travel provision will sunset after the 2017 model year for ZEV Types I-III since they are now a viable technology. Travel would continue for Type IV and V FCV until 2025 due to the continued high production costs and limited fueling infrastructure.

9) Provisions for GHG over-compliance credits. CARB is creating a provision that would allow manufacturers that over-comply with the 2017-2025 GHG standards to offset a portion of their ZEV requirement in the 2018-2021 model years. This provision would be voluntary and a manufacturer opting in would be required to over-comply for the entire 2018-2021 period. A manufacturer opting into this provision would be allowed to offset 50 percent of its ZEV credit obligation in the 2018 and 2019 model years, 40 percent in the 2020 model year, and 30 percent in the 2021 model year. The percentages apply to ZEV and TZEV credits. In order to qualify, a manufacturer must over-comply by at least two grams per mile CO₂ in each model year through the entire period, may not receive GHG credits from another manufacturer during the period, and must not have GHG or ZEV debits in model year 2017 or outstanding debits from previous years. If a manufacturer does not generate GHG credits, or receives credits from another manufacturer it will no longer be eligible for over-compliance credits.

10) Minor amendments. Minor amendments being addressed in the new regulation include changes to the method for calculating the applicable sales volume, the credit carry back provision, and removing the placed in service requirement. The current ZEV regulation does not require a manufacturer to include the number of ZEV produced when determining its applicable sales volume. Also, manufacturers have the option of calculating their applicable sales volume based on current year sales or an average of previous year sales from the fourth, fifth, and sixth years prior to the model year with which they are complying. The new regulations will include ZEV sales, with the exception of NEV when determining the applicable sales volume. Further, manufacturers will no longer be able to use the current year sales volume when calculating the applicable volume. Manufacturers will now be required to determine compliance using the applicable sales volume based on sales from the second, third, and fourth model years prior to the model year in which they are complying.

The current regulation allows manufacturers to carry back credits up to three model years to offset a deficit. The new regulation will limit carry back to one year in order to provide certainty regarding the number of vehicles which must be delivered each year.

Lastly, the current regulation provides one credit when a vehicle is delivered for sale and the remaining credits when it is placed in service. The new regulation will remove the placed in service for BEV since it is now considered a mature technology. BEV will now receive full credit when they are delivered for sale. The placed in service requirement will continue to apply to FCV and NEV.

There are no additional emission benefits associated with ZEV regulations beyond those achieved under the LEV III and GHG standards.

The Department is adopting ZEV standards and credit mechanisms that are identical to those adopted by CARB. The revisions to Part 218 will apply to all 2012 through 2025 model year vehicles up to 10,000 pounds GVWR.

Greenhouse Gas Standards

CARB's GHG amendments for the 2017-2025 timeframe consist of the following:

1) Footprint indexed CO₂ emission standards. The GHG standards will create two separate CO₂ grams per mile indexes, one for cars and one for trucks consistent with federal light-duty vehicle categories, based on the vehicle's "footprint." The footprint is the area calculated as the wheelbase times the average track width. Footprint based standards were chosen since they should provide less incentive for vehicle manufacturers to attempt to game the system than with weight or other attribute based standards. Under the existing standards it is relatively easy to increase vehicle weight without changing other vehicle attributes in order to significantly decrease the applicable emission standard. This provides incentive for vehicle manufacturers to classify some passenger cars as light-duty trucks and some LDT1 as LDT2.

The standards will also be vehicle manufacturer specific rather than a single industry-wide standard. A single industry-wide standard would most likely result in significant cost and compliance difficulty for full-line vehicle manufacturers which would be required to change their vehicle mix to incorporate smaller, lighter vehicles. There would be little or no compliance burden on manufacturers specializing in smaller vehicles. Sales weighted manufacturer specific standards provide compliance flexibility since the manufacturers will be required to improve the performance of their existing vehicle mix rather than shift their mix to smaller vehicles. Manufacturers will also be allowed to average, bank, and trade credits as in the current standards.

CARB is allowing vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the CO₂ emission standards in California using federal standards. This will harmonize California's standards with the federal standards and allow for the implementation of a single, national emission standard. The CO₂ footprint indexed standards will result in average vehicle CO₂ emissions of 166 grams per mile in model year 2025. This represents a reduction of approximately 34 percent from 2016 levels. Table 20 shows the estimated annual CO₂ emission rates and reductions associated with the new standards. Estimated values are shown since the actual emission rates and reductions will depend on each vehicle manufacturer's sales mix. The car standards will increase in stringency by approximately five percent per year. The truck standards will increase in stringency by approximately 3.5 percent per year for model years 2017-2020 and by 5 percent per year for model years 2021-2025.

Table 20. Projected Targets for Light-Duty Vehicle CO₂ g/mile Emission Rates
	Model Year	Car		Truck		Combined Light-Duty
	Model Year	CO₂ g/mile	Annual Change	CO₂ g/mile	Annual Change	CO₂ g/mile	Annual Change
Baseline	2008	291		396		336
Previous Rule Targets	2009-2011
	2012	263		340		290
	2013	256	2.8%	330	2.8%	283	2.6%
	2014	248	3.3%	321	2.8%	275	2.8%
	2015	236	4.5%	306	4.5%	263	4.3%
	2016	226	4.5%	292	4.5%	251	4.4%
Proposed Rulemaking Targets	2017	213	5.5%	290	0.7%	243	3.2%
	2018	203	4.9%	280	3.5%	233	4.2%
	2019	192	5.2%	273	2.8%	224	4.0%
	2020	183	4.9%	264	3.0%	215	3.9%
	2021	173	5.5%	245	7.5%	201	6.3%
	2022	165	4.4%	233	4.9%	192	4.6%
	2023	158	4.5%	221	4.9%	183	4.8%
	2024	151	4.5%	210	5.0%	174	4.8%
	2025	144	4.6%	200	4.9%	166	4.8%
Average Change, (2016-2025)			4.9%		4.1%		4.5%
Change, 2008-2016		-23%		-26%		-25%
Change, 2016-2025		-36%		-32%		-34%
Change 2008-2025		-51%		-50%		-51%

Notes: Car, truck, overall targets shown are based on projected sales of vehicles by footprint, category (ultimate CO₂ g/mile levels are determined by end-of-year sales); the original California GHG standards for model years 2009-2011 are based on a different two-category system (PC/LDT1 and LDT2) than the car and truck system of the 2012-2016 federal standards and proposed 2017-2025 standards; Difference of individual columns may not match due to rounding.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 100. Table III-A-3-3.

2) Separate emission standards for CH₄ and N₂O. In the current GHG standards, CH₄ and N₂O are converted to CO₂ equivalent and added to CO₂ emissions to determine compliance. CARB is adopting the EPA approach of separate standards for CH₄ and N₂O. This approach will retain the same stringency as previous CH₄ and N₂O standards while also simplifying footprint based standards by eliminating the need to adjust the CO₂ values to include other pollutants.

The CH₄ and N₂O standards will be based on EPA's 2016 model year per vehicle caps. The full useful life emissions requirement will be 0.03 g/mile of CH₄ and 0.01 g/mile N₂O. As mentioned previously, this is the same stringency as the existing California GHG standards. The approach of using separate standards is intended to prevent backsliding. Vehicle manufacturers will be allowed to over-comply with CO₂ emission standards and use excess credits to offset CH₄ or N₂O deficits.

3) Mandatory MVAC refrigerant requirements. The mandatory requirements for MVAC refrigerants will prohibit the use of refrigerants with global warming potential (GWP) greater than 150 by the 2017 model year. CARB estimates that this requirement will reduce MVAC direct emissions by almost 90 percent. Manufacturers will be required to use an EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program approved refrigerant. The SNAP refrigerants currently approved for use are CO₂ with a GWP of 1, HFC-152a with a GWP of 140, and HFO-1234yf with a GWP of 4. Use of these refrigerants may necessitate MVAC system redesign and safeguards to ensure occupant safety.

4) MVAC fleet average leak rate limits. The regulation will limit the fleet average leak rate from MVAC to no more than nine grams per year per vehicle. CARB believes this limit is achievable based on commercially available MVAC technology currently in use to meet California and EPA standards. A low leak rate is important for maintaining system efficiency and reducing maintenance costs. Technologies must ensure adequate lubrication of the MVAC system to prevent leaks due to deterioration of seals, especially in colder months. This may be achieved by operating the MVAC in conjunction with the defroster, or by increased application of systems utilizing electric compressors.

5) MVAC indirect emissions limits. CARB is adopting the EPA idle test procedure and MVAC credit scheme to limit indirect emissions. CARB is working with EPA to develop a performance based efficiency test, known as AC17, incorporating a whole vehicle test procedure. The AC17 test will replace California's existing MVAC idle test requirement and will be used to validate the performance and efficiency of MVAC indirect emission control technology to ensure systems are earning the appropriate level of credit. The AC17 test will simulate real world driving conditions and other loads placed on the MVAC and will apply to 2017 and subsequent model year vehicles.

6) Off-cycle credit provisions. CARB is adopting off-cycle CO₂ credit provisions that are identical to those adopted by EPA. Vehicle manufacturers will be able to earn credits to offset vehicle tailpipe emissions by utilizing innovative emissions reduction technology. The benefits of these technologies cannot be determined using the current vehicle certification tests. These technologies include, but are not limited to, active grill shutters and adjustable ride height to improve vehicle aerodynamics, roof mounted solar panels to power electronic accessories and/or recharge batteries, and solar control glazing to reduce the solar load on vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers will be able to select technologies from a pre-approved list with default credit values. A maximum credit of 10 grams per mile CO₂ per vehicle model or test family may be used to offset tailpipe CO₂ emissions.

7) Incentives for full-size pickup trucks. CARB is adopting full-size pickup truck credit incentives that are identical to those adopted by EPA. These incentives will require minimum pickup bed dimensions, payload requirements, minimum penetration rates and technology based criteria. There will be two credit provisions, one for hybrid full-size pickup trucks and one for non-hybrids. Vehicles will not receive credit from both credit provisions. The hybrid credits will be split into two levels, one for mild hybrids and another for strong hybrids. The mild hybrids will be eligible for a maximum CO₂ credit of 10 grams per mile and the strong hybrids will be eligible for a maximum credit of 20 grams per mile. Non-hybrid full-size pickup trucks will also be eligible for a performance based CO₂ credit of 10 or 20 grams per mile based on qualification criteria. The minimum qualification criteria for both credit provisions are shown in Table 21.

Table 21. Summary of Full-Size Pickup Truck Credit Provisions
Provision	Minimum Qualifying Criteria, Conditions
Full-Size Pickup Truck Definition	Minimum cargo bed width of 48 inches between wheelwells Minimum cargo bed length of 60 inches Minimum towing capability of 5,000 pounds, or minimum payload capability of 1,700 pounds
Mild Hybrid Full-Size Pickup Truck (10g/mi CO₂)	Satisfy full-size pickup truck definition Minimum recovery of 15% regenerative braking Technology must be used on a minimum percentage of trucks each model year that is to receive credit: 30% in 2017, 40% in 2018, 56% in 2019, 70% in 2020, 80% in 2021
Strong Hybrid Full-Size Pickup Truck (20g/mi CO₂)	Satisfy full-size pickup truck definition Minimum recovery of 75% regenerative braking Technology must be used on at least 10% of full-size pickup trucks sold in each model year that is to receive credit
Performance Based Full-Size Pickup Truck (10g/mi CO₂)	Satisfy full-size pickup truck definition Available for model years 2017-2021 Maximum CO₂ g/mile 15% below GHG target for given year and footprint Can receive credit in subsequent years provided the CO₂ g/mile do not increase The level of CO₂ g/mile emission performance must be met on a minimum percentage of full-size pickup trucks each model year that is to receive credit: 15% in 2017, 20% in 2018, 28% in 2019, 35% in 2020, 40% in 2021
Performance Based Full-Size Pickup Truck (20g/mi CO₂)	Satisfy full-size pickup truck definition Available for model years 2017-2025 Maximum CO₂ g/mile 20% below GHG target for given year and footprint Can receive credit in subsequent years provided the CO₂ g/mile do not increase The level of CO₂ g/mile emission performance must be met on at least 10% of the full-size pickup trucks sold each model year that is to receive credit

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 141. Table III-A-3-3.

8) Upstream emission credit provisions. ZEV and TZEV operate with little or no tailpipe CO₂ emissions. The GHG emissions associated with their operation are "upstream" primarily at power plants, refineries, the fuel distribution network, and the electric grid. CARB and EPA have developed technology neutral performance based credit provisions that account for these upstream emissions allowing them to be compared to the emissions performance of conventional vehicles. There are some differences between the EPA and CARB upstream emission credit provisions.

EPA's upstream emission credit provisions have two different credit mechanisms covering the 2017-2021 and 2022-2025 model years. For model years 2017-2021, manufacturers are allowed to claim upstream CO₂ emissions of zero grams per mile for ZEV. Essentially, the emissions from upstream fuel or energy production are attributed to stationary, rather than mobile, sources. For model years 2022-2025, a sales cap allows up to 600,000 ZEV per manufacturer to be credited at zero grams per mile. Any sales beyond the cap would be required to count non-zero upstream emissions.

CARB differs from EPA in its approach to upstream emissions accounting. CARB will credit the upstream emissions based on their incremental impact rather than assuming a flat credit of zero grams per mile. CARB believes this approach more accurately reflects the GHG emissions impact of various fuels and better maintains technology neutrality. Further, CARB justifies its calculation of upstream emissions due to the greater deployment of ZEV in California along with low-carbon fuel and renewable fuel portfolio programs that reduce GHG emissions.

CARB is proposing two upstream emission credit options. The first option would require manufacturers to comply directly with California GHG standards including upstream credit accounting provisions. The second option would allow a manufacturer to comply with the upstream credit accounting provisions in the federal GHG standards. A manufacturer choosing this option would receive the same federal accounting within the California regulations. CARB has determined that compliance with the federal provisions is valid since GHG reductions from all 50 states greatly outweigh compliance with California only GHG standards.

California's GHG pollutant emission reduction benefits will be fully realized in the 2035-2040 timeframe once the vehicle fleet turns over and is comprised primarily of advanced technology vehicles. CARB estimates that by 2035 the standards will reduce CO₂e emissions by approximately 32 million metric tons (MMT) per year. This represents a reduction of approximately 27 percent from baseline emissions. California's emissions benefits resulting from the new GHG standards are shown in Table 22. CARB estimates the cumulative GHG emission reductions from 2017-2050 to be more than 870 MMT of CO₂e²⁰.

Table 22. California CO₂-Equivalent (CO₂e) Emission Benefits from Advanced Clean Car Regulations
California Statewide CO₂e Emissions (Million Metric Tons/Year)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2020	111.2	108.1	3.1	3%
2025	109.9	96.3	13.7	12%
2035	114.8	83.2	31.5	27%
2050	131.0	88.3	42.7	33%

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 176. Table V-D-1.

The Department is adopting GHG standards and credit mechanisms that are identical to those adopted by CARB. The revisions to Part 218 will apply to all 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR.

New York State's GHG emission reductions will also be fully realized in the 2035-2040 timeframe. The Department estimates that by 2035 the standards will reduce CO₂e emissions in New York by approximately 19 MMT per year. New York State's GHG emissions benefits resulting from the new standards are shown in Table 23.

Table 23. New York CO₂-Equivalent (CO₂e) Emission Benefits from Advanced Clean Car Regulations
New York Statewide CO₂e Emissions (Million Metric Tons/Year)
Calendar Year	Adjusted Baseline with Rebound	Proposed Regulation with Rebound	Benefits	Percent Reduction
2020	50.0	48.6	1.4	3%
2025	49.5	43.3	6.2	12%
2035	51.7	37.4	14.3	27%
2050	59.0	39.7	19.3	33%

New Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Requirements and Used Catalytic Converter Prohibition

The New Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Requirements:

1) Prohibit the sale of used catalytic converters. CARB eliminated the provision allowing the advertising, sale, and installation of used catalytic converters in California effective July 1, 2008. This provision was eliminated due to the lack of economically feasible screening methods to evaluate used catalytic converter performance. Each converter would have to be tested individually to determine if it was acceptable for reuse, but the existing methods could not determine if the converter would meet the new performance and durability requirements of the new standards discussed in greater detail below.

2) Establish more stringent emissions performance and requirements. CARB's previous standards for new aftermarket catalytic converters required the converter to demonstrate emissions reductions of at least 60 to 70 percent for 25,000 miles of use. The new standards became effective in California January 1, 2009, and require the aftermarket converter to comply with the vehicle's original emissions certification limits for a period of five years or 50,000 miles of use. The converters are also required to be compatible with OBD II systems on 1996 and subsequent model year vehicles.

3) Establish more stringent durability requirements. As mentioned above, the previous converter standards required the aftermarket converter to be covered by a 25,000 mile warranty. The new standards require the aftermarket converter manufacturer to warranty the converter for a period of five years or 50,000 miles of use. The warranty covers failures related to construction defects, performance defects, and OBD II compatibility issues. Manufacturers are required to monitor warranty claims and report when failure rates exceed four percent, or 100 converters for a particular converter model.

4) Labeling requirements. The new standards require aftermarket catalytic converter manufacturers to affix a label or stamp to the shell of the converter to confirm that it is an approved design. The label or stamp must contain information indicating the CARB Executive Order approval number, the part number, date of manufacture, and proper installation direction.

CARB estimated the aftermarket catalytic converter regulation would reduce California emissions of HC + NO_x by 36.61 tons per day in 2012, primarily from reductions of NO_x emissions. The affected vehicle population was determined for model years 1977 through 1995 gasoline powered PC, LDT, and MDV. CARB assumed 35 percent of these vehicles would be equipped with an aftermarket catalytic converter. Table 24 shows the estimated emission benefit, the difference in emissions rates, affected vehicle population, and average daily mileage.

Table 24. California Emission Benefit Estimates
		HC	NO_x	HC + NO_x
Difference in Emission Rates (g/mi)		0.160	0.945	1.105
Population of Vehicles with Aftermarket Converters		1,258,680
Average Miles Traveled per Day		23.9
Daily Benefit (Statewide 2012)	grams/day	4,816,201	28,426,914	33,243,115
	lbs/day	10,608	62,614	73,223
	tons/day	5.30	31.31	36.61

Source: CARB ISOR: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Regulations Regarding New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters and Used Catalytic Converters Offered for Sale and Use in California. September 7, 2007. Page 15. Table 5.

The Department is adopting new aftermarket catalytic converter requirements and used catalytic converter prohibition that are identical to those adopted by CARB. These revisions will apply to all 1993 and subsequent model year California certified on-road motor vehicles, with the exception of 1995 model year vehicles.

The Department estimated the emission benefit in New York State utilizing a combination of assumptions made by CARB and New York State specific vehicle data. The Department used CARB estimates for the difference in emission rates, percentage of vehicles affected, and expected catalytic converter life. The New York vehicle data consisted of gasoline powered PC, LDT, and MDV for model years 1983 through 1995. The Department estimates that the proposed regulation will reduce emissions of HC + NO_x in New York State by 3.66 tons per day in 2012. Table 25 shows the estimated emission benefit, the difference in emissions rates, affected vehicle population, and average daily mileage for New York.

Table 25. New York Emission Benefit Estimates
		HC	NO_x	HC + NO_x
Difference in Emission Rates (g/mi)		0.160	0.945	1.105
Population of Vehicles with Aftermarket Converters		240,285
Average Miles Traveled per Day		12.5
Daily Benefit (Statewide 2012)	grams/day	480,570	2,838,366	3,318,936
	lbs/day	1,059	6,257	7,317
	tons/day	0.53	3.13	3.66

The Department's estimate of the emission benefit is significantly lower than that estimated by CARB. The Department believes the difference is attributable to the differences in fleet size and model data. New York's fleet is less than half the size of California's. Further, CARB's model provides vehicle population and mileage estimates going back to 1977, whereas model data used by the Department only goes back to 1983. The Department believes the population of older vehicles is significantly lower in New York compared to California due, in part, to harsher climate and road conditions.

Environmental Performance Labels

CARB is also revising the existing environmental performance label standards. CARB requires the labels on all new vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2009. California adopted the labels to better educate consumers about the relative emissions performance of new vehicles. The label provides consumers with a relative indication of the emissions performance of a new vehicle for smog forming pollutants such as NMOG, NO_x, evaporative hydrocarbons (HC); as well as GHG pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and hydro-fluorocarbons (HFC) compared to the emissions performance of the average new vehicle for the same model year. A sample of the current environmental performance label is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sample Environmental Performance Label

Sample of an Environmental Performance Label showing global warming and smog scores.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 59. Figure II-D-1-1.

CARB is harmonizing its environmental performance label requirements with the recently adopted federal labeling requirements for 2013 and subsequent model year vehicles. The federal label is similar in format and content to the existing California label. The scale is from one to 10, with 10 being the "cleanest." A sample of the federal fuel economy and environment label is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Federal Fuel Economy and Environment Label

Sample of the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment label

Source: CARB LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 60. Figure II-D-1-2.

The Department is adopting environmental performance label standards that are identical to those adopted by CARB. The revisions to Part 218 would apply to all 2013 and subsequent model year vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR. The Department originally adopted California's environmental performance label standards in 2009 and incorporated them into Part 252. The standards are being updated and moved to Part 218 to consolidate the new motor vehicle regulations in a single Part. Part 252 will be repealed.

The original adoption was in response to New York State legislation (S4833/A8839) passed in 2007 requiring that global warming index labels be affixed to new 2010 and subsequent model year vehicles delivered for sale in New York. This label was to provide a clear, quantitative indication of the global warming emissions potential for new vehicles. This legislation tasked the Department to develop format, content, and graphic design of the proposed global warming index labels and update them as needed. The labels were required to be consistent with labels adopted by other states, and permitted the adoption of California labeling requirements.

Warranty and Recall Requirements

The California warranty and recall regulations are designed to reduce vehicle emissions by identifying, recalling, and repairing noncompliant vehicles to meet applicable emission standards and test procedures. Manufacturers are also encouraged to improve the design and durability of emission control components in order to avoid the expense and negative publicity associated with recalls.

Federal regulations provide warranty coverage on 1995 and newer vehicles for two years or 24,000 miles for emissions control and emission related parts. In addition, federal regulations provide warranty coverage up to eight years or 80,000 miles for major emissions control components; specifically catalytic converters, the vehicle's electronic emissions control unit (ECU) or computer, and the OBDII device or computer.

California's warranty regulations are more stringent and comprehensive than federal regulations. California's regulations provide coverage of three years or 50,000 miles against defects in materials and workmanship that result in the failure of a warranted part, including any failure that causes the vehicle malfunction indicator light (MIL) to illuminate. Additional warranty coverage of seven years or 70,000 miles is provided for "high priced" parts as determined by CARB. High priced parts include, but are not limited to, the OBDII data link connector and MIL, clutch pressure control solenoid valves, and the intake manifold assembly. CARB establishes the cost limit for high priced warranted parts for each model year based on the highest cost metropolitan area in California and the annual average nationwide urban consumer price index. As an example, the cost limit for 2012 model year high priced warranted parts is $550. This cost limit applies to Section 177 states that have previously adopted the warranty regulation. The California warranty coverage is in addition to any federal warranty coverage.

The Department is proposing to adopt emissions warranty and recall requirements that are identical to those adopted by CARB. The revisions to Part 218 will apply to all 2016 and subsequent model year California certified on-road motor vehicles.

New York residents generally receive warranty coverage under the federal program, although some manufacturers provide California warranty coverage on a limited basis. The lone exception to this is California warranty coverage for PZEV. In order for a vehicle to be certified as a PZEV, manufacturers must provide warranty coverage of 15 years or 150,000 miles. According to manufacturer NMOG compliance reports submitted to the Department for the 2004-2010 model years, PZEVs account for 18.7 percent of the approximately 5.1 million new PC and LDT delivered for sale in New York State.

In New York State, PZEV are currently the only vehicle category which automatically provides California warranty coverage to consumers. This is a requirement that must be met by manufacturers seeking to claim PZEV credit as part of their New York State ZEV credit obligations. Adoption of the California warranty and recall regulations will make more stringent warranty and recall coverage available for all new vehicles in New York, not just PZEV. The primary difference would be in the length of coverage, 15 years or 150,000 miles for PZEV and seven years or 70,000 miles for all other new vehicles.

California's recall regulations are also more stringent and comprehensive than federal regulations. Current federal recall regulations require manufacturers to file a one-time report describing the defect, the vehicles affected, and the emissions impact. California, however, explicitly ties warranty information to the recall process and requires more detailed reporting as failure rates increase. An emissions warranty information report (EWIR) will be required when claims reach two percent of a vehicle group's sales or 50 claims, whichever is greater. California currently requires the EWIR to be submitted on a quarterly basis when unscreened warranty claims for a specific emissions control component or repair represent one percent or 25 vehicles or engines, whichever is greater, of a CARB certified test group. A field information report (FIR) must be submitted within 45 days of the EWIR indicating the total number of unscreened warranty claims unless the manufacturer has already voluntarily committed to perform a recall. An emissions information report (EIR) must be submitted when the failure rate for specific emissions related component exceeds the percentages that trigger a recall. This report must be submitted within 45 days of the CARB Executive Officer determining that a significant failure has occurred which might require a recall. This report is not required if the manufacturer has committed to performing a voluntary recall.

New York State consumers will benefit from the increased protection offered by the California warranty and recall regulations. New York State has required residents to purchase California certified vehicles for 1993 and subsequent model years, with the exception of the 1995 model year, but has not previously adopted the California warranty and recall regulations. As a result, New York residents may not have been included in warranty and recall actions that have affected California certified vehicles. If the emissions control component failure was not covered under federal warranty and recall regulations, the failure may have gone unrepaired. The more stringent and comprehensive California regulation will provide consumers with coverage in addition to the existing federal regulation.

The Department believes that adoption of the warranty and recall regulations is important to achieving the goal of reduced motor vehicle emissions. The superior coverage provided by the California program has the potential to achieve additional emission reductions by addressing parts failures before they can lead to excessive emissions. The reporting requirements will enable the Department to track failures and corrective action undertaken by manufacturers. Manufacturers have not been required to submit this information to the Department under the existing regulation, and very few submit this information voluntarily. The Department anticipates that adoption of these regulations will provide emissions reduction benefits since faulty emissions control components that might have gone unrepaired under the warranty and recall regulations currently effective in New York will be subject to more stringent requirements. Adopting the warranty and recall regulations will also remove existing confusion over what requirements apply to varying states, particularly for new vehicle dealers and consumers. The Department notes that all of the surrounding Section 177 states in the region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont) have adopted the California warranty and recall regulations.

4. Cost

Cost-Effectiveness

LEV III

CARB performed a cost analysis of the LEV III program for model years 2015-2025. In particular, CARB estimated incremental costs of various technologies for the 2015-2025 timeframe relative to the baseline fleet. CARB's analysis included both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are the hardware costs to the manufacturer. Indirect costs include research and development expenditures, warranty coverage, employee salaries and benefits, dealer support, and marketing. CARB staff determined the direct component cost using data from OEMs, emission control component suppliers, as well as CARB assessments. In previous rulemakings, the indirect costs were determined using a retail price equivalent (RPE) factor that assumed direct cost increases resulted in constant percentage increases in indirect costs. In this rulemaking, indirect costs were determined using an indirect cost multiplier (ICM) identical to those used by EPA in its most recent GHG rulemaking.

Direct costs were assumed to have annual reductions of three percent per year for 2015-2020 and two percent per year for 2021-2025. These reductions reflect decreased manufacturing costs and improved manufacturing techniques as higher volume learning is achieved. CARB used two ICM values in its analysis of indirect costs to account for low complexity and high complexity technology. A low complexity ICM of 1.19 was applied to all components with the exception of the HC adsorber. A high complexity ICM of 1.29 was used for the HC adsorber to reflect the increased complexity of this technology relative to the other technologies and to account for the increased learning curve to incorporate it into vehicles.

Table 26 shows incremental costs associated with various technologies that may be utilized to reduce PC and LDT emissions from the LEV160 level to SULEV30. The incremental price increase ranges from $87 for a vehicle equipped with a four cylinder engine to $248 for an eight cylinder engine. Table 27 shows incremental costs associated with various technologies that may be utilized to reduce PC and LDT emissions from the LEV125 level to SULEV30. The incremental price increase ranges from $50 for a vehicle equipped with a four cylinder engine to $161 for an eight cylinder engine.

Table 26. Cost of Additional Emission Control Components (LEV160 to SULEV30)
	Technology Component	From LEV to SULEV
		PC/LDT1			LDT2
		4-Cyl	6-Cyl	8-Cyl	4-Cyl	6-Cyl	8-Cyl
Systems with Additional Technology Costs	Greater Catalyst Loading	$47	$62	$78	$47	$62	$78
	Optimized Close-Coupled Catalyst(s)	$8	$19	$35	$8	$19	$35
	Secondary Air	$0	$19	$58	$0	$19	$58
	HC Adsorber (active)	$0	$0	$17	$0	$0	$17
	Optimized Thermal Management	$6	$6	$6	$6	$6	$6
	Low Thermal Mass Turborcharger	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
	Evap Equip	$13	$13	$13	$13	$13	$13
Total Incremental Cost		$73	$119	$207	$73	$119	$207
Total Incremental Price		$87	$142	$248	$87	$142	$248

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 39. Table II-4-1.

Table 27. Cost of Additional Emission Control Components (ULEV125 to SULEV30)
	Technology Component	From LEV to SULEV
		PC/LDT1			LDT2
		4-Cyl	6-Cyl	8-Cyl	4-Cyl	6-Cyl	8-Cyl
Systems with Additional Technology Costs	Greater Catalyst Loading	$23	$31	$39	$23	$31	$39
	Optimized Close-Coupled Catalyst(s)	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
	Secondary Air	$0	$19	$58	$0	$19	$58
	HC Adsorber (active)	$0	$0	$17	$0	$0	$17
	Optimized Thermal Management	$6	$6	$6	$6	$6	$6
	Low Thermal Mass Turborcharger	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
	Evap Equip	$13	$13	$13	$13	$13	$13
Total Incremental Cost		$42	$69	$134	$42	$69	$134
Total Incremental Price		$50	$83	$161	$50	$83	$161

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 40. Table II-4-2.

CARB estimated the average incremental price increase in 2025 to be $55 for PC/LDT1 and $117 for LDT2. Table 28 shows this information in greater detail.

Table 28. Incremental Vehicle Price Increase for 2025 Criteria Pollutant Compliance
Vehicle Category	Initial Baseline Certification Level	Engine Size			Average Incremental Price^a ($/Vehicle)	Average Incremental Price^b ($/Vehicle)
Vehicle Category	Initial Baseline Certification Level	4-Cyl	6-Cyl	8-Cyl	Average Incremental Price^a ($/Vehicle)	Average Incremental Price^b ($/Vehicle)
PC/LDT1	LEV	$87	$142	$248	$130	$55
	ULEV	$50	$83	$161	$68
	SULEV	$0	$0	$0	$0
LDT2	LEV	$87	$142	$248	$159	$117
	ULEV	$50	$83	$161	$111
	SULEV	$0	$0	$0	$0

^a Sales weighted average for each initial certification
^b Sales weighted average for vehicle category

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 41. Table III-A-4-5.

CARB estimated the cost effectiveness of the LEV III standards for light-duty vehicles to be $4 per pound of ROG + NO_x emissions reduced in 2025 and $3 per pound in 2035. There are no operating cost savings associated with the LEV III standards.

CARB performed a similar analysis for gasoline and diesel fueled medium-duty vehicles. The average incremental price increases in 2025 were estimated to be $75 for gasoline fueled vehicles and $54 for diesel. Tables 29 and 30 show this information in greater detail.

Table 29. Additional Emission Control Components (Gasoline Medium-Duty Vehicles)
	Technology Component	Cost of Technology Needed
		8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR	10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR
		8-Cylinder
Systems with Additional Technology Costs	Greater Catalyst Loading	$40	$40
	Optimized Close-Coupled Catalyst(s)	$0	$0
	Secondary Air	$0	$0
	HC Adsorber (active)	$0	$0
	Optimized Thermal Management	$6	$6
	Low Thermal Mass Turborcharger	$0	$0
	Evap Equip	$17	$17
Total Incremental Cost		$62	$62
Total Incremental Price		$75	$75

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 40. Table II-A-4-3.

Table 30. Additional Emission Control Components (Diesel Medium-Duty Vehicles)
	Technology Component	Cost of Technology Needed
		8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR	10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR
		8-Cylinder
Systems with Additional Technology Costs	Greater Catalyst Loading	$0	$0
	Optimized Close-Coupled Catalyst(s)	$0	$0
	Secondary Air	$0	$0
	HC Adsorber (active)	$0	$0
	Optimized Thermal Management	$6	$6
	Low Thermal Mass Turborcharger	$0	$0
	Evap Equip	$0	$0
	SCR Optimization	$40	$40
Total Incremental Cost		$45	$45
Total Incremental Price		$54	$54

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 41. Table II-A-4-4.

The Department will assume component cost and incremental price increase estimates that are identical to those used by CARB. The Department believes this assumption is valid since New York requires new vehicles sold in the state to be CARB certified and these vehicles will utilize the same emission control components as those in California.

ZEV

There are no compliance costs attributed to the ZEV program in this rulemaking package. All compliance costs are accounted for in the LEV III and GHG standards.

GHG

CARB performed a similar cost analysis of the GHG program for model years 2017-2025. Incremental costs were determined using data obtained from OEMs, component suppliers, and publicly available sources. CARB augmented this data when possible with detailed cost estimates obtained from teardown analysis of various major emission control components. ICMs were also used to estimate the indirect costs of the GHG standards. Table 31 provides a summary of the ICMs that were used.

Table 31. Summary of Indirect Cost Multipliers Utilized in Assessment
Complexity	Indirect Cost Multiplier^a		Applicable Technologies
Complexity	Short Term	Long Term	Applicable Technologies
Low	1.24	1.19	Low rolling resistance tires, variable valve timing, engine friction reduction, low friction lubrication, downsize, 6-speed, aggressive shift logic, torque converter lock-up, improved accessory efficiency, electronic power steering, electro-hydraulic power steering, low drag brakes, aerodynamics (10%), mass reduction (5%, 10%)
Medium	1.39	1.29	Dual clutch transmission (wet, dry), 8-speed transmission, continuously variable transmission, cylinder deactivation, dual cam phasing, discrete variable valve lift, aerodynamics (20%), 42 volt accessory, stop-start, mass reduction (15%, 20%), turbocharged downsizing, gasoline direct injection, lean burn gasoline, diesel (LNT, SCR), continuous cam phasing, continuous valve lift, cooled exhaust gas recirculation
High 1	1.56	1.35	Mass reduction (25%, 30%), hybrid (powersplit, parallel, plug-in hybrid (non-battery costs), electric vehicle charger, fuel cell vehicle
High 2	1.77	1.50	Plug-in hybrid battery, electric vehicle battery, electric vehicle non-battery

^a ICM factors shown are approximate; the factors involve two separate components (warranty and non-warranty); see USEPA and NHTSA, 2011c.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 117. Table III-A-4-9.

Direct and indirect costs were combined to determine the incremental costs for various GHG emission control technologies. Table 32 shows various technologies dealing with engines, transmissions, improved accessories, and hybrid propulsion systems and their associated incremental price increase in four vehicle classes: small car, mid-size car, small light-duty truck, and large light-duty truck. The incremental price generally increases with the size of the vehicle as well as with the complexity of the technology. The estimated incremental price increases shown are for 2012, however, the prices are expected to decline by 2025 when time and volume based learning are taken into account.

Table 32. Incremental Vehicle Price Increase in Year 2012 for CO₂ Reduction Technologies
Area	Technology	Small Car	Mid-Size Car	Small Light-Duty Truck	Large Light-Duty Truck
Engine Technologies	Engine Friction Reduction	124	182	182	240
	Cylinder Deactivation	-	214	214	241
	Discrete Cam Phasing (DCP)	104	104	224	224
	Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL)	178	259	259	369
	sGDI (18 bar, 33% downsize)	305	305	305	459
	sGDI+DCP+DVVL (18 bar, 33% TDS)	578	578	578	974
	cEGR+ sGDI+DCP+DVVL (27 bar, 56% TDS)	1445	1445	1445	2435
	Compression Ignition Diesel with Aftertreatment	3261	3994	3268	4569
Transmission Technologies	Torque Converter Lock-up	33	33	33	33
	Aggressive Shift Logic	36	36	36	36
	High Efficiency Gearbox	282	282	282	282
	Optimized Shifting	38	38	38	38
	6-Speed Automatic	-11	-11	-11	-11
	8-Speed Automatic	77	77	77	77
	Wet Dual Clutch 8-Speed	52	52	52	52
	Dry Dual Clutch 8-Speed	-20	-20	-20	-20
	Continuously Variable	243	284	284	-
Vehicle Load and Accessory Technologies	Low Drag Brakes	73	73	73	73
	Secondary Axle disconnect	0	0	0	108
	Electric Power Steering	121	121	121	121
	Improved Accessories	158	158	158	158
	Mass Reduction (-10% Curb Mass)	94	109	125	171
	Mass Reduction (-20% Curb Mass)	417	482	552	756
	Tire Low Rolling Resistance (-10% Crr)	7	7	7	7
	Tire Low Rolling Resistance (-20% Crr)	72	72	72	72
	Aerodynamics (-10% CdA)	54	54	54	54
	Aerodynamics (-20% CdA)	234	234	234	234
Hybrid System Technologies	12V Stop-Start	573	650	650	713
	High Voltage Belt-Alternator	2358	2497	2497	2774
	Parallel Hybrid (23-40 kW Electric Motor Size	4408	4997	4824	5174
Reference Vehicle Characteristics	Test Weight (lb)	2625	3625	4000	6000
	Rated Power (hp)	106	158	169	300
	Rated Torque (ft-lb)	103	161	161	365

Notes: All potential incremental prices are in 2009 dollars and are from 2008 US baseline technology and include indirect cost multipliers for warranty, overhead, research and development, profit, etc; prices are for year 2012 and therefore time and volume-based learning reduced incremental prices from 2012 through 2025 are not included; sGDI = stoichiometric gasoline direct injection; DCP = dual cam phasing; DVVL = discrete variable valve lift; cEGR = cooled exhaust gas recirculation; DCT = dual clutch transmission; in ultimate technology packages, all technologies are considered along with other technologies in the table.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 118. Table III-A-4-10.

CARB also estimated the incremental price increase per vehicle for model years 2017-2025 due to improved MVAC systems. CARB anticipates most vehicle manufacturers will choose to earn the maximum allowable indirect emission reduction credits through the use of improved efficiency systems, low-leak components, and alternative refrigerants with low GWP. This strategy results in an estimated incremental price increase of $132 per vehicle in 2025. CARB notes that this estimate could be higher or lower depending on which technologies an individual vehicle manufacturer chooses to comply with this optional credit provision. Table 33 shows this information in greater detail.

Table 33. GHG Credits for Air Conditioning Systems and Incremental price
	CO₂ Credit (g/mile CO₂e)			Incremental Technology Price ($/Vehicle)
	Car	Truck	LDV^a	In 2016	In 2025
Air Conditioning Efficiency	5.0	7.2	5.9	$61	$50
Low-Leak Improvements	6.3	7.8	6.9	$20	$17
Alternative Refrigerant	13.8	17.2	15.1	$101	$65
Projected Deploymentb (AC Effic. + Low Leak + Alternate Refrig.)	18.8	24.4	21.0		$132

^a Light-duty vehicle average based on projected 61 percent car, 39 percent truck mix in 2025
^b Low-leak and alternative refrigerant credits are not directly additive

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 119. Table III-A-4-11.

CARB assumed that all of the manufacturers' cost increases were passed along directly to consumers in the form of higher prices. CARB estimated the incremental price increase per vehicle for two scenarios. The first scenario consisted of the incremental price increase due to only the GHG regulation. This scenario resulted in an average price increase of $1,340 per vehicle in 2025. The second scenario estimated the incremental price increase resulting from the combined GHG and ZEV regulations. This scenario resulted in an average price increase of $1,840 per vehicle in 2025. The higher average price in the second scenario is due to the higher costs of electric vehicle technology. The incremental price increases for both scenarios are shown in Table 34.

Table 34. Incremental Vehicle Technology Price ($/Vehicle) for 2025 GHG Regulations
Scenario	Category	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
GHG Regulation	Car	-	170	330	520	720	900	1,070	1,190	1,310	1,320
	Truck	-	170	340	510	720	910	1,090	1,200	1,310	1,360
	Average	-	170	340	510	720	910	1,080	1,190	1,310	1,340

GHG and ZEV Regulations	Car	-	160	460	930	1,270	1,700	2,020	2,300	2,560	2,490
	Truck	-	160	250	340	420	530	610	670	730	810
	Average	-	160	380	700	940	1,230	1,460	1,660	1,840	1,840

All values rounded to nearest ten.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 147. Table III-A-5-9.

The average incremental price increase will vary by manufacturer based on its individual fleet mix, its baseline GHG emissions, current ZEV offerings, the technology it utilizes to meet the new GHG standards, and the degree to which it applies new technology to its fleet. Table 35 shows the estimated incremental price increases for the major vehicle manufacturers in 2025 for the GHG only and the GHG + ZEV scenarios.

Table 35. Summary 2025 MY of Increased Incremental Price for Baseline, 2025 GHG Regulation, GHG-Plus-ZEV Regulation Scenarios
Company	Incremental Price in 2025 from 2008 Technology			Incremental Price in 2025 from Baseline
Company	Baseline	2025 GHG	2025 GHG+ZEV	2025 GHG	2025 GHG+ZEV
BMW	1,020	2,530	3,250	1,500	2,230
Chrysler-Fiat	1,270	2,350	2,870	1,080	1,600
Ford	1,260	2,710	3,220	1,440	1,960
General Motors	1,080	2,470	2,840	1,390	1,760
Honda	1,050	1,910	2,480	860	1,430
Hyundai-Kia	1,000	1,890	2,510	890	1,520
Jaguar-Land Rover*	1,670	5,410	5,870	3,740	4,200
Mazda	910	2,080	2,610	1,170	1,700
Mercedes	1,550	4,450	4,500	2,900	2,950
Mitsubishi*	720	2,900	3,940	2,180	3,230
Nissan	980	2,430	2,650	1,450	1,670
Spyker*	1,110	4,310	5,230	3,200	4,130
Subaru*	670	1,990	4,470	1,320	3,800
Suzuki*	710	2,920	3,880	2,210	3,160
Toyota	1,240	2,270	2,850	1,030	1,610
Volvo*	960	3,820	5,340	2,860	4,380
Volkswagen	1,370	3,660	3,750	2,280	2,370
Average	1,150	2,490	2,990	1,340	1,840

Notes: Costs are in year 2025 in 2009 dollars; This baseline includes compliance with 2016 GHG standards and projected baseline ZEV requirements (i.e., before new 2018+ MY ZEV proposal) of about two percent PHEV, 1.7 percent BEV/FCV shares from 2017-2025; (*) indicates companies that are likely to be allowed Intermediate Volume Manufacturer (IVM) PHEV-only provisions within ZEV program.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 148. Table III-A-5-10.

CARB estimated the total costs of the Advanced Clean Cars Program to consumers for during the 2015-2030 timeframe. The cumulative annualized incremental cost to consumers ranges from approximately $1 million in 2015 to $3.4 billion in 2030. The annualized costs for a given year are based on the cumulative vehicle sales since 2015. The vast majority of the costs are attributed to compliance with the GHG standards. Table 36 shows the annualized costs due to the GHG and LEV standards as well as the total annualized compliance costs and cumulative annualized incremental costs to consumers.

Table 36. 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.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 194. Table VII-B-2.

The operating cost savings resulting from the Advanced Clean Cars Program are attributed solely to the GHG standards. Consumers should experience significant savings resulting from decreased operating costs which would more than offset the increased initial purchase price of new vehicles. New vehicles will be more fuel efficient which will reduce the frequency and cost of purchasing fuel. CARB estimates that consumers could save as much as $3 for every $1 spent. CARB used projected retail gasoline fuel prices from 2011 through 2030 as well as estimated fuel consumption reductions to estimate operating costs. CARB estimated operating cost reductions will range from four percent in model year 2017 to more than 25 percent in model year 2025. Table 37 shows the projected retail gasoline fuel prices in California. Table 38 shows the estimated operating cost savings resulting from the GHG standards.

Table 37. Select Retail Gasoline Fuel Prices (2009 Dollars per Gallon)
Year	Price
2011	$3.68
2015	$4.06
2020	$4.06
2025	$4.02
2030	$4.17

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 195. Table VII-B-3.

Table 38. Estimates of Total Annual Value of New Vehicle Operating Cost Savings for Advanced Clean Cars (Millions of 2009 Dollars)
Year	Cumulative Annualized Incremental Cost	Operating Cost Savings	Saving to Cost Ratio
2015	$1	$0	0.0
2016	$4	$0	0.0
2017	$33	$228	7.0
2018	$100	$487	4.9
2019	$225	$915	4.1
2020	$392	$1,438	3.7
2021	$609	$2,092	3.4
2022	$868	$2,918	3.4
2023	$1,163	$3,751	3.2
2024	$1,495	$4,671	3.1
2025	$1,827	$5,755	3.1
2026	$2,153	$6,846	3.2
2027	$2,475	$7,843	3.2
2028	$2,796	$8,803	3.1
2029	$3,114	$9,709	3.1
2030	$3,430	$10,630	3.1

Note: Operating cost savings account for increases in expenditures of electricity and hydrogen for fueling Zero-Emission Vehicles.

Source: CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 196. Table VII-B-4.

CARB estimates the GHG standards will result in savings of $290 per ton of CO₂e reduction in 2025 and $320 in 2035²¹ in California.

CARB's analysis of the cost effectiveness of the GHG standards is based on parameters that may have different quantitative values in New York State. Because of this, it is important to assess how a change in these parameters may impact cost effectiveness calculations in New York as opposed to California. Variables such as interest rate, incremental costs, fuel economy, fleet mix, and useful life are assumed to be the same as California's. Variables such as VMT, fuel prices, and annualized costs are expected to be different in New York compared to California.

VMT estimates indicate fewer vehicle miles traveled per year in New York State relative to California. Therefore, the cost effectiveness of the GHG standards will be impacted by the differences in VMT. The Department opted for an analysis of the payback period for the average vehicle in each of the regulated fleet categories, PC and LDT, using New York State VMT estimates and gasoline prices to determine cost effectiveness of the GHG standards in New York. The break-even year is the first year in which the overall return from gasoline savings exceeds the initial cost and interest payments of purchasing the new vehicle.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes data regarding petroleum product prices, as well as forecasts of future energy prices. Retail gasoline price averages are available at the national level, as well as for selected states and cities. New York is one of the states for which specific data is available. Forecasts are done annually for the nation as a whole. Table 39 compares EIA reported New York and United States average gasoline retail prices for 2008 through 2011.

Table 39. EIA Reported New York State and National Average Gasoline Retail Prices
Year	NY Average Retail Price ($/gallon)	National Average Retail Price ($/gallon)	Difference ($/gallon)
2008	3.500	3.299	0.201
2009	2.572	2.406	0.166
2010	3.000	2.835	0.165
2011	3.804	3.576	0.228

New York retail gasoline prices exceed national average prices by a fairly consistent amount averaging 19 cents per gallon. Expressed as a percentage of the national average, the price premium in New York is about six percent.

EIA also produces an annual forecast of future energy supply, consumption, and prices, known as the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). AEO 2011 contains gasoline price projections through 2035. Table 40 depicts the projected annual average national motor gasoline prices from AEO 2011. It should be noted that these projections, while official, are not always accurate. Note that the projected national average gasoline price for 2011 was $2.80 per gallon, while the actual national average for the year was $3.58 per gallon and the New York State average was $3.80 per gallon (Table 39 above). The Department believes the lower gasoline price projections will result in a conservative estimate of the cost effectiveness of the GHG standards since they will tend to underestimate the operating cost savings. An increase in the price of gasoline will serve to increase the cost effectiveness due to reduced vehicle operating costs.

Table 40. National Annual Average Gasoline Price Projections from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011
Year	Price ($/gallon)
2011	2.802
2015	3.134
2019	3.340
2020	3.378
2025	3.539
2030	3.640

The Department performed a cost-benefit analysis using estimates for VMT and New York gasoline prices to determine the cost effectiveness of the GHG standards. The Department assumed rebound effects equal to those in California rather than the constant 10 percent assumed by EPA. The break-even year is the first year in which the overall return from operating cost savings exceeds the initial cost and interest payments of purchasing the new vehicle. This information is shown in Table 41. For model year 2017-2025 passenger cars the break-even year occurs between one to five years after the initial purchase. The average 2025 model year new passenger car is projected to save more than 2,100 gallons of gasoline and more than $3,400 over a 10 year period. For model year 2017-2025 light-duty trucks the break-even year occurs one year after the initial purchase. The average 2025 model year new light-duty truck is projected to save more than 4,500 gallons of gasoline and more than $14,000 over a 10 year period. Gasoline prices higher than the EIA estimates used in the analysis will result in greater savings and a shorter break-even period.

Table 41. Cost-Benefit Analysis Using EIA Projected Gasoline Prices
Model Year	Vehicle Group	Break-Even Year	Control Cost ($)	Fuel Savings (%)	Gallons Saved in 10 Years	$ Saved in 10 Years
2017	PC	1	160	5	1,099	3,069
2018	PC	2	460	5	1,257	3,164
2019	PC	3	930	5	1,428	3,049
2020	PC	3	1,270	5	1,572	3,052
2021	PC	4	1,700	5	1,732	2,932
2022	PC	4	2,020	5	1,842	2,913
2023	PC	5	2,300	5	1,953	2,887
2024	PC	5	2,560	5	2,066	2,958
2025	PC	4	2,490	5	2,182	3,466

2017	LDT	1	160	3.5	2,348	7,044
2018	LDT	1	250	3.5	2,597	7,806
2019	LDT	1	340	3.5	2,798	8,403
2020	LDT	1	420	3.5	3,023	9,109
2021	LDT	1	530	3.5	3,484	10,448
2022	LDT	1	610	5	3,735	11,349
2023	LDT	1	670	5	4,037	12,312
2024	LDT	1	730	5	4,312	13,322
2025	LDT	1	810	5	4,566	14,124

Warranty and Recall

The cost effectiveness of the proposed warranty and recall regulations is difficult to quantify since it relies upon the quality and durability of future emission control components. However, it is anticipated that some emissions reductions will occur as a result of repairing defective, or noncompliant, in-use emissions control components to meet original certification standards.

Staff reviewed New York State emission inspection records for the 2011 calendar year, focusing on 2005-2008 model year vehicles with less than 70,000 miles that failed their initial annual inspection. These criteria were chosen since these vehicles would have been outside the three year or 30,000 mile warranty coverage, but within California's seven year or 70,000 mile coverage. There were 12,288 vehicles that met these criteria, of these, 122 were granted repair-expenditure waivers for repairs that would most likely have been covered under the proposed warranty regulations. The repair costs for vehicles receiving waivers ranged from $450 to $6,200 with an average repair cost of $838.

The Department also reviewed repair costs for an additional 1,810 vehicles that did not receive a waiver. The repair costs for these vehicles ranged from $1 to $5,350 and included high-priced emissions control components such as catalytic converters and PCMs. It appears that some of these "non-waivered" repairs should have been eligible for federal warranty coverage for major emission control components, and most likely would have been eligible for coverage under the California warranty provisions if they had been in effect. Staff believes that the emissions benefit of the warranty and recall regulations would be achieved by completing emissions related repairs so that the failing vehicles would pass a subsequent emission re-inspection. Vehicles that failed their initial inspection may be repaired sooner if the repairs were covered under warranty. Some vehicle owners may also experience an economic benefit by having the required repairs covered under a more stringent and comprehensive warranty rather than paying for the repairs themselves.

Aftermarket Catalytic Converters

CARB estimated a cost increase of up to $200 per unit and a cost effectiveness of $1.88 per pound of HC + NO_x reduced. Table 42 presents CARB's estimate of the cost effectiveness.

Table 42. California Cost Effectiveness Estimate
Average Difference in Emission Rates (g/mi HC + NO_x)		1.105
Yearly Average Benefit per Vehicle (grams HC + NO_x)		9,640
Expected Life of Converters (years)		5
Lifetime Benefits (HC + NO_x)	grams	48,200
	pounds	106.17
Average Incremental Cost ($)		$200
Cost Effectiveness ($/pound HC + NO_x)		$1.88

The Department estimated the cost effectiveness in New York State utilizing a combination of assumptions made by CARB and New York State specific vehicle data discussed above. The Department estimates the cost effectiveness of the proposed regulation in New York to be $3.60 per pound of HC + NO_x reduced. As mentioned previously, the differences in fleet size, mileage, and model data contribute to the differences in the estimated cost effectiveness in New York and California. Table 43 presents the Department's estimate of the cost effectiveness.

Table 43. New York Cost Effectiveness Estimate
Average Difference in Emission Rates (g/mi HC + NO_x)		1.105
Yearly Average Benefit per Vehicle (grams HC + NO_x)		5,042
Expected Life of Converters (years)		5
Lifetime Benefits (HC + NO_x)	grams	25,210
	pounds	55.56
Average Incremental Cost ($)		$200
Cost Effectiveness ($/pound HC + NO_x)		$3.60

The average cost increase is attributable to the increased amounts of precious metals required to comply with the new regulation. However, this cost increase would be partially offset by the increased durability and warranty requirements stated previously.

Potential Impact on Consumers.

As mentioned previously, New York State consumers will experience increased new vehicle prices as a result of the LEV III, GHG and ZEV standards. However, they should also experience reduced operating costs which should more than offset the increased purchase prices.

The warranty and recall regulations are not expected to result in any additional costs for New York State consumers. On the contrary, most consumers should experience an economic benefit from adoption of the regulations. The more stringent and comprehensive California warranty and recall regulations will provide enhanced protection for a vast array of emissions parts and systems that may not have been covered under warranty in the past.

The California aftermarket catalytic converter regulations are expected to result in additional costs for New York State consumers. The greatest adverse impact is likely to be experienced by consumers accustomed to purchasing used converters, and those vehicle owners faced with the need to replace a converter for vehicles sold in low volume. As mentioned previously, the average cost of a new California certified aftermarket catalytic converter is expected to increase by $200. Owners of low volume vehicles will be limited to purchasing OEM converters if aftermarket converter manufacturers determine an insufficient market exists to recoup development and production costs. The cost of a new OEM catalytic converter could exceed $1,000.

The revised environmental performance labels are not expected to result in any additional costs for consumers. Consumers will benefit by having access to information that will enable them to make knowledgeable decisions when purchasing new vehicles, ideally resulting in a cleaner fleet in New York.

Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness.

Currently there is no automotive manufacturing in New York involving final assembly of vehicles. The State accounts for approximately four percent of the country's automotive parts related manufacturing jobs²². Affiliated businesses, such as dealerships and engineering and design facilities, are local businesses which compete within the state and generally are not subject to competition from out-of-state businesses. New York dealerships will be able to sell California certified vehicles to states bordering New York, as is currently the case. New York residents will not be able to buy noncompliant vehicles out-of-state since vehicles must be California certified in order to be registered in New York. This is currently the case with the existing LEV program and will not change with the proposed requirements. The regulations apply equally to all manufacturers delivering new vehicles for sale in New York. Several of the surrounding states have adopted, or will adopt, similar requirements. Therefore, the revised LEV regulations are not expected to impose a competitive disadvantage on dealerships.

Adoption of the warranty and recall regulations in New York will likely result in cost increases for manufacturers. Manufacturers would be required to extend California's more comprehensive warranty coverage to a market where it has not been required to date, thereby incurring costs to repair affected vehicles. As an example, California estimates manufacturers' costs for warranty and recall actions in California totaled $41 million for the 2002 model year. These actions involved 430,000 vehicles, which CARB states is typical for California²³.

The Department has only sparse warranty and recall documentation due to the current lack of mandatory reporting requirements. The Department possesses voluntarily submitted information regarding warranty and recall actions for five manufacturers out of the approximately 24 manufacturers that deliver vehicles for sale in New York. These include one large volume manufacturer and four intermediate volume manufacturers. These actions involved approximately 24,000 vehicles specifically reported as being in New York, as well as approximately 18,000 reported as either California or national sales.

In New York, manufacturers' costs to implement warranty and recall programs are likely to be much smaller than in California due to differences in fleet size. According to New York State Department of Motor Vehicles registration data, New York's light-duty vehicle fleet was approximately 10 million vehicles as of March, 2011. In comparison, California's light-duty vehicle fleet was estimated to be approximately 22.8 million vehicles²⁴. Further, the more stringent recall reporting requirements will likely result in minimal cost and workload increases to manufacturers to prepare reports specifically for New York vehicles. The reporting requirements will be identical to those in California and other Section 177 states that have previously adopted the regulation. The regulations could enable the manufacturers to reduce some costs by reducing the number of markets with different warranty and recall provisions. Adopting the warranty and recall regulations would also remove existing confusion over what requirements apply to varying states, particularly for new vehicle dealers and consumers.

Independent repair shops in New York may experience a reduction in revenue due to the warranty and recall regulations. The extended warranty coverage could persuade customers to take vehicles with failing, or defective, emission components to dealerships to have repairs performed, particularly if the repair is under warranty. If this were to occur, independent repair shops would lose revenue associated with these repairs. The Department believes it is speculative to assume that independent repair shops will experience significant losses of repair and preventative maintenance work to dealerships while warranty work is being performed.

The proposed California aftermarket catalytic converter requirements are not expected to have an adverse impact on the majority of New York State businesses. The greatest impact will be on businesses that currently sell used catalytic converters, as this activity would be prohibited by the proposed regulation. The result would be a transfer of business and associated income from companies selling used catalytic converters to companies selling new California certified aftermarket or OEM catalytic converters. The total sales of catalytic converters would remain unchanged. The Department expects that any increase in development and production costs would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher purchase prices.

Potential Impact on Dealerships.

Automobile dealerships in New York State may be impacted by the LEV III, GHG and ZEV standards. Dealerships may lose some vehicle sales as a result of consumers deciding to delay, or possibly forego, purchasing new advanced technology vehicles due to increased prices. However, these delayed or lost sales could potentially be offset by early adopters and consumers desiring vehicles with reduced operating costs. Dealerships may also incur expenses to train staff to sell and service vehicles equipped with advanced technologies that they may be unfamiliar with.

The proposed California aftermarket catalytic converter regulation should not have an adverse impact on dealerships. They would retain sales of catalytic converters for vehicle models for which there are no certified aftermarket catalytic converters. Dealerships could potentially generate new sales from customers that previously purchased catalytic converters from other sources.

The Department notes that dealerships and independent repair shops may be affected by the proposed warranty and recall regulations. Warranty repairs are generally performed by dealerships. As a result, independent repair shops may lose revenue associated with repairs of covered components. Dealerships may see reduced profits since they may be reimbursed for warranty work by the manufacturer at rates lower than those paid by retail customers.

Potential Impact on Employment.

The proposed amendments are not expected to cause a noticeable change in New York employment since the State accounts for only a small share of motor vehicle and parts manufacturing employment, as mentioned previously. According to the Office of the State Comptroller, approximately 30,000 State residents are directly employed by the automotive industry and an additional 200,000 are employed in related businesses²⁵.

Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion.

The proposed LEV, ZEV, GHG, environmental performance label, and warranty and recall regulations are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on business creation, elimination, or expansion. This determination is based upon previous experience implementing similar revisions to the program over the past 22 years.

The proposed California aftermarket catalytic converter regulations may have an adverse impact on business creation, elimination, or expansion. The Department is aware of aftermarket catalytic converter manufacturer concerns regarding availability of catalyst materials; research, development, and testing costs; and the ability to supply enough converters to meet the requirements in multiple states. As mentioned previously, the total sales of catalytic converters would remain unchanged. The Department expects any increase in materials, research, development and testing costs to be passed along to consumers in the form of higher purchase prices.

The Department notes that there are several projects funded by New York State through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) focusing on advanced catalytic converter substrates and coating technologies. Successful development and production of these technologies could potentially address current industry concerns while also creating, or expanding, business opportunities.

Potential Costs to Local and State Agencies.

The proposed regulations are not expected to result in any additional costs for local and state agencies beyond those that will be experienced by the general public. Agencies will benefit by having access to the same cleaner vehicles and warranty coverage as the general public when purchasing new vehicles. No additional paperwork or staffing requirements are expected. This is not a mandate on local governments pursuant to Executive Order 17.

5. Local Government Mandates

The proposed regulations do not impose a local government mandate pursuant to Executive Order 17. No additional paperwork or staffing requirements are expected. Local governments have no additional compliance obligations as compared to other subject entities.

6. Paperwork

The LEV, ZEV, GHG, and environmental performance label regulations should not result in any significant paperwork requirements for New York vehicle suppliers, dealers or government. In fact, the Department is reducing the paperwork burden in some areas by eliminating reporting requirements that are no longer necessary. New York relies on materials submitted to California for certification, while manufacturers must submit to New York annual sales and corporate fleet average reports to show compliance with the fleet average requirements. While dealers must ensure that the vehicles they sell are California certified, the Department believes that most manufacturers currently include provisions in their ordering mechanisms to ensure that only California certified vehicles are shipped to New York dealers. This has been the case since New York first adopted the California LEV program in 1992. The implementation of the proposed regulations is not expected to be burdensome in terms of paperwork to vehicle owners.

The California aftermarket catalytic converter regulation should not result in any significant paperwork requirements for New York vehicle suppliers, dealers or local government. The proposed warranty provisions would require the installer to complete a warranty card in triplicate with the original going to the customer, one copy to the installer, and one copy to the manufacturer of the converter. The implementation of the proposed catalytic converter regulation is not expected to be burdensome in terms of paperwork to owners/operators of vehicles.

The Department will experience an increase in paperwork associated with California aftermarket catalytic converter warranty reporting requirements. This increased workload will be covered by existing staff working on the LEV program. Manufacturers of aftermarket catalytic converters will be required to submit semi-annual reports to the Department identical in format and content to those submitted to California. The lone exception will be the inclusion of New York sales data rather than California sales. Warranty claims for new aftermarket catalytic converters exceeding four percent or 100 claims, whichever is greater, in New York will require the manufacturer to include in the report the type of failure, the probable cause of the failure, and an evaluation of the impact on vehicle emissions.

The warranty and recall regulations are likely to result in increased paperwork requirements for New York vehicle suppliers, dealers, and government. Manufacturers currently provide warranty and recall information to California and other Section 177 states, and it is anticipated that manufacturers will provide similar information adjusted for New York vehicles. Also, the warranty and recall regulations are expected to simplify matters for manufacturers and dealers since the process would be aligned with California, thereby streamlining the process. Implementation of the warranty and recall regulations is expected to be transparent in terms of paperwork to owners and operators of vehicles.

7. Duplication

There is no duplication.

8. Alternatives

The Department could maintain the current LEV program without adopting CARB's most recent LEV, ZEV, and GHG standards. The Department believes this is not permitted under Section 177 due to the identicality requirement. Further, the severity of New York State's air quality problems means New York State must maintain compliance with recent improvements in the California standards in order to achieve reductions necessary for the attainment and maintenance of the ozone and carbon monoxide standards, as well as reductions of GHG emissions.

The Department could develop a New York State specific global warming index label as set forth in ECL section 19-1103. Section 19-1103 requires the Department to develop a label for 2010 and subsequent model year vehicles sold in the State. The label was required to contain quantitative information of GHG emissions for new vehicles relative to the average new vehicle for the same model year. The Department was required to develop a label format, consult with various stakeholders, and update the index as needed. The labels were also required to be consistent with the index labels from other states. This option would create a different label requirement resulting in increased compliance costs for manufacturers, as well as a significant implementation and enforcement costs to the Department.

Federal emissions warranty and recall provisions currently exist as an alternative to the California regulations. These provisions are not as stringent as California's and do not provide the same degree of consumer protection. Federal emission warranty provisions provide coverage up to eight years or 80,000 miles for major emissions components. California warranty provisions provide coverage up to seven years or 70,000 miles on a wider array of components in addition to the federal warranty coverage. Federal recall provisions do not have notification and reporting requirements comparable to California's.

9. Federal Standards.

With the exception of the GHG standards, there are no equivalent federal standards available as an alternative. California's latest LEV and ZEV standards, new aftermarket catalytic converter requirements and used catalytic converter prohibition, and warranty and recall regulations are more stringent and protective of public health and the environment than federal standards. Adoption of these standards will reduce mobile source emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG. Further, under Section 177 of the CAA a state must adopt all standards for a given weight class in order to remain identical.

The severity of New York State's air quality problems dictates that New York State must maintain compliance with recent improvements in the California standards in order to achieve necessary reductions of pollutants that aid in the formation of ground-level ozone, as well as climate change. Adhering to federal standards would impede New York's ability to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards and make reasonable further progress as required in its State Implementation Plan.

10. Compliance Schedule.

The LEV III regulatory amendments will take effect for 2015 through 2025 model year PC, LDT, and MDV up to 14,000 pounds GVWR. The ZEV amendments will take effect for 2012 through 2025 model year PC and LDT up to 10,000 pounds GVWR. The GHG amendments will take effect for 2017 and subsequent model year PC, LDT, and MDV up to 10,000 pounds GVWR. The environmental performance label amendments will take effect for 2013 and subsequent model year PC, LDT, and MDPV up to 10,000 pounds GVWR. The new aftermarket catalytic converter requirements and used catalytic converter prohibition will take effect for all 1993 and subsequent model year California certified on-road motor vehicles, with the exception of 1995 model year vehicles. The warranty and recall regulations will take effect for 2016 and subsequent model year California certified vehicles.

__________

^¹ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/09O3exc.pdf
^² New York State Department of Health. New York State Asthma Surveillance Summary Report. October 2009. Pg 10
^³ New York State Department of Health. New York State Asthma Surveillance Summary Report. October 2009. Pg 10
^⁴ New York State Department of Health. New York State Asthma Surveillance Summary Report. October 2009. Pg 10.
^⁵ New York State Department of Health. New York State Asthma Surveillance Summary Report. October 2009. Pg 10
^⁶ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone: Good Up High, Bad Nearby. www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/health.html
^⁷ New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Patterns and Trends, New York State Energy Profiles: 1995-2009. January 2011. Fact Sheet.
^⁸ New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 2011 Health Advisory #8 Heat-Related Morbidity and Mortality in New York City. May 26, 2011.
^⁹ The Wall Street Journal. Summer Heat Blamed for 11 Deaths in NYC. August 12, 2011.
^¹⁰ Union of Concerned Scientists. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. July 2007. Page 92.
^¹¹ Union of Concerned Scientists. New York: Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. July 2007. Page 2.
^¹² New York State Department of Health. Drinking water program: Facts and Figures. www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/water/drinking/facts_figures.htm
^¹³ Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes Basin 2003: Report of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board to the International Joint Commission. Chapter 3.2 page 18.
^¹⁴ Union of Concerned Scientists. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. July 2007. Page 69.
^¹⁵ Union of Concerned Scientists. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast. July 2007. Page 49.
^¹⁶ California Air Resources Board (CARB). Preliminary Discussion Paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 11.
^¹⁷ California Air Resources Board (CARB). Preliminary Discussion Paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 12.
^¹⁸ California Air Resources Board (CARB). Preliminary Discussion Paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 4. Figure 2.
^¹⁹ California Air Resources Board (CARB). Preliminary Discussion Paper - Amendments to California's Low Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants - LEV III. February 8, 2010. Page 5.
^²⁰ CARB. Initial Statement of Reasons for proposed rulemaking, public hearing to consider the "LEV III" amendments to the California greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant exhaust and evaporative emission standards and test procedures and to the on-board diagnostic system requirements for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles, and to the evaporative emission requirements for heavy-duty vehicles (LEV III ISOR). December 7, 2011. Page 175.
^²¹ CARB. LEV III ISOR. December 7, 2011. Page 195.
^²² Office of the State Comptroller. United States Auto Industry and the New York State Economy. December 2008. Page 2. http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/economic/autoindustry.pdf
^²³ CARB. Notice of Public Workshop Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Procedures for Reporting Failures of Emission-Related Components and Corrective Actions; Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons. January 23, 2007. Pages 11 &12.
^²⁴ CARB. Initial Statement of Reasons for proposed rulemaking, public hearing to consider the "LEV III" amendments to the California greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant exhaust and evaporative emission standards and test procedures and to the on-board diagnostic system requirements for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles, and to the evaporative emission requirements for heavy-duty vehicles (LEV III ISOR). December 7, 2011. Page 208.
^²⁵ Office of the State Comptroller. United States Auto Industry and the New York State Economy. December 2008. Page 2. http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/economic/autoindustry.pdf