 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
“Rulemaking” link, and then click on the “Credit Union 
Law” link. 
A V AILABILITY OF CHANGED OR 
MODIFIED TEXT 
After holding the hearing and considering all timely 
and relevant comments received, the Department may 
adopt the proposed regulations substantially as de-scribed in this notice. If the Department makes modifi-
cations which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Department adopts the regula-
tions as revised. A request for a copy of any modified 
regulation(s) should be addressed to the contact person 
named in this notice. The Department will accept writ-
ten comments on the modified regulations for at least 15 
days after the date on which they are made available. 
A V AILABILITY OF THE FINAL 
STATEMENT OF REASONS 
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons 
will be available and copies may be requested from the 
contact person named in this notice or may be accessed 
on the website listed above. 
CONTACT PERSONS 
Inquiries concerning the proposed administrative ac-
tion including requests for copies of the proposed text 
(the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial state-
ment of reasons, or the modified text of the regulation, 
or questions regarding the timelines or rulemaking sta-tus, may be directed to: 
Department of Business Oversight Attn: Julie Jacob, Senior Counsel 
1515 K Street, Suite 200 
Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 322−6927 
e−mail: Julie.Jacob@dbo.ca.gov 
The backup contact person for these inquiries is: 
Department of Business Oversight 
Attn: Sandra Sandoval, Legal Assistant 
300 S. Spring Street, Suite 15513 
Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 897−3432 e−mail: Sandra.Sandoval@dbo.ca.gov TITLES 13 AND 17. AIR RESOURCES 
BOARD 
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following Air Resources 
Board Notice contained many tables, which, as format-ted, would not have met the ADA W ebsite Compliance 
requirements. The tables were removed for purposes of 
publication in the Notice Register. The Notice with all the tables is available from the contact persons listed in the Notice under “AGENCY CONTACT PERSONS” 
or “A V AILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS.” The full 
Notice is also available on the Board’s website (url ad-
dress listed below under “INTERNET ACCESS”) at: 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/ hdomnibus-
lownox 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 
EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND 
TEST PROCEDURES FOR 2024 AND 
SUBSEQUENT MODEL YEAR HEA VY−DUTY 
ENGINES AND VEHICLES, HEA VY−DUTY 
ON−BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM 
REQUIREMENTS, HEA VY−DUTY IN−USE 
TESTING PROGRAM, EMISSIONS 
WARRANTY PERIOD AND USEFUL LIFE 
REQUIREMENTS, EMISSIONS WARRANTY 
INFORMATION AND REPORTING 
REQUIREMENTS, AND CORRECTIVE 
ACTION PROCEDURES IN−USE EMISSIONS 
DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND 
PHASE 2 HEAVY−DUTY GREENHOUSE GAS 
REGULATIONS, AND POWERTRAIN 
TEST PROCEDURES 
The California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
Board) will conduct a public hearing at the date and 
time noted below to consider approving for adoption 
the proposed Heavy−Duty Engine and Vehicle Om-nibus Regulation and Associated Amendments (HD 
Omnibus Regulation). 
DATE: 
August 27, 2020 
TIME: 
9:00 a.m. 
Please see the Public Agenda which will be posted ten 
days before the August 27, 2020, Board Meeting for any 
appropriate direction regarding a possible remote−only 
Board Meeting. If the meeting is to be held in pers on, it 
will be held at the California Air Resources Board, By-
ron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, Cali-fornia 95814. 
This item will be considered at a meeting of the 
Board, which will commence at 9:00 a.m., August 27, 2020, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on August 28, 2020. Please consult the agenda for the hearing, which 
930  
 
   
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
will be available at least ten days before August 27, 
2020, to determine the day on which this item will be 
considered. 
WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD AND 
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS 
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure 
Act, interested members of the public may present com-
ments orally or in writing at the hearing and may pro-vide comments by postal mail or by electronic submittal 
before the hearing. The public comment period for this 
regulatory action will begin on June 26, 2020. Written comments not submitted at the hearing must be submit-
ted on or after June 26, 2020, and received no later than 
August 25, 2020. Comments submitted outside that comment period are considered untimely. CARB may, but is not required to, respond to untimely comments, including those raising significant environmental is-
sues. CARB requests that when possible, written and 
email statements be filed at least ten days before the hearing to give CARB staff and Board members addi-tional time to consider each comment. The Board also 
encourages members of the public to bring to the atten-
tion of staff in advance of the hearing any suggestions 
for modification of the proposed regulatory action. Comments submitted in advance of the hearing must be 
addressed to one of the following: 
Postal mail: 
Clerks’ Office, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 
Electronic submittal: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/ 
comm/bclist.php 
Please note that under the California Public Records 
Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral 
comments, attachments, and associated contact infor-
mation (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to the pub-
lic upon request. 
Additionally, the Board requests but does not require 
that persons who submit written comments to the Board 
reference the title of the proposal in their comments to facilitate review. 
AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE 
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority 
granted in California Health and Safety Code sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38580, 39500, 39600, 39601, 40000, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43102, 
43104, 43105, 43106, 43205.5, and 43806; and Califor-
nia Vehicle Code section 28114. This action is proposed 
to implement, interpret, and make specific California 
Health and Safety Code sections 38501, 38505, 38510, 38560, 38580, 39500, 39600, 39601, 43013, 43018, 
43100, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, 43205.5, 
43210.5, and 43806; and California Vehicle Code sec-tion 28114. 
INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION 
AND POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW (GOV . 
CODE, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) 
Sections Affected: Proposed amendments to sec-
tions: 1900, 1956.8, 1961.2, 1965, 1968.2, 1971.1, 
2035, 2036, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 
2118, 2119, 2121, 2123, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 
2130, 2131, 2133, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2143, 
2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2166, 2166.1, 
2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2423, and 2485 to California 
Code of Regulations, title 13, and sections 95662 and 95663 to California Code of Regulations, title 17. Pro-posed adoption of sections: 2139.5, 2169.1, 2169.2, 
2169.3, 2169.4, 2169.5, 2169.6, 2169.7, and 2169.8, 
California Code of Regulations, title 13. 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED 
BY REFERENCE 
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(3)) 
The following documents would be incorporated in 
the regulation by reference as specified by the follow-ing sections: 
 “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 
Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model 
Heavy−Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles,” 
adopted December 12, 2002, as last amended on [Insert Date of Amendment], incorporated by 
reference in 13  CCR 1956.8 and 2139. 
 “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model 
Heavy−Duty Otto−Cycle Engines,” adopted 
December 27, 2000, as last amended on [Insert 
Date of  Amendment], incorporated by reference in 
13 CCR 1956.8 and 2139. 
 “California 2015 and Subsequent Model Criteria 
Pollutant Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures and 2017 and Subsequent Model Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission Standards and 
Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light−Duty Trucks, and Medium−Duty Vehicles,” as last amended on [Insert Date of Amendment] , 
incorporated by  reference in 13 CCR 1961.2. 
 “California Environmental Performance Label 
Specifications for 2021 and Subsequent Model 
Year Medium−Duty Vehicles, Except Medium−Duty Passenger Vehicles,” adopted 
December 19, 2018, as last amended on [Insert 
931  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
Date of Amendment], incorporated by reference in 
13 CCR 1965. 
 “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 
Procedures for New 2011 and Later Tier 4 
Off−Road Compression−Ignition Engines, Part 
I−D,” adopted October 20, 2005, as last amended 
on [Insert Date of Amendment], incorporated by 
reference in 13 CCR 2423. 
 “California Greenhouse Gas Exhaust Emission 
Standards and Test Procedures for 2014 and Subsequent Model Heavy−Duty Vehicles,” 
adopted October 21, 2014, as last amended on 
[Insert Date of Amendment], incorporated by reference in 17 CCR 95663. 
The above listed documents are being amended by 
this regulation and thus the amendment date would be 
the date that the regulation is adopted by CARB. 
Background and Effect of the Proposed HD 
Omnibus Regulation: 
Existing Regulatory Requirements 
On−road heavy−duty vehicles
1 operate throughout 
California and are an essential part of the state’s econo-
my; they include long−haul trucks, drayage trucks, tran-sit buses, refuse trucks, and other commercial work ve-hicles. According to California’s emissions inventory 
model, almost a million heavy−duty vehicles operate on 
California roads each year. These vehicles are signifi-
cant sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 
fact, heavy−duty vehicles comprise the largest NOx emission source category in the state, contributing to 31 
percent of all statewide NOx emissions as well as 26 
percent of total statewide diesel PM emissions. 
Since 2010, in California and the rest of the United 
States, heavy−duty engines have been subject to a PM 
emission standard of 0.01 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp−hr) and a NOx standard of 0.20 g/bhp−hr. 
As discussed in more detail below, one element of the 
proposed rulemaking action establishes an approxi-mately 90 percent lower NOx standard for on−road 
heavy−duty engines, and constitutes the largest mea-
sure in CARB’s entire 2016 State Strategy for the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), the State of California’s of -
ficial and legally binding plan to meet federal air quality 
standards. This measure is responsible for nearly half of 
the NOx emission reduction commitment in the entire 
1 Under California regulations, heavy−duty vehicles are those ve-
hicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 
8,500 pounds, while medium−duty vehicles are a subcategory of heavy−duty vehicles with a GVWR between 8,501 and 14,000 
pounds. Manufacturers have the option to certify medium−duty 
engines used in vehicles from 10,001 to 14,000 pounds GVWR 
to the engine standards specified for engines in vehicles over 14,000 pounds. plan, 52 tons per day (tpd) out of 111 total tpd NOx in 
2031. 
To legally sell new engines, manufacturers must 
demonstrate that their engines comply with applicable emission standards throughout a period called the regu-
latory useful life (which for the heaviest diesel engines 
is currently 10 years, 435,000 miles, or 22,000 hours, 
whichever comes first). To simulate aging out to useful 
life and to demonstrate that emission−related compo-nents are durable throughout the full useful life of the engine, manufacturers follow procedures as specified in a durability demonstration program (DDP). Manu-
facturers must demonstrate that the deteriorated emis-
sions test results obtained at the end of useful life either 
meet or are below all applicable emission standards be-
fore a certification Executive Order is issued. To 
demonstrate compliance, California and the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) require heavy−duty engine manufacturers to test their engines 
over two test cycles, the heavy−duty transient Federal Test Procedure
2 (FTP) and the Supplemental Emission 
Test Ramped Modal Cycle3 (RMC−SET). The FTP test 
cycle represents a transient medium load duty cycle. 
The RMC−SET simulates steady−state engine opera-
tion during suburban and highway truck speeds. 
Manufacturers also must provide warranties of emis-
sion−related parts for a certain time−period, currently 
100,000 miles or 10 years, whichever first occurs. For parts that fail under warranty, manufacturers are re-quired to report certain data to CARB, as specified in 
CARB’s Emission Warranty Information Reporting 
(EWIR) program. If failure rates meet or exceed estab-
lished thresholds, manufacturers are required to con-duct corrective actions such as providing extended war-
ranties and/or recalling faulty components. 
Manufacturers are also required to conduct testing of 
their products while actually on the road using portable emissions measurement systems. All heavy−duty en-
gine manufacturers are required to conduct heavy−duty 
in−use testing (HDIUT) on a fraction of their engine 
families, with the specific engine families specified by 
U.S. EPA and CARB. The in−use test data are evaluated 
via the not−to−exceed (NTE) method and submitted to 
CARB and U.S. EPA. CARB also has the ability to in-
dependently test any engine family through CARB’s 
in−house Heavy−Duty In−Use Compliance (HDIUC) 
Program. Engine families that fail HDIUT or HDIUC 
requirements are subject to potential recall. 
2 “FTP” is the heavy−duty transient Federal Test Procedure duty 
cycle specified in 40 CFR 86.007−11(a)(2), as amended October 
25, 2016. 
3 “RMC−SET” is the supplemental emission test procedure with 
the steady−state duty cycle specified in 40 CFR 86.1360, as 
amended October 25, 2016. 
932  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
Manufacturers of heavy−duty diesel engines have 
been able to meet the current PM emission standard 
through the use of diesel particulate filters (DPF), and the NOx emission standard through the use of selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. SCR systems typi-
cally use a solution made up of urea and water called Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to supply the ammonia that 
converts NOx to harmless nitrogen gas and water. 
Changes to these programs are warranted because (1) 
some elements of the programs discussed above are falling short of program expectations, (2) it is cost− effective and technically feasible to reduce the stan-
dards significantly below today’s levels to achieve 
needed NOx reductions, and (3) some provisions would 
benefit from clarification. 
Recent Regulatory Revisions and Actions 
Since 1990, NOx emission standards for on−road 
new heavy−duty engines have become more stringent, 
decreasing from 6.0 grams per brake horsepower hour 
(g/bhp−hr) in 1990 to the current 0.20 g/bhp−hr stan-
dard in 2010. In addition to the increasingly stringent new engine standards, California has also adopted pro-
grams that substantially reduce in−use emissions from 
heavy−duty vehicles, such as vehicle idling restrictions, 
and in−use fleet rules such as the Drayage Truck Regu-
lation and the Truck and Bus Regulation. These fleet 
rules require the upgrade of older trucks and buses to 
newer and cleaner engines that meet 2010 engine stan-
dards by 2023. To comply with these in−use regulations 
fleets have made substantial investments to purchase lower−emitting vehicles. However, despite all of these 
efforts, on−road heavy−duty vehicles are still a signifi-
cant source of NOx emissions in the state, and are re-
sponsible, as previously mentioned, for about 31 per-
cent of total statewide NOx emissions, a precursor to ambient ozone and secondary PM formation. In order to 
meet California’s air quality goals, further reductions of 
heavy−duty NOx emissions are necessary. 
In 2013, California established optional low−NOx 
standards
4 for heavy−duty diesel engines, with the most 
aggressive standard being 0.02 g/bhp−hr, which is 90 percent below the current standard. The optional low− NOx standards were developed to pave the way for more stringent mandatory standards by encouraging 
manufacturers to develop and certify low−NOx en-
gines, and incentivizing potential customers to pur-chase these low−NOx engines. In 2019, a total of fifteen 
4 Optional Reduced NOx Emission Standards for On−Road 
Heavy−Duty Engines, adopted 12/12/2013, (https://ww2.arb.ca. 
gov/our−work/programs/optional−reduced−NOx−standards ) 
(last accessed 3/5/2020). engines families,5 some using natural gas and others us-
ing liquefied petroleum gas, have been certified to the optional NOx standards. 
In March 2017, CARB approved the 2016 State Strat-
egy for the State Implementation Plan (2016 SIP).
6 One 
of the key measures in the 2016 SIP is the establishment of on−road heavy−duty engine low−NOx emission re-quirements that provide a 90 percent reduction in NOx 
emissions compared to today’s engines. To comple-ment this measure, the 2016 SIP also included a “Lower 
In−Use Emission Performance Level” measure that 
would ensure that heavy−duty vehicles remain as 
“clean” in−use, as they were originally certified when 
new. These two measures are critical for attaining feder-al health−based air quality standards for ozone in 2031 
in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, as 
well as PM2.5 standards in the next decade. 
On October 25, 2016, U.S. EPA and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly adopted 
the federal Phase 2 GHG standards for tractors, voca-tional vehicles, and pick−up truck and vans, engines used in tractors and vocational vehicles, and trailers hauled by heavy−duty tractors. The progressively more 
stringent federal Phase 2 standards are phased−in from 2021 to 2027 for tractors, vocational vehicles, and large 
pick−up trucks and vans. In 2018, California aligned 
with the federal Phase 2 standards in structure, timing, 
and stringency, but with some minor California 
differences. 
Because heavy−duty vehicles that are newly pur-
chased outside of California contribute significantly to the total heavy−duty vehicle miles traveled in Califor-nia (i.e., approximately 60 percent of total heavy−duty vehicle miles traveled in the South Coast Air Basin on 
any given day are by such vehicles), it is critical that 
U.S. EPA take action to establish a new national low− 
NOx standard for heavy−duty vehicles. In response to petitions for a low−NOx rulemaking from over 20 orga -
nizations,
7 including state and local air agencies from 
across the country, on November 13, 2018, U.S. EPA announced the “Cleaner Trucks Initiative” to develop 
regulations to further reduce NOx emissions from new 
on−road heavy−duty vehicles and engines. U.S. EPA in -
5 Optional Low NOx Certified Heavy−Duty Engines, 
(https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our−work/programs/optional−reduced− 
NOx−standards) (last accessed 3/5/2020) 
6 Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, 
May 17, 2016, (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/ 2016sip/2016sip.htm ) (last accessed 3/5/2020) 
7 Brakora, Jessica. “Petitions to EPA for Revised NOx Standards 
for Heavy−Duty Engines” Memorandum to Docket EP A−HQ− 
OAR−2019−0055, December 4, 2019. 
933  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
tends to publish a proposed rule in 2020.8 Accordingly, 
to the extent possible, CARB plans on coordinating its 
regulatory ef forts with U.S. EPA. 
To support the development of more stringent NOx 
emission standards for heavy−duty engines and vehi-cles, CARB, in partnership with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, U.S. EP A, Clean High− 
Efficiency Diesel Engine VII (CHEDE−VII) Consor-tium (managed by Southwest Research Institute), V ol-vo, Cummins, and Eaton are currently funding $5 mil-lion research programs with Southwest Research Insti-
tute to demonstrate the feasibility of lower NOx emis-
sions for on−road heavy−duty engines. 
In addition to a new lower NOx standard on current 
certification test cycles, CARB staff also plan to pro-pose a new certification low−load cycle, and the associ-
ated NOx emission standard, and further propose provi-
sions to strengthen engine and emission control system 
durability requirements, to increase useful life require-ments and lengthen emissions warranty periods, to im-prove reporting and corrective actions of emission war-
ranted parts that are covered under warranty, and to en-
hance the in−use compliance testing program. 
Summary of Proposal 
[Because of ADA Website Compliance Require-
ments, OAL is unable to publish the various tables re-ferred to below in the Notice Register. The tables in the 
Notice are contained in Air Resources Board’s Initial 
Statement of Reasons (ISOR). The tables in the Notice 
Attachment can be found on the agency’s website 
(http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/ hdomnibuslownox). Please refer to the Contact Persons 
listed below or to the agency’s website for their ISOR information, including the Tables. In addition, a cross− 
reference listing “Proposed Heavy−Duty Omnibus Regulation T ables in Notice vs Tables in ISOR” is be-
ing included right after this Notice and the Attachment to Public Notice indicating where the tables can be found in the Board’s ISOR.] 
CARB’s proposed HD Omnibus Regulation, or Pro-
posed Amendments, would comprehensively overhaul how NOx emissions from new heavy−duty engines are regulated in California, and comprises the following 
primary elements. 
1. Proposed NOx and PM Exhaust Emission Standards 
The proposed NOx and PM exhaust emission stan-
dards would apply to new California−certified heavy− 
duty Otto−cycle (HDO) and heavy−duty diesel engines 
8 EPA Acting Administrator Wheeler Launches Cleaner Trucks 
Initiative, November 13, 2018, (https://archive.epa.gov/epa/ 
newsreleases/epa−acting−administrator−wheeler−launches− cleaner−trucks−initiative.html ) (last accessed 3/5/2020). intended for use in vehicle service classes with gross ve -
hicle weight ratings (GVWR) greater than 10,000 
pounds. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the proposed NOx 
emission standards would be implemented in two steps, 
with the first step for 2024−2026 model year engines and the second step for 2027 and subsequent model year engines. 
CARB staff is also proposing to provide manufactur-
ers the option to certify 2024 through 2026 model year engines to a less stringent NOx standard, if they meet that standard on a nationwide basis. This proposed op-tional 50−state−directed engine emission standards, 
shown within parentheses in Table 1, would provide air 
quality benefits to California since federally certified 
trucks that travel to California would be lower−emitting 
than they would have been absent this option. 
CARB staff is also proposing a PM standard of 0.005 
g/bhp−hr for 2024 and subsequent model year engines 
HDO and heavy−duty diesel engines. 
Table 1. Proposed Heavy−Duty Diesel− and 
Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards 
(Model Year 2024 to 2026) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 2. Proposed Heavy−Duty Diesel− and 
Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards 
(Model Year 2027 and Subsequent) 
[Table — Removed] 
2. Proposed Amendments to the Heavy−Duty In−Use Testing (HDIUT) Program 
CARB staff is proposing amendments to the HDIUT 
program that revise procedures to better represent 
heavy−duty vehicle operations in real world conditions, 
that establish clearer criteria for engine family pass/fail 
determination, and that require on−board diagnostic (OBD) data during testing to verify the condition of the 
test vehicle and sensors. These amendments would ap-ply to 2024 and subsequent model year engines, and would replace the current NTE−based methodology 
with a new three−bin moving average windows based 
methodology. The three bins cover idle, low−load, and 
medium to high load operation. Compliance would be determined by comparing the average NOx emissions 
for each bin to the in−use threshold, defined as one and a 
half times the applicable standard for the model year. 
3. Proposed Amendments to Warranty and Useful 
Life Periods 
To help ensure emission controls are well− 
maintained and repaired when needed, and to help en-
sure more durable emission control systems, CARB 
934  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
staff is proposing to extend the criteria pollutant emis-
sions warranty and useful life period requirements for 
heavy−duty vehicles and engines. The proposed revi-
sions would be phased−in beginning with the 2027 
model year engines with the final phase−in occurring in 
2031. The current and proposed useful life and warranty 
periods are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. 
Table 3. Current and Proposed Useful Life Periods 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 4. Current and Proposed Warranty Periods 
[Table — Removed] 
4. Proposed Amendments to Heavy−Duty Durability 
Demonstration Program 
For heavy−duty diesel engines, the Proposed Amend-
ments would establish a new standardized methodolo-
gy for demonstrating durability. The standardized 
methodology would increase the default break−in peri-
od from the current 125 hours to 300 hours for on−road 
heavy−duty diesel engines, and require standardized 
certification cycles for engine and aftertreatment sys-tem aging in order to validate component durability and determine exhaust emissions deterioration factors. The Proposed Amendments would also require additional 
engine aging (i.e., increased durability hours) com-
pared to what existing certification requirements. 
The Proposed Amendments would also allow manu-
facturers to use of accelerated aging cycles for a portion 
of the useful life demonstration for aftertreatment sys-tems, provided that those manufacturers periodically submit in−use emissions data generated from their on− road heavy−duty diesel engines. 
5. Proposed Amendments to the Emissions 
Averaging, Banking, and T rading Program 
The Proposed Amendments would establish a sepa-
rate California−only averaging, banking, and trading 
(CA−ABT) program starting with 2022 model year en -
gines. This element of the rulemaking action is needed 
to reflect the difference in heavy−duty emission stan-dards between the proposed California heavy−duty en-
gine standards and the existing federal heavy−duty en -
gine standards. The Proposed Amendments would al-low manufacturers to transfer credits from their existing 
federal ABT accounts for 2010 to 2021 model years, as 
adjusted based on the fraction of California to 50−state 
sales volumes for 2019−2021 model years. The Pro-posed Amendments would also allow heavy−duty ze-ro−emission vehicles (ZEV) to generate NOx credits in 
order to incentivize the sales of heavy−duty ZEVs earli-er than would be required by CARB’s proposed Ad-
vanced Clean T rucks (ACT) Regulation. 
6. Proposed Amendments to Powertrain Certification Test Procedures for Heavy−Duty 
Hybrid V ehicles 
The Proposed Amendments would provide manufac-
turers a voluntary option to certify hybrid powertrains to criteria pollutant emission standards, using specified powertrain testing procedures. The proposed power-
train testing procedures would align with federal proce-
dures for powertrain testing and would be based on the 
U.S. EP A Phase 2 GHG technical amendments for pow-
ertrain testing. 
7. Proposed Amendments to Emissions Warranty 
Information and Reporting (EWIR), and 
Corrective Action Procedures 
The Proposed Amendments would amend the exist-
ing EWIR program and specify corrective actions to improve the effectiveness of the existing program and 
to ensure that corrective action is taken in a timely man-ner if failure rates exceed specified corrective action thresholds. 
8. Proposed Amendments to Clean−up Items, and 
Provide Clarifications, and Corrections 
The Proposed Amendments would make some minor 
but needed clarifications and corrections related to the Phase 2 GHG standards, diesel auxiliary power unit re-
quirements, OBD system requirements, and medium− 
duty engine and medium−duty vehicle requirements. These amendments are needed to better align with fed-
eral requirements, to clarify existing requirements, to 
conform with proposed emission standards, and to cor-
rect inadvertent ambiguities. 
9. Proposed Amendments to Existing Phase 2 GHG Regulations 
In addition to the minor clarifications and corrections 
needed for the California Phase 2 GHG Regulation mentioned above, the Proposed Amendments would update the environmental performance label specifica-
tions to clarify and improve the implementation of the 
original label specifications requirements. The pro-posed revisions would also modify certain trailer re-quirements of the California Phase 2 GHG regulation, 
including providing compliance flexibility to exempt 
specific trailer configurations if it is determined that technology is not available for trailers subject to the 
Phase 2 requirements. 
U.S. EPA has recently proposed technical amend-
ments to the Phase 2 GHG test procedures for heavy− 
duty engines that are largely intended to provide manu-
facturers compliance flexibility and to reduce variabili-
ty in test results. CARB staff is currently not proposing 
any amendments to the California Phase 2 GHG regula-tion or to the test procedures in response to that U.S. 
935  
  
  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
EPA notice of proposed rulemaking on Improvements 
for Heavy−Duty Engine and Vehicle Test Procedures, 
and Other Technical Amendments,9 but may propose 
specific amendments as this rulemaking action 
proceeds. 
CARB may also consider other changes to the sec-
tions affected, as listed on page 2 of this notice, during 
the course of this rulemaking process. 
Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory 
Action: 
Objectives 
The Proposed Amendments are designed to reduce 
NOx emissions from the engines in heavy−duty vehi-
cles with GVWR greater than 14,000 pounds (Class 4 
and above), and engines used in medium−duty vehicles with GVWR 10,001 to 14,000 pounds (Class 3 vehi-cles). The proposed NOx certification emission stan-
dards and in−use standards would significantly reduce 
tailpipe NOx emissions during most vehicle operating modes such as high−speed steady−state, transient, low− 
load urban driving, and idling modes of operation. The 
proposed revisions to the emissions warranty, useful life, emissions warranty and reporting information and corrective action procedures, and durability demonstra-
tion procedures would also provide emission benefits by encouraging more timely repairs to emission− related malfunctions and encouraging manufacturers to produce more durable emission control components, 
thereby reducing the rate at which emissions deterio-
rate. 
Environmental and Health Benefits 
Table 5 below shows the projected NOx reductions 
attributable to the Proposed Amendments. In 2031, the 
target SIP date to meet the 2008 ozone ambient air qual-
ity standards, NOx emission benefits relative to the le-
gal baseline
10 are estimated to be approximately 23.2 
tpd statewide and 7.0 tpd in the South Coast Air Basin. 
Table 5. Projected NOx Emission Benefits from 
the Proposed Amendments (tpd) 
[Table — Removed] 
The proposed PM standard of 0.005 g/bhp−hr is in-
tended to prevent “backsliding” by encouraging manu-
facturers to continue using current robust DPFs capable 
of reducing PM emissions down to 0.001 g/bhp−hr lev-
9 “Improvements for Heavy−Duty Engine and V ehicle Test Proce-
dures, and Other T echnical Amendments,” Proposed Rule, Feder-
al Register, V ol. 85, No. 92, page 28140−28361, May 12, 2020, 
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR−2020−05−12/pdf/20 20−05963.pdf) (last accessed May 13, 2020) 
10 The legal baseline reflects implementation of currently existing 
state and federal laws and regulations. els. Manufacturers would likely continue to use the 
same DPFs that they are currently using and thus no ad-
ditional PM benefits are expected from this require-
ment. However, since NOx is also a precursor to sec-
ondary PM2.5 formation, NOx emission reductions 
would also provide ambient PM2.5 emission benefits resulting in significant health benefits. The emission re-
ductions from the Proposed Amendments are expected 
to prevent nearly 3,900 deaths, as well as more than 
1,300 hospitalizations and 1,800 emergency room visits. 
Other proposed associated amendments related to the 
Phase 2 GHG regulation are not expected to have addi-
tional GHG emission benefits beyond those claimed in 
that regulation. However, they would improve imple-
mentation as well as ef fectiveness of the Phase 2 GHG 
regulations, and help realize the expected GHG emis-
sion benefits of the regulation. 
Economic Impacts 
The Proposed Amendments would require engine 
manufacturers to produce lower−emitting heavy−duty engines, which would increase upfront production and 
operational costs. Elements contributing to increased 
costs include reduction of emission standards over ex-isting regulatory cycles, amendments to in−use test pro-
cedures, modifications to the durability demonstration 
for certification, lengthened warranty periods, length-
ened useful life periods, amendments to EWIR report-ing, and emissions data collection and reporting. Table 
6 presents the total statewide incremental costs of the 
Proposed Amendments on manufacturers. All costs were evaluated relative to the baseline scenario in 2018 
dollars. As Table 6 shows, the Proposed Amendments’ 
costs on manufacturers are expected to total $4.07 bil-
lion from calendar year 2022 through 2050. 
Table 6. Projected Cost Impact of the Proposed 
Amendments to Manufacturers 
[Table — Removed] 
Medium− and heavy−duty engine/vehicle manufac-
turers would likely pass their costs on to their cus-tomers, i.e., to the California vehicle fleets who pur-
chase vehicles with California−certified engines. Vehi-
cle owners would also face increased costs for DEF us-age, because the Proposed Amendments would require 
SCR systems to operate for a greater proportion of the 
time and hence consume more DEF. At the same time, the Proposed Amendments would provide savings to vehicle owners via repair cost savings resulting from 
longer emission warranties. Table 7 below shows the 
net cost impact upon full implementation of the regula-tion for various affected vehicle classes with 2031 or later engine model year. As Table 7 shows, on average, 
936  
 
 
 
  
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
the net impact of the Proposed Amendments would be 
equivalent to an approximately 5.8 percent increase in 
the baseline purchase price of vehicles. 
Table 7. Net Cost Impact of a Vehicle with Engine 
Model Year 2031 or Later Under the Proposed 
Amendments (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
As the requirements of the Proposed Amendments 
would go into effect, they would have a small negative 
impact on the rate of growth of the state’s economy. Af -
fected sectors such as retail and wholesale trade, truck 
transportation, construction, and manufacturing sectors 
and upstream industries would experience increases in 
production costs and decreases in employment growth. 
Overall, CARB staff expects the Proposed Amend-ments would cause very small slowing in the rate of growth of California employment, gross state product, output, and investment; the Proposed Amendments 
would cause no more than a 0.02 percent decrease in 
any of these quantifies in any year from 2022 to 2050. Overall, because the impact is projected to be so small compared to the scale of the California economy, 
CARB staff estimates the Proposed Amendments 
would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the California economy. 
Comparable Federal Regulations: 
Both California and U.S. EPA have the authority and 
responsibility to set emission standards for new heavy− 
duty engines and vehicles. For the past several decades, 
California’s and U.S. EPA’s heavy−duty engine emis-sions standards and other emission−related require-ments have largely been harmonized. Thus, for many 
years the regulated industry has been able to design and 
produce a single product line of engines and vehicles 
that comply with both U.S. EPA and CARB emission standards and sold in all 50 states. So−called “50−state” 
standards enable technology suppliers and manufactur-ers to efficiently produce a single set of reliable and compliant products. 
Staff is now proposing California emission standards 
and other emission−related requirements for new heavy−duty engines that are more stringent than corre-sponding federal emission standards and emission−re-
lated requirements for heavy−duty engines and vehi-
cles, because California needs those standards to meet the State’s SIP commitments to attain federal ambient air quality standards and to protect the health and wel-
fare of its citizens. 
Heavy−duty vehicles comprise the largest NOx emis-
sion source category in California, and further emission 
reductions from them are urgently needed to meet the State’s SIP commitments and protect public health. Due 
to the contribution of heavy−duty trucks to the NOx in-
ventory nationwide, and as mentioned earlier, in re-sponse to a petition from over 20 organizations, U.S. 
EPA announced on November 13, 2018 the “Cleaner 
Trucks Initiative” to develop regulations to reduce NOx 
emissions from on−road heavy−duty vehicles and en-gines.
11 Due to the federal lead time requirements de-
scribed above and because U.S. EPA began their effort after CARB began work on the proposed HD Omnibus 
Regulation, the Cleaner T rucks Initiative would take ef-
fect a few years later than the proposed HD Omnibus 
Regulation, most likely beginning with the 2027 model 
year. 
CARB has been developing its proposed HD Om-
nibus Regulation for many years because it has long 
recognized that it needs to significantly reduce emis-sions from new heavy−duty engines and vehicles as soon as possible. However, to maintain a future harmo-
nized national heavy−duty program, CARB staff has encouraged U.S. EPA to align with the Proposed Amendments contained in the HD Omnibus Re gulation 
as much as possible in the Cleaner T rucks Initiative. In 
addition, to encourage manufacturers to make one set of 
50−state clean vehicles, CARB staff has proposed that 
the amendments include an option allowing manufac-turers to voluntarily certify their engines to a proposed 
standard on a national basis, beginning in model year 
2024. 
AN EV ALUATION OF INCONSISTENCY OR 
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING 
STATE REGULATIONS 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)(D)) 
During the process of developing the proposed HD 
Omnibus Regulation, CARB staff conducted a search of any similar regulations on this topic and concluded 
these regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompat-
ible with existing state regulations. 
DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE 
PROPOSED REGULATION 
Fiscal Impact/Local Mandate Determination 
Regarding the Proposed Action (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subds. (a)(5)&(6)): 
The determinations of the Board’s Executive Officer 
concerning the costs or savings incurred by public agencies and private persons and businesses in reason-
able compliance with the proposed HD Omnibus Regu-
lation are presented below. 
11 Refer to footnote 8. 
937  
  
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivi-
sion (a)(5) and 11346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the Execu-
tive Officer has determined that the proposed regulato-
ry action would create costs or savings to any State 
agency, would create costs or savings in federal funding 
to the State, would create costs or mandate to any local 
agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable 
by the State under Government Code, title 2, division 4, 
part 7 (commencing with section 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or savings to State or local 
agencies. 
Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring 
Reimbursement under section 17500 et seq. : 
Pursuant to Government Code sections 11346.5, sub-
division (a)(5) and 1 1346.5, subdivision (a)(6), the pro-
posed HD Omnibus Regulation is a mandate that would 
create costs and cost−savings to local agencies and 
school districts. However, these costs to local agencies 
are not reimbursable by the State under Government Code, title 2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with sec-
tion 17500). The mandate is not reimbursable because costs associated with the proposed HD Omnibus Regu-
lation apply generally to all entities that purchase af-
fected vehicles, including local agencies. Therefore, the 
regulation does not constitute a “Program” imposing any unique requirements on local agencies as set forth 
in section 17514 of the California Government Code. 
Cost or Savings for State Agencies: 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation implementa-
tion would create additional workload on CARB staff 
that would be impossible to absorb with existing staff resources. Staff estimates an addition of ten positions 
(two Air Pollution Specialists and eight Air Resources 
Engineers) would be needed to implement the proposed 
HD Omnibus Regulation: 
 Two Air Resources Engineers would be required 
starting in 2024 to review certification 
applications using new strategies and 
technologies, and to manage and review the new 
standardized extended durability testing. 
 Two additional Air Resources Engineers would be required starting in 2024 to coordinate test plans 
with manufacturers, implement new procedures, 
and verify submitted test data with the amended 
HDIUT program. 
 Two additional Air Resources Engineers would be required starting in 2024 to review the NOx sensor 
data submissions and certify the additional OBD certification requirements associated with the 
newer technologies expected in low NOx engines. 
 Two Air Resources Engineers would be required starting 2024 for increased enforcement at dealerships due to the difference in emission 
standards compared to the federal program. 
 Two Air Pollution Specialists would be required 
starting in 2027 to process anticipated increased 
EWIR claims and corrective actions. 
Sales taxes are levied in California to fund a variety of 
programs at the state and local level. The proposed HD 
Omnibus Regulation would result in the sale of more 
expensive (higher upfront cost) vehicles as well as in-
creased DEF consumption in those vehicles in Califor-
nia, which would result in higher sales taxes collected by the state government. The entire population of new 
California−sold vehicles and DEF consumption over the entire state was used for this analysis. State govern-
ment collects about 46 percent of the total sales tax rev-
enue (i.e., approximately 3.9 percent out of 8.6 percent 
of the sales tax rate) based on data from the REMI (Re-
gional Economic Models, Inc.) model. 
The Proposed Amendments could encourage Cali-
fornia fleets to hold onto their existing vehicles slightly 
longer, to purchase used vehicles in lieu of new vehicles 
in California, or to purchase more out−of−state vehi-
cles. Staff did not attempt to quantify any such changes 
in fleet purchase behavior and hence any state sales tax impacts of such changes in fleet purchase behavior are 
also not included. 
The fiscal impacts to the state government due to the 
proposed HD Omnibus Regulation were estimated rela-
tive to baseline conditions. The net fiscal impact on 
state government in 2022 and 2023 would be $1,000 
and $55,000 in revenue, respectively. Starting in 2024, 
state government would have an annual fiscal cost im-
pact ranging from $561,000 to $1,496,000 within the 
considered regulations’ period of analysis. 
Other Non−Discretionary Costs or Savings on Local 
Agencies : 
Sales taxes are levied in California to fund a variety of 
programs at the state and local level. The Proposed 
Amendments would increase the upfront cost of each 
heavy−duty vehicle and engine sold in the state in 2024 
and subsequent model years by about 0.5 to 10.4 per-cent. The Proposed Amendments would also require 
additional DEF fluid consumption in California, which 
would result in a direct increase in sales tax revenue col-
lected by local governments. The average local tax rate 
in California is 0.853 percent. Overall, local sales tax 
revenue may increase less than the direct increase from 
vehicle sales if overall business spending does not 
increase. 
Local government fleets are estimated to own 10.7 
percent of California’s total heavy−duty vehicles. So, 
for example, in year 2025, local government fleets 
would face approximately $6.09 million of the total 
statewide cost of $56.9 million due to the Proposed 
938  
  
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
Amendments. Similarly, in year 2028, local govern-
ment fleets would expect approximately $16.1 million 
of the total statewide $150 million in cost expected due to the Proposed Amendments. 
The net fiscal impact on local government in 2022 
would be a cost of $11,000 and the ongoing fiscal im-pact on local government would range from $165,000 to $10.5 million in cost within the proposed HD Om-
nibus Regulation’s lifetime of 29 years. 
Cost or Savings in Federal Funding to the State: 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation is not expect-
ed to impose any costs or savings in Federal Funding to 
the state. 
HOUSING COSTS 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(12)) 
The Executive Officer has also made the initial deter-
mination that the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation will not have a significant ef fect on housing costs. 
SIGNIFICANT STATEWIDE ADVERSE 
ECONOMIC IMPACT DIRECTLY AFFECTING 
BUSINESS, INCLUDING ABILITY TO COMPETE 
(Gov. Code, §§ 11346.3, subd. (a), 11346.5, subd. 
(a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)) 
The Executive Of ficer has made an initial determina-
tion that the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation would not have a significant statewide adverse economic im-pact directly affecting businesses, including the ability 
of California businesses to compete with businesses in 
other states, or on representative private persons. 
RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT 
ANALYSIS/ASSESSMENT 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(10)) 
MAJOR REGULATION: Statement of the Results of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) (Gov. Code, § 1 1346.3, subd. (c)): 
In February 2020, CARB submitted a Standardized 
Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) to the Depart-ment of Finance (DOF) for its review. CARB has updat-
ed the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation since the original SRIA submittal, to reflect new information and 
address DOF comments. The revisions are discussed in 
the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), Chapter IX. 
(A) The creation or elimination of jobs within the state. 
The Proposed Amendments would result in a slightly 
negative employment impact from about 2022 to 2050. 
CARB staff expects the change in employment growth 
due to the Proposed Amendments would represent no more than 0.01 percent of baseline California employ-
ment. CARB staff’s analysis predicts that as the re-
quirements of the Proposed Amendments would go into 
effect, affected sectors would experience increases in production costs and hence decreases in employment 
growth. This includes the truck transportation, con-
struction, and manufacturing sectors and upstream in-
dustries. The largest decrease in employment growth 
would manifest in the retail and wholesale trade sector, 
which is estimated to realize an increase in production 
costs due to the increased heavy−duty truck prices driv-
en by the Proposed Amendments. 
(B) The creation of new businesses or the elimination 
of existing businesses within the state. 
The trend of increasing production costs for the truck 
transportation industry has the potential to 
result in a 
contraction or decrease in business in this industry if 
sustained  over time. On the other hand, the projected in-
crease in demand for automotive repair and services, motor vehicle parts manufacturing, and vehicle manu-
facturing resulting from the proposed HD Omnibus 
Regulation has the potential to result in an increase in 
growth for businesses in those industries if maintained 
for a long duration. 
(C) The competitive advantages or disadvantages for 
businesses currently doing business within the 
state. 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation would im-
pose new emissions requirements on heavy−duty en-
gine manufacturers. These manufacturers are head-
quartered  and produce engines entirely outside of Cali-
fornia for a national and international market. The costs 
for meeting the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation 
would increase costs to California fleets through an in-
crease in new heavy−duty vehicle prices to truck buyers. The expected percent increases in vehicle’s  up-
front cost range between 0.5 and 10.4 percent and would be  partially offset by savings starting in 2032. 
Because U.S. EPA is concurrently working on a pro-
posal to lower federal emission standards for the same 
engines af fected by the proposed HD Omnibus Regula-
tion, U.S. EPA’s Cleaner Trucks Initiative, it is not cer-
tain how much stricter the California standards will 
likely be  compared to the federal standards. It is also not 
clear how the model year applicability would line up be-
tween the two programs. However, due to federal lead 
time requirements, it seems certain that California stan-
dards would be stricter than the federal standards for the 
model years 2024 through 2026. That means that at 
least for some model years, California would have 
slightly higher truck prices (potentially 0.5 to 3.0 per-
cent higher) than in other states. This difference in Cali-
fornia  truck prices could affect heavy−duty truck fleets 
and heavy−duty truck dealers. 
939  
 
 
 
   
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
For heavy−duty truck fleets, in years when California 
emission standards are stricter than federal emission 
standards, fleets that buy trucks predominantly in Cali-fornia could be at a small competitive disadvantage ver-
sus fleets that buy trucks elsewhere. California fleets may react by trying to minimize the competitive disad-vantage by holding onto old trucks slightly longer, pur-
chasing used trucks, or purchasing out−of−state trucks. However, staff believes the impact of the proposed HD 
Omnibus Regulation would be mitigated by several fac-
tors. First, used trucks and engines must comply with CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation to legally operate and be registered with the California Department of Motor V ehicles (DMV). The Truck and Bus regulatory 
requirements, which are designed to reduce NOx and 
PM emissions, will mean it is illegal to register many 
older used trucks in California. 
Second, purchases of new out−of−state trucks are for-
bidden as well. Vehicles with less than 7,500 miles on the odometer are considered new and may not legally be purchased by California fleets for operation in Califor-
nia or registered with California DMV . Any new vehi-cle submitted for California registration will be re-quired to comply with California emissions regulations. 
Under the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation, it is 
likely that there would be some financial incentive for fleets to purchase new vehicles outside of California and bring them in for registration when they no longer 
qualify as a “new vehicle” (i.e., after they have over 
7,500 miles on the odometer). How strong the financial 
incentive is for the fleets depends on the location of the 
fleet’s headquarters, shipping fees, the inconvenience of accumulating the necessary 7,500 miles for a vehicle 
to no longer be considered “new,” and whether the prices of heavy−duty vehicles and engines in neighbor-
ing states significantly differ in response to the change of vehicle and engine prices in California. 
Finally, some companies that operate trucking fleets 
may choose to relocate outside of California in order to avoid the regulatory costs, in instances that would be lo-
gistically and financially feasible for them. 
In addition to fleets, the proposed HD Omnibus Reg-
ulation would impact California truck dealers as well. Because of the impact on fleets described above, overall 
new heavy−duty vehicle sales in California may de-crease slightly versus what they would have been with-out the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation and sales outside California may increase slightly. Hence, Cali-fornia truck dealers could be at a small competitive dis-
advantage versus out−of−state dealers. However, as noted above, out−of−state sales by California fleets would be somewhat limited both by CARB’s Truck and 
Bus Regulation and by the ban on bringing new vehicles 
in from out−of−state. In addition, any competitive dis-advantage for California dealers would only exist to the extent California emission standards are stricter than 
federal emission standards. It is not certain how much 
stricter the California standards would be compared to 
the federal standards, nor for precisely which model 
years California standards would be dif ferent. 
Staff has thus concluded it is not possible to precisely 
quantify impacts on California competitiveness. CARB 
staff was unable to obtain complete information on business level responses to regulatory costs due to the 
highly competitive nature of the Truck Transportation 
Industry. In addition, CARB staff searched the litera-
ture and concluded that empirical research focusing on 
the impact of regulatory costs on heavy−duty vehicle 
and engine prices does not exist. A number of studies 
have explored the relationship between general cost in-
creases and the likelihood of out−of−state or used truck 
and engine purchases. These studies found that there is 
a very wide range of estimates for how increased costs 
may impact purchasing behavior that the estimates are 
highly uncertain, and that these responses may change 
markedly in the span of only several years due to the dy-
namics of industry, and modern global economics. 
(D) The increase or decrease of investment in the state. 
Private  domestic investment consists of purchases of 
residential and nonresidential structures and of equip-ment and software by private businesses and nonprofit 
institutions. It is used as a proxy for impacts on invest-
ments in California because it provides an indicator of 
the future productive capacity of the economy. 
The relative changes to growth in private investment 
due to the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation are esti-
mated to result in a decrease of private investment of 
about $38 million in 2028 and by $48 million in 2050. 
Decreases in private investment are expected to be no 
more than 0.02 percent of baseline investment in any 
year. 
(E) The incentives for innovation in products, 
materials, or  processes. 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation contains sev-
eral elements that encourage innovation. The warranty, 
useful life, and EWIR amendments would incentivize 
production of more durable engine add−ons, parts, and 
systems. Engines operating with more durable parts would need less scheduled replacements and potential-
ly could result in overall lower maintenance require-ments with resulting savings. Manufacturing engines 
with more durable parts (or parts replaced less frequent-
ly) would result in generally more reliable operation, 
which would represent a positive externality resulting 
from the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation. 
The proposed low−load cycle and more rigorous 
durability testing, and the option to transmit “real− 
time” data via telematics in lieu of some durability test-
ing would provide CARB staff additional assurances 
940  
 
 
 
  
 
  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
that the engine’s emission control technologies are ef-
fective and durable throughout the useful life of the en-gine. At the same time, they would help manufacturers 
better identify problems and take more immediate cor-
rective action to improve their emission control sys-tems. These more thorough testing techniques would 
help accelerate innovation and allow manufacturers to 
better optimize emission control systems, which could also eventually help reduce manufacturer costs associ-
ated with corrective action and recalls. All in all, the 
Proposed Amendments would support improved emis-sion control technology performance while at the same 
time encourage innovation by manufacturers to meet the more stringent standards. 
(F) The benefits of the regulations, including, but not 
limited to, benefits to the health, safety, and 
welfare of California residents, worker safety, and 
the state’s environment and quality of life, among 
any other benefits identified by the agency. 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation is expected to 
achieve a reduction of 23.2 tpd of NOx by 2031, which is a key year in meeting the commitments called for in 
California’s SIP. The proposed HD Omnibus Regula-tion is expected to reduce NOx emissions by approxi-
mately 353,000 tons statewide between the years 2022 
through 2050, and is expected to prevent nearly 3,900 deaths, as well as more than 1,300 hospitalizations and 
1,800 emergency room visits. These health benefits equate to $36.8 billion in expected monetized benefits from the Proposed Amendments, largely stemming 
from avoided premature mortality. 
The proposed HD Omnibus Regulation would also 
result in benefits to businesses and the State of Califor-
nia as a whole, as summarized here and discussed in de-
tail in the ISOR, Chapter V . 
(G) Department of Finance SRIA Comments and 
Responses. 
DOF Comments: Finance generally concurs with 
the methodology used to estimate impacts of the pro-
posed regulations, with two exceptions. 
1. While we appreciate the discussion on the 
interactions of the proposed regulations with other 
proposed regulations, the main impact analysis 
must be done relative to the legal baseline, which 
only accounts for existing regulations. The SRIA must incorporate a comprehensive discussion of 
impacts relative to the legal baseline, done in level 
of details similar to the current analysis which 
includes the proposed clean truck regulations as 
part of the baseline. 
2. The SRIA must discuss the disparate impacts of 
the regulations on businesses and individuals. This 
should be done by clearly describing the number and concentration of affected entities by region, 
business and fleet size, and industry, and by 
expanding the cost analysis from the up to $9,000 
cost per truck to cost per affected entity. In 
addition, given the existence of concurrent 
heavy−duty truck regulations, the additional ef fect 
of these proposed regulations might be particularly burdensome for small businesses and 
select industries. On the benefits side, health 
effects from improved air quality will vary based on differences in initial air quality across regions and among dif ferent socioeconomic groups. 
Responses: 
1. CARB staff’s original SRIA analysis submitted to 
DOF included the proposed ACT Regulation in 
the baseline calculations because both the proposed ACT Regulation and the Proposed 
Amendments affect the same manufacturers and 
vehicle categories in approximately the same timeframe. This was done to provide results that are more informative and likely to reflect the real 
impacts of the Proposed Amendments. However, 
to address DOF’s Comment 1, CARB staff has reanalyzed the impacts relative to the legal 
baseline which includes all existing laws and 
regulations. This revised analysis to compare with 
the original SRIA analysis is provided in the attachment to this Notice. 
2. CARB staff has added information to respond to DOF’s Comment 2 that discusses the impacts of 
the Proposed Amendments by air basin and 
California fleets. All of the af fected manufacturers 
are located outside of California so staff assumed that the direct cost impact on these manufacturers 
would be passed on to California fleets that 
purchase California−certified vehicles. The highest proportion of affected fleets would be 
registered in the South Coast, San Joaquin V alley, 
and San Francisco Bay Area air basins. More 
detailed information is included in the attachment to this Notice. 
BUSINESS REPORT 
(Gov. Code, §§ 11346.5, subd. (a)(11); 
11346.3, subd. (d)) 
In accordance with Government Code sections 
11346.5, subdivisions (a)(11) an d 11346.3, subdivision 
(d), the Executive Officer finds the reporting require-ments of the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation which apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, 
and welfare of the people of the State of California. 
941  
 
 
  
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE 
PRIV ATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(9)) 
In developing this proposed HD Omnibus Regula-
tion, CARB staff evaluated the potential economic im -
pacts on representative private persons or businesses. 
CARB is not aware of any cost impacts that a represen-
tative private person or business would necessarily in-cur in reasonable compliance with the Proposed Amendments. 
There are no direct costs on individuals as a result of 
the Proposed Amendments. Individuals may see health benefits as described in the ISOR, Chapter V , Section E 
due to the statewide, regional, and local emission bene-
fits of the Proposed Amendments. CARB staff esti-
mates that manufacturers and fleets will see increased costs as a result of this rule and will likely pass the costs 
through to businesses that buy vehicles with affected 
engines in the state. Individuals may see macroeconom-
ic indirect and induced benefits and costs; these costs 
are discussed in the ISOR, Chapter IX, Section E. 
EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS 
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 4, subds. (a) and (b)) 
The Executive Officer has also determined under 
California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 4, that the proposed HD Omnibus Regulation would affect small businesses. 
Based on California DMV 2017 registration data, 
small businesses, defined here as fleets of three or fewer 
medium− and heavy−duty vehicles (GVWR >10,000 
pounds), represent 52 percent of the affected vehicle population due to the proposed HD Omnibus 
Regulation. 
Similar to typical fleets, the actual cost impact on 
small fleets would depend on the number of new Cali-fornia−certified vehicles that fleets would purchase 
during the lifetime of this cost analysis. For a small fleet 
that would buy one new medium heavy−duty diesel ve-
hicle with a 2024, 2027, or 2031 engine model year, the increase in net lifetime costs of ownership is estimated 
to be $2,839, $5,317, or $5,814, respectively. 
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(13)) 
Before taking final action on the proposed HD Om-
nibus Regulation, the Board must determine that no rea-
sonable alternative considered by the Board, or that has 
otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of 
the Board, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private per-
sons than the proposed action, or would be more cost− 
effective to affected private persons and equally effec-tive in implementing the statutory policy or other provi-
sions of law. 
The analysis of such alternatives can be found in 
Chapter X of the ISOR for the proposed alternatives. Staff has discussed two alternative concepts in the 
ISOR, including accelerated timeline and voluntary na-
tional program. No alternative proposed was found to 
be less burdensome and equally effective in achieving the purposes of the regulation in a manner that ensures 
full compliance with the authorizing law. The Board has 
not identified any reasonable alternatives that would 
lessen any adverse impact on small business. 
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION 
If adopted by CARB, CARB plans to submit the pro-
posed HD Omnibus Regulation to U.S. EPA for ap-
proval as a revision to the SIP required by the federal 
Clean Air Act (CAA). The adopted HD Omnibus Regu-
lation would be submitted as a SIP revision because it adopts regulations intended to reduce emissions of air 
pollutants in order to attain and maintain the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated by U.S. EPA pursuant to CAA. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 
CARB’s regulatory program, which involves the 
adoption, approval, amendment, or repeal of standards, 
rules, regulations, or plans for the protection and en-
hancement of the state’s ambient air quality, has been 
certified by the California Secretary for Natural Re-sources under Public Resources Code section 21080.5 
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 
(14 CCR 15251(d)). Public agencies with certified reg-ulatory programs are exempt from certain CEQA re-quirements, including but not limited to, preparing en -
vironmental impact reports, negative declarations, and initial studies. Instead, CARB, as a lead agency, pre-pares a substitute environmental document (referred to 
as an “Environmental Analysis” or “EA”) as part of the 
Staff Report to comply with CEQA (17 CCR 
60000−60008). 
Because the Proposed Amendments implement two 
measures within CARB’s Revised Proposed 2016 State 
Strategy for the SIP, “Low−NOx Engine Standard” and 
“Lower In−Use Emission Performance Level,” the en-vironmental impact of the Proposed Amendments were 
already examined as part of the EA for that Plan. The re-
port is entitled: Final Environmental Analysis for the Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Im-
plementation Plan, or Final EA. The Final EA conclud-
942  
  
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
ed that implementation of the SIP measures could result 
in short−term and long−term beneficial impacts to air 
quality, energy demand, and greenhouse gases. It fur-ther concluded that the proposed measures would result 
in less−than−significant impacts to: energy demand, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and plan-ning, mineral resources, population and housing, public 
services, and recreational services. The Final EA also 
concluded that there could be potentially significant 
and unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, agricul-ture and forest resources, air quality, biological re-sources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards 
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, 
noise, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. 
Staff has determined that no additional environmen-
tal review is required for the current Proposed Amend-ments because there are no changes proposed to the originally approved project that involve new significant 
environmental ef fects or a substantial increase in sever-
ity of previously identified significant effects than pre-viously identified in the prior Final EA for the 2016 SIP. 
The basis for reaching this conclusion is provided in 
Chapter VII of the ISOR report. 
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION REQUEST 
Consistent with California Government Code Sec-
tion 7296.2, special accommodation or language needs 
may be provided for any of the following: 
 An interpreter to be available at the hearing; 
 Documents made available in an alternate format 
or another language; and 
 A disability−related reasonable accommodation. 
To request these special accommodations or lan-
guage needs, please contact the Clerks’ Office at (916) 
322−5594 
or by facsimile at (916) 322−3928 as soon as 
possible, but no later 
than 10 business 
days before 
the 
scheduled Board hearing. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech 
users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service. 
Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de 
Gobierno de 
California, una acomodaci ón especial o 
necesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para 
cualquiera de l os siguientes: 

Un intérprete que esté disponible en la audiencia; 
Documentos disponibles en un formato alterno u 
otro idioma;  y 
Una acomodación razonable relacionados con una 
incapacidad. 
Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesi-
dades de otro idioma, 
por favor llame a la oficina del 
Consejo al (916) 322−5594 o envié un fax a (916) 
322−3928 lo más pronto posible, pero no menos de 10 días de trabajo antes del día programado para la audien-
cia del Consejo. TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este 
servicio 
pueden marcar 
el 711 para el Servicio de Re-
transmisión de Mensajes de California. 
AGENCY CONT ACT PERSONS 
Inquiries concerning the 
substance of the proposed 
regulatory action may be directed to the agency repre-
sentative Daniel Hawelti, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, 
On−Road Heavy Duty 
Diesel Section, at (626) 
450−6149 or  (designated back−up contact) Paul Ad-
nani, Staf f Air Pollution Specialist, at (626) 459−4476. 
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS 
CARB
 staf
f has prepared a Staff Report (the Initial 
Statement of Reasons, or ISOR) for the proposed regu-
latory action, which includes 
a summary of the econom-
ic and environmental impacts of the proposal. The re-
port is entitled: Staff Report: Initial Statement of Rea-
sons — Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed 
Heavy−Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation 
and Associated Amendments. 
Copies of the ISOR and the full text of the propo
sed 
regulatory language, may be accessed on CARB’s web-
site listed belo w
, or may be obtained from the Public In -
formation Office,  California  Air Resources Board, 
1001 
I Street, Visitors  and Environmental Services 
Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814, on 
June 23, 2020. 
Because of current travel, facilit y, and 
staf
fing restrictions, the 
California Air Resources 
Board’s offices may have limited public access. Please 
contact Chris Hopkins, 
Regulations Coordinator,  at 
chris.hopkins@arb.ca.gov  or (916) 445−9564 if you 
need physical copies of the documents. 
Further,  the agency 
representative to whom non− 
substantive inquiries concerning the proposed adminis-
trative action may be directed to Chris Hopkins, Regu-
lations Coordinator, 
(916) 445−9564. The Board staff 
has compiled a record for this rulemaking action, which 
includes all the information upon which the 
proposal is 
based. This material is available for inspection upon re-
quest to the contact persons. 
HEARING PROCEDURES 
The 
public hearing will be conducted in accordance 
with the California Administrative Procedure Act, 
Government Code, title 2, division 3, part 1, chapter 3.5 
(commencing with section 1 1340). 
Following the public hearing, the Board may take ac-
tion to approve for adoption the regulatory language as 
originally proposed, or with non−substantial or gram-
matical modifications. The Board may also approve for 
943  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
adoption the proposed regulatory language with other 
modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently re-
lated to the originally proposed text that the public was 
adequately placed on notice and that the regulatory lan-
guage as modified could result from the proposed regu-latory action. If this occurs, the full regulatory text, with 
the modifications clearly indicated, will be made avail-
able to the public, for written comment, at least 15 days 
before final adoption. 
The public may request a copy of the modified regu-
latory text from CARB’ s Public Information Office, Air 
Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and Environ-mental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, 95814. 
FINAL STATEMENT OF 
REASONS A V AILABILITY 
Upon its completion, the Final Statement of Reasons 
(FSOR) will be available and copies may be requested from the agency contact persons in this notice, or may be accessed on CARB’s website listed below. 
INTERNET ACCESS 
This notice, the ISOR and all subsequent regulatory 
documents, including the FSOR, when completed, are available on CARB’s website for this rulemaking at 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/ hdomnibus-
lowNOx 
Attachment to Public Notice 
[Because of ADA Website Compliance Require-
ments, OAL is unable to publish the various tables re-ferred to below in the Notice Register. Please refer to the 
note below entitled “Proposed Heavy−Duty Omnibus 
Regulation T ables in Attachment” for the location of 
the tables referenced in this “Attachment to Public No-tice.”] 
Responses to DOF’s Comments on SRIA 
DOF Comment 1: While we appreciate the discus-
sion on the interactions of the proposed regulations with 
other proposed regulations, the main impact analysis must be done relative to the legal baseline, which only accounts for existing regulations. The SRIA must in-
corporate a comprehensive discussion of impacts rela-
tive to the legal baseline, done in level of details similar 
to the current analysis which includes the proposed clean truck regulations as part of the baseline. The response to DOF’s Comment 1 is provided below 
in Section I, SRIA Analysis based on Legal Baseline, which provides a cost and benefit impact analysis based 
on the legal baseline and done in a level of detail similar 
to that in the SRIA. In Section II, Impact of the Regula-
tion on Affected Businesses, further relevant informa-tion concerning the lifetime cost and savings impact versus the legal baseline on vehicles of various model 
years is presented as well. 
DOF Comment 2: The SRIA must discuss the dis-
parate impacts of the regulations on businesses and in-
dividuals. This should be done by clearly describing the 
number and concentration of affected entities by re-gion, business and fleet size, and industry, and by ex-panding the cost analysis from the up to $9,000 cost per 
truck to cost per af fected entity. 
The response to DOF’s Comment 2 is provided below 
in Section II, Impact of the Regulation on Affected Businesses. 
I. SRIA Analysis based on Legal Baseline 
In the SRIA, cost and benefit impacts were evaluated 
against the baseline scenario for the analysis period from 2022 through 2032. The baseline vehicle invento-
ry includes the vehicle sales and population growth as-sumptions currently reflected in CARB’s EMFAC emissions inventory model for combustion engines that 
are certified and intended for use in vehicles greater 
than 10,000 pounds GVWR and is the “legal baseline” 
for the Proposed Amendments. The current EMFAC model reflects implementation of currently existing state and federal laws and regulations including the 
Truck and Bus Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation, 
idling restrictions and the Certified Clean Idle Regula-tion, Phases 1 and 2 GHG Regulation, ICT Regulation, 
and the Optional Low NOx Program. However, staff modified the legal baseline to reflect the proposed ACT 
Regulation, which would affect the same manufactur-ers and vehicle categories as the Proposed Amend-
ments, and which would be implemented in approxi-
mately the same timeframe as the Proposed Amend-ments. The modified legal baseline was referred to as the “modeled baseline.” CARB staff included the pro-
posed ACT Regulation in the “modeled baseline” to al-
low for a more realistic analysis, as excluding it would 
have increased the apparent benefits and costs and de-
crease cost−effectiveness assigned to the Proposed 
Amendments. Including the proposed ACT Regulation in the modeled baseline provides results that are more informative and likely to reflect the real impacts of the 
Proposed Amendments. To address DOF’s comment that “the SRIA must incorporate a comprehensive dis-cussion of impacts relative to the legal baseline”; dis-cussed below is a cost and benefit impact analysis based 
944  CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
on the legal baseline and done in a level of detail similar 
to that in the SRIA. (Note: The Proposed Amendments 
for which the cost and benefit impact analysis are pre-sented below are for the Proposed Amendments as de-
scribed in T ables A−2 to A−4 in the originally submitted 
SRIA. The stringency levels and other requirements 
differ in some ways compared to the Proposed Amend-ments discussed in the Staff Report. The dif ferences be-
tween the Proposed Amendments in the originally sub-
mitted SRIA and the Proposed Amendments in the Staff 
Report are described in the Staff Report, Chapter IX. All cost and benefit impact analyses’ methodologies re-
main the same as in the originally submitted SRIA.) 
1. Benefits 
a. Emission Benefits 
The Proposed Amendments are designed to reduce 
NOx emissions from medium− and heavy−duty engines 
in vehicles with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds by establishing more stringent emission standards and up-dating durability testing procedures, in−use testing pro-
cedures, warranty and useful life periods, as well as emission warranty information reporting. Table 1 shows the projected statewide NOx emission benefits for each calendar year 2022 through 2032. In 2031, 
NOx emission benefits are estimated to be approxi-
mately 25.7 tons per day statewide relative to the legal baseline. This table can be compared to Table B−1 in the 
SRIA, which by comparison, shows a 21.9 tons per day 
NOx benefit in 2031 relative to the modeled baseline. 
Table 1: Projected Statewide NOx Emission 
Benefits from the Proposed Amendments for 2022 
through 2032 Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
b. Health Benefits 
The Proposed Amendments would result in health 
benefits for individuals in California through reducing NOx emissions. The value of these health benefits is due to fewer instances of premature mortality, fewer 
hospital and emer gency room visits, and fewer lost days 
of work. Table 2 shows the estimated avoided prema-
ture mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room 
visits as a result of the Proposed Amendments for 2022 
through 2032 by California air basin, relative to the le-
gal baseline. Table 3 shows the annually estimated statewide−avoided premature mortality, hospitaliza-
tion, and emergency room visits relative to the legal baseline. Table 4 shows statewide valuation of health benefits for 2022 through 2032 relative to the legal baseline. Table 2: Regional and Statewide Avoided 
Mortality and Morbidity Incidents from 2022 
through 2032 under the Proposed Amendments 
Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 3: Annual Statewide Avoided Mortality and 
Morbidity Incidents under the Proposed 
Amendments Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 4: Statewide Valuation from Avoided Health 
Outcomes under the Proposed Amendments 
Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
c. Cost Savings 
Although overall the Proposed Amendments would 
increase vehicle prices and DEF consumption and thereby impose costs on vehicle owners, the Proposed 
Amendments would provide savings to the vehicle 
owners as well through the proposed lengthened war-ranty periods, lengthened useful life periods, and EWIR. Table 5 shows estimates of the average lifetime 
savings per vehicle due to the Proposed Amendments for vehicle purchases made between 2022 and 2032. Vehicles purchased in 2022−2026 would only incur EWIR savings as the proposed warranty amendment 
would not be in ef fect until the 2027 engine model year. 
Vehicles purchased in 2027 and later would incur both 
EWIR and warranty savings. Lifetime savings esti-
mates include savings from warranty and the EWIR 
amendments. The longer useful life would encourage development of more durable components; however, it 
is not possible to determine how many fewer repairs 
would result from the improved durability; hence, staff 
did not quantify savings from longer useful life. 
Table 5: Lifetime Savings to Vehicle Owners from 
a Vehicle Purchased in 2022−2032 (2018$ Per 
Vehicle) Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
2. Costs 
The Proposed Amendments would require engine 
manufacturers to produce lower−emitting medium− and heavy−duty combustion engines, which would in-
crease upfront production and operational costs, com-pared to preexisting engines. These costs would likely 
945   
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
be passed on to the engine/vehicle operators (i.e., 
medium− and heavy−duty fleets). 
a. Direct Cost 
Table 6 summarizes the total statewide cost on Cali-
fornia businesses due to the Proposed Amendments by 
each proposed amendment from 2022 to 2032. All costs 
are evaluated relative to the legal baseline scenario in 2018 dollars. As shown, the total cost impact from 2022 
to 2032 was estimated at approximately $1.15 billion. 
The estimated incremental cost per truck by truck class for the 2025 and 2028 model years is shown in Table 7. 
Table 6: Projected Statewide Costs under the 
Proposed Amendments from 2022 through 2032 
Relative to the Legal Baseline (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 7: Estimated Incremental Cost Per Truck by 
Truck Class for 2025 and 2028 for the Proposed 
Amendments Relative to the Legal Baseline 
(2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
b. Macroeconomic 
For the legal baseline scenario, the Macroeconomic 
analysis utilized the updated cost and benefit figures provided in Table 4, 5, and 6. This Macroeconomic analysis utilized the same methodology and REMI ver-
sion as described in the original SRIA. The results of 
this analysis show similar positive output and employ-ment gains for Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (3363) and Vehicle Repair and Maintenance (8111). 
However, across other industries and sectors, the results 
of this analysis show negative trends and growth as a re-
sult of the Proposed Amendments (see Table 8). Many 
sectors such as Gross State Product (GSP), output, and 
employment show a reduction of negative impacts to neutral impacts in year 2032, which is due to the in-creased savings for industry generated at this year of the 
implementation of the Proposed Amendments and em-
ployment gains in the Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 
Industry (8111). Table 8: Summary of Macroeconomic Impact of 
the Proposed Amendments from 2022 through 
2032 Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
3. Fiscal Impact 
a. Local Government 
The Proposed Amendments are expected to have a 
fiscal impact on local government fleets who would purchase California−certified vehicles. Local govern-ment would also have increased sales tax revenue 
through the increased cost of the new vehicles. Table 9 
shows the estimated fiscal impact to local government 
due to the Proposed Amendments relative to the legal baseline. 
Table 9: Fiscal Impact on Local Government 
under the Proposed Amendments Relative to the 
Legal Baseline (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
b. State Go vernment 
The Proposed Amendments are expected to have a 
fiscal impact on state government agencies from pur-chasing the California−certified vehicles, increased 
sales tax revenue, and CARB staffing required to coor-
dinate and enforce the Proposed Amendments with en-gine manufacturers. Table 10 shows the estimated fiscal 
impact to state government due to the Proposed 
Amendments relative to the legal baseline. 
Table 10: Fiscal Impact on State Government 
under the Proposed Amendments Relative to the 
Legal Baseline (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
4. Alternatives 
a. Alternative 1: 
Alternative 1 would have the same elements con-
tained in staff’s Proposed Amendments but would be 
implemented on an earlier timeline than the schedule outlined in staff’s proposal. 
Table 11 summarizes the total statewide cost on Cali-
fornia businesses due to Alternative 1 by each proposed 
amendment from 2022 through 2032. All costs are eval-
uated relative to the legal baseline scenario in 2018 dol-
lars. As shown, the total cost impact from 2022 to 2032 
was estimated at approximately $1.28 billion. 
946  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
Table 11: Projected Statewide Costs under 
Alternative 1 from 2022 through 2032 Relative to 
the Legal Baseline (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 12 presents emission benefits for Alternative 1. 
The accelerated implementation schedule would pro-
vide additional NOx benefits as compared to the Pro-
posed Amendments. T able 13 presents valuation of the 
health benefits resulting from Alternative 1. Table 14 
presents the change in growth of economic indicators for Alternative 1. 
Table 12: NOx Benefits with Alternative 1 Relative 
to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 13: Valuation of Statewide Health Benefits 
for Alternative 1 Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 14: Change in Growth of 
Economic Indicators for Alternative 1 
Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Although Alternative 1 would achieve greater NOx 
reductions sooner, the accelerated schedule of Alterna-
tive 1 would not provide enough lead time for the devel-
opment of the interim engines in 2022 and the low NOx 
engines in 2024. Without sufficient time for engine 
manufacturers to conduct research, development, and 
durability testing, products will not be able to meet the 
stringent criteria. Manufacturers have identified that 
five to six years of lead time would be required for full 
product development, from proof of concept to produc-
tion product. The Proposed Amendments provide man-ufacturers with necessary lead time for engineering de-velopment for the changes required in 2024 and the more significant changes needed in 2027 (i.e., cylinder 
deactivation and light−off SCR). Because Alternative 1 
did not provide the necessary lead time for engineering development, it was rejected. 
b. Alternative 2: 
Under Alternative 2, engine manufacturers would 
volunteer to nationally certify to a NOx standard that would be less stringent than the standard in the Pro-posed Amendments. Table 15 summarizes the total statewide cost on Cali-
fornia businesses due to Alternative 2 by each proposed 
amendment from 2022 through 2032. All costs are eval-
uated relative to the legal baseline scenario in 2018 dol-
lars. As shown, the total cost impact from 2022 to 2032 
was estimated at approximately $0.20 billion. 
Table 15: Projected Statewide Costs under 
Alternative 2 from 2022 through 2032 Relative to 
the Legal Baseline (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 16 presents emission benefits for Alternative 2. 
Table 17 presents valuation of the health benefits result-
ing from Alternative 2. Table 18 presents the change in 
growth of economic indicators for Alternative 2. 
Table 16: NOx Benefits with Alternative 2 Relative 
to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 17: Valuation of Statewide Health Benefits 
for Alternative 2 Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 18: Change in Growth of 
Economic Indicators for Alternative 2 
Relative to the Legal Baseline 
[Table — Removed] 
Although Alternative 2 would be more cost−ef fective 
than the Proposed Amendments, it was rejected for not 
achieving the NOx emission reductions needed to 
achieve California’s air quality goals. Alternative 2 pro-
vides less health benefits for Californians, and EMA’s proposal to include reductions from a voluntary nation-
al standard for out−of−state trucks operating in Califor-nia could not be enforced since California does not have 
the authority over engines sold outside of California. To 
ensure engines outside of California meet the proposed Alternative 2 standards, the engine manufacturers 
would need to develop a legally binding agreement. The 
enforceability of such an agreement is unclear. It is also 
unclear if U.S. EPA could enforce a voluntary national 
program agreement without a new rulemaking. For all the reasons described above, and most importantly be-
cause it is not clear how EMA’s pr oposal for a voluntary 
national standard could be enforced in California, Al-ternative 2 was rejected. 
947  
  
 
  
 
  
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
II. Impact of the Regulation on 
Affected Businesses 
CARB staff has added information in response to 
DOF’s request that, “the SRIA must discuss the dis-
parate impacts of the regulations on businesses and in-
dividuals. This should be done by clearly describing the 
number and concentration of affected entities by re-
gion, business and fleet size, and industry, and by ex-panding the cost analysis from the up to $9,000 cost per 
truck to cost per affected entity.” Detailed information on impacted businesses is discussed further below. 
Medium− and heavy−duty engine/vehicle manufac-
turers (NAICS 3363 and 3361) would be the regulated 
entities under the Proposed Amendments. Staff esti-
mated the number of impacted engine/vehicle manu-facturers based on CARB’s certification data, which in-
dicated that there are 31 medium− and heavy−duty en-
gine and vehicle manufacturers certifying their new en -
gines and vehicles with CARB, among which there are 
10 small businesses (or 32 percent). 
Since all of these manufacturers are located outside 
of California,
1 staff assumes the direct cost impact on 
these manufacturers would be passed on to California fleets (Truck Transportation — NAICS 484) that pur-
chase California−certified vehicles. Staff estimated the 
number of impacted California fleets using 2017 DMV 
registration data, which indicated that there are 290,775 
fleets (GVWR >10,000 pounds, including owner oper-
ators) registered in California, among which there are 
267,718 small businesses (or 92 percent). Table 19 shows the number of affected fleets and fleet distribu-
tion by California air basin.
2 As Table 19 shows, the 
highest proportion of affected fleets would be regis-
tered in the South Coast air basin, with the next highest portion in San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco Bay 
Area. 
Table 19: Number of Medium− and Heavy−Duty 
California Fleets Impacted by the Proposed 
Amendments by Air Basin 
[Table — Removed] 
The actual cost impact on fleets would depend on the 
number of new California−certified vehicles that fleets 
would purchase during the lifetime of the analysis. 
However, there is insuf ficient data to estimate the actual 
number of new vehicles each fleet would purchase per 
1 All the affected engine manufacturers are located outside Cali-
fornia. However, a number of heavy−duty ZEV manufacturers 
who could generate credits under the Proposed Amendments are located in California. 
2 A map of California air basins is available on CARB’s website 
at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/2017statemap/abmap.htm . year, given that purchasing habits of each particular 
fleet is difficult to predict. Due to this data limitation, 
the average annual cost per impacted business was esti-
mated by dividing the annual statewide costs by the 
number of impacted California fleets regardless of fleet 
size. T able 20 and 21 (which correspond to T able C−46 
and C−47 in the SRIA) show examples of lifetime cost 
and savings impacts on fleets per each vehicle purchase 
in 2025 and 2028. Table 22 summarizes the estimated 
average annual cost per impacted fleet from 2022 to 2032. The average annual cost for an impacted business 
(small or typical business) would range from $60 to 
$592 within the considered regulation’s lifetime of 11 
years, with the highest cost in 2032. 
Table 20: Lifetime Cost and Savings Impact on a 
2025 MY Vehicle Purchased under the Proposed 
Amendments (Relative to Legal Baseline) (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 21: Lifetime Cost and Savings Impact on a 
2028 MY Vehicle Purchased under the Proposed 
Amendments (Relative to Legal Baseline) (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Table 22: Average Annual Incremental Cost per 
Impacted California Fleet from 2022 to 2032 
under the Proposed Amendments 
(Relative to Legal Baseline) (2018$) 
[Table — Removed] 
Proposed Heavy−Duty Omnibus Regulation 
Tables in Notice vs Tables in ISOR 
Note:  This document explains the location of where 
the tables in the Notice can be found in the ISOR. The Notice table’s location and title is followed by the ISOR 
table’s location and title directly below. Please note that 
the Notice Page numbers refer to the Board’s 8 1/2 x 11 
issued Notice, not the pages in the Notice Register. 
Notice page 8: Table 1. Proposed Heavy−Duty Diesel− 
and Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards (Model Year 2024 to 2026). 
ISOR page ES−8: Table ES−1. Proposed Heavy−Duty 
Diesel− and Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards (MY 
2024 to 2026) 
Notice page 8:  Table 2. Proposed Heavy−Duty Diesel− 
and Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards (Model Year 2027 and Subsequent) 
948   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2020, VOLUME NUMBER 26-Z 
ISOR page III−8: Table III 3. Proposed Heavy−Duty 
Diesel− and Otto−Cycle Engine NOx Standards for 
2027 and Subsequent 
Notice page 9:   Table 3. Current and Proposed Useful 
Life Periods 
ISOR page III−57: Table III−14.  Current and 
Proposed Heavy−Duty Useful Life Periods 
Notice page 10: Table 4. Current and Proposed 
Warranty Periods 
ISOR page III−44: Table III−10.  Current and 
Proposed Heavy−Duty Diesel W arranty Periods 
Notice page 13: Table 5. Projected NOx Emission Benefits from the Proposed Amendments (tpd) 
ISOR page V−3:  Table V−1.  Projected NOx Emission 
Benefits from the Proposed Amendments Statewide and for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins 
Notice page 14:  Table 6. Projected Cost Impact of the 
Proposed Amendments to Manufacturers 
ISOR page ES−14: Table ES−5. Projected Cost Impact 
of the Proposed Amendments to Manufacturers 
(2018$) 
Notice page 14:  Table 7. Net Cost Impact of a Vehicle 
with Engine Model Year 2031 or Later Under the 
Proposed Amendments (2018$) 
ISOR page ES−16 : Table ES 8. Net Cost Impact of a 
Vehicle with Engine MY 2031 and Subsequent Under 
the Proposed Amendments (2018$) 
Proposed Heavy−Duty Omnibus Regulation 
Tables in Notice Attachment 
Please note that the tables in the Attachment to the 
Notice do not correspond to the tables in the ISOR nor any other tables in the appendices. The Attachment to the Notice is CARB’s response to DOF’s comments on our Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, 
(SRIA),  which is posted on DOF’s website at 
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/ Major_Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/ 
documents/CARB%20SRIA%20Heavy% 
20Duty%20Engine%20Standards.pdf . CARB is re-
quired to respond in the Public Notice to DOF’s com-ments on the SRIA; DOF’s comments are at 
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/ 
Major_Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/ docu-ments/ARB−Low−NOx−SRIA−Finance− Comments−2020.pdf. The SRIA presented an earlier, different proposal 
than that contained in the ISOR.  Hence, the tables in the 
response to the SRIA comments differ from those in the 
ISOR and its appendices. Therefore, the tables in the 
Attachment to the Notice do not match any other tables. 
We suggest that, instead of referring to tables in the 
ISOR, OAL instead refer to the tables in the Notice and 
the Attachment that will be posted on the CARB 
website. 
TITLE 14. BOARD OF FORESTRY 
AND FIRE PROTECTION 
“CAMPING FEE AMENDMENTS, 2020” 
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 
(CCR) Division 1.5, Chapter 9, Subchapter 1, 
Article 2, Section 1401.1 
NATURE OF PROCEEDING 
Notice is hereby given that the California State Board 
of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) is proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest. 
WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD 
Any person, or authorized representative, may sub-
mit written comments relevant to the proposed regula-
tory action to the Board. All written comments must be 
received by the Board of fice via mail, facsimile, e−mail, 
or hand delivery no later than August 10, 2020. 
Written comments shall be submitted to the following 
address: 
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Attn: Eric Hedge 
Regulations Program Manager 
P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244−2460 
Written comments can also be hand delivered to the 
contact person listed in this notice at the following 
address: 
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 
Room 1506−14 
1416 9
thStreet 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Written comments may also be sent to the Board via 
facsimile at the following phone number: (916) 
653−0989. 
Written comments may also be delivered via e−mail 
at the following address: PublicComments@BOF.ca. 
gov. 
949 