Title 13. California Air Resources Board 
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed 
Clean Miles Standard 
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 of the proposed 
Clean Miles S tandard . 
Date: May 20, 2021 
Time: 11:00 A.M. 
Please see the public agenda which will be posted ten days before the May 20, 2021 , 
Board Meeting for any appropriate direction regarding a possible remote -only Board 
Meeting . If the meeting is to be held in person, it will be held at the California Air 
Resources Board, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 
This item will be considered at a meeting of the Board, which will commence at 
11:00  a.m., May 20, 2021, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., on May 21, 2021 . Please 
consult the agenda for the hearing, which will be available at least ten days before May 20, 2021, to determine the day on which this item will be considered. 
Written Comment Period a nd Submitta l of Comments 
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, interested members of the public may present comments orally or in writing during the hearing and may provide comments 
by postal mail or by electronic submittal before the hearing . The public comment period for 
this regulatory action will begin on April 2, 2021. Written comments not submitted during 
the hearing must be submitted on or after April 2, 2021, and received no later than 
May 17, 2021. 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 issues. 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 additional time to consider each comment. The Board also encourages members 
of the public to bring to the attention 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: Clerk s’ Office , California Air Resources Board 
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 
Electronic submittal :  https://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php 
1 Please note that under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.), 
your written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information 
(e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) bec ome part of the public record and can be 
released to the public 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 re view. 
Authority and Reference 
This regulatory action is proposed under the authority granted in Health and Safety Code, sections 39600 , 39601,  38530, 39600, 39601, 39607, and 43000.5; and Public 
Utilities Code section 5450. This action is proposed to imple ment, interpret, and make 
specific these sections, including Public Utilities Code section 5450. This regulatory 
action also references Government Code sections 65301 and 65080; Health and Safety 
Code section 44274.4; Public Utilities Code sections 5360 and 5431; Streets and 
Highways Code sections 890.4 and 891.2; Vehicle Code sections 27908 and 38750; and California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 1961, 1961.3, 1962, and 1962.2. 
Informative Digest of Proposed Action and Policy Statement Overview 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3)) 
Sections Affected :  Proposed adoption to California Code of Regulations, title 13, 
section(s) 2490, 2490.1, 2490.2, 2490.3, 2490.4, and 2490.5 . 
Background and Effect of the Proposed Regulatory Action: 
Although California has made progress with reducing emissions, there is still a long 
road ahead . With transportation emissions continuing to rise despite increases in fuel 
efficiency and decreases in the carbon content of fuel, California will not achieve the 
necessary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to meet mandates for 2030 and beyond without further action, including the regulation proposed in this notice. 
Specifically, CARB’s 2030 Scoping Plan Update identifies that reductions in single-
occupancy vehicle travel are necessary to achieve the statewide emissions target of 40 
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Transitioning the transportation sector to zero -
emission vehicles (ZEVs) and reduci ng vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are critical to 
achieving California’s health protection goals, minimizing air pollution exposure, and 
mitigating climate change impacts, particularly to achieve the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. 
To promote these purposes, Senate Bill 1014 (Skinner, Stats. 2018, ch. 369) —the 
Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program of 2018—directs CARB to adopt and the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC ) to implement the Clean Miles Standard 
(CMS ) program to place environmental requirements on transportation network 
companies ( TNCs ) in California. The proposed CMS regulation is a first -of-its-kind, in -
2 use light -duty fleet rule for reducing emissions in the TNC sector. Electrification 
targets are set using the metric of percent electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT) and 
GHG emission targets are set using the metric of grams of CO 2 per passenger -mile -
traveled (g CO 2/PMT) . The required targets direct TNCs to increase miles driven by 
cleaner vehicles, including zero emission vehicles ( ZEVs ). The GHG emission target 
also encourages a reduction of VMT relative to passenger miles traveled (PMT) 
through strategies such as increasing pooled (or shared) rides and decreasing 
deadhead miles, which are excess miles associated with TNC vehicles d riving without 
passengers. Furthermore, the proposed regulation will support active transport and 
public transit by providing regulatory compliance credits for use with the GHG 
emission target when TNCs facilitate those modes of travel . 
Background 
Innovat ions are emerging in the transportation sector to meet the needs of 
Californians . TNCs provide on -demand rides through a technology -based platform by 
connecting passengers with drivers using their personal or rental vehicles . They are 
well-positioned to help state and local agencies meet air quality and climate goals 
through electrification. In fact, the two largest TNCs in California, Uber and Lyft, have 
already been at the forefront of experimenting with electrification throu gh various 
pilot programs in the U.S. and globally . 
ZEV technology is a good fit for the ride -hailing platform . ZEVs are uniquely suited for 
frequent stop -start driving of ride -hail operations, given the lack of engine start and 
idling emissions, and the technology’s smooth acceleration enhances the driver and rider experience. Not only does more use of ZEVs benefit the environment ; it also 
benefits drivers and the communities those drivers serve. Zero-emission technology in 
a TNC fleet provide s environmen tal benefits, while drivers could benefit economically 
by switching to a ZEV . Even with the current higher purchase cost of ZEVs, lower fuel 
and maintenance costs lead to net savings over the lifetime of the vehicle. 
Additionally, VMT reduction through po oling, reducing deadhead miles and mode 
shifting to active transportation and transit will ensure that TNCs become a more sustainable transportation option , reducing overall emissions. 
Summary of the Proposal 
The proposed regulation is the first in- use, l ight-duty fleet regulation developed by 
the CARB, and the first to address environmental requirements for ride- hailing services 
specifically . The specific requirements proposed in this regulation are two targets, 
including an electrification target in the metric of percent eVMT and a GHG emission 
target in the metric of grams of CO
2 per passenger -mile- traveled (g CO 2/PMT ). 
The electrification and GHG targets start in 2023 at 2 percent eVMT and 252 g 
CO 2/PMT , respectively, and slowly increase in stringency to 90 percent eVMT and 0 g 
CO 2/PMT in 2030. The electrification targets can only be met with electric miles driven 
3 with passengers in the car using a battery electric vehicle (BEV) or a fuel -cell electric 
vehicle (FCEV) . TNCs have a menu of options for reducing their company -wide GHG 
emissions to comply with the annual targets . These include improving fleet -wide fuel 
efficiency, reducing VMT by increasing shared rides, reducing VMT by reducing 
deadhead miles, and earning CO 2 credits by investing in active transportation 
infrastructure, or by providing integrated fare services to connect riders to mass 
transit. The proposed regulation also includes requirements for annual data submittals, 
annual compliance reports, and biennial compliance plans. 
Small TNCs w hose operations result in five million annual VMT or less statewide will be 
exempt from meeting electrification and GHG targets . Small TNCs are not exempt, 
however, from continued annual data submittal s as part of the TNC permit 
requirement . Small TNCs are also exempt from the requirement to submit two -year 
(biennial) plans and annual compliance reports. If a small TNC grows to exceed five 
million VMT in a given calendar year, they will be subject to the requirements 
beginning the following calendar year. 
CARB may also consider other changes to the sections affected, as listed on page two 
of this notice, during the course of this rulemaking process. 
Objectives and Benefits of the Proposed Regulatory Action: 
The proposed regulation will decrease GHG emissions, criteria pollutant emissions, 
such as NO x and PM 2.5, which in turn, will help California meet its climate and air 
quality goals . Given the way that the targets are structured, the proposed regulation 
may also decrease VMT and may support transportation alternatives . In addition to 
emission reductions, the proposed regulation may also increase awareness of ZEVs with more Californians experiencing the technology through ride- hailing trips . 
To comply with this regulation, TNCs may need to work with platfor m drivers to 
enable ZEV adoption, and may require future automated vehicle operators providing 
ride-hailing  service to electrify their fleet. While staff do not know which strategies 
TNCs will use to comply with the regulation, or how the TNC business model may evolve in the future, staff have taken a conservative approach by assuming that drivers , 
particularly low -income individuals, would acquire ZEVs for themselves . This approach 
is conservative, as it is entirely possible that TNCs will decide to make fleet purchases, 
rent vehicles, or otherwise provide vehicles or cost supports to drivers. However, some 
drivers may buy vehicles and although ZEVs have many advantages, they also have costs. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on the drivers, staff developed a cost 
model to derive electrification targets that have a zero net cost to the driver amortized over a year at most, a timeframe in which staff believe makes purchasing  a ZEV 
feasible by the majority of drivers . In general, staff expect higher -mileage TNC drivers 
to switch to ZEVs earlier because they are more likely to see cost benefits from switching sooner than other lower -mileage drivers. Note that under the proposed 
targets —and depending on how TNCs choose to comply with the proposed 
regulation —a large portion of TNC drivers may not need to switch to ZEVs by 2030. 
4 Staff developed cost assumptions as model inputs and the resulting output is the 
percent of vehi cles that would switch to a ZEV with net cost savings after a year to the 
driver. This model methodology leads to the drivers with the highest annual service 
miles and the lowest vehicle fuel efficiency switch ing to a ZEV. Applying the model for 
every year of the regulation , staff derived the electrification target of 90 percent eVMT 
in 2030. Given that a number of TNC vehicles are high mileage, t he electrification 
target alone would require less than half of the TNC vehicles to switch to ZEVs in 
2030. However, for the GHG target, TNCs could comply by fully electrifying the TNC 
fleet, projected to be over 750,000 vehicles in California by 2030. 
Staff also proposes allowing TNCs to use optional GHG credits for actions that 
support transit and active trans portation . This will encourage VMT reduction strategies 
through TNC and mobility provider partnerships rather than eroding transit market 
share, a trend currently occurring in urban areas . It will also help to support 
transportation alternatives, which is important for lower- income residents that do not 
have access to TNC services or cannot afford their own vehicle. 
Cost and Emission Impacts 
To assess cost and emission impacts, CARB staff modeled compliance with the GHG 
target given that it is the more stringent of the two requirements. The GHG target in 
2030 is equivalent to 100 percent eVMT in TNC fleets. This target was used to 
estimate reductions in GHG emissions, criteria emissions including NO x and PM 2.5, and 
health costs for California residents. Cum ulative statewide emission reductions from 
the proposed regulation from 2023–2031 are estimated to be 93.21 tons PM 2.5, 298.03 
tons NO x and 1.81 million metric tons (MMT) CO 2. 
In addi tion, the proposed regulation is estimated to result in a reduction of 0. 36 MMT 
of CO 2 in the year 2030, which represents a 0.39 percent reduction in the light -duty 
fleet for that year. Emission reductions are estimated based on an assumption of 
100 percent eVMT and do not include emission reductions that could come from 
implem enting VMT reduction strategies for compliance with the GHG targets (e.g., 
pooling and deadhead mile reduction) . 
Comparable Federal Regulations: 
No current federal regulations address the same issue as CARB’s proposed 
greenhouse gas reduction and electrification targets for TNCs. 
5 An Evaluation of Inconsistency or Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations 
(Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(3) (D)): 
During the process of developing the proposed regulatory action, CARB conducted a 
search of any similar regulations on this topic and concluded these regulations are 
neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations. 
Disclosure Re garding 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 agenci es and private persons and businesses in reasonable 
compliance with the proposed regulatory action are presented below. 
Under Government Code sections 11346.5, subdivision (a)(5) and 11346.5, 
subdivision (a)(6), the Executive Officer has determined that th e proposed regulatory 
action would create costs or savings to any State agency, would no t create costs or 
savings in federal funding to the State, and would not impose any mandate to any 
local agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the S tate under 
Government Code, title 2, division 4, part 7 (commencing with section 17500), or other nondiscretionary cost or savings to State or local agencies. The proposed 
regulation could affect State and local governments finance through changes in taxes 
and fees collected from change in fuel expenditures and other fees. Because the 
regulation does not impose unique new requirements on local agencies, the regulation 
is not a reimbursable mandate for this reason as well (County of Los Angeles v. State 
of California, 42 Cal. 3d 46 (1987)). 
Cost to any Local Agency or School District Requiring Reimbursement under section 17500 et seq.: 
The proposed regulation is a general law that does not specifically regulate any local community. The proposed regulation imposes no mandate to local agencies or school districts, but could affect State and local governments finance indirectly through chan ges in taxes and fees collected from change in fuel expenditures and other fees. 
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. Furthermore, costs are not reimbursable when they may be fully financed by local agencies raising their own fees. (See, e.g., Clovis Unified School Dist. v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal App. 4th 794, 812; Connell v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. 
App. 4th 382, 397- 403; County of Fresno v. State of California (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 482, 
487-88; Cal. Gov. Code section 17556(d)). 
6 Cost or Savings for State Agencies: 
The proposed regulation would require one additiona l CPUC Research Data 
Specialist III position, responsible for implementing the rule. This position would be 
needed starting in 2021 at a cost of $161,568 per year. 
Fuel taxes on gasoline are used to fund transportation improvements at the state, 
county, and local levels. Displacing gasoline fuel with electricity will decrease the 
amount of gasoline dispensed in the state. This will result in a reduction in revenue collected by the state for use in multiple levels of government. There is a $0.505 per gallon state excise tax on gasoline. Gasoline is exempt from the portion of sales tax 
that goes towards the state’s general fund. 
The Energy Resources Fee is a $0.0003/kWh surcharge levied on consumers of 
electricity purchased from electrical utilities. The revenue collected is deposited int o 
the Energy Resources Programs Account of the General Fund which is used for ongoing electricity programs and projects deemed appropriate by the Legislature, including but not limited to, activities of the California Energy Commission (CEC). 
Increased use of ZEVs will result in increases in electricity use and increased revenue 
from the Energy Resources Fee. 
From 2021 to 2031, the net impact of the proposed regulation is a cost of $98.7 
million. The net impact in Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 is $162 thousand, the net impact in 
Fiscal Year 2022- 2023 is $588 thousand, and the net impact in Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 is 
$1.4 million. 
Housing Costs (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(12)): The Executive Officer has also made the initial determination that the proposed 
regulatory  action will not have a significant effect on housing costs. The proposed 
regulation does not create or substantially expand an industry such that any particular 
housing market would be impacted. 
Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly A ffecting Business, 
Including Ability to Compete (Gov. Code, §§ 11346.3, subd. (a), 11346 .5, 
subd. (a)(7), 11346.5, subd. (a)(8)): 
The Executive Officer has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory 
action would not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly 
affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with 
businesses in other states, or on representative private persons. 
7 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 
Analysis (SRIA) (Gov. Code, § 11346.3, subd. (c)): 
In August 2020, CARB submitted a Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA) to 
the Department of Finance (DOF) for its review. CARB has updated the p roposed 
Clean Miles Standard regulation since the original SRIA submittal, and to address DOF 
comments. The revisions are discussed in the Initial Statement of Reasons ( ISOR ), 
Chapter IX. 
The creation or elimi nation of jobs within the state 
The proposed regulation is estimated to result in a slight negative job impact in all 
years of the assessment . Indust ries that are estimated to have net costs, decreases in 
demand, or revenue loss such as petroleum production , transit and ground passenger 
transportation services,  automotive repair, and state and local government are 
estimated to see decreases in employment growth . These changes in employment 
represent less than 0.01 percent of BAU California employment . Based on the major 
sector breakdown of job impacts in 2031, the proposed regulation is estimated to 
result in 1,454 job gains and 4,738 job losses for a n et impact of approximately 3,285 
job losses. 
The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the 
state 
The proposed regulation is not anticipated to directly result in new business creation 
or elimination . Neither of the two companies that are directly impacted are anticipated 
to be eliminated as a result of the proposed regulation. While changes in jobs for the 
California economy cannot directly estimate the broader impacts on business creation and elimination, they can be used to understand some of the potential impacts to businesses. The overall job impacts of the proposed regulation are very small relative 
to the total California economy, representing changes of less than 0.01 percent. 
The competitive advantages or disadvantages for businesses currently doing business 
within the state 
At this time, the competitive advantages or disadvantages created by the proposed 
regulation between Uber and Lyft do not appear to be material . Both companies’ 
drivers exhibit similar vehicle types, average passenger miles per trip, and exist in the 
same markets . The economics for one company meeting the GHG and electrification 
targets appear to be very much the same as for the other. 
The proposed regulation may provide a competitive advantage to TNC drivers that already have ZEVs or more fuel -efficient vehicles . All else being equal, TNCs could 
8 potentially favor more efficient vehicles when matching passengers to drivers, as miles 
traveled in these vehicles could increase eVMT and have lower GHG emissions per passenger mile. 
The increase or decrease of investment in the state 
Private domestic investment consists of purchases of residential and nonresidential 
structures and of equipment and software by private businesses and nonprofit 
institutions. It can be used as a proxy for impacts on investment in California because 
it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy. An increase 
of private investment of $173 million is expected by 2031, amounti ng to 
approximately 0.04 percent of baseline investment s. Increases in private investment 
are largely driven by the impact of net savings of the proposed regulation, whereby 
cost savings to TNC drivers increases discretionary spending in the broader econom y. 
The incentives for innovation in pr oducts, materials, or processes 
As part of the proposed regulation, TNC and supporting rental companies have 
several opportunities to innovate. Over the past several years, there were a small 
number of rental companies that supplied BEVs or FCEVs for TNC drivers to rent . 
Typically, these companies offer vehicles on a weekly basis and charging is included . 
Most drivers who rent vehicles drive more to earn enough income driving for TNCs in 
order to cover the rental fees . We expect these rental programs to re -emerge and 
grow as the price of ZEVs goes down and the proposed regulation will further support these businesses. This part of the market has not yet been developed , presumably due 
to low demand for such services and the expense of transaction logistics. Were these 
types of new hourly rental services to develop, as a result of the proposed regulation, this would assist low -to moderate -income drivers in accessing ZEVs for TNC services 
with no capital required. Since the vast majority of TNC drivers are part- time, this 
innovation would provide ZEV access to a much larger segment of TNC drivers. 
For TNC companies themselves, the GHG targets are designed for innovation in 
myriad ways, such as reducing deadhead miles, increa sing pooling or occupancy, 
developing partnerships with transit, and investing in active transportation and other forms of increased system efficiency . 
The benefits of the regulation includ e, but are 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 regulation will benefit individual California residents mainly by reducing 
adverse health impac ts caused by criteria emissions , including NO
x and PM 2.5. The 
reduction of GHG emissions helps combat climate change and its destructive 
environmental effects felt by California residents. The proposed regulation is exp ected 
to achieve a cumulative reducti on of 298.03 tons of NO x and 93.21 tons of PM 2.5 by 
2031,  aiding in the achievement of state and federal health standards, and protecting 
9 communities exposed to roadway pollution . The proposed regulation is also expected 
to cumulatively reduce well -to-wheel GHG emissions by 1.8 MMT CO 2 by 2031. If 
TNCs comply with the GHG targets in part through VMT reduction, this could also 
benefit California individuals by reducing congestion on California roads. 
Table 1 shows the estimated avoided incidence of mortalit y and morbidity because of 
the proposed regulation from 2023 through 2031 by California air basin.  Values in 
parentheses represent the 95% confidence intervals of the central estimate.  The 
largest estimated health benefits correspond to regions in Califo rnia with the greatest 
TNC activity: San Diego County, San Francisco Bay, and South Coast air basins. 
Table 1. Regional and statewide avoided premature deaths, hospital admissions, and 
emergency room visits from 2023 to 2031 under the proposed regulation f rom PM 2.5 
and NO x emission reductions 
Air Basin Cardiopulmonary 
mortality Hospitalizations 
for 
cardiovascular 
illness Hospitalizations for respiratory illness Emergency room visits 
San Diego 
County 
San Francisco 
Bay 
South Coast 1 (1 - 1) 
4 (3 - 5) 
13 (10 -15) 0 (0 - 0) 
1 (0 - 1) 
2 (0 -4) 0 (0 - 0) 
1 (0 - 1) 
2 (1 -4) 0 (0 - 0) 
2 (1 - 3) 
7 (4 -9) 
Statewide 18 (14 -22) 3 (0 -5) 3 (1 -6) 9 (6 -13) 
Department of Finance Comments and Responses 
DOF Comment: In general, Finance concurs with the methodology used to estimate 
impacts of proposed regulations . However, the y asked that the benefits and costs be 
reported separately for each year without netting for transparency and disclosure of 
impacts . The annual valuation of health benefits of the proposed regulation was also 
not reported in the SRIA . 
Response: The analysis in the ISOR has been updated to display annual valuation of 
health benefits of the proposed regulation. Tables presenting the numeric values of 
the total costs and to tal benefits to the TNC in each calendar year and the year -by-
year value of monetized health benefits for the proposed regulation is provided in Appendix C of the ISOR. 
10 DOF Comment: The baseline must reflect current laws as well as economic 
assumptions con sistent with the current recession and its aftermaths . Currently, the 
baseline does not estimate changes due to Assembly Bill ( AB) 5 and assumes that the 
regulated market will continue to grow at pre -pandemic rates . CARB should formulate 
assumptions to evaluate impacts based on the proper baseline. The SRIA may then 
include a sensitivity analysis to address uncertainties and to assess impacts under 
scenarios that deviate from the baseline. 
Response: The baseline used by CARB assumes compliance with AB 5. CARB 
estimates that, on balance, the effects of AB 5 may be neutral with regard to TNC 
growth and TNC labor supply . CARB is not aware of any data that points to the 
medium -and long -run impacts of AB 5 that contradicts its estimate. 
In the baseline, CARB considers the effects of the current pandemic and economic recession. The SRIA baseline assumes a much lower average annual growth rate from 
2020 to 2023 than the historical average for the industry . However, there is no data 
available that points to the b roader medium -and long -run impacts of these two 
events on the ride hailing sector . Due to the uncertainty surrounding these events, the 
SRIA included a sensitivity analysis of the p roposed regulation (Appendix H of the 
SRIA) to explore the potential range of economic impacts that could result. In 
addition, staff have incorporated additional flexibilities and crediting structures into the proposed regulation, such as the banking of over -compliance credits noted above, 
which could serve as a compliance buffer for a TNC if a future year market condition is challenging. 
Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons or Businesses (Gov. Code, 
§ 11346.5, subd. (a)(9)): 
In developing this regulatory proposal, CARB staff evaluated the potential economic 
impacts on representative private persons or businesses. CARB is not aware of any 
cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. 
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 regulatory action would not directly affect small 
businesses because small TNC companies would not need to meet the annual 
electrification and GHG targets, along with the reporting requirements. 
Consideration of Alternatives (Gov. Code, § 11346.5, subd. (a)(13)): 
Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must determine 
that no reasonable 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 
11  
 
 
 
 
 burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be more 
cost-effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the 
statutory policy or other provisions of law. 
Environmental Analysis 
CARB, as the lead agency for the proposed regulation, has concluded that this action 
is exempt from CEQA, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061, because the action 
is both an Action Taken by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (as 
described in CEQA Guidelines § 15308 for “class 8” exemptions); and it is also exempt 
as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) (“common sense” exemption) because 
it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. A brief explanation of the 
basis for reaching this conclusion is included in Chapter VII of the ISOR . 
Special Accommodation Request 
Consistent with California Government Code section 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 language needs, please contact the Clerk s’ Office at cotb@arb.ca.gov or (916) 322- 5594 as soon as possible, but no later 
than ten business days before the scheduled Board hearing . TTY/TDD/Speech to 
Speech users may dial 711 fo r the California Relay Service. 
Consecuente con la sección 7296.2 del Código de Gobierno de California, una acomodación especial o necesidades lingüísticas pueden ser suministradas para cualquiera de los 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 necesidades de otro idioma, por favor llame a la oficina del Consejo al cotb@arb.ca.gov o (916) 322- 5594 lo más pronto 
posible , pero no menos de 10 días de trabajo antes del día programado para la 
audiencia del Consejo . TTY/TDD/Personas que necesiten este servicio pueden marcar 
el 711 para el Servicio de Retransmisión de Mensajes de California. 
12 Agency Co ntact P ersons 
Inquiries concerning t he substance of t h e proposed r egulatory a ction may b e directed 
to the agency representativ e Gloria Pak, Air Resources Engineer , Low E mission Vehicle 
Regula tions S ection , at (951) 5 50-0631, o r (designated back- up contact) Sho bna Sa hni , 
Air Resources Supervisor I,  Low Emission Vehicle Regulatio ns Section, a t (626) 45 0-6104. 
Av
ailabilit y of D ocuments 
CARB s taff has prepared a St aff Report : Initial S tatement o f Reasons (ISOR) f or the 
proposed re gulatory action, w hich in cludes a s ummary of th e economic and 
e
nvironmental im pacts o f the pro posal.  The r eport is  entitled : “Proposed C lean Miles 
St
andard R egulation. ” 
Copies of t he ISOR a nd the full  text of the propo sed regulatory language, ma y be 
accessed on CARB’s website listed below, on March 30, 2020. Please contact Chris 
Hopkins,  R
egulations Coordina tor, at Chris.Hopkins@arb.ca.gov or (916) 445-9 5 64 if y ou 
need
 physical copies of the documents. Because of current travel, facility, and staffing 
restrictions, the California Air Resources Board’s  offices have limited pu blic access. 
Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5, subdivision (b), upon request to the 
aforementioned
 Regulations Coordinator, physical cop ies would be obtained from the 
Public Information Office, California Air Resour ces Board, 1001 I Street, Visitors and 
Environmental Services Center, First Floor, Sacramento, California, 95814. 
Further, t he agency r epresentative to w hom non- substantive in quiries concerning t he 
p
roposed a d ministrative a ction ma y be directed is  Chris Hopkins , Regulations 
Coordinator , Chris .Hopkins@arb.ca.gov. The Board s taff has co mp iled a re cord f or this 
rulemaking a ction, w hich includes all  the information upon which the proposa l is 
based . This ma terial is  available for in spection upon request t o the contact p ersons. 
H
earing P rocedures 
T
he 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 
w
ith section 11340). 
Following th e public hearing, th e Board ma y take action to a pprove f o r  adoption th e 
regulatory la nguage as originally  proposed, o r with non- substantial o r grammatical 
modifications . The Board ma y also a pprove f o r adoption th e proposed re gulatory 
language with o ther m o difications if  th e text as modified is  suf ficiently  related t o  the 
o
riginally  pr oposed t ext that the public  was adequately  placed o n notice and t hat the 
regulatory language a s modified co u ld result from the p ro posed re gulatory action . If 
this occurs, th e full regulatory text, w ith th e modifications cle arly indicated, w ill be 
made a vailable  to th e public, f or written co mme nt, at least 15 -d ays befor e final 
a
doption. 
13 ? 
~ 
\ _________________________________ Final St atement of Reasons Availability 
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/202 1/cleanmilesstandard 
California Air Resources Board 
Richard W. Corey 
Executive Officer 
Date: March 16, 2021 
The energy challenge facing California is real . Every Californian needs to take 
immediate action to reduce energy consumption . For a list of simple ways you can 
reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see CARB’s website (www.ARB.ca.gov). 
14 