SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 1 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT 

Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) 

December 17, 2009 

 Prepared by: Jessica Hafer Fierro, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

 Nichole Corless, Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed by: Lori Sheridan, Air Quality Inspector 

Colette Kincaid, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Patia Siong, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Joe Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

Sharon Kendall, Personnel Administrator 

Lucinda Roth, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer 

Errol Villegas, Planning Manager 

Scott Nester, Director of Planning 

I. SUMMARY

The District is required and committed to adopt an employer based trip reduction rule. 

Both the federal and California Clean Air Acts require ozone nonattainment areas like 

the San Joaquin Valley to adopt all reasonable and feasible measures to reduce ozone 

precursor emissions. The California Health and Safety Code Section authorizes and 

sets expectations for the District to adopt an employer trip reduction program. Rule 

9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) satisfies a federally-enforceable commitment in 

District State Implementation Plans (the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan) 

and is designed to share the air pollution clean-up burden traditionally targeted at 

stationary sources. 

Through employer based trip reduction, employers establish programs to help 

employees use ridesharing and alternative transportation. Studies show that 

comprehensive, multi-faceted programs that combine marketing, program support, 

services and facilities, alternative schedules, and incentives are the most successful. 

Although there are several regional trip reduction programs in existence in California, 

the District has engaged in an extensive process to tailor the program to the unique 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 2 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

needs of diverse Valley employers. District staff researched relevant commute studies, 

law, and human resources issues and proactively created numerous opportunities for 

the District to discuss the rule and listen to stakeholder suggestions and concerns. The 

District held 11 public meetings as well as 20 meetings with interested employers, 

industry groups, and service organizations. The District also met with each of the 

Valley’s eight counties and 10 largest cities, as these are some of the Valley’s largest 

employers. In total, District addressed about 400 individuals representing hundreds of 

thousands of commuters. 

This dialog helped define the specifications for a successful rule. The Valley has a 

great diversity of employers representing a variety of industries, regions, urban and rural 

areas, and work cultures. Employers emphasized that transit is not available 

everywhere and that ridesharing may potentially impact productivity, as in production 

line environments. Thus, employers need flexibility to adopt suitable trip reduction 

programs, and employers must consider labor laws and union contracts. Employers 

also emphasized the need for low administrative costs and technical assistance. 

The District developed Rule 9410 to meet these specifications. The menu-option 

approach addresses the Valley’s diversity of employers and transit limitations, offering 

each employer flexibility to implement programs that can work for their worksites and 

employees. The District is committing to extensive and continuous employer 

implementation assistance with training sessions, guidance, templates, newsletters, and 

turnkey program components. District staff researched potential labor law and union 

issues and incorporated appropriate provisions into the rule, such as distinguishing 

production line workers in applicable measures and special provisions for employers 

with employees protected by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection 

Act. 

Proposed Rule 9410 will be successful in achieving the goals of the rule with minimal 

disruption to employers. Staff has designed the rule to assure that each employer has 

sufficient options for rule compliance, and employer programs will help employees 

choose to use ridesharing and alternative transportation. Rule 9410 is tailored for the 

Valley, providing a straight-forward and attainable approach for Valley employers as 

compared to South Coast Rule 2202’s mandated participation levels and fees. As such, 

Rule 9410 is expected to kick-start a change in the Valley’s commute behaviors and 

achieve the goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips. 

Through Rule 9410, employers provide the infrastructure that facilitates employees 

choosing to use ridesharing and alternative transportation. Rule 9410 also provides 

accountability needed for credit in the State Implementation Plan. Employers will 

submit annual reports to the District, and this information will allow the District to verify 

emissions reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 3 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

The District’s Personnel Department assessed potential workers’ compensation, labor 

law, and liability issues, ensuring that each menu-option is feasible from a human 

resources perspective. The District’s Outreach and Communications Department has 

developed a plan for the significant outreach that will be required during rule 

implementation. With this diverse internal involvement and extended stakeholder 

outreach, Rule 9410 has truly been a comprehensive effort. 

A. Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation 

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone and for PM2.5. The Valley is also 

nonattainment for the California ozone and PM standards. By reducing VMT, Rule 9410 

can decrease emissions of ozone precursors, direct PM2.5, and PM2.5 precursors. 

Decreasing VMT can also contribute to efforts to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). 

Reducing mobile source emissions is key to the success of the San Joaquin Valley’s 

(Valley) attainment strategies for the federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 (particulate 

matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter) standards. About 75% of the Valley’s 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions come from mobile sources, and NOx is a key 

ingredient in both ozone and secondary particulate matter formation. However, state 

and federal laws preempt the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (District) 

authority to regulate tail-pipe emissions for mobile sources. 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for regulating emissions from 

on-road motor vehicles, and ARB also establishes fuel specifications for California. 

Local governments, such as cities and counties, can influence air quality by addressing 

emissions from vehicles in their land-use and transportation planning processes and 

projects. For example, reducing urban sprawl and increasing street connectivity reduce 

emissions and help improve air quality. 

While the District cannot regulate the vehicles themselves or the fuels the vehicles use, 

the District can reduce mobile source emissions through other avenues. The District’s 

Emissions Reduction Incentive Program (ERIP) provides financial incentives to help 

replace older cars and engines through a few different programs. One program targets 

cars with histories of needing smog repairs, but are currently legally registered and able 

to be driven. Based on the results of an emission test, incentives are available for up to 

$5000 to replace an older car. Other incentives are also given so older engines are 

replaced with newer, cleaner engines years before these engines would be required to 

be replaced through regulation or natural attrition. The District encourages carpooling, 

trip linking, and similar activities through Healthy Air Living, the District’s principle public 

outreach effort. Through the District’s Indirect Source Review (ISR) rule 9510, the 

added vehicle miles traveled that results from new development is mitigated through 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 4 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

onsite and off-site measures. The District will also reduce vehicle emissions through 

adoption and implementation of Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction. The 

District committed to this rule in both the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Between 2000 and 2020, the population of the San Joaquin Valley is expected to grow 

by 60%. In contrast, the total population for the state of California is expected to grow 

29% over the same time period.1

 Population growth typically leads to increased vehicle 

activity and increased emissions of ozone precursors, slowing the progress made by 

regulations that require newer automobiles to pollute less than older models. 

Furthermore, the Valley’s total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is increasing at an even 

faster rate than the population (see Figure1). So the Valley has more people, and 

they’re generally driving more. 

Figure 1 San Joaquin Valley Percent Growth in Population and Vehicle Miles 

Traveled as compared to 1980 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Percent Growth

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Number of People

Despite VMT increases, total passenger vehicle emissions have decreased significantly 

with improvements in technology and fuel formulations (see Figure 2). The Department 

of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that VOC 

emissions could rise slowly after 2010 in areas projecting annual VMT increases of 

more than 2 percent, even though emissions are projected to remain well below 1990 

levels through at least 2015. NOx emissions reductions are also projected to offset VMT 

growth through at least 2010 in areas expecting more rapid growth and beyond 2015 in 

those areas expecting slower VMT increases. However, with EPA's new health-based 

 

1

 Based on data from www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/trends.em_trends.php, developed using reports from the 

California Department of Finance. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 5 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone adopted in 2006 and 2008, respectively, the 

immense attainment challenges before the Valley demand further reductions from a 

variety of sources. The proposed Employer Based Trip Reduction rule will achieve 

some of the additional mobile source emissions reductions needed to contribute to the 

Valley's progress towards EPA's increasingly stringent air quality standards. 

According to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Household Travel 

Survey2

, as a nation-wide average, trips to and from work account for 17% of all private 

vehicle trips (see Figure 3). The survey also found that private vehicle use is the largest 

mode of transportation to and from work, accounting for about 92% of all work 

commutes (see Figure 4). 

Figure 2 Mobile Source Emissions, Light Duty Passenger and Light Duty Trucks 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Emissions, tons per day

 

2

 The 2001 surveys were released in July 2005. A 2008 update is in progress with a target completion date in fall 

2009. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 6 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Figure 3 Private Vehicle Trip Purposes, 1990-2001 

Source: Adapted from DOT 2001 National Household Transportation 

Survey

3%

8%

1%

25%

17%

46%

To/From Work

Work-Related Business

Family/Personal Business

School or Church

Social & Recreational

Other

Figure 4 Modes of Transportation To and From Work, 1990-2001 

Source: Adapted From DOT 2001 National Household Transportation 

Survey

4%

3%

1%

92%

Private Vehicle

Public Transit

Walk

Other

The DOT survey also found that average vehicle occupancy to and from work has 

declined since 1977, and the average distance for commuting to work has continued to 

increase over the same time period (see Figure 5). The work commute is not the only 

arena where vehicle miles traveled can be reduced, but it carries some significant 

advantages and benefits. For example, carpooling to work is convenient in that 

coworkers are going to the same place at the same time. Using carpooling to decrease 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 7 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

single occupancy vehicle use and vehicle miles traveled during the common work 

commute times can decrease congestion as well as improve air quality. 

Figure 5 Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) and Trip Length To and From Work 

Source: Adapted from DOT 2001 National Household Transportation Survey

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1977 1983 1990 1995 2001

AVO

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Miles

Average

Vehicle

Occupancy

Average Trip

Length

B. Description of Project 

Consistent with the District’s plan commitments, Rule 9410 would require larger 

employers (those with 100 or more eligible employees) to establish employee trip 

reduction programs to reduce VMT, reducing emissions associated with work 

commutes. The Proposed Rule uses a menu-based Employer Trip Reduction 

Implementation Plan (ETRIP) and periodic reporting requirements to evaluate 

performance on a phased-in compliance schedule. The goal of the ETRIP is to provide 

employees with opportunities that make ridesharing and alternative transportation more 

accessible while not requiring a certain number of participants, as employers cannot 

legally mandate their employees’ activities outside of working hours. Employers can 

choose which services and programs work best for their operations and their 

employees. Starting in 2014, employers would also conduct periodic employee 

Commute Verification to be reported to the District annually. This accountability that 

has been built into the rule will help verify emissions reductions and rule effectiveness to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Proposed Rule also includes a 

section on District support, where the District is committing to providing trainings, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 8 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

guidance, and turnkey program elements to assist employers with program 

implementation. 

C. Rule Development Process 

As part of the rule development process, District staff conducted public scoping 

meetings in February 2009. At the scoping meetings, District staff presented the 

objectives of the proposed rulemaking project and solicited suggestions from affected 

stakeholders on how best to achieve the goals of the project. The knowledge gathered 

during the scoping meetings was incorporated into Draft Rule 9410 presented in 

subsequent workshops. 

In July 2009, a voluntary survey was sent to large employers to solicit information about 

their current work environment, including employee information and rideshare programs 

currently in place. Information provided through the survey assisted the District in the 

development of Rule 9410 and supporting materials. 

The first Draft Rule and revised Draft Staff Report were presented at workshops held in 

July 2009, followed by a public comment period. A socioeconomic focus group was 

held directly after one of the workshops to solicit comments and information to be used 

for the socioeconomic and environmental analyses. The results of the socioeconomic 

analysis will be published in a report and presented along with the proposed rule during 

the final workshop. 

The second round of workshops was held in September 2009, followed by a public 

comment period. The revised Draft Rule and revised Draft Staff Report were published 

prior to the meeting. Socioeconomic and cost effective analyses were discussed at the 

workshops and available for comments. 

The final workshops were held October 26 and 28, 2009 to allow for further time for 

stakeholders to comment and provide information to the District regarding the costs 

associated with rule implementation. These final workshops also provided an 

opportunity for outreach to those who had not yet been involved in the Rule 9410 

development process. 

Throughout the rulemaking process, District staff has met with many potentially 

impacted stakeholders, particularly the Valley’s counties and larger cities. At these 

meetings, District Personnel, Outreach, and Planning staff have fostered multi-faceted 

discussions of rule elements and received stakeholder feedback contributing to a rule 

that can be successful at a wide range of worksites. The dialogue between the District 

and affected stakeholders led to a number of rule improvements throughout the 

process. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 9 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

The Proposed Rule and staff report with appendices, and final draft socioeconomic 

analysis report was published and available to affected sources and interested parties 

prior to a public hearing before the District Governing Board to consider adoption of 

Rule 9410 on December 17, 2009. The notice of the public hearing for the proposed 

rule was published in a general circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joaquin 

Valley counties. The public notice was also mailed to affected sources and interested 

parties. The notice of public hearing solicits written comments, and identifies the name 

and telephone number of District staff who can answer questions and respond to 

comments. A public comment on the Proposed Rule was held from November 16 – 

November 30, 2009. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. History and Legislative Authority 

On January 20, 1994, the District Governing Board adopted Rule 9001 (Commute 

Based Trip Reduction) in response to California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements to 

reduce single occupancy commute vehicle trips and to reduce motor vehicle emissions. 

In October 1995, Senate Bill (SB) 437 created Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 

40929(a) (renumbered to 40717.9), which prohibited any public agency from requiring 

an employer to implement an employee trip reduction program unless expressly 

required by federal law. District staff determined that Rule 9001 was inconsistent with 

the new H&SC section, so the District ceased enforcement of the trip reduction rule as 

of October 9, 1995, and the rule was repealed on February 15, 1996. 

More recent legislation gives the District authority to implement measures such as an 

employer based trip reduction rule or a commute options program: 

• 2008 California Assembly Bill (AB) 2522 (Arambula) authorizes the San Joaquin 

Valley Air District to adopt rules and regulations to reduce vehicle trips in order to 

reduce air pollution from vehicular sources (H&SC Section 40612(a)(2)). 

• 2003 California SB 709 (Florez) authorizes the San Joaquin Valley Air District to 

adopt rules and regulations to require businesses that employ at least 100 

people to establish a rideshare program (H&SC Section 40601(d)). 

Also, under Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(B) and 182(e), severe and extreme 

nonattainment areas may adopt control measures requiring employers to implement 

programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles traveled by employees. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 10 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

The District’s 2007 Ozone Plan identified Employer Based Trip Reduction as one of the 

innovative strategies for reducing ozone precursors. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan also 

committed to adopt a rule requiring employers with 100 or more employees to establish 

employee trip reduction programs. 

B. Related Legislation 

Related state laws include California Labor Code Section 3600.8, which states that 

when an employee voluntarily participates in an alternative commute program that is 

provided or subsidized by an employer complying with an air district trip reduction 

mandate, this commute is not within the scope of employment. 

In addition, H&SC Section 43845 states that employers are to offer their employees a 

parking cash-out program if: 

• The worksite is in an area (such as the San Joaquin Valley) that does not 

attain state ambient air quality standards; 

• The employer has at least 50 employees; and 

• The employer does not own the parking area (i.e., the employer leases the 

parking area. 

Under a parking cash-out program, an employer provides a cash allowance to 

employees who do not use a parking space, with this cash allowance being equivalent 

to the cost of parking space. H&SC Section 43845 was put into place by AB 2109 

(1992) in response to studies showing that employees are more likely to rideshare when 

they have to pay the full cost of parking spaces, and employer subsidized parking 

encourages single-occupancy vehicle commuting. H&SC Section 43845 was recently 

amended by SB 728 (Lowenthal, approved by the Governor on October 11, 2009) in 

response to reports that H&SC was not being enforced. SB 728 amends H&SC Section 

43845 to authorize either ARB or a local agency (such as a city, county, or air district) to 

establish penalties to ensure employer compliance with this statute. Local agencies are 

not required to enforce H&SC Section 43845, but the amendment provides the option of 

doing so through adoption of a local regulation. AB 1186 (Blumenfield, 2009) would 

have incorporated additional provisions, but AB 1186 was vetoed by the Governor. 

The District will be in contact with ARB to discuss parking cash-out enforcement needs. 

Further study is needed to determine how many Valley employers are be subject to the 

state law and assess the emission reduction potential of enforcement. Although the 

District is not adding parking cash-out to Rule 9410, employers can earn ETRIP points 

for offering a monetary incentive to employees, regardless of whether it is characterized 

as parking-cash out. 

The federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) also 

affects employers in the Valley subject to this rule. MSPA applies to migrant and 

seasonal workers employed in the term “Agricultural Employment:” 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 11 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

“Agricultural employment means employment in any service or activity 

included within the provisions of section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)), or section 3121(g) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 3121(g)) and the handling, planting, 

drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, or grading prior to 

delivery for storage of any agricultural or horticultural commodity in its 

unmanufactured state.” 29 U.S.C. 1801, et seq., Sec. 3 (3). 

Dialogue with affected stakeholders demonstrated that employers with eligible 

employees protected by the MSPA would not be in conflict with the federal regulation if 

required to comply with Phase 1 and Phase 2 point targets only. Phase 3 options that 

would require employers to facilitate or promote ridesharing and alternative 

transportation would be inconsistent with federal regulations on these employers. 

C. Supporting Studies 

The proposed rule emphasizes education and infrastructure for trip reduction programs 

through implementation of four ETRIP strategies representing various ways to promote 

and facilitate employee trip reduction. Studies have shown significant participation rates 

associated with a comprehensive ETRIP that would be established through the 

implementation of proposed Rule 9410. 

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute TDM Encyclopedia states that a comprehensive 

trip reduction program, such as what this rule will require, “typically reduces peak-period 

automobile trips by 5-20% at a worksite and more if supported by regional TDM 

strategies such as transit improvements.” 

The DOT and EPA Commuter Choice Primer found: 

• Employer based trip reduction programs that emphasized commute alternatives 

(such as vanpools) realized an average trip reduction of 8.5%. 

• Programs that focused on financial incentives and disincentives (such as transit 

subsidies and parking pricing) reduced an average of 16.4% of employee 

commutes. 

• Employers that combined both commute alternatives (e.g., vanpool program) 

with incentives or disincentives (e.g., vanpool subsidies) achieved an average 

trip reduction of 24.5%. 

The DOT FHWA report “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Benefits of Transportation 

Strategies,” supports similar findings in their discussion of employer based 

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and evaluation of program 

impacts using EPA’s COMMUTER model. The report’s example showed increases in 

participation dependent on the measures offered in the trip reduction program such as: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 12 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

• Offering information on alternative transportation and a quarter-time 

transportation coordinator resulted in carpool and vanpool participation increases 

by 15% and 20%, respectively. 

• Programs that offered commute information and coordinator as well as 

ridematching and flex schedules to help accommodate transit achieved 

participation increases of 10% in carpools, 40% in vanpools, and a 50% increase 

in transit use. 

Based off of the FHWA report, District staff utilized EPA’s COMMUTER model to 

estimate the impacts of some ETRIP scenarios, resulting in consistent findings. Multiple 

tools are available for employers to asses their trip reduction program or possibilities for 

their worksite such as EPA’s COMMUTER Model, DOT’s Commuter Choice Decision 

Support Tool, and best Workplaces for Commuters Business Savings Calculator. 

III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE 

A. Employer Requirements of Draft Rule 9410 

Rule 9410 would require larger employers (those with 100 or more eligible employees) 

to establish employee trip reduction programs to reduce VMT associated with work 

commutes. Eligible employees do not include the following: 

• Employees who do not report to work between 6 AM and 10 AM. 

• Emergency health and safety employees such as sworn peace officers and 

firefighters 

• Employment agency personnel 

• Farm workers 

• Field personnel 

• Field construction workers 

• Home garage employees 

• On-call employees 

• Part-time workers 

• Seasonal workers (employed 16 weeks or less per year) 

• Volunteers 

Rule 9410 would apply to an estimated 1,883 worksites throughout the Valley, 

representing a wide range of sectors and accounting for approximately 500,000 

commuting employees. This rule distinguishes those facilities into two tiers. Tier One 

Worksites are those with 100-249 eligible employees and Tier Two Worksites have 250 

or more eligible employees. There are an estimated 1,342 Tier One Worksites and 541 

Tier Two Worksites. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 13 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Rule 9410 proposes a menu-based Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan 

(ETRIP) with periodic reporting. The District is assuring the success of the rule through 

a phased-in compliance schedule and commitments to provide extensive support to 

minimize the administrative burden of rule implementation. 

There are three main components of employer compliance in Proposed Rule 9410: 

• Employer registration 

• Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) 

• Commute Verification with Annual Reporting 

Employer registration: Employers subject Rule 9410 (i.e., worksites with 100 or more 

eligible employees) would register with the District by July 1, 2010 (see Section 6.1 of 

the Draft Rule). 

• Employers who become subject to Rule 9410 after January 1, 2010, due to a 

change in the workforce, would register within 180 days after becoming subject 

to Rule 9410 (see Sections 6.1 and 6.6.1 of the Draft Rule). 

• Employers who fall below the 100 eligible employee level after registering with 

the District for this rule would notify the District in writing of their change in status 

within 90 days of their change in status (see Section 6.6.1.1 of the Draft Rule). 

ETRIP: The ETRIP is a check-list of menu options, through which employers plan 

facility and operation changes that make ridesharing and alternative transportation more 

accessible to employees. The menu approach allows employers the flexibility to choose 

measures to implement that are appropriate for their employees and their operations. 

No employee will be forced to use ridesharing or alternative transportation through Rule 

9410, and employers cannot mandate employees to use specific modes of commuting. 

Most of the menu options are, therefore, not predicated on participation by employees. 

Each menu option has a point value, and employers must achieve specified point 

targets, depending on the size of their worksite (Tier 1 worksites, with 100 to 249 

eligible employees, and Tier 2 worksites, with 250 or more eligible employees). 

Employers must meet specified point targets in the rule for their total ETRIP and for four 

strategy areas. The strategies are being phased in over a three-year period to allow 

time for education and awareness of trip reduction opportunities and benefits as well as 

to minimize the cost impact on employers. The phase in schedule is as follows: 

• Phase 1: “Marketing Strategy” and “Program Support Strategy” should be added 

to the ETRIP by September 2011, with implementation by January 2012. 

• The Marketing strategy includes measures to increase program 

awareness, such as being a Healthy Air Living partner, distributing a 

rideshare newsletter, or posting a bulletin board dedicated to ridesharing 

and alternative transportation. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 14 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

• The Program Support strategy makes ridesharing and alternative 

transportation easier for employees through programs like guaranteed ride 

home or ride matching services. 

• Phase 2: “Services and Facilities Strategy” should be added to ETRIP by 

September 2012, with implementation by January 2013. 

• Services and Facilities measures are deployed in the workplace so that 

employees are less likely to need to travel offsite a break times. 

Examples include on-site food service and on-site postal service (i.e., 

stamps available for sale and a place to leave personal stamped mail). 

• Phase 3: “Transportation, Alternative Schedules, and Incentives Strategy” should 

be added to ETRIP by September 2013, with implementation by January 2014. 

Employers also select additional measures from any strategy to reach a total 

ETRIP target, which is greater than the sum of the minimums for the four strategy 

areas. 

• Transportation, Alternative Schedules, and Incentives include a wide 

range of options: comprehensive vanpool programs, comprehensive 

carpool programs, monetary incentives for using ridesharing, subsidized 

transit passes, telecommuting, etc. 

• The “Additional Points Needed” category puts the total ETRIP target at a 

higher level than the sum of the four strategy area minimums. Additional 

points can come from any of the four strategy areas or from measures 

prorated and applied to employees or worksites that are otherwise exempt 

from the rule. 

Employers with eligible employees protected by the federal Migrant and Seasonal 

Agricultural Worker Protection Act will be required to comply with Phase 1 and Phase 2 

point targets only. Phase 3 requirements would be inconsistent with federal regulations 

on these employers. 

Table 1 shows the ETRIP-phase in schedule. Beginning in 2015 (or after the employer 

has become subject to the rule and has submitted their first ETRIP), the employer will 

submit the complete ETRIP form to the District annually by March 31. Any changes the 

employer made to their trip reduction program will be reflected on their new ETRIP. The 

District would act on ETRIPs within 45 days of submittal. Employers would keep 

records of steps taken to implement measures for the ETRIP on file for at least five 

years, making records available to the District or EPA upon request. Figure 1 shows 

the 2013 ETRIP template, a straight forward check list employers could use to report 

ETRIP measures to the District. 

Each measure on the ETRIP list is expected to help employees choose to leave their 

cars at home, using ride sharing and alternative transportation instead. Each ETRIP 

measure has an associated point value, and employers are to choose the collection of 

measures that work best for their worksites while achieving the point targets specified in 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 15 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

the rule. In the rule, measures are organized by strategy area. Here, the measures are 

ranked by point value. Points were assigned based on two factors: 

(1) Level of effort and cost (initially and ongoing) to the employer 

(2) Expected effectiveness in facilitating employee usage of ridesharing and 

alternative transportation 

Assessment of these factors was based on available commute literature and interviews 

of Valley employers and employees. Measures that ranked highly in both of these 

areas are assigned higher point values (15 being the highest), while measures that 

ranked relatively low in both of these areas are assigned comparatively low point values 

(1 being the lowest). Table 2 shows ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis. 

Table 1: ETRIP Point Targets 

ETRIP Tier One

Worksite 

Tier Two 

Worksite 

Initial Submittal 

Deadline 

Starting 

Implementation

Minimum points per strategy1

Phase 1: Marketing 

Strategy 

6 10 September 2011 January 2012 

Phase 1: Program 

Support Strategy 

6 8 September 2011 January 2012 

Phase 2: Services and 

Facilities Strategy 

8 10 September 2012 January 2013 

Phase 3: Transportation, 

Alternative Schedules, 

and Incentives Strategy 

14 20 September 2013 January 2014 

Phase 3: Additional Points 

Needed (from any measure 

or combination of measures) 

10 18 September 2013 January 2014 

Total Points Goal 44 66 September 2013 January 2014 

1 Employers with workers protected by the Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act 

will complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 ETRIP requirements only. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 16 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Figure 1: Sample ETRIP Template, 2013 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 17 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  18 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Compressed Work Week (CWW) – 

A regular, full-time work schedule which eliminates at least one round-trip commute trip (both home-to-work and work-to-home) at least once every two (2) weeks for participating employees. A CWW schedule must be implemented in a manner that reduces trips to the worksite, as an alternative to completing the basic work requirement of five eight-hour workdays in one week, or ten eight hour workdays in two weeks. • 9/80 Schedule – The employee works eight nine-hour days, and one 

eight-hour day. The employee is thus off of work one day every ten days. 

• 4/10 Schedule – The employee works four ten-hour days each week. 

The employee thus takes one day off work in every five day period. 

• 3/36 Schedule – The employee works three twelve-hour days and takes 

two days off work every five days. 

Up to 

15 

depends 

on 

participation 

rate

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Monetary Incentive – 

The employer, or other funding sources, provides eligible employees with cash subsidies, at least on a quarterly basis, for participation in the trip reduction program. The District recommends that the monetary incentive equals at least two times the state minimum wage at least once per month. The measure can provide a monetary incentive to eligible employees who use alternative transportation a predetermined, minimum number of times per month or pay period. 

12 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  19 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Telecommuting Program – 

A system of working at home, offsite, or at a telecommuting center for a full workday. Telecommuting should eliminate the trip to work or reduce the travel distance to the worksite by more than 80 percent. The employer should make telecommuting available to at least 10 percent of its Eligible Employees excluding production workers, field construction workers, and employees who spend 20 percent or less of their work time per week at the worksite. In making telecommuting available to at least 10 percent of applicable employees, the employer can claim ETRIP points for this measure even the possible participants do not take advantage of the program. Each participant who telecommutes should be allowed to telecommute at least one day per week. 

9 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Comprehensive Vanpool Program – 

Employer-promoted program designed to encourage the use of existing vanpools or the development of new vanpools. The employers must provide 

Eligible Employees information on vanpool availability, benefits of vanpooling, and any incentives offered by the employer or an outside agency. 

8 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Comprehensive Carpool Program – 

Employer-promoted program designed to encourage the use of existing carpools or the development of new carpools. This is intended to be a multifaceted program that includes internal ride matching or personalized commute assistance, ridesharing information, and resources on how to start a carpool. The employer should also publicize any local ridesharing events to its employees. 

8 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  20 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Comprehensive Bicycle Program – 

Employer-promoted program which encourages bicycle commuting. This is intended to be a multi-faceted program that includes bicycle racks, information (such as bicycle lanes and safety considerations), and a repair kit or tools (such as a tire pump). The employer should also publicize any local Bike to Work events, typically held in May, to its employees. 

7 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite Food Service, or food service within 1⁄4 mile of worksite – 

Employer provides an onsite area where eligible employees can consistently purchase meals, such as a cafeteria or lunch truck service. Food service within 1⁄4 mile of worksite qualifies. 

7 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite Child Care, or child care within 1⁄4 mile of worksite – 

Daycare service provided to eligible employees. 

7 

Services & Facilities 

Showers and/or Lockers onsite 7 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Extra Time Off – 

The employer provides eligible employees additional time off for participation in the trip reduction program. This can include, but is not limited to, allowing eligible employees to accrue time off for every time they use alternative transportation or ridesharing. 

7 

Marketing Healthy Air Living Partner – 

Register with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District as a Healthy Air Living Partner and remain a partner in good standing. See www.healthyairliving.com for more information. 

6 

Program Support 

Internal Ride Matching – 

The employer provides rideshare matching service, zip code list or assistance in finding commute alternatives for all eligible employees. Information must be updated semiannually. 

5 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  21 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Program Support 

Internal Guaranteed Ride Home Service – 

The employer directly provides eligible employees with a return trip to the point of commute origin, when a need for the return trip arises and the employer participated in ridesharing or alternative transportation that day. This need, as defined by the employer, may be a personal emergency, an unplanned situation or business-related activities (such as overtime). This service may be provided by employer vehicle, rental car, taxi, another employee or by a TMA/TMO.  For Production Workers – 5  For staff who are not Production Workers (i.e., office staff) - 5 

5 

Program Support 

Personalized Commute Assistance – 

The employer provides personalized assistance such as transit itineraries, carpool matching and personal follow-up to eligible employees at least annually. Examples of ways an employer can provide this service to eligible employees are: 

• Organize carpool/vanpool formation meeting(s). • Assist in identifying park and ride lots. • Assist in identifying bicycle and pedestrian routes. • Assist in providing personalized transit routes and schedule information. • Provide personalized follow-up assistance to maintain participation in 

the commute program. 

5 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  22 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Marketing Employer Rideshare Event – 

Employer sponsored events available to all eligible employees which promote rideshare opportunities, such as: 

• Employee Rideshare Fair that has multiple agencies or resources about 

alternative transportation in the vicinity of the worksite 

• Presentation on the alternative transportation opportunities and services 

available to the worksite and benefits of ridesharing. This should be at least a one-hour meeting for all eligible employees or the equivalent. 

• Week-long Alternative Transportation/Rideshare event where eligible 

employees are encouraged to try alternative transportation throughout 

the week. 

5 

Marketing Employer Rideshare/Alternative Transportation Meetings – 

Semiannual meetings available to all eligible employees to help those employees identify those who live in similar areas to foster the rideshare coordination. 

5 

Marketing Employer Rideshare/Alternative Transportation Focus Group(s) – 

Meetings conducted at least semiannually with a sample of eligible employees to solicit input on commute behavior, incentives to rideshare, and any constraints to alternative commute modes. 

5 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite break room and kitchenette – 

Eating area at the worksite that includes, at a minimum, a sink and microwave. 

5 

Services & Facilities 

Electric vehicle recharging 5 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Shuttles – 

Employers provide a shuttle for daily work commutes between employer worksites or between transportation stations and the worksite. 

5 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  23 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Vanpool Subsidy – 

Employers pay for all or part of the cost of commuting by vanpool for eligible employees that use these services. The employer must provide the monetary value of the vanpool subsidy and the frequency of distribution. 

5 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Transit Subsidy – 

Employers pay for all or part of the cost of commuting by local transit, commuter rail or train for eligible employees that use these services. The employer must provide the monetary value of the transit subsidy and the frequency of distribution. 

5 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Bicycle Subsidy – 

Employers pay for all or part of the purchase of a bicycle and/or bicycle improvements, repair, and storage for eligible employees that use these services and regularly commute by bicycle. The employer must provide the monetary value of the bicycle subsidy and the frequency of distribution. 

5 

Marketing Onsite Transit Information Center – 

Employer-provided transit information center for general transit information and/or the onsite sale of public transit passes, tickets or tokens to that worksite’s eligible employees. Information must be verified and updated, as necessary, at least quarterly. 

3 

Marketing Rideshare and Alternative Transportation Bulletin Boards – 

A communication tool that displays materials that publicizes incentives and encourages participation in a rideshare program. The bulletin board should be in a location that would be most likely viewed by the majority of the eligible employees. It may be necessary to have more than one bulletin board. The board should be verified and updated, as necessary, at least quarterly. 

3 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  24 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Marketing Attendance at a Marketing Class/Focus Group – 

Annual attendance by the ETC at an Employee Trip Reduction program marketing class provided by the District or its designee. 

3 

Marketing Employer Rideshare Newsletter – 

An employer-generated newsletter that discusses alternative transportation modes, outlines incentives, and encourages participation in a rideshare program. Must be distributed at least quarterly to all eligible employees. A newsletter should be at least two pages along and be text-driven to provide eligible employees with detailed information about ridesharing and alternative transportation. Could be an electronic newsletter. 

3 

Marketing “Best Workplaces for Commuters” Recognition – 

Businesses who, through application to the Best Workplaces for Commuters program, are found to meet the National Standard of Excellence in commuter benefits can be included in the national list of Best Workplaces for Commuters. This is a standard created by the Center for Urban Transportation Research and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See www.bestworkplaces.org for more information. 

3 

Program Support 

Ride match bulletin board – 

The employer provides an area for employees to find coworkers who may be interested in ridesharing. 

3 

Program Support 

External Employee Ride Matching Services – 

The employer promotes the use of a third-party rideshare program to help eligible employees identify appropriate opportunities for ridesharing. Employers must promote these services at least annually. 

3 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  25 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Program Support 

External Guaranteed Ride Home Service – 

The employer utilizes a third-party service to provide eligible employees with a return trip to the point of commute origin, when a need for the return trip arises and the employer participated in ridesharing or alternative transportation that day. This need may be a personal emergency, an unplanned situation or business-related activities (such as overtime). The employer needs to indicate if this service would be provided by employer vehicle, rental car, taxi, another employee or by a TMA/TMO. 

3 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Flex Time Schedule – 

Eligible employees are permitted to adjust their work hours in order to accommodate public transit schedules or rideshare arrangements.  For production workers 3  For staff who are not production workers (i.e., office staff) 3 

3 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Staggered Work Schedule – 

The employer selects different start and stop times for departments or individuals within the company to promote ridesharing and accommodate public transit. 

3 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Startup Incentive – 

Designed to reward commuters who previously commuted via single occupancy vehicle by offering a one-time or short-term incentive when they begin using ridesharing or alternative transportation on a regular basis. 

3 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Discount Transit Passes – 

Employers pay for part of the cost of commuting by local transit, commuter rail or train for eligible employees that use these services. 

3 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  26 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Discounted/Free Meals – 

Employers provide participating eligible employees with meals free or at least 50% discounted for their participation in the commute reduction program. The employer must offer meals to all eligible, participating employees at least once per month. 

3 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite Bike Repair – 

Services that would allow a bicycle repair person to repair and/or tune up employee bicycles onsite at least twice per month if or when eligible 

employees sign up and agree to pay for said services. 

2 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite ATM 2 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite vending machines 2 

Services & Facilities 

Bike Racks – 

Racks and secure bike parking is provided to accommodate eligible employees who bike to work. The employer must provide secure bike parking for the foreseeable need of the bicycle commuters. 

2 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite Health Facilities, or health facilities within 1⁄4 mile of worksite – 

Services that provide first aid to eligible employees including, but not limited to, first aid, onsite nurse, etc. 

2 

Services & Facilities 

Employer Provided Bicycles – 

Provided by the employer and made available for employee use during lunch and breaks. 

2 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  27 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Services & Facilities 

Fitness Area and/or Classes onsite, or within 1⁄4 mile of worksite – 

Employer provided area to exercise during breaks or lunches. Examples may include, but are not limited to: 

• Fitness area with exercise equipment available for employee use • Room designated for an exercise video or fitness instruction during 

lunch at least once per week 

2 

Marketing Rideshare Flyer – 

A flyer that provides updates to eligible employees on alternative commute modes and incentives offered by the employer to encourage participation in a rideshare program. The flyer would be one page and may include graphics and short summaries to highlight program basics and updates. Must be distributed at least quarterly to all eligible employees. 

1 

Marketing CEO Communication – 

Direct communication by the employer’s CEO to introduce alternative commute modes, outline incentives, and encourage participation in a rideshare program. This must occur, at a minimum, on an annual basis. Might occur as verbal or written communication. 

1 

Marketing Employer-adopted policy statement supporting employee ridesharing and 

alternative transportation 

1 

Marketing Rideshare Orientation for New Employees – 

Explanation of alternative transportation modes and employer incentives to promote and encourage participation in a rideshare program during the 

employer’s regular orientations for new, eligible employees. 

1 

Marketing Rideshare agency registration – 

Provide worksite information to a regional rideshare agency and maintain or update information as appropriate and requested by the regional agency 

1 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  28 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Services & Facilities 

Employer-Organized Lunch Delivery – 

Employer-organized lunch delivery at least twice per month. 

1 

Services & Facilities 

Check cashing 1 

Services & Facilities 

Direct Deposit 1 

Services & Facilities 

Break and/or Lunch Activities – 

Employer-sanctioned or employer-promoted activities that may reduce the amount of eligible employees going offsite during breaks and/or lunches at least two times per month. May include activities such as games, movies, etc. 

1 

Services & Facilities 

Dry Cleaning – 

Onsite pick up and delivery through an outside agency. 

1 

Services & Facilities 

Postal Service, or post office within 1⁄4 mile of worksite – 

Stamps for sale onsite and onsite mail pick up for eligible employees’ personal mail. Post office within 1⁄4 mile of worksite qualifies 

1 

Services & Facilities 

Onsite picnic tables 1 

Services & Facilities 

Maps to local conveniences Employer-provided map and/or listing of stores, restaurants, etc. within walking distance of the worksite. 

1 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Points Program – 

Program where eligible employees earn points for each day of participation in the trip reduction program. Points are redeemed for such rewards as time off, gift certificates, cash or merchandise. 

1 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410  29 

with A

Table 2: ETRIP measures, definitions, and points analysis 

Strategy ETRIP measure and description Points Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Preferential Parking – 

The employer provides preferential parking spaces for use by eligible employees when they participated in ridesharing. These spaces must be clearly posted or marked in a manner that identifies them for carpool or vanpool use only. Of all parking spaces available for any eligible employees (not including spaces reserved for management, visitors, or employer fleet), at least 5% should be permanently designated as carpool spaces. 

1 

Trans., Alt Schedules, and Incentives 

Prize Drawing – 

Eligible employees are provided with a chance to win prizes, at least quarterly, for participation in the trip reduction program. 

1 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 30 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Commute Verification 

Starting in the 2014 calendar year, employers would collect information on their eligible 

employees’ commute modes through Commute Verification. Results are informational, 

helping the employer and the District assess the ETRIP’s success in facilitating 

alternative transportation and ridesharing. The data collected will also be a measure of 

accountability to EPA, helping the District to verify emissions reductions. The Commute 

Verification process asks the employees how they commuted to work (i.e., drove to 

work alone, carpooled, bicycled, zero emissions vehicle, or public transit) each day for a 

typical workweek. The employer can implement Commute Verification one of two ways: 

• In the first option, the employer distributes Mandatory Commute 

Verification Forms to all eligible employees. Employers can use Districtprovided templates and reporting options. Employers may be able to 

incorporate this into an existing process, such as regular staff meetings, 

timesheets, or other employee form collection. 

• In the second option, the employer may propose an alternative data 

collection approach to collect data from a representative sample of eligible 

employees. Employers would submit their methodologies to the District 

for approval at least 120 days prior to the start of the calendar year in 

which the method would be used. 

Employers would keep Commute Verification records on file for at least five years, 

making records available to the District or EPA upon request. Commute Verification 

results would be reported to the District by March 31 of every year, beginning in 2015. 

Figure 2 shows a sample Commute Verification form that employers could distribute to 

and collect from their employees. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 31 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Figure 2: Commute Verification form

B. District Commitments in Draft Rule 9410 

The District is committing to provide resources, templates, and trainings in the 

regulatory language of the rule to provide assurance to employers that the District will 

work to make ETRIPs and surveys as turnkey and successful as possible. These 

commitments are summarized in Table 3. 

C. Healthy Air Living 

Healthy Air Living is the Air District’s campaign to help Valley residents and businesses 

make air quality a priority in day-to-day decision making. The Healthy Air Living 

campaign has provided public education informing Valley residents and businesses 

alternative transportation possibilities and ways to reduce emissions. The Healthy Air 

Living initiative also offers toolkits to employers, including the Employee Trip Reduction 

Resource Book (www.healthyairliving.com/docs/Trip%20Reduction%20Book.pdf). The 

Healthy Air Living program will continue to serve Valley residents. For more information, 

visit healthyairliving.com/business.htm. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 32 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Healthy Air Living would be coupled with Rule 9410 as a compliance option and as a 

vehicle to provide turnkey program elements. Employers who elect to become Healthy 

Air Living Business Partners under the District’s revamped Partners program would 

receive credit towards Rule 9410 compliance, and Partners would periodically receive 

sample newsletters, trainings, recognition, and other strategic support. In exchange, 

Partners would commit to various outreach strategies, such as distributing outreach 

materials to employees. 

Table 3: Rule Compliance Support Materials to be Provided by the District 

District-provided Resource Corresponding 

Employer Requirement Deadline 

District webpage and listserv 

dedicated to Rule 9410 

NA February 1, 2010 

Employer Registration 

Template and online 

Registration option 

Section 6.1 February 1, 2010 

Marketing and Program 

Support Strategies guidance 

and templates 

Marketing and Program 

Support Strategies, 

Section 5.2 

March 1, 2011 

Marketing training sessions, 

organized and facilitated by the 

District 

Marketing Strategy, 

Section 5.2 

First training to be held by 

April 1, 2011, with public 

noticing and outreach at least 

30 days before the first 

training session 

Services and Facilities 

guidance and resources 

Services and Facilities 

Strategy, Section 5.2 

March 1, 2012 

Transportation, Alternative 

Schedules and Incentives 

Strategy guidance and 

resources 

Transportation, Alternative 

Schedules and Incentives 

Strategy, Section 5.2 

March 1, 2013 

Transportation, Alternative 

Schedules, and Incentives 

training sessions, organized 

and facilitated by the District 

Transportation, Alternative 

Schedules and Incentives 

Strategy, Section 5.2 

First training to be held by 

April 1, 2013, with public 

noticing and outreach at least 

30 days before the first 

training session 

Commute Verification Form 

templates and online reporting 

options 

Sections 6.4 and 6.5 September 1, 2013 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 33 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. Regulations in other California Air Districts 

South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 2202 On-Road Motor 

Vehicle Mitigation Options on December 8, 1995. South Coast Air Quality Management 

District Rule 2202 requires larger employers (250 or more employees) to achieve 

annual emission reduction targets by paying into the Air Quality Investment Program, 

using mobile source Emission Reduction Credits, or implementing Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) reduction programs, or a combination of these strategies. Employers 

can be exempted by achieving an employee average vehicle ridership of 1.3 to 1.75, 

depending on the employer’s location in one of three zones.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1 Trip Reduction Requirements for 

Large Employers, under Regulation 13, was adopted in 1992 and vacated by SB 437 

(Lewis) in 1996. This rule required employers with 100 or more employees to implement 

a trip reduction plan. Currently, Bay Area AQMD promotes voluntary employer based 

trip reduction programs through their Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) stated in 

the 2000 Clean Air Plan and updated in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. TCM 1 states that 

the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will continue to administer the regional 

ridesharing program funded by Bay Area AQMD’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air 

(TFCA). TFCA also funds TCM 13 Transit Use Incentives providing 58 employers with 

monthly transit passes, TCM 14 Rideshare and Vanpool Services, and TCM 16 

Intermittent Control Measure/Public Education Spare the Air Program which is currently 

partnered with 1,021 employers. 

Also in the Bay Area, the cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Richmond have city 

ordinances requiring employers with at least 20 employees to provide transportation 

benefit programs of employer-paid alternative transportation or pre-tax programs for 

alternative commute modes. 

B. Additional Resources 

There is a multitude of employer based and regional programs in and outside of 

California that provide services to reduce VMT and emissions. Though they have been 

successful, the efforts still remain voluntary in nature and limited in scope. Mandatory 

trip reduction programs have the potential to provide widespread change and achieve 

significant reductions in VMT. Employers may be able to partner with existing programs 

and services, or employers may be benefit from implementing programs similar to those 

that have already been shown to be successful. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 34 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Best Workplaces for Commuters: Best Workplaces for Commuters is a nation-wide 

program dedicated to employer recognition and resources for commuter benefits. 

Applicants agree to offer a selection of commuter benefits and ensure a minimum level 

of employee participation. This program was created by the Center for Urban 

Transportation Research and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See 

www.bestworkplaces.org for more information. The San Joaquin Valley Air District 

applied for Best Workplaces for Commuters recognition in February 2009.

Valley Transit Services: Employers in some areas may be able to take advantage of 

local transit services in their area. Table 4 summarizes some of the major Valley bus 

systems.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 35 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Table 4: Valley Bus Information 

City Bus System Fare Website 

Hours 

Available 

Routes 

Available

Online 

Bakersfield 

GET (Golden 

Empire Transit) $0.90 www.getbus.org/

6:00am10:45pm Yes 

Clovis 

Stageline and 

FAX Route 28 $1 

www.cityofclovis.com/UMAP.asp?FolderID

=249

6:00am8:25pm Yes 

Fresno 

FAX (Fresno 

Area Express) $1 

www.fresno.gov/DiscoverFresno/

PublicTransportation/default.htm

5:30am10:00pm Yes 

Hanford 

KART (Kings 

Area Rural Transit) $1 www.kartaits.com/karthome.htm

5:50am11:00pm Yes 

Lodi Grape Line $1 www.lodi.gov/transit/introductions.html

6:00am7:00pm Yes 

Madera 

MAX (Madera Area 

Express) $0.75 www.maderactc.org/pubtrans.html

7:00am6:30pm Yes 

Manteca Manteca Transit $1 

www.ci.manteca.ca.us/mantecatransit/gen

eral.htm

6:00am7:00pm Yes 

Merced The BUS $1 www.mercedthebus.com/index.html

7:00am6:00pm Yes 

Modesto 

MAX (Modesto 

Area Express) $1.25 

www.modestoareaexpress.com/

default.htm

6:30am6:00pm Yes 

Porterville Porterville Transit $1 www.portervilletransit.org/

7:00am7:00pm Yes 

Stockton 

RTD (Regional 

Transit District) $1.50 www.sanjoaquinrtd.com/Default.htm

6:00am10:45pm Yes 

Tracy Tracer $1 www.mvtransit.com/Tracer_home.htm

7:00am7:00pm Yes 

Turlock 

BLAST (Bus Line 

Service of Turlock) $1.25 

www.ci.turlock.ca.us/citydepartments/

developmentservices/transitservices/blastb

us/

5:35am6:15pm Yes 

Visalia 

VCC (Visalia 

City Coach) $1 

www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/transit/

visalia_city_coach_(vcc)/default.asp

6:00am9:30pm Yes 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 36 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Resources for Ridesharing 

There are many programs operating regionally throughout California to provide 

alternative transportation services such as ride matching, commute calculators, 

employer resources, incentives and discounts and Guaranteed Ride Home services. 

Though it is not nearly exhaustive, the following list is of a few notable programs in the 

San Joaquin Valley: 

• Commute Connection (www.commuteconnection.com) is a regional rideshare 

program operated by the San Joaquin Council of Governments, in partnership 

with Stanislaus Council of Governments, and helps commuters find suitable 

alternative transportation options. The program includes free services such as 

commuter ride matching, Guaranteed Ride Home and employer assistance, 

while raising public awareness about the connection between transportation 

choices, air quality, and traffic congestion. Commute Connection currently serves 

almost 10,000 commuters in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras and Tuolumne 

Counties. 

• Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (www.kartaits.com) sponsors two 

programs that serve Kings County as well as other surrounding communities. 

Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) is Kings County's complete public rural and 

urban transportation provider. KART provides service within the Downtown areas 

of Hanford and Lemoore and regular route service between Hanford and the 

cities and communities of Armona, Avenal, Corcoran, Fresno, Grangeville, 

Hardwick, Kettleman City, Laton, Lemoore, Stratford, and Visalia. The AITS 

program is a vanpool program, also sponsored by Kings County Area Public 

Transit Agency, which provides agricultural workers in Kings, Tulare and Fresno 

Counties with safe, affordable vans they can use to drive themselves and others 

to work. AITS offers start-up grants to purchase the vans, and riders pay only a 

nominal fee to cover the cost to operate, maintain and insure the vehicle. The 

vans are also each equipped with a Global Positioning System, first aid kits, fire 

extinguishers and roadside safety items. 

• Kern Commuter Connection (www.commutekern.org) serves Kern County 

offering information on carpooling, vanpooling and other modes of alternative 

transportation as well as air quality and road information and employer 

resources. 

• Merced Rides (www.mercedrides.com) serves Merced County with information 

on transit, ridesharing, and the “Car-less Commute” program. 

• South Valley Rideshare (www.southvalleyrideshare.com) is an innovation of 

Visalia City Coach in collaboration with the Kings County Area Public Transit 

Agency serving Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties. The website 

provides listings of open carpools and vanpools and provides other transit 

information. 

• Valley Rides (www.valleyrides.com) is a cooperative effort between California 

State University Fresno and the Council of Fresno County Governments serving 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 37 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

the Central Valley students and businesses. Valley Rides offers information on 

park and ride lots in the area and carpooling tips. 

C. Successes 

Successes in Ridesharing 

The following worksites have successfully incorporated carpooling, vanpooling, or other 

mass transit options in their trip reduction efforts:

• The San Joaquin Valley Air District currently operates a voluntary Alternative 

Transportation Incentive Program for its employees. This program provides 

monetary incentives and preferential parking for those employees who use 

alternative modes of transportation, such as carpooling, biking, and public transit 

for at least 60% of commutes to and from work. Currently, this program has 

about 37% participation and has been a role model for the Valley. 

• Paramount Farms in Northwestern Kern County operate employee vanpools for 

its sites in Lost Hills and Kings County.

• Pelco in Fresno has a wide variety of employee focused programs that reduce 

vehicle miles travelled, including bike to work and bus incentives. 

• IKEA Wholesale in Bakersfield participates in and encourages carpooling and 

other alternative transportation with subsidies and competitions between 

employees. 

• Tejon Ranch is implementing a vanpool to serve the many employees at IKEA 

and Tejon Industrial Complex. 

• Diamond Foods in Fowler are in the process of getting bus service to their site 

and will provide a bus schedule to all employees. 

• Frito-Lay is establishing a rideshare program at the worksites in Crows Landing 

and Bakersfield to help reduce vehicle trips. 

• Cal State University Bakersfield encourages student use of busses by 

subsidizing bus passes, and by sponsoring an Alternative Transportation Day. 

They are also exploring ways to get more people involved such as incentivizing 

alternative transportation with gift drawings. 

• Chevron facilities in Fresno operate vanpools to outlying field areas. 

• Aera Energy operates vanpools from the offices in Bakersfield. 

• Dreyers Ice Cream in Bakersfield encourages their employees to walk, bike, and 

carpool to work. 

Successes in Services and Facilities 

Onsite facilities and services make choosing alternative transportation more convenient. 

Programs currently in place that offer additional services to employees as a part of their 

trip reduction efforts include: 

• The District offers its employees various facilities like showers and lockers, bike 

racks, bikes available for break and lunchtime use, lunch activities, postal 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 38 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

services, order in lunches, and dry cleaning pickup and delivery. These 

additional services help reduce vehicle trips at lunch and for running errands, 

especially complementing those who do commute alternatively. 

• Paramount Farms has a cafeteria in the Lost Hills facility to keep employees from 

commuting offsite for meals. 

• Pelco has an onsite food service, postal services, and dry cleaning service 

helping to decrease additional trips employees need to make. 

• IKEA contracts with a catering service to keep employees on site for meals. 

• CSUB offers many internet classes and has dining facilities, postage facilities, 

and provides daycare for students and staff. 

• The Chevron facility has a gym on site, provides lunch service, postal service, 

and bicycle storage. 

• Aera Energy also has a gym on site, ATM, and provides lunch service for 

employees. 

Successes in Alternative Work Schedules and Telecommuting 

Many employers utilize flexible schedules and telecommuting to help reduce vehicle 

trips, congestion, and pollution:

• The District has implemented flexible work schedules and telecommuting to 

reduce vehicle trips to and from work and meetings. The District’s flexible work 

schedule consists of working 9 days out of a two week period but still achieving 

80 hours (9/80 schedule). This is done by working 9 hours a day Monday 

through Thursday and then 8 hours on the working Friday and then off on the 

second Friday therefore reducing a day of commuting to work. 

• Paramount Farms saves travel with teleconferencing between offices in Lost Hills 

and Santa Monica, and allows employee telecommuting. 

• Pelco allows flex work schedules to better suit employees. 

• IKEA has a telecommuting program that allows some job classifications to work 

from home. 

• Chevron also operates on a 9/80 schedule to help reduce vehicle trips. 

• Aera Energy operates on a 9/80 schedule in addition to their other trip reduction 

efforts. 

• Dreyers utilizes video-conferencing and telecommuting to cut down on travel. 

D. Benefits of a Trip Reduction Program 

The Employer Based Trip Reduction program is part of the District’s strategy for 

bringing the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin into attainment of EPA’s health-based air 

quality standards for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. A majority of the Valley’s NOx 

emissions come from mobile sources, and these emissions contribute to both ozone 

and PM concentrations. Employer based trip reduction programs can provide a step in 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 39 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

reducing vehicle trips in the Valley to reduce mobile source emissions and improve air 

quality. 

California Senate Bill 375

The District’s Employer Based Trip Reduction rule can also reduce GHG emissions and 

help the Valley comply with California Senate Bill (SB) 375. Under SB 375, approved 

on August 22, 2008 and codified in the California Government Code and Public 

Resources Code, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must adopt a 

Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of their regional transportation plans. SB 

375 links regional planning to Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which requires the State of 

California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels no later than 

2020. Under SB 375, ARB will provide MPOs with GHG emission reduction targets. 

The MPOs will then incorporate strategies like better use of mass transit and bicycle 

lanes as well as mixed-use or denser development practices into their Sustainable 

Communities Strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This effort and the District’s 

Employer Based Trip Reduction are complementary programs, incorporating similar 

strategies to achieve separate goals. 

Additional Benefits 

Workplace trip reduction programs can have a wide range of benefits, depending on 

how programs are implemented, and the benefits can affect multiple parties. Table 5 

summarizes some of the potential benefits of trip reduction programs. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 40 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

Table 5: Possible Benefits of a Trip Reduction Program 

Benefits Employee Employer Community 

Decrease parking fees and costs D D 

Expanded employee benefits at low/no cost D D 

Lower absenteeism and tardiness D D 

Increased employment opportunities for 

disabled and others unable to meet 

traditional work hours 

D D 

Enhanced employee productivity through 

teleconferencing and telework options 

D D 

Increase in transport options D D 

Increase road safety D D 

Save money on gas and insurance D 

Decrease vehicle wear and tear D 

Boost mental health by decreasing stress 

from driving and traffic 

D 

Relieve overcrowded parking areas D 

Reduced overhead costs such as office 

space requirements if telecommuting 

D 

Tax Benefits D 

Enhanced employee recruitment and 

retention 

D 

Expanded service hours if changes made to 

work hour schedules 

D 

Reducing road and parking facility 

requirements 

D 

Decrease congestion D

Improve air quality D

Reduce road and traffic service costs D

More efficient land use D

Community livability D
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 41 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

E. Conjunction with Other District Programs

 

The District has programs already in place that reduce emissions from mobile 

sources. One example is the District's Healthy Air Living program, discussed earlier in 

this staff report. Since reductions achieved through Healthy Air Living are voluntary, the 

District does not quantify or credit these reductions in the attainment planning 

process. In contrast, the District's Indirect Source Review (ISR) program, Rule 9510, is 

a quantifiable and creditable mechanism for reducing mobile source emissions, 

specifically those associated with new development. New development can increase 

emissions both during construction and after, when increased vehicle traffic to and from 

the development increases an area's VMT. ISR requires developers of larger 

residential, commercial, and industrial projects to reduce emissions indirectly generated 

by their projects through either onsite measures (like siting near transit or retail 

services) or through off-site measures. For off-site measures, the developer pays an 

off-site mitigation fee to the District, and then those funds are used in the District's 

existing grant programs to fund emissions reductions projects.

 

Some of the mobile source reductions obtained through the District's Emissions 

Reduction Incentive Program (ERIP) are a result of ISR funds, and some funding comes 

from other sources. ERIP provides a variety of financial incentives and grants for 

projects that reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile or non-mobile sources. Some 

ERIP projects that reduce emissions from mobile sources include subsidized van pools. 

The District has also awarded a grant to the Visalia City Coach that subsidizes the cost 

of monthly transit passes (called "Hop Pass"), providing a discount for new bus 

commuters for up to six months.

Rule 9410 provides another important opportunity for the District to help the Valley 

achieve additional, much-needed mobile source emissions reductions. While Employer 

Based Trip Reduction has potential to reach a different and larger target group of 

commuters than those reached through ISR and ERIP, it is possible that some 

employees will be reducing trips by utilizing programs and services put in place through 

ISR and ERIP. The District must not count the same emissions reductions in two 

different programs. 

Through ERIP record keeping, the District maintains information on vanpool ridership 

and transit pass subsidies. The District will compare this to information collected 

through Rule 9410 record keeping to prevent double counting of emissions reductions. 

At this time, the District expects the only a very small percentage of those participating 

in Employer Based Trip Reduction will also receive District transportation subsidies. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 42 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATE 

District staff has estimated the potential emissions reduction to be achieved from 

implementing the proposed Rule 9410. Please refer to Appendix B of this staff report 

for the analysis and detail on the emissions reduction estimate. 

V. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to H&SC 40728.5, District staff has prepared a cost effectiveness and 

socioeconomic analysis to analyze the economic feasibility of the proposed rule. See 

Appendices C and D of this Staff Report. 

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has 

investigated the possible environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to Rule 

9410 and prepared an Initial Study. Based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, staff 

has concluded that the proposed amendments to the rules will not have any significant 

adverse effects on the environment. Staff recommends filing a Notice of Exemption 

under the provisions of Public Resource Code 15061 (b)(3). 

VII. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, an air district must identify 

and evaluate any existing federal rules or rules within that air district that apply to the 

same equipment or source type (California Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2). 

Elements of review include work practice, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. 

Through Rule 9410, employers will put measures in place that facilitate ridesharing and 

alternative transportation. Employers will also Commute Verification Forms collecting 

information on employee commute modes. There are no existing federal or District 

regulations that apply to employee commutes. Therefore, adoption of Rule 9410 would 

not conflict with any existing federal or District requirements. 

VIII. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES (RACT) ANALYSIS 

Clean Air Act Section 182(b)(2) states that ozone attainment plans shall assure that 

RACT for VOC is applied at major stationary sources and on any source category for 

which the US EPA has issued a Control Technique Guideline (CTG). Section 182(f) of 

the CAA extends federal RACT requirements to NOx, both for CTG categories and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 43 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

major stationary sources. Although Rule 9410 represents a very progressive and 

innovative emission control measure, District staff believes that it is not subject to 

federal RACT requirements for two main reasons. First, employee commute trips are 

not covered by any EPA-issued CTG. Second, the rule does not address emissions 

under the direct control of any stationary source, whether major or minor. Rule 9410 

merely requires employers to establish programs to encourage their employees to use 

alternative transportation. As such, District staff concludes that a RACT analysis is not 

appropriate or necessary. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 December 17, 2009 

 44 Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

IX. REFERENCES 

1. San Joaquin Valley APCD. 2007 Ozone Plan. April 30, 2007. 

2. San Joaquin Valley APCD. 2008 PM2.5 Plan. April 30, 2008. 

3. SJVAPCD Healthy Air Living Business Page www.healthyairliving.com/business.htm 

4. SJVAPCD HAL Employee Trip Reduction Resource Book 

http://www.healthyairliving.com/docs/Trip%20Reduction%20Book.pdf

5. U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. “Summary 

of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey”. December, 2004. 

6. SJVAPCD Alternative Transportation Incentive Program 

7. Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. Third 

Quarter, 2007. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=138

8. Bay Area AQMD. “Regulation 13 - Transportation Control Measures. Rule 1 - Trip 

Reduction Requirements for Large Employers”. Adopted December 16, 1992. 

Suspended by the CA Legislature January 1, 1996. 

9. Bay Area AQMD. “2005 Ozone Strategy”. January 4, 2006. 

10. South Coast AQMD. “Rule 2202. On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options” and 

“Employee Commute Reduction Program Guidelines”. February 6, 2004. 

11. Commute Connection www.commuteconnection.com 

12. South Valley Rideshare www.southvalleyrideshare.com 

13. Commute Kern http://commutekern.org/

14. Valley Rides for Central California www.valleyrides.com 

15. Best Workplaces For Commuters www.bestworkplaces.org/index.htm 

16. Kern Commuter Connection commutekern.org/index.html 

17. Merced Rides www.mercedrides.com 

18. Kings County Area Public Transit Agency www.kartaits.com

19. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Travel Impacts”, TDM Encyclopedia: Commute 

Trip Reduction Programs That Encourage Employees to Use Efficient Commute 

Options, 2009. 

20. U.S. DOT FTA and FHWA, U.S. EPA. “Summary of Choices – What works?”, 

Commuter Choice Primer. 

21. U.S. DOT FHWA. “Employer-Based TDM Programs”, Multi-Pollutant Emissions 

Benefits of Transportation Strategies, 2006. 

22. U.S. EPA, Commuter Model, 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/pag_transp.htm 

23. U.S. DOT, Commuter Choice Decision Support Tool, 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/PrimerDSS/guidancetool/step1.htm?i= 

24. Best Workplaces for Commuters, Business Savings Calculator, 

http://www.bestworkplaces.org/?page_id=28 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-1

APPENDIX A 

Public Comments 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-2

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-3

Written Comments on the Draft Staff Report for Rule 9410

Comment period held from October 26 through November 4, 2009. 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Bolthouse Farms (Bolthouse) 

California League of Food Processors and the Manufacturers Council of 

the Central Valley (CLFP/MCCV) 

City of Clovis (Clovis) 

City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, Wastewater Management 

Division (FWMD) 

Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Hospital Council of Northern and Central California (HCNCC) 

Kern County Department of Human Services (Kern DHS) 

Modesto Irrigation District (MID) 

Rain for Rent (RFR) 

Turlock Irrigation District (TID) 

General 

1. Comment: We do not see the need for the formal oversight, inspections, and 

possible fines for this rule, particularly when employers may already have many 

program options in place. (Bolthouse) 

Response: The formality and reporting of the rule are important for verifying 

emissions reductions needed for the Valley’s significant attainment challenges. 

The District will be making a variety of templates, resources, and trainings 

available as the rule is implemented to assist employers. For employers that 

already have programs in place, the additional efforts required for this rule should 

be minimal. 

2. Comment: You have no jurisdiction or authority to control or regulate travel. We 

will not be forced to limit the freedom of travel our employees enjoy. (RFR) 

Response: The District will not be regulating individuals’ travel in this rule. The 

District’s authority for this rule comes California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 

Sections 40601 and 40612 as well as federal Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(B). 

3. Comment: We appreciate the District’s approach of not imposing a one-sizefits-all program, and we appreciate the changes that have been made in the rule 

so far. (MID, TID) 

Response: Comment noted. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-4

4. Comment: According to the San Joaquin Valley Express Transit Study, many of 

the services necessary for trip reduction are not currently available in the Valley. 

It is also clear that the MPOs view this rule as a source of funding. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: Available services will vary between worksites, and more services 

may become available as the rule is implemented. The ETRIP menu options 

provide a sufficient variety of measures for successful trip reduction programs for 

all worksites, based on the services available for those sites. Generally, MPOs 

offer ride matching and other resources at no cost. 

5. Comment: The District should consider a specific and unique set of guidelines 

for hospitals and other employers that serve the public safety and well-being. 

Hospitals are 24/7/365 operations that cannot easily postpones products or 

services to accommodate ridesharing. (HCNCC) 

Response: In consideration for the public health benefits of Rule 9410, hospitals 

can be important partners in this effort. To determine whether a hospital is 

subject to Rule 9410, the hospital would exclude from their eligible employee 

count any part time employee, on-call employees, and employees who do not 

start work between 6 AM and 10 AM. As with other employers, no hospital 

employees will be forced to use ridesharing or alternative transportation, and 

those employees with more predictable shifts would be the most likely employees 

to use ridesharing and alternative transportation. Many hospitals will likely find 

that they have many ETRIP measures already in place, such as on-site food 

service and compressed work weeks. 

Excluded Employees 

6. Comment: The home garage definition should include employees who receive a 

vehicle allowance for use of their private vehicle for business purposes in lieu of 

being provided an employer-owned vehicle. (Clovis) The number of home 

garage employees may change from day to day, so not all employees take home 

an employer-owned vehicle every day. (TID) 

Response: Home garage employees are excluded from the rule due to the 

potential liabilities associated with an employer-owned vehicle; however, these 

liabilities are not an issue in a personal vehicle that may be subject to an 

employer vehicle allowance. In cases where the number of home garage 

employees change from day to day, the employer should use an average for the 

work week. 

7. Comment: Employees already established in a compressed work week 

schedule or ride-sharing program should be excluded. (FWMD) 

Response: For reporting purposes and for simplicity of employer 

implementation, these employees are not excluded from the rule. Through this 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-5

rule, it is expected that more employees will be established in compressed work 

week schedules or ride-sharing programs. 

8. Comment: Employees traveling from rural, isolated areas and whose facility is 

in a rural area which requires a travel distance of six miles or more one-way 

should be excluded. (FWMD) 

Response: Employees who travel longer distances from work may be able to 

carpool with coworkers who live closer to work, picking them up on the way. 

Employees who travel longer distances to work may be good candidates for 

vanpooling or telecommuting, depending on the work environment. 

9. Comment: Employees whose scheduled work week includes Saturdays and 

Sundays should be excluded. (FWMD) 

Response: Employees who do not report to work during the peak period are 

excluded employees in Rule 9410. The “peak period” is defined as 6 AM to 10 

AM Monday through Friday. Therefore, shifts worked on Saturdays and Sundays 

are not considered as the employer determines whether they are subject to the 

rule. However, employees who may work on Saturdays and Sundays are 

counted as eligible employees for shifts worked during the peak period. 

10. Comment: Employees who are on-call/stand-by 24/7 should be excluded. 

(FWMD) Many of our employees are emergency responders that must 

sometimes deal with unanticipated situations and work unexpected hours. (MID) 

Response: The rule has been revised to include a definition for on-call 

employees, with these employees excluded from the rule if the definition is met. 

11. Comment: The definition of field employees is a concern for us. Many of our 

employees do not meet this definition because, although they spend less than 

20% of their time at the central work location, they report at the central location at 

the beginning and end of the work day to pick up and return an employerprovided vehicle and other supplies. Many of these employees may have to 

work overtime or be on-call, so their shift may be unpredictable. (TID, MID) 

Many ETRIP measures would not be available to field employees. (MID) 

Response: Employers should keep their off-site employees in mind in selecting 

ETRIP measures. While some ETRIP measures would not be available, they 

may not relate to issues of concern for off-site employees. For example, these 

employees may not be as likely to take advantage of onsite food service, but 

because they may be able to stop for food in their work vehicle, access to food is 

not an impediment to ridesharing and alternative transportation. No employee 

will be forced to use ridesharing or alternative transportation. Employees with 

more predictable schedules or with schedules similar to coworkers will be the 

most likely to use ridesharing or alternative transportation. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-6

12. Comment: The definition of emergency personnel should be expanded to 

include patient care providers in hospitals. Trip reduction rules and programs 

should distinguish between direct patient care providers (who often have varying 

and unpredictable shifts or may have to be on-call) and administrative staff show 

work more “traditional” hours. (HCNCC) 

Response: Employees with predictable schedules will be the most likely to use 

ridesharing or alternative transportation. Many direct care providers may have 

routine schedules. On-call staff have been defined in the revised rule and are 

included in the definition of excluded employees. 

13. Comment: The rule should include a provision that would waive Rule 9410 

provisions for hospitals for times of disasters. (HCNCC) 

Response: Most ETRIP measures remain in place once implemented and 

would not be impacted by disaster situations. Many other rule elements (such as 

the commute verification process, rideshare newsletters, employer rideshare 

events, etc) have flexibility to allow the employer to decide the best time for 

implementation, so employers can work around times of disasters, busier work 

product times, and other situations. 

ETRIP measures 

14. Comment: Compressed work weeks cannot be applied to all of our employees 

due to the nature of our work. (FWMD) 

Response: There are several levels of points and participation for the 

compressed work week ETRIP measure so employers can receive points 

according to their ability to implement the measure. District staff understands 

that compressed work weeks will not work for all employers. 

15. Comment: We would like to see more flexibility in Phase 3, as these measures 

can be very challenging for employers (TID). 

Response: A degree of additional flexibility is being incorporated into Phase 3 

for Tier Two Worksites in the Proposed Rule 9410; the District has slightly 

lowered the point target for “Transportation, Alternative Schedules, and 

Incentives” but increased the “Additional Points Needed” so that the total ETRIP 

points stays the same but employers have more choices on which strategy to 

emphasize. Phase 3 measures are important because they can increase 

employee participation in alternative transportation and ridesharing. 

16. Comment: Monetary incentives can be problematic for a public utility. (TID) 

Response: Monetary incentives are part of employee compensation. 

Employers can still attain enough ETRIP points while deemphasizing monetary 

incentives by prioritizing other measures. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-7

17. Comment: Contract negotiations with unions dictate terms and conditions for 

employment. (TID) 

Response: ETRIP measures that may be subject to contract negotiations have 

been phased in for the 2013 ETRIP submittal with implementation by 2014. 

Employers therefore have a few years to introduce ETRIP measures into 

negotiations. 

18. Comment: Compressed work week and telecommuting are options for many of 

our staff, but not at the percentages specified in the ETRIP measures. These 

measures might be modified to base percentages on eligible employees not 

including field staff. (TID) 

Response: The Proposed Rule now excludes field staff from the telecommuting 

measure. Field staff may still be eligible for compressed work weeks, depending 

on the nature of their work. 

19. Comment: Employer-imposed requirements for employees to live within a set, 

short distance from work could be an ETRIP measure. (MID) 

Response: This would not be a reasonable option for the majority of Valley 

employers. An employer may include an option like this as part of “Other 

measures approved by the District” if it will ensure alternative transportation or 

ridesharing. 

20. Comment: Can the “rideshare newsletter” be an existing/general employee 

newsletter that includes a rideshare section that advises staff of resources and 

rideshare events? (Kern DHS) 

Response: Yes. 

21. Comment: For the Preferential Parking measures, the 5% requirement for 

carpool spaces might be too high when parking is at a premium and the spaces 

might not be used. (Kern DHS) 

Response: The 5% minimum helps increase the visibility of the ridesharing 

option and creates a desirable incentive to those who carpool. Employers who 

decide that 5% is too high can elect not to use the preferential parking ETRIP 

measure. These employers may find it beneficial to start with a lower number of 

carpool spaces and gradually increase the number as these spaces are used. 

22. Comment: Comment: The number of available ETRIP options in a 

manufacturing environment is very limited. Consequently, we believe that 

manufacturing facilities, as previously defined be required to comply with the 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 point totals only. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: To increase flexibility, the “Transportation, Alternative Schedules, 

and Incentives Strategy” point target for Tier Two worksites has also been 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-8

decreased with the Additional Points needed increasing to allow for more 

flexibility in the ETRIP options. 

23. Comment: Many of the Phase III transportation and alternative schedule 

measures are incongruous with a manufacturing work environment and with 

union negotiations. First, the union focuses on compensation increases that 

benefit every member of the group and subsidies or incentives that will only be 

paid to participating employees will not effectively represent their entire 

constituency. Incentives or subsidies may also increase union dues since fees 

are established based on the wages of union members. Second, some 

manufacturers are governed by labor contracts that are multi-state or national in 

scope. The only clear exceptions to this during contract negotiations on national 

contracts are specific to State Wage and Hour Laws, and these exceptions would 

then apply to every site within that state, not just one site located in the San 

Joaquin Valley. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: Provisions have been added to the Telecommuting, Flex Schedule 

and Compressed Work Week schedule measures so that points can be awarded 

when offered to workers not on a production line. See also Comment 22. 

24. Comment: There may some manufacturing employers who cannot attain the 

requisite points in the Program Support Strategy. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The District modified the Program Support Strategy to include 

separate points available for offering Internal Guaranteed Ride Home Service to 

production line workers and other workers such as office staff, due to the legal 

and practical challenges in manufacturing facilities. 

25. Comment: An employer/worksite should be allowed to utilize points from other 

strategies to make up a deficit in another category. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The minimum point target in each strategy was set so that employers 

implement a comprehensive trip reduction program and the additional points 

needed foster flexibility to offer more options in the employer’s strategy of choice. 

Other Definitions 

26. Comment: Manufacturing line workers should reflect the definition in the 

Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 1‐2001, Manufacturing Industry; 

3‐2001; 3‐2001, Canning, Freezing, and Preserving Industry; and/or 8‐2001, 

Industries Handling Products After Harvest. The IWC wage order definitions are 

legally recognized and most precisely categorize the manufacturing sector. 

(CLFP, MCCV) 

Response: The Proposed Rule includes a definition for Production Line Worker 

that incorporates the IWC wage orders. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-9

27. Comment: The rule should define a “standard work week” as Monday through 

Friday. The “standard reporting to work time” should be included in the rule and 

defined as 6 am to 10 am. (FWMD) 

Response: “Peak period” is defined in Section 3.0 of the rule as 6 AM to 10 AM 

Monday through Friday. 

Survey 

28. Comment: Survey requirements are cumbersome and impractical (Bolthouse). 

Response: Periodic data collection on employee commute modes are crucial 

demonstrations of accountability that can help the Valley avoid more stringent 

ridesharing mandates. Proposed Rule 9410 shifts away from the “survey” 

concept and reframes commute data collection as “Commute Verification” to 

communicate the importance of this data. The Proposed Rule also reflects a 

change in frequency and return rates for data collection. The current approach is 

simple, straight forward, and keeps the administrative burden at a minimum. 

29. Comment: The 90% survey response rate is unrealistic and creates an undue 

administrative tracking burden. (Clovis, CLFP/MCCV, TID, MID, Kern DHS) A 

50% response rate is more realistic and should provide a sufficient amount of 

data for the District to infer emissions reductions. Additional ETRIP points could 

be awarded to employers who achieve higher return rates. (Clovis) The District 

would refrain from setting a minimum at this time and, instead, see what survey 

response rates are like for the first year of surveys and set a survey return rate 

requirement based on the first year. (TID) 

Response: See Comment 28. The Proposed Rule includes two ways for the 

employer to implement Commute Verification. In the first option, the employer 

distributes Commute Verification Forms to all eligible employees. Employers can 

use District-provided templates and reporting options. Employers may be able to 

incorporate this into an existing process, such as regular staff meetings, 

timesheets, or other employee form collection. In the second option, the 

employer may propose an alternative data collection approach to collect data 

from a representative sample of eligible employees. Employers would submit 

their methodologies to the District for approval at least 120 days prior to the start 

of the calendar year in which the method would be used. 

30. Comment: Requiring additional surveys for employers who do not achieve the 

90% survey return rate adds unnecessary administrative burdens. (Clovis, 

CLFP/MCCV) It is likely that the same people will be responding each time, and 

with repeated surveys, they may stop responding. We don’t think repeated 

surveys will give the District accurate information. (TID, MID) 

Response: See Comments 28 and 29. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-10

31. Comment: A baseline survey should be required prior to the implementation of 

any of the rules requirements. This will allow the Air District to gauge 

improvements once the rule implementation begins. (CCA) 

Response: Requiring a baseline survey would increase compliance costs. 

Valley-specific data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2006-2008 (part of 

the “American Community Survey”) establishes an appropriate baseline from 

which to evaluate changes in commute behaviors and emissions reductions. 

Prioritizing the ETRIP early in implementation also allows employers to focus 

their implementation efforts on the actions that can facilitate commute changes. 

Implementing Commute Verification after the full ETRIP is put into place gives 

ETRIP measures a chance to work. 

32. Comment: Requiring multiple surveys each year would improve 

representativeness of the data. Requiring additional surveys only when survey 

response is limited, is an improvement from previous drafts but still does not do 

enough to gather useful data nor to discourage possible gaming of the survey 

mechanism. (CCA) 

Response: Commute verification would be based on a five-day work week. The 

District estimates that about 500,000 employees in the Valley would be eligible 

employees subject to Commute Verification. Thus, Proposed Rule 9410 

generates about 2.5 million data points every year, a vast amount of data that 

should be sufficient to verify emission reductions. Requiring additional data 

collection would increase compliance time and costs without necessarily 

improving the representativeness of data. Because compliance with the rule is 

not based on the number of employees who participate in ridesharing and 

alternative transportation, and because employers are required to save survey 

records for at least five years for possible APCO requests, there should be no 

incentive or motivation for manipulating the integrity of the Commute Verification 

forms.

Cost 

33. Comment: We think we will have to hire someone dedicated to ensuring Rule 

9410 compliance (Bolthouse). 

Response: Hiring a full time staff person dedicated to Rule 9410 would be 

excessive for the vast majority of employers. The District will be providing 

templates, trainings, guidance documents, and other tools to minimize the 

administrative burdens of Rule 9410 as much as possible. Although some 

ETRIP measures will require some effort when they are initially put into place, 

many require little to no ongoing effort. Employers may be able to delegate Rule 

9410 tasks among several existing staff to minimize the burden on any one 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-11

person. Alternatively, employers may find that an intern or temporary staff 

person may be able to help put Rule 9410 measures and efforts in place. 

34. Comment: As written, Rule 9410 does not look “low or no cost.” (Bolthouse) 

The costs associated with this rule are a burden in an the already-challenging 

economy. (RFR, Clovis) The rule will require diverting already scarce internal 

resources. (HCNCC) 

Response: See Comment 33. 

35. Comment: We do not want to pay more taxes to support excess government 

spending. (RFR) 

Response: There are no fees paid to the District to comply with Rule 9410. 

36. Comment: The District should do modeling of how these rules will impact 

specific sub-sets of employers, including hospitals. (HCNCC) 

Response: Please refer to the Socioeconomic Analysis in Appendix C of the 

Staff Report. 

Cost Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Analysis 

37. Comment: We believe the District has significantly underestimated the costs 

associated with this Rule. Data from our members indicate a cost ranging from 

$49,007 per ton to $74,194 per ton, far above the $25,000 cost effectiveness 

threshold and of that estimated in the staff report. The District underestimates 

the average hourly rate and the amount of time it will take to administer the 

program. Another gross underestimation is the average rate of pay for the policy 

review and administration of the program. Local industry averages validate that 

these assumptions are off as much as $19 per hour. Also, while the current 

worksheet does account for employee labor to fill out the survey, it does not 

include the cost of lost production hours which our member companies factor into 

their cost vs. return models. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The District used a Valley-wide average hourly rate (including 

benefits) calculated from the Employment Development Department (EDD). The 

District based time estimates on the District’s in-house programs, and these are 

considered reasonable in light of the resources the District will provide employers 

to reduce administrative time and costs. The amount of time needed for 

employees to complete Commute Verification should be minimal and should not 

result in significant lost production time. The District recommends that employers 

choose the least time consuming manner to administer Commute Verification. 

Employers may be able to incorporate this into an existing process, such as 

regular staff meetings, timesheets, or other employee form collection. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-12

38. Comment: Why did the District use employment data from just one quarter 

rather than an average based on several years of data? Using third quarter data 

may skew the data due to seasonal food processing employment. 

(CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: Employment data from one quarter was used because it was the 

most specific information available, providing the number of employees broken 

down by employer size. It was also the most recent information available at that 

time which would reflect the current economic situation. 

39. Comment: How did the District derive that 36.27 percent of Valley employees 

work at sites with more than 100 employees? (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The EDD data was used to total the number of employees at 

worksites with more than 100 employees and then adjusted to account for 

possible excluded employees and exempt sites. 

40. Comment: According to the San Joaquin Valley Express Transit Study, 

approximately 25 percent of the Valley workforce already commutes to work 

using some means other than a single passenger vehicle. Was this taken into 

account? (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The District was unable to find this particular statistic in the 

document cited by the commenter. However, calculations based on 2006-2008 

Census data for the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley support 22% of 

Valley employees use alternative transportation. Though this percentage is close 

to that cited by the commenter, it is not representative of the employees subject 

to Rule 9410. The census data includes the large number of employees in the 

agricultural sector participating in successful carpool and vanpool programs, 

many of which are exempt from this rule. Therefore, the given percentage was 

not used to calculate baseline emissions. 

41. Comment: On page C‐7 of the October 21, 2009 staff report, the total number of 

eligible employees is listed as 390,650 (Table C‐4). How was this number 

derived? Why didn’t the District use this figure to estimate total NOx emissions 

reduction potential—it would reduce the estimate by about 23 percent and 

significantly decreases the cost effectiveness of the Rule. (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The number of eligible employees in Table C-4 was calculated based 

on an average number of eligible employees used only to estimate costs for Tier 

One and Tier Two worksites. To estimate costs, it was assumed that Tier One 

worksites have 150 eligible employees and Tier Two worksites have 350 eligible 

employees. 

42. Comment: The socioeconomic analysis conducted by ADE seems to indicate 

that there are 398,016 total private sector employees at work sites with over 100 

workers. However, this seems to be a total number, not adjusted for the number 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-13

of eligible employees. Further, why is this number higher than the 390,650 figure 

used by the District in Table C‐4? How can the private sector total exceed the 

total for all employers? (CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: The Socioeconomic Analysis has been updated to include discussion 

on these points.

43. Comment: The socioeconomic analysis provided did not include many of the 

cost benefits to businesses or the employees from the ETRIP rule. (CCA) 

Response: The District recognizes there are potential cost savings associated 

with implementing many of the ETRIP measures. The purpose of the 

socioeconomic analysis is to describe how the implementation costs would affect 

industries and sectors throughout the Valley. While savings are identified for 

some measures, such as direct deposit, the analysis does not take into account 

less quantifiable cost benefits. Some of the general benefits are described in the 

staff report. Employee savings are expected to be significant, but these are not 

analyzed as direct cost savings for the employer. 

 

Emissions Reductions 

44. Comment: The rule needs to identify how the District will measure the impact of 

trip reduction relative to reduced emissions. (Clovis) 

Response: The District’s emission reduction estimate and methodology are 

included in Appendix B of the Staff Repot. The District will use employersubmitted Commute Verification data to verify reductions. 

Compliance 

45. Comment: Rule 9410 should include clearly stated penalties for noncompliance. 

(CCA) 

Response: California Health and Safety Code Sections 42402 – 42403 provides 

the penalty tiers for noncompliance with California air district rules. 

Noncompliance penalties are often assessed on a per-day-of-noncompliance 

basis, and the ultimate goal is to bring violators into compliance of the rule. 

When the District identifies that someone is out of compliance with a District rule, 

the District issues a notice to comply or a notice of violation, depending on the 

nature and severity of the violation. The consequences of a violation depend on 

the nature and persistence of the violation, the length of time over which the 

violation occurred, the frequency of past violations, and the action taken by the 

business to mitigate the violation. The District will verify compliance with Rule 

9410 through records review and periodic inspections. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-14

46. Comment: The District should include the state’s parking cash-out law in Rule 

9410. (CCA) 

Response: The District has reviewed existing state laws for parking cash-out. 

The District will be in contact with ARB to discuss enforcement needs. Further 

study is needed to determine how many Valley employers are be subject to the 

state law and assess the emission reduction potential of enforcement. Although 

the District is not adding parking cash-out to Rule 9410, employers can earn 

ETRIP points for offering a monetary incentive to employees, regardless of 

whether it is characterized as parking-cash out. 

Employer Liability

47. Comment: It is a concern that the more an employer becomes involved in the 

activities outside of work, in this case the commute to and from work, the more 

the burden of accountability shifts from the employee to the employer. California 

Labor Code Section 3600.8 states “An employee who is injured while acting 

outside the course of his or her employment, or his or her dependents in the 

event of the employee's death, shall not be barred from bringing an action at law 

for damages against his or her employer as a result of this section.” 

(CLFP/MCCV) 

Response: No governmental entity can ever fully guarantee that a particular 

regulation will not be the subject of litigation. The District’s position is that the 

requirements of Rule 9410 are drafted in such a way that it will not subject 

employers to meritorious claims. Labor Code section 3600.8 makes it very clear 

that employers who have employees that voluntarily participate in alternative 

commute programs mandated by a governmental entity (such as Rule 9410) are 

not subject to worker’s compensation liability. The Commenter raises concerns 

that this section may not insulate employers against other forms of liability, such 

as tort liability, and that such legal questions remain untested. However, the 

courts have repeatedly determined that things such as commute stipends, even 

when part of a collective bargaining agreement, do not subject employers to 

liability for auto accidents occurring during the employee’s commute. See 

Anderson v. PG&E (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 254; Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc. (1986) 176 

Cal.App.3d 1028; Harris v. Oro-Dam Constructors (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 911. 

Although the amount of control an employer exercises over a particular activity is 

relevant to the analysis, the District believes all of the measures that an employer 

can choose for Rule 9410 compliance can be implemented in a manner that 

requires limited or no employer control. Thus, although the District advises 

employers to check with their legal counsel when determining which measures 

work for them, the District does not believe that Rule 9410 has liability issues that 

cannot be easily overcome. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-15

Written Comments on the Proposed Rule 9410

Comment period held from November 16 through November 30, 2009. 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Merced County (Merced) 

Nabors Well Services Company (NWSC) 

Greater Madera County Industrial Association (GMCIA) 

Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

General 

48. Comment: According to the San Joaquin Valley Express Transit Study, 

approximately 25 percent of the Valley workforce already commutes to work 

using some means other than a single passenger vehicle. (GMCIA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 40. 

Excluded Employees 

49. Comment: NWSC field employees report to a main location to then participate 

in a “continued rideshare” to a satellite field location to reduce trips. These types 

of field employees should be excluded from the eligible employee count. 

“Continued rideshare” should also be added as one of the menu options in the 

ETRIP. (NWSC) 

Response: Field employees who report to a central location before reporting to 

the field still have an opportunity to rideshare or use alternative transportation 

when commuting to the central location. Continued rideshare is a great way to 

reduce trips and can be submitted as “Other measures approved by the District.” 

Cost Effectiveness and Socioeconomic Analysis 

50. Comment: District staff should conduct a cumulative cost analysis on affected 

industries including requirements from other regulatory agencies and the abilities 

of companies to invest in emissions reductions projects. (NWSC) 

Response: While the impacts of other regulations and agencies is beyond the 

scope of the District’s economic analysis, cumulative impacts are addressed in 

the baseline employment and profitability trends of each affected sector of 

industry in the socioeconomic analysis. Stakeholders are encouraged to relay 

economic information to District staff and the District’s economic consultant so 

that specific impacts can be acknowledged. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-16

51. Comment: Has the District considered the cost and time of documentation 

required by Wage Order 4 for meals and breaks of all employees, including 

telecommuters, in the cost analysis? (NWSC) 

Response: The cost analysis only considered costs specifically associated with 

the requirements for this rule. The requirements of Wage Order 4 are not 

specifically mandated by this rule, as the employer would need to follow them 

regardless. 

Cost 

52. Comment: We believe the District has significantly underestimated the costs 

associated with this Rule. The District underestimates the average hourly rate 

and the amount of time it will take to administer the program. Another gross 

underestimation is the average rate of pay for the policy review and 

administration of the program. Also, while the current worksheet does account for 

employee labor to fill out the survey, it does not include the cost of lost 

production hours which our member companies factor into their cost vs. return 

models. (GMCIA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 37. 

53. Comment: Given the intense requirements of the rule, the county, with three 

Tier Two worksites, will need to hire at least one new staff member to oversee 

the implementation of the programs necessary to meet the point targets. With all 

of the employee layoffs and furloughs, the remaining workforce does not have 

the capacity to take on additional duties of running new programs. The amount of 

time before registration in July 2010 is not sufficient to designate a coordinator. 

(Merced) 

Response: Refer to Comment 33. 

Survey 

54. Comment: The survey should require a 50% return rate only and additional 

points should be given to companies that achieve higher survey return rates than 

50%. (NWSC) 

Response: Refer to Comments 28 and 29. 

55. Comment: Given the relatively low cost of implementation of this rule, based on 

the socioeconomic report, a baseline survey should be required prior to the 

implementation of any of the rules requirements. This will allow the Air District to 

gauge improvements once the rule implementation begins. The District has yet to 

provide any actual data that supports that a baseline survey would be too 

expensive to require of employers. (CCA) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-17

Response: Refer to Comment 31. Though a baseline survey would be helpful, it 

is not completely necessary and would only create additional unneeded costs 

and burden on employers especially in the current economic climate. 

56. Comment: Requiring commute verification multiple times each year would 

improve representativeness of the data and be harder to manipulate to show 

improvement in participation. (CCA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 32. 

ETRIP measures 

57. Comment: The Program Support Strategy has several incompatible options that 

will add to the degree of difficulty for compliance in manufacturing environments. 

Without additional flexibility, there may be some manufacturing employers who 

cannot attain the point totals in the Program Support Strategy. (GMCIA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 24. 

58. Comment: High point targets and low values given to many of the most low-cost 

and achievable ETRIP measures will make it difficult for employers to meet the 

overall point goal. In most cases, measures with the lowest point values are 

really the only options for local governments under the strain of a massive 

recession and severe State funding cuts. The point values for ETRIP options 

should be altered to increase available options for organizations that are 

struggling financially and may not be able to implement several of the more 

costly options. (Merced) 

Response: The point values were determined based on the amount of time, 

cost and effort the measure would require as well as the effectiveness the option 

would provide in reducing trips. Please refer to the points analysis in this Staff 

Report. Based off of dialogue with multiple stakeholders, many employers 

already have multiple options in place at their worksites that can aid in meeting 

the ETRIP point targets. The District is providing many resources and tools to 

help employers implement turnkey strategies and will be available to work with 

employers to determine cost effective options for their worksites. 

59. Comment: The “Additional Points Needed” section is unnecessarily 

burdensome and should be eliminated. It negates the reduction in the point target 

for the Transportation, Alternative Schedules, and Incentives Strategy. The point 

target for Phase III is excessive and will prohibit most employers from cost 

effectively complying by having to choose expensive options or multiple low-cost 

options requiring more money and new staff to operate. Phase III should be 

satisfied by implementing no more than one or two measures, as each constitute 

a major undertaking for employers. The point value for Comprehensive Carpool 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-18

Program should increase from 8 points to 10 points to help employers comply 

with Phase III targets. (Merced) 

Response: The “Additional Points Needed” targets allow employers to have 

more flexibility in choosing ETRIP options and creating successful trip reduction 

programs. The “Additional Points Needed” point targets can easily be achieved 

by becoming a Healthy Air Living partner and committing to the marketing 

options included in that. Refer to Comments 53 and 58. 

60. Comment: The county has implemented Compressed Work Week schedules; 

however, participation is below the 10% threshold. Local governments are limited 

in the implementation of alternative schedules in ways private industries are not 

by needing to provide public services during normal business hours. Even if a 

10% threshold was achieved, the points allotted do not adequately assist in Rule 

9410 compliance. (Merced) 

Response: In speaking to all Valley counties and many large cities during the 

rule development process, the District learned that many municipalities have 

already implemented or are planning to implement Compressed Work Week. 

Although the offices are closed one day every two weeks in a 9/80 schedule, 

people have been able to take advantage of these offices being open one hour 

later every day. The multiple participation levels added to the Compressed Work 

Week option has increased the availability of that option for many employers. 

Refer to Comment 58. 

Employer Liability

61. Comment: Many ETRIP options that are implemented or arranged by the 

employer will increase liability and legal risk to the employer or are not conducive 

to a manufacturing environment. (GMCIA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 47. 

Compliance 

62. Comment: Rule 9410 should include clearly stated penalties for noncompliance 

and provide additional clarification as to what kind of noncompliance practices 

would result in what level of punishment to help deter noncompliance. (CCA) 

Response: Refer to Comment 45. 

63. Comment: The District should include the state’s parking cash-out law in Rule 

9410. Since a parking cash-out adoption was initially included in an earlier 

version of the rule it should not be difficult to add it to the current rule. (CCA) 

Response: Parking cash-out is already required by state law and applies to a 

larger set of employers than Rule 9410. Refer to Comment 46. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-19

Written Comments on the Proposed Rule 9410

The following comments were received between December 1 and December 17, 2009. 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Modesto City Schools (Modesto Schools) 

Stanislaus County (Stanislaus) 

Anlin Window Systems (Anlin) 

Hedrick’s Chevrolet (Hedrick’s) 

Bingham Toyota/Scion (Bingham) 

Compliance 

64. Comment: How does the Air District propose to track applicable employers? 

(Modesto Schools) 

Response: District staff have compiled a lengthy mailing list with employers 

throughout the Valley that have over 100 employees. Notices have been sent to 

each employer on the list. Employers are responsible for registering with the 

District. 

65. Comment: What are the penalties for non-compliance? (Modesto Schools) 

Response: Refer to Comment 45. 

66. Comment: The inflexibility of the rule and the costs associated with 

implementing such a plan without funding is impractical especially for local 

government entities. Many of the measures may have tax and union implications 

that would limit the availability of measures to reach the point targets. The 

administrative and financial resources are not available to administer and monitor 

the program. The District should administer Commute Verification to employees 

to reduce the burden for employers. (Stanislaus) 

Response: The menu-based approach provides flexibility while the minimum 

point targets ensure a comprehensive and well-rounded program will be put in 

place. Employer based trip reduction programs have been shown to be 

successful in multiple studies which are outlined in the staff report. The District’s 

Personnel Department has evaluated the ETRIP measures and determined there 

should not be any overarching tax implications. The District should be contacted 

if a unique situation may determine otherwise. See also Comment 17.The District 

will provide various methods to submit Commute Verification data such as online, 

by phone and timecards as well as multiple tools and templates to decrease the 

administrative time and cost.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-20

Cost 

67. Comment: Will the District provide direct and personal assistance to local public 

school districts to ensure compliance is achieved in the most cost effective 

manner? (Modesto Schools) 

Response: District staff are available to employers. The District will also provide 

multiple tools, resources and trainings as outlined in Section 7.0 in the rule. 

68. Comment: The requirements of the rule would require hiring a part time 

employee to perform record keeping, thereby reducing employee related cost 

elsewhere. The District should not burden businesses with an additional expense 

during the current economic climate, providing yet another reason why 

businesses are leaving California. (Bingham) How will the rule achieve any 

measurable reduction in air pollution? (Anlin) Mandates should be on the 

consumer not passed along to the businesses. (Hedrick’s) 

Response: Refer to Comment 33. 

Emission Reductions 

69. Comment: How will the rule achieve any measurable reduction in air pollution? 

(Anlin) 

Response: Refer to Comment 44. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-21

Letters Submitted on the Proposed Rule 9410

Two hundred and two individuals submitted similar letters as summarized below. The 

letters were received between December 10 and December 17, 2009. 

K. Walser, Modesto 

S. Herman, Sacramento 

Y. Peck, Orangevale 

K. Achee, Bakersfield 

D. Buckheim, Atascadero 

D. Ledden, Rancho Murieta 

D. Watson, Sacramento 

P. Nelson, Twain Harte 

M. Meyer, Wawona 

K. Norton, Sacramento 

R. Robinson, Sacramento 

H. Beauchaine, Tulare 

J. Sorby, Stockton 

C. Fink, Stockton 

K. Manning, Sacramento 

F. Palmer, Sacramento 

V. Hartman, El Portal 

B. Etgen, Sacramento 

C. Carr, Big Oak Flat 

M. Yang, Turlock 

C. Graybill, Sacramento 

J. Young, Carmichael 

E. Obara, San Ramon 

L. Smith, California Hot Springs 

R. Halliwell, Danville 

T. Hutchinson, California City 

D. Cho, Tracy 

K. Harper, Citrus Heights 

T. Clark, Arroyo Grande 

C. Benedict, Merced 

M. Baker, Tehachapi 

R. Robinson, Fresno 

L. Rank, Auberry 

S. Roberts, Wawona 

A. Louin, Fresno 

B. Olson, Sanger 

J. Tabacco, Riverbank 

H. White, Coarsegold 

B. Quintana, Soulsbyville 

P. Roe, Turlock 

T. Harrington, Sonora 

R. Kuhn, Fresno 

K. Steele, Pleasanton 

J. Satchell, Sacramento 

K. Linarez, Carmichael 

B. Hochendoner, Patterson 

C. Bowman, Sacramento 

R. Clarke-Roberts, Riverbank 

L. Lynch, Elk Grove 

K. Bithell, Madera 

M. Taylor, Sacramento 

S. Anderson, Stockton 

T. Alice, Mariposa 

P. Meierding, Yosemite 

J. Sabo, Escalon 

N. Novak, Fresno 

S. Holzberg, Folxom 

D. Cobb, Stockton 

E. Storar, Sacramento 

B. Newstrom, Stockton 

S.E. Miranda, Antelope 

F. Mathes, Madera 

S. Commons, Sacramento 

P. Helman, Pleasanton 

P. Tidwell, Visalia 

J. Buhowsky, San Ramon 

D. Asay, Sacramento 

K. Wang, Turlock 

S. Goldstein, Danville 

R. Glover, Fresno 

R. Sullivan, Sacramento 

J. Tessman, Sacramento 

J. Kirk, Modesto 

J. Nonya, Sacramento 

M. Hamlett, Sacramento 

C. LeBlanc, Sacramento 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-22

C. Roe, Fresno 

T. Moore, Coarsegold 

W. Webster, Danville 

K. Avance, Sacramento 

J. Ball, Sacramento 

B. Hughes, Ridgecrest 

R. Morris, Bakersfield 

K. Avance, Sacramento 

D. Dorinson, North Fork 

R. Harvey, Paso Robles 

J. Koshear, Coarsegold 

P. Rockey, Oakdale 

M. Setaro, Modesto 

T. Gonzalez, Lancaster 

J. Nommensen, Bakersfield 

W. Wilke, Fresno 

K. Silva, Tulare 

B. Steele, Springville 

D. Murray, Sacramento 

D. Ramsey, Sacramento 

M. Skercevic, Sacramento 

J. Columbia, Bakersfield 

E. Thayer, Brentwood 

N. Kelly, Fresno 

P. Del Prato, Sacramento 

M. Ott, Pleasanton 

E. Adan, Carmichael 

J. Greer, Denair 

R. Bates, Fresno 

R. Longer, Elk Grove 

K. Jones, Sacramento 

S. Still, Sonora 

C. Wieland, San Ramon 

K. Evans, Sacramento 

L. Arenas, Fresno 

D. Sproull, Stockton 

M. Graf, Bakersfield 

J. Perugini, Folsom 

J. Nakata, Citrus Heights 

G. Watkins, Elverta 

W. Mittig, Mariposa 

I. Macias, Sacramento 

G. Lynn, Bakersfield 

D. D'Amico, Carmichael 

M. Brinich, Chowchilla 

S. Summers, Carmichael 

D. Woolf, Catheys Valley 

S. Edie, Antelope 

L. White, Folsom 

L. Fultz, Fresno 

L. Roberts, Fresno 

J. Acuna, Sacramento 

E. Seekamp, San Ramon 

B. Peloquin, Bakersfield 

R. Cassinelli, Sacramento 

J. Bowman, Sacramento 

S. Hampton, Sacramento 

M. Mallett, Sacramento 

J. Ostoich, Sacramento 

D. DeTora, Citrus Heights 

C. Michaelides, Galt 

R. Vosburg, Bakersfield 

J. Womble, Lodi 

B. Vanhorn, Gustine 

C. Yee, Sacramento 

L. Young, Mariposa 

R. Sennett, San Luis Obispo 

R. Young, Sacramento 

M. Clipka, Lathrop 

G. Kinsey, Elk Grove 

J. Rutledge, Antelope 

F. Reyes, Los Banos 

L. Austin, Sacramento 

P. Sparry, Morgan Hill 

E. Robin, Bakersfield 

K. Monk, Citrus Heights 

H. McLean, Sacramento 

L. Slattery, Modesto 

P. Gullam, Bakersfield 

S. Arteaga, Modesto 

S. Hafer, Sacramento 

R. Sullivan, Woodbridge 

L. Hicks, Fresno 

L. Coffman, Atascadero 

C. Chenkin, Citrus Heights 

L. Norried, Valley Springs 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-23

T. Philipson, Danville 

R. Reed, Tollhouse 

G. Sheets, Merced 

S. Hodges, Sacramento 

J. Krase, San Ramon 

L. Redding, Sacramento 

B. Martin, Fresno 

J. Seghieri, Manteca 

R. Grace, Morgan Hill 

J. Harvey, Pioneer 

C. Riley, Citrus Heights 

A. Lopez, Folsom 

T. Manning, Springville 

M.C. Nothern, Danville 

K. Dolder, Danville 

M. Gracey, Danville 

J. Murphy, Modesto 

P. Edmonston, Mariposa 

K. Dawdy, San Ramon 

J.R. Donaldson, Fresno 

J. Trujillo, Tehachapi 

C. Shadish, Mariposa 

D. Santone, San Ramon 

A. Peterson, Stockton 

B. Cohen, Fresno 

E. Stanley, Sacramento 

D. Figge, Fresno 

E. Rees, Folsom 

P. Sessa, Sacramento 

J. Dettman, Sonora 

G. Crapson, Exeter 

K. Peck, Carmichael 

A. Arcure, Fresno 

S. Taylor, Sacramento 

J. Myrick, Morgan Hill 

N. Cohn, Atascaadero 

S. Odry, Fish Camp 

R. Blakemore, Mariposa 

M. Todd, Folsom 

B. Odelberg, Kirkwood 

70. Comment: I support your efforts to reduce emissions from mobile sources by 

implementing Rule 9410, the employer-based trip reduction program. In the 

adoption of Rule 9410, I urge you to incorporate strong accountability measures 

that include clear penalties for non-compliance, a baseline survey to help 

measure progress, and further annual surveys that gather data on the 

effectiveness of the rule. I believe that a strong 9410 would help to reduce the 

dangerous air pollution that we suffer in the valley and at our nearby national 

parks. 

Response: Refer to Comments 31, 32 and 45. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix A: Public Comments December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

A-24

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-1

APPENDIX B 

Emission Reduction Analysis 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-2

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-3

EMISSIONS REDUCTION ANALYSIS 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contained an emissions inventory for On-Road Motor Vehicles 

based on the ARB emissions inventory (CEFS v1.06). The inventory included 

categories that would be used for commuting, specifically light and medium duty 

passenger cars and trucks. This rule affects oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), and direct PM2.5 from these vehicles. Table B-1 shows the baseline 

emissions inventory for these pollutants. 

Table B-1 Total Emissions from Light and Medium Duty Vehicles 

(tons per day, or tpd) 

2010 2014 2023 

NOx 44.7 32.1 16.4 

VOC 41.9 31.9 20.6 

PM2.5 2.3 2.6 3.2 

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Household Travel Survey found 

that, as a nation-wide average, work commute Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) account 

for about 27% of total VMT for personal vehicle use3. Table B-2 shows the emissions 

from work commute VMT. 

Table B-2 Emissions from Light and Medium Duty Vehicles for Work Trips 

(tpd) 

2010 2014 2023 

NOx 12.1 8.7 4.4 

VOC 11.3 8.6 5.6 

PM2.5 0.62 0.69 0.87 

 

3

 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). “Commute VMT and 

Total VMT by Year” Table 24, page 42. National Household Travel Survey, 2004. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-4

According to the Employment Development Department, about 36% of Valley 

employees are employed at worksite with 100 or more employees.4

 Table B-3 shows 

the emissions from commute trips of those subject to the rule. 

Table B-3 Emissions for work trips at employers with at least 100 employees (tpd) 

2010 2014 2023 

NOx 4.4 3.1 1.6 

VOC 4.1 3.1 2.0 

PM2.5 0.23 0.25 0.32 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Statewide Household 

Travel Survey5 states that the weekday average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for home to 

work trips is 1.1, equating to 11 persons per 10 vehicles (11÷10=1.1). The proposed 

rule emphasizes education and infrastructure for trip reduction programs through 

various ETRIP measures phased in at a worksite over time. A collaborative report6

prepared by the U.S. DOT Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), and EPA states that combining commute alternatives with 

incentives results in an average trip reduction of 24.5%, which equates to an AVO of 

approximately 1.32 (AVO=1/[1-0.245]). Other reports have shown similar participation 

rates given the amount of measures provided in the comprehensive ETRIP. 78 Given 

that these studies evaluated voluntary programs, the District is confident a regulatory 

program will surpass the average participation achieved from these programs. With the 

combination of various strategies to create a comprehensive ETRIP, the District expects 

an AVO for affected employers of between 1.3 and 1.4. Table B-4 shows the emissions 

that will be eliminated by the implementation of this rule. 

 

4

Adjusted to account for possible exempt employees. Employment Development Department (EDD). “Number of 

Employees by Size Category” Table 3B, Labor Market Information Division, Third Quarter, 2007. 

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=138 5

 Caltrans. “Table B: 2000-2001 Key Trip Statistics”, California Statewide Household Travel Survey, 2002. 6

 U.S. DOT FTA and FHWA, U.S. EPA. “Summary of Choices – What works?”, Commuter Choice Primer. 7

 U.S. DOT FHWA. “Employer-Based TDM Programs”, Multi-Pollutant Emissions Benefits of Transportation 

Strategies, 2006. 

8

 Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “Travel Impacts”, TDM Encyclopedia: Commute Trip Reduction Programs 

That Encourage Employees to Use Efficient Commute Options, 2009. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-5

Table B-4 Rule 9410 emissions reductions from projected AVO (tpd)

2014 2023 

NOx 0.6 0.3 

VOC 0.6 0.4 

PM2.5 0.05 0.06 

The following discussion shows the emissions reductions calculations for NOx, VOC 

and PM2.5 in greater detail. 

To account for Valley commuters who already use alternative transportation, prebaseline emissions were established using a scenario where 100% of eligible 

employees in the Valley are using single occupancy vehicles. Pre-baseline emissions 

were found by multiplying the baseline AVO9

 of 1.1 by the rule baseline emissions in 

Table B-3 and are represented in Table B-6. 

Table B-6 Hypothetical pre-baseline emissions resulting from 100% SOV use (tpd) 

2014 2023 

NOx 3.4 1.8 

VOC 3.4 2.2 

PM2.5 0.28 0.35 

Next, the District has set an AVO target range of 1.3 to 1.4 for eligible employees. To 

calculate projected emissions resulting from the target AVO, the pre-baseline emissions 

are divided by the range midpoint, 1.35, as shown in Table B-7. 

Table B-7 Emissions produced at 1.35 AVO (tpd)

2014 2023 

NOx 2.5 1.3 

VOC 2.5 1.6 

PM2.5 0.2 0.3 

 

 

9

 See footnote 5. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-6

The emission reductions resulting from achieving the 1.35 average target is the 

difference between the baseline emissions for Rule 9410 and the projected emissions in 

Table B-7. 

An example of the calculation for the estimated reductions of NOx in 2014 is as follows: 

3.1 tpd rule baseline x 1.1 baseline AVO = 3.4 tpd pre-baseline emissions (representing 

100% single occupancy vehicles) 

3.4 tpd pre-baseline emissions / 1.35 projected AVO 

= 2.6 tpd projected emissions (representing 1.35 AVO) 

3.1 tpd rule baseline - 2.6 tpd projected emissions 

= 0.6 tpd NOx reduced by Rule 9410 

The estimated NOx emissions reductions calculated in this staff report are higher than 

the projected emissions reductions in the 2007 Ozone Plan. This can be attributed to an 

updated emissions inventory and employment and commute data made available by the 

DOT National Household Travel Survey and Employment Development Department. 

Table B-8 demonstrates the difference in the Rule 9410 baseline compared to that of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan. The current proposed rule baseline is only a portion of that of the 

2007 Ozone Plan. In the 2007 Ozone Plan, the control measure baseline only included 

light duty vehicles, whereas the Rule inventory baseline, at this time, includes medium 

duty vehicles as well to account for SUVs and van use. The updated information has 

helped the District better determine the potential of this rule. 

Table B-8 Rule 9410 baseline percentage of 2007 Ozone Plan baseline (%)

2014 2023 

NOx 65.5 67.1 

VOC 7.75 8.29 

Though the estimated VOC emissions reductions calculated in this report are slightly 

lower in tons per day than what was committed to in the 2007 Ozone Plan, this rule 

should achieve a higher percent of VOC reductions of the updated baseline emissions 

inventory than the plan projected. Table B-9 compares the emissions reductions from 

the 2007 Ozone Plan to proposed Rule 9410 as compared to their respective baselines. 

There will be surplus emissions reductions from other measures committed to in the 

2007 Ozone Plan to account for the discrepancy in actual tons per day. Exempt 

worksites may also participate in trip reduction efforts with the tools developed for this 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-7

rule, achieving additional reductions. However, since these reductions are not 

enforceable, they can not be credited in the State Implementation Plans. 

Table B-9 Emissions reductions comparison between Rule 9410 and the 2007 

Ozone Plan (%)

2014 2023 

Ozone Plan Rule 9410 Ozone Plan Rule 9410 

NOx 5 18 12 18 

VOC 2 18 3 18 

The emissions reductions in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were under review and not 

determined at the time of plan adoption. Therefore, no specific target PM2.5 reductions 

were projected in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

B-8

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-1

APPENDIX C 

Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-2

This page is intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-3

I. INTRODUCTION 

California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40920.6(a) requires the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to conduct both an "absolute" cost 

effectiveness analysis and an “incremental” cost effectiveness analysis of available 

emission control options prior to adopting each Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BARCT) rule. The purpose of conducting a cost effectiveness analysis is to 

evaluate the economic reasonableness of the pollution control measure or rule as it 

applies to operators in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The analysis also serves as a 

guideline in developing the control requirements of a rule. 

Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) is intended to measure the change in costs (in 

$/year) and emissions reductions (in tons reduced/year) between two progressively 

more effective control options or technologies. ICE compares the differences in 

costs and the differences in emissions reductions of candidate control options. ICE 

does not reveal the emission reduction potential of the control options. Unlike the 

absolute cost effectiveness analysis that identifies the control option with the 

greatest emission reduction, ICE does not present any correlation between 

emissions reductions and cost effectiveness. Therefore, the relative values 

produced in the ICE analysis and the absolute cost effectiveness values are not 

comparable and cannot be evaluated in the same way as absolute cost 

effectiveness numbers. 

II. SUMMARY 

Rule 9410 would require large worksites to promote and facilitate trip reduction from 

their employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter 2.5 microns 

in diameter or less (PM2.5) associated with work commutes. Worksites would have to 

implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) by choosing 

applicable measures from a menu of options to achieve a specified point target. 

Rule 9410 will apply to an estimated 1883 facilities throughout the Valley. This rule 

separates those facilities into two tiers based on the number of eligible employees at the 

worksite. Tier One Worksites are those with 100-249 eligible employees and Tier Two 

Worksites have 250 or more eligible employees. There are an estimated 1,342 Tier One 

Worksites and 541 Tier Two Worksites. 

Worksites that employ migrant and/or seasonal workers that would fall under the 

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) have different 

requirements under Rule 9410 to avoid inconsistency with existing regulations. The 

MSPA worksites have an altered compliance plan implementing only Phase One and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-4

Phase Two of the ETRIP. Of the estimated 1,883 facilities this rule applies to, 28 of 

those employ workers protected by MSPA. 

A. Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

Absolute cost effectiveness (ACE) of a control option is the added cost of a control 

technology or technique, divided by the emission reduction achieved (in tons reduced 

per year). The costs include capital equipment costs, labor, and maintenance costs. The 

estimated ACE range for this analysis is $8,000 - $15,000 per ton of NOx, VOC, and 

PM2.5 emissions reduced as estimated from Appendix B. The ACE for each type of 

worksite is shown in Table C-1. Factors affecting the ACE are summarized in Section 

IV. 

Table C-1 District Estimate of Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

Type of Worksite 

Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

($/tpy reduced) 

Tier One 13,894 

MSPA Tier One 14,796 

Tier Two 8,375 

MSPA Tier Two 12,221 

Weighted Average 11,253 

Manufacturing stakeholders’ provided an ACE range from $49,000 - $74,000 per ton of 

NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions reduced per year and are summarized in Table C-2. 

The stakeholder provided ACE is based off of a previous version of the staff report. The 

following table also includes the District’s adjustment of stakeholder’s cost effectiveness 

based on the final draft staff report showing an improvement in the stakeholder ACE by 

45%. The estimates provided are for Tier One and Tier Two manufacturing facilities 

only. 

Table C-2 Manufacturing Stakeholder Estimate of 

Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

Type of 

Manufacturing 

Worksite 

Stakeholder Provided 

Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

($/tpy reduced) 

District AdjustedA 

Stakeholder Estimated 

Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

($/tpy reduced) 

Tier One $74,194 $41,044 

Tier Two $49,007 $27,040 

Total $60,609 $33,481 

A

District staff adjusted the stakeholder provided ACE using the updated emissions 

reductions provided in Appendix B of the Final Draft Staff Report and stakeholder 

provided costs and number of facilities.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-5

B. Incremental Cost Effectiveness 

Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE) is intended to measure the change in costs (in 

$/year) and emissions reductions (in tons reduced/year) between two progressively 

more effective control options or technologies. Rule 9410 provides worksites with the 

flexibility to comply with the requirements by choosing the required minimum number 

measures from a list of menu options or developing measures of their own not specified 

in the rule for District approval. In general, since worksites have the flexibility to choose 

from a list of menu options, District staff believe worksites will likely choose the option 

with the best cost effectiveness for their particular operation. As a result, District staff 

believes an ICE analysis is not appropriate for this rule. 

III. ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS 

Throughout the rule development process, multiple worksites throughout the Valley 

have been utilized as examples of worksites with successful trip reduction measures in 

place. While there may be many facilities with some of the menu options already in 

place, this report does not take into account those possibilities. Costs will be provided 

for every menu option as well as an ACE analysis of a feasible ETRIP applicable to the 

majority of facilities within the Valley. District staff estimated costs for one-time and 

recurring administrative and employee labor, materials, and other operations as well as 

annualized capital cost for equipment and installation for each year of implementation. 

As stated previously, costs were estimated for Tier One and Tier Two regular and 

MSPA worksites. Please refer to Attachments 1-6 for the estimated compliance costs. 

A. Estimated Costs 

Rule 9410 will be phased in over a period of six years beginning in 2010. Costs were 

calculated incorporating one-time, annualized capital, and recurring costs for each year 

of rule implementation. Costs are calculated separately according to tier and MSPA 

worksites. Estimated annual costs are summarized in Table C-3. See Attachments 1-4 

for detailed cost estimates. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-6

Table C-3 District Estimated Annual Costs 

Type of 

Worksite 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+ 

Average 

Annual 

cost, 

2010-2014 

Tier One $44 $1,373 $3,801 $3,033 $3,298 $4,462 $2,310 

Tier Two $44 $1,816 $5,635 $3,604 $5,143 $6,827 $2,460 

MSPA Tier One $44 $1,373 $1,734 $4,733 $4,413 $6,295 $3,249 

MSPA Tier Two $44 $1,816 $2,399 $9,714 $9,729 $11,944 $4,741 

Reporting requirements have changed from a semiannual survey requirement to 

Commute Verification, as outlined in Section 6.4 of the Rule, since the costs were 

estimated and would affect costs occurring in 2014 and thereafter. Administrative costs 

will likely be lower as a result of these changes but the cost range estimated for the 

previous semiannual survey requirement is reasonable for the Commute Verification 

requirement and was not altered. 

Stakeholder estimated annual costs for manufacturing sites are summarized in Table C4. Stakeholder estimated costs are higher than those estimated by the District due to 

increased estimated time needed to administer the program, increased wage scale for 

some of the administrative costs, specifically policy development, and using a cost 

versus return model for the survey requirements. Stakeholder estimates also do not 

reflect more recent changes to the reporting requirements, specifically the change from 

the semiannual survey requirement to Commute Verification. 

Table C-4 Stakeholder Estimated Annual Costs 

Type of 

Worksite 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+ 

Average 

Annual 

cost, 

2010-2014

Tier One $76 $3,100 $7,377 $12,392 $11,174 $13,929 $6,824 

Tier Two $76 $4,100 $10,493 $18,132 $19,651 $22,971 $10,490 

Costs estimated by District staff, though lower than those provided by stakeholders, 

offer a reasonable range for various reasons. The District used a Valley-wide average 

hourly rate including benefits, not specific to one industry, calculated from the 

Employment Development Department (EDD). The administrative time estimates to 

develop and administer the program were calculated based on information from the 

District’s in-house options and considered reasonable especially in light of the number 

of resources the District has committed to providing to reduce administrative time and 

costs, such as sample policies and templates. Since stakeholder costs have been 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-7

submitted the reporting requirements in the proposed Rule 9410 have been revised and 

as a result, the costs should be lower. Stakeholder estimated costs for the survey 

reporting requirements incorporated a cost versus return model for lost production time. 

The amount of time needed for employees to complete the mandatory Commute 

Verification form should be minimal over the course of the year and should not result in 

significant lost production time. The District recommends that the employer chooses the 

least time consuming manner to administer the Commute Verification method of their 

choice. 

B. Sources of Cost Data 

District staff used cost information provided by stakeholders through interviews and 

voluntary surveys and based information on existing programs, such as the District’s 

own trip reduction program. Administrative and employee participation hours were 

estimated and were reviewed by the District’s Personnel and Administration 

Departments. 

District staff actively solicited written and verbal cost data from stakeholders and 

incorporated these comments into the cost effectiveness analysis. Manufacturing 

stakeholders provided cost estimates and have been summarized in this analysis. 

C. Assumptions Used in Calculating Estimated Costs 

District staff has assumed certain specifications to perform the cost effectiveness 

analysis including the following: 

1. Administrative and employee hours were estimated for development and 

participation in the worksite’s trip reduction program. The use of District 

templates and resources that will be provided to employers was taken into 

account. 

2. The measures that offer a financial incentive to participating employees would be 

agreed upon as part of the employee compensation package and therefore, 

would have no additional cost not already included in the employer’s set budget. 

Employee compensation negotiations occur regardless of Rule 9410. 

3. The assumptions made for the emissions reduction calculation in Appendix B 

apply to the emissions reductions portion in this Appendix. 

4. The total annualized compliance cost for all compliance scenarios include all the 

appropriate annualized capital costs as well as any additional annual operation, 

maintenance, and labor costs. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-8

IV. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 

A. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Procedure 

Following is the procedure used by District staff in conducting the cost effectiveness 

analysis of this rule: 

(1) Identify a compilation of menu options for an ETRIP applicable to any type 

of Tier One and Tier Two worksite; 

(2) Estimate the one-time and recurring administrative and employee 

participation hours associated with each of the menu options; 

(3) Estimate the one-time and recurring materials and operations costs for 

each of the menu options; 

(4) Estimate the equipment annualized cost of each applicable menu option; 

(5) Calculate the annual cost to implement each phase of the ETRIP and the 

administrative requirements; 

(6) Calculate the emissions reduction based on participation in a 

comprehensive trip reduction program; and 

(7) Calculate the absolute cost effectiveness of the given ETRIP. 

As previously mentioned, cost effectiveness of a control technology is calculated by 

dividing the annualized cost of a control technique with the annual emission reduction 

achieved by the control technique. The cost effectiveness is expressed in dollars per 

ton of pollutants reduced ($/ton). 

B. Emissions Reduction Analysis 

District staff analyzed the potential emissions reduction of Draft Rule 9410 as detailed in 

Appendix B of the Draft Staff Report. The summary of the estimated emissions 

reduction is shown in Table C-5. 

Table C- 5 Emissions Reduction 

2014 Pollutant tons/day tons/yr 

NOx 0.571 208 

VOC 0.571 208 

PM2.5 0.046 17 

Total 1.188 433 

 

Staff then estimated emission reductions for each type of worksite by apportioning the 

total reductions according to the total number of employees as used for the estimated 

costs, shown in Table C-6. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-9

Table C-6 Emissions Reduction for Each Type of Worksite 

Type of 

Worksite

Average Number 

of Employees per 

WorksiteA

Number of 

Worksites 

Total Number 

of EmployeesB

Reductions 

(tons/yr)

Total 1,883 390,650 433 

Tier One 150 1,322 198,300 220 

MSPA Tier One 150 20 3,000 3 

Tier Two 350 533 186,550 207 

MSPA Tier Two 350 8 2,800 3 

A The average number of employees listed per worksite were used only for the cost estimates. 

150 employees were used to estimate Tier One costs and 350 employees were used to 

estimate Tier Two costs. 

B Estimated number of employees = Tier One Average number of employees x Number of 

worksites. Example for Tier One: 150 employees x 1,322 worksites = 198,300 employees 

The estimated total number of employees were calculated only for the cost effectiveness and 

not used elsewhere. 

Staff then divided the annual average cost for each type of worksite by the annual 

average emission reduction to generate cost effectiveness values for each type of 

worksite and the rule as a whole. Table C-7 shows the cost effectiveness of Rule 9410 

as calculated by District staff. 

Table C-7 District Calculated Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

Type of 

Worksite 

Number of 

worksites 

Average annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

(from Table C-3)

Annual 

cost for all 

worksitesC 

($/ton/yr) 

Emissions 

Reduction 

(tons/yr)

Absolute Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton reduced) 

Tier One 1,322 $2,310 $3,053,820 220 13,894 

MSPA Tier One 20 $2,460 $49,200 3 14,796 

Tier Two 533 $3,249 $1,731,717 207 8,375 

MSPA Tier Two 8 $4,741 $37,928 3 

C Annual cost for all worksites = Average annual cost per worksite x number of worksites. 

Example for Tier One: $2,310/worksite x 1,322 worksites = $3,053,820/year total cost; 

12,221 

Total 1883 $3,190 $4,872,665 433 11,253 

$3,053,820/year total cost ÷ 220 ton/year reduction = $13,894/ton reduced 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-10

Stakeholders provided the following estimated costs and ACE for manufacturing sites 

summarized in Table C-8. Differences from District cost estimates are discussed in Section 

III A of this analysis. Stakeholders used the number of manufacturing worksites provided in 

the Socioeconomic Report Table 3. The Socioeconomic Report provided a conservative 

estimate by not taking into account the possible excluded employees when stating the 

number of worksites with 100 or more employees. Therefore, the number of manufacturing 

worksites is likely less than stated in the following table. 

Table C-8 Cost and Absolute Cost Effectiveness 

Provided by Stakeholders for Manufacturing Facilities 

Type of 

Manufacturing 

Worksite 

Number of 

worksitesD

Average 

annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

Annual 

cost for all 

worksites 

Emissions 

Reduction 

(tons/yr)E

Absolute Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/tpy reduced)

Tier One 157 $6,824 $1,071,368 14.44 $74,194 

Tier Two 79 $10,490 $828,710 16.91 

D Manufacturing sites only as based on data provided in the socioeconomic report. Actual 

number may be lower. 

$49,007 

Total 236 $1,900,078 31.35 $60,609 

E Emissions reductions calculated from data provided by the District. 

Similar to Table C-2, the stakeholder provided ACE is expected to improve based on 

the revision to the Emissions Reductions Analysis in Appendix B in the Final Draft Staff 

Report. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix C: Costs and Cost Effectiveness Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

C-11

ATTACHMENTS 1- 6 

COST ESTIMATE TABLES 
Attachment 1: Tier 1 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ($/yr)Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 60 1,329 1,329 

Survey 2x/yr starting in 2014

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 332 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 332 Completion by employees Employee labor recurring 0 0 75 1,661 1,661 

Materials Materials recurring 0 100 100 Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 775 Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 775 Approval, submission to District Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 332 Plan event Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 Employee time to attend Employee labor recurring 0 0 37.5 831 831 Employee time to host event Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 44 

Materials from District Materials recurring 0 0 0 0 Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 

Time to fill out form Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 0 Request and distribute materials Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 Accounting - for transit passes Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Energy consumption and space Materials recurring 0 0 0 0 Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

Onsite transit information centerDistribute CEO letter/emailDistribute District information to employees Register with local rideshare agencyEmployer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)E-mail blasts to employeesHost a Rideshare eventAnnual Report starting in 2015MARKETING STRATEGYTier One Worksites Annual Total

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Receive training at a District marketing classRideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boards

C-12
Attachment 1: Tier 1 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 80 80 Download forms Admin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 0 Complete/submit forms Admin labor one-time 1.5 33 33 0 0 Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 2 requests/month Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 44 

Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 

SERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGY

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space required is 100 sq. feet (machines - 1 soft drink and 1 snack)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 160 160 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 428 428 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Refrigerator delivery fee capital 0 947 154 0 Microwave oven capital 0 262 43 0 2 dining tables and 8 chairs capital 0 950 155 0 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 6 feet capital 0 2,016 328 0 Space required is 200 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 320 320 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 240 240 Cost for 150 employees Cost per employe recurring 0 0 17938 17,938 

Savings - Postage & Printing 0 0 -22227 (22,227) Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 

Postal ServiceDirect Deposit PayrollOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteOn-site Vending MachinesExternal Employee Ride Matching ProgramInternal Guarenteed Ride Home ServiceAdministrativePROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYHealthy Air Living PartnerEmployer rideshare newsletter

C-13
Attachment 1: Tier 1 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Balance accounts, purchase and sell stamps, inventory stamps

Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 

INCENTIVES STRATEGY

Painting & Stenciling bumpers Labor one-time 3 66 66 0 0 Materials - paint & stencils one-time 165 165 0 0 Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 0 Balance accounts, purchase and distribute passes, inventory passes

Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 150Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

Discount Transit PassesPreferencial ParkingStaggered Work SchedulesCarpool Program TRANSPORTATION AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES STRATEGY

C-14
Attachment 2: Tier 2 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 20

4

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ($/yr)Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 4

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 80 1,772 1,772 

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Completion by employees Employee labo recurring 0 0 175 3,876 3,876 

Materials Materials recurring 0 0 100 100 Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 886 Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 886 Approval, submission to District Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Plan event Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

Employee time toattend Employee labo recurring 0 0 87.5 1,938 1,938 

Employee time to host event Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 44 Materials from District Materials recurring 0 0 0 0 Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Time to fill out form Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 0 Request and distribute materials Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 Accounting - for transit passes Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 Energy consumption and space Material recurring 0 0 0 0 

Rideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boards

Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 89 

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)Tier Two Worksites Annual TotalRegister with local rideshare agencyE-mail blasts to employeesAnnual Report starting in 2015Survey 2x/yr starting in 2014Host a Rideshare eventMARKETING STRATEGYReceive training at a District marketing classOnsite transit information centerDistribute CEO letter/emailDistribute District information to employees 

C-15
Attachment 2: Tier 2 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 20

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 120 120 Download forms Admin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 0 Complete/submit forms Admin labor one-time 1.5 33 33 0 0 Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 0 5 requests/month Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 111 

Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 0 Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space required is 300 sq. feet (machines - 6 soft drink and 6 snacks)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 480 480 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 428 428 

Space (outdoor) required is 100 sq. feet per rack for 6 bicycles

No cost recurring 0 0 0 0 

3 Racks – 6 bicycles/rack

Cost & labor to install capital 0 1,377 224 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 3 Refrigerators delivery fee capital 0 2,621 426 0 5 Microwave ovens delivery fee capital 0 1,474 240 0 5 dining tables and 20 chairs delivery fee capital 0 3,161 514 0 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 5 x 6 feet capital 0 10,081 1640 0 Space required is 3 x 100 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 480 480 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 720 720 

AdministrativePROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYHealthy Air Living PartnerEmployer rideshare newsletterOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteExternal Employee Ride Matching ProgramInternal Guarenteed Ride Home ServiceSERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGYBicycle RacksOn-site Vending Machines

C-16
Attachment 2: Tier 2 Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 20

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Set up costs (assume payroll is processed electronically)

Admin labor one-time 20 443 443 0 0 

Balance accounts, process checks Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 332 Cost for 350 employees Cost per emplo recurring 0 0 29768 29,768 

Savings - Postage & Printing 0 0 -39776 (39,776) Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Balance accounts, purchase and sell stamps, inventory stamps

Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 177 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Incentive

10% employee participation

recurring 0 0 0 0 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 350Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

Check CashingPostal ServiceTRANSPORTATION AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES STRATEGYMonetary IncentiveCarpool Program Vanpool ProgramINCENTIVES STRATEGYDirect Deposit Payroll

C-17
Attachment 3: MSPA Tier 1 Worksites Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ($/yr)Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 60 1,329 1,329 

Survey 2x/yr starting in 2014

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Completion by employees Employee labor recurring 0 0 75 1,661 1,661 

Materials Materials recurring 0 100 100 Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 775 Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 775 Approval, submission to District Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 332 Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 

Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 133 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 

SERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGY

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Refrigerator delivery fee capital 0 947 154 0 Microwave oven capital 0 262 43 0 2 dining tables and 8 chairs capital 0 950 155 0 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 6 feet capital 0 2,016 328 0 Space required is 200 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 320 320 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 240 240 Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 

External Employee Ride Matching ProgramPROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteOn-site Vending MachinesRideshare mapReceive training at a District marketing classRideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boardsEmployer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)Annual Report starting in 2015MARKETING STRATEGYMSPA Worksites Annual Total (Omitting Phase 3 Costs)

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

C-18
Attachment 3: MSPA Tier 1 Worksites Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space required is 100 sq. feet (machines - 1 soft drink and 1 snack)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 160 160 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 428 428 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 0 0 2 6' Picnic Table Equipment capital 0 0 1120.00 182 0 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 150Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

Onsite picnic tables

C-19
Attachment 4: MSPA Tier 2 Worksites Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 20

4

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ($/yr)Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 4

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 80 1,772 1,772 

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Completion by employees Employee labo recurring 0 0 175 3,876 3,876 

Materials Materials recurring 0 0 100 100 Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 886 Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 886 Approval, submission to District Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 443 

Rideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boards

Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 District provided newsletter Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 0 0 District provided flyer Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 22 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 0 Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 2 requests/month Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 22 22 Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 0 3 Refrigerators delivery fee capital 0 2,621 426 0 5 Microwave ovens delivery fee capital 0 1,474 240 0 

SERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGYOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteRideshare mapPROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYMARKETING STRATEGYEmployer rideshare newsletterReceive training at a District marketing classRideshare flyer Internal Guarenteed Ride Home Service

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)MSPA Worksites Annual Total (Omitting Phase 3 Costs)Annual Report starting in 2015Survey 2x/yr starting in 2014External Employee Ride Matching Program

C-20
Attachment 4: MSPA Tier 2 Worksites Estimated Costs for Feasible ETRIP

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employee Labor 

($/yr) 

Materials ($/yr)

Other Operations 

($/yr)

Total Recurring 

Costs ($/yr) 20

One-Time Costs Recurring Costs 

Capital Costs

5 dining tables and 20 chairs delivery fee capital 0 3,161 514 0 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 5 x 6 feet capital 0 10,081 1640 0 Space required is 3 x 100 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 480 480 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 720 720 Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space required is 300 sq. feet (machines - 6 soft drink and 6 snacks)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 480 480 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 428 428 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 0 Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 0 0 2 6' Picnic Table Equipment capital 0 0 1120.00 182 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 44 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 350Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

Onsite picnic tablesMap to local conveniencesOn-site Vending Machines

C-21
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 TOTAL 44 0 

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 60 1,329 

TOTAL 44 0 

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 Completion by employees Employee labor recurring 0 0 

Materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 35 775 

Approval, submission to 

District Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 

TOTAL 0 0 

Download forms Admin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 Complete/submit forms Admin labor one-time 1.5 33 33 0 Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 222 0 

Plan event Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Employee time to attend Employee labor recurring 0 0 3

Employee time to host event Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 Materials from District Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTSSurvey 2x/yr starting in 2014Annual Report starting in 2015MARKETING STRATEGYHealthy Air Living Partner

AdministrativeHost a Rideshare event

C- 22
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 

Time to fill out form Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 

TOTAL 22 0 

Request and distribute materials Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Accounting - for transit passes Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Energy consumption and space Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 99 0 

Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 

E-mail blasts to employeesRegister with local rideshare agencyDistribute District information to employees Distribute CEO letter/emailOnsite transit information centerRideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boardsReceive training at a District marketing classEmployer rideshare newsletter

C- 23
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

TOTAL 0TOTAL for Healthy Air Living Partner 520 0 

Semiannual meetings Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 

Employee Attendance Employee labor recurring 0 0 150 3,323 Energy, space, materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Semiannual meetings Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 Employee Attendance Employee labor recurring 0 0 20 443 Energy, space, materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Complete a new applicat Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

Collect supporting materiAdmin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 Annual Status Update Admin labor recurring 1 22 22 0 Annual Membership Fee recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 78 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Initial development Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Presentation to new employees Employee labor recurring 0 0 0.8 18 Paper, ink Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 89 0 

Initial development Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 

TOTAL 89 0 

PROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYRideshare & alternative transportation meetingsRideshare & alternative transportation focus group"Best Workplaces for Commuters" RecognitionRideshare flyer Rideshare orientation for new employeesEmployer-adopted alternative transportation policy statement 

C- 24
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Develop application one-time 450 9968 9968 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 

TOTAL 9990 0 

Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 44 0 

Research and post information one-time 1 22 22 0 Annual Outreach to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 22 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 2 requests/month Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 222 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 

TOTAL 107 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 133 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 11 

SERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGYInternal Ride MatchingExternal Employee Ride Matching ProgramPersonalized commute assistanceInternal Guarenteed Ride Home ServiceExternal Guaranteed Ride Home ServiceRideshare mapOnsite/Local Food ServiceOnsite/Local Child Care

C- 25
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 133 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 10 x 12 feet bathroom with closet (Project Cost)

one-time 0 26250 4271 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 

TOTAL 1063 4271 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 Refrigerator delivery fee capital 0 947 154 Microwave oven capital 0 262 43 2 dining tables and 8 chairs capital 0 950 155 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 6 feet capital 0 2,016 328 Space required is 200 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 1063 679 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Service contract one-time 0 9260 9260 0 Electricity costs - owner pays (like getting gas) 00 

TOTAL 9614 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 

Showers and Lockers OnsiteOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteElectric Vehicle RechargingOnsite Bike Repair

C- 26
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 133 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor recurring 16 354 354 0 Space required is 100 sq. feet

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 40.00 40 0 

TOTAL 394 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Space required is 100 sq. feet (machines - 1 soft drink and 1 snack)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 709 0 

Space (outdoor) required is 100 sq. feet per rack for 6 bicycles

No cost recurring 0 0 

2 Racks – 6 bicycles/rack

Cost & labor to install capital 0 1,048 171 

TOTAL 0 171 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Space required No cost recurring 0 0 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 133 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 

Onsite ATMOnsite Vending MachinesBicycle RacksHealth FacilitiesEmployer provided bicycles

C- 27
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Space required is 100 sq. feet 

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 

5 Bikes capital 0 750.00 198 Tire pump capital 0 24.00 6 5 Helmets capital 0 100.00 26 5 Locks capital 0 70.00 18 

TOTAL 354 249 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Space required No cost recurring 0 0 Setup/Cleanup Labor recurring 0 0 0 12 266 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 0 3 66 

TOTAL 133 0 

Coordinate and distribute lunch Admin labor recurring 0 0 534 11,828 Gas for employer vehicle recurring 0 0 Process forms & payment Admin labor recurring 0 0 438 9,702 

TOTAL 0 0 

Cost for 150 employees Cost per employe recurring 0 0 

Savings - Postage & Printing 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Set up costs (assume payroll is processed electronically)

Admin labor one-time 20 443 443 0 

Balance accounts, process checks Admin labor recurring 0 0 10 222 

TOTAL 797 0 Employer Organized Lunch Delivery (twice/month)Direct Deposit PayrollCheck CashingBreak and/or Lunch ActivitiesFitness Area and/or Classes

C- 28
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Setup/Cleanup Labor recurring 0 0 0 30 665 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 0 7 159 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 89 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Balance accounts, purchase and sell stamps, inventory stamps

Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 177 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 2 6' Picnic Table Equipment capital 0 0 1120.00 182 

TOTAL 354 182 

Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 107 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 12 266 266 0 

TOTAL 266 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 12 266 266 0 - 

Dry CleaningPostal ServiceCompressed Work Week SchedulesTelecommuting ProgramOnsite picnic tablesMap to local conveniencesTRANSPORTATION AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES STRATEGY

C- 29
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Alternate Site Inspections

Admin and Employee Labor

recurring 22.5 498 23 498 997 3 66 

Training

Admin and Employee Labor

recurring 7.5 166 7.5 166 332 1 22 

 

Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 2 44 44 0 2 44 

TOTAL 1639 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 177 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 177 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Space (outside) required is 100 sq. feet per rack for 6 bicycles

No cost recurring 0 0 

2 Racks – 6 bicycles/rack

Cost & labor to install capital 0 1,048 171 

Storage capital 0 396 64 Repair Kit capital 0 17 3 

TOTAL 177 238 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 

Vanpool ProgramCarpool Program Bicycle Program Shuttles

C- 30
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Contract Information Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 Shuttle (Extended Van) 5 years, 6% Interest capital 0 41179 8,055 Gas recurring 0 Maintenance recurring 0 Insurance recurring 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 

TOTAL 753 8055 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 10% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 10% employee participation recurring 0 1

 

Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Vanpool SubsidyFlex Work SchedulesStaggered Work SchedulesMonetary IncentiveExtra Time OffINCENTIVES STRATEGY

C- 31
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 8% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 1% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 1% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 10% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Balance accounts, purchase and distribute passes, inventory passes

Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 

Discount Transit PassesTransit SubsidyBicycle SubsidyStartup Incentive

C- 32
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

TOTAL 133 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 50% discount meal (1/month)

10% employee participation recurring 0 0 

Coordinate and distribute meals recurring 0 0 3 66 

TOTAL 89 0 

Painting & Stenciling bumpers Labor one-time 3 66 66 0 Materials - paint & stencils Materials one-time 165 165 0 

TOTAL 231 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 Track employee points, give out prizes Admin labor recurring 0 0 25 554 Prize Some provided by District recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 111 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 Receive entries, drawing, notify employees

Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 

Prize recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 111 0 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 150Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15

Prize DrawingDiscounted MealsPreferencial ParkingPoints Program

C- 33
Attachment 5: Tier One Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

One-Time Costs 

Capital Costs

Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Cost recovery factor for annualized costs (5 years)

0.26380

Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

C- 34
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Employer Registration Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 TOTAL 44 0 

Notify Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Develop each phase of ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 80 1,772 

TOTAL 44 0 

Preparation Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 Distribution Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 Completion by employees Employee labo recurring 0 0 175 

Materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Compile Survey Results Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 

Revise ETRIP Admin labor recurring 0 0 40 886 

Approval, submission to 

District Admin labor recurring 0 0 20 443 

TOTAL 0 0 Administrative

Download forms Admin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 Complete/submit forms Admin labor one-time 1.5 33 33 0 Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 222 0 

Plan event Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Employee time to attend Employee labo recurring 0 0 87.5 

Employee time to host event Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 Materials from District Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 MARKETING STRATEGY

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTSEmployer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP)Survey 2x/yr starting in 2014Annual Report starting in 2015Healthy Air Living PartnerHost a Rideshare eventE-mail blasts to employees

C-35
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Time to fill out form Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 

TOTAL 22 0 

Request and distribute materials Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 0 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Accounting - for transit passes Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 Energy consumption and space Material recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Initial purchases & setup Materials one-time 2 44 55 99 0 Update information Quarterly Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 99 0 

Annual class Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0

TOTAL for Healthy Air Living Partner 520 0 

Semiannual meetings Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 

Employee Attendance Employee labor recurring 0 0 350 7,753 

Employer rideshare newsletterRideshare & alternative transportation meetingsRegister with local rideshare agencyDistribute District information to employees Distribute CEO letter/emailOnsite transit information centerRideshare & alternative transportation bulletin boardsReceive training at a District marketing class

C-36
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Energy, space, materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Semiannual meetings Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 Employee Attendance Employee labor recurring 0 0 20 443 Energy, space, materials Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Complete a new applicatAdmin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

Collect supporting mater

Admin labor one-time 0.5 11 11 0 

Annual Status Update Admin labor recurring 1 22 22 0 Annual Membership Fee recurring 230 230 0 

TOTAL 308 0 

Prepare using District templates Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 Paper and ink Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Initial development Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Presentation to new employees

Employee labor recurring 0 0 1.7 37 

Paper, ink Materials recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 89 0 

Initial development Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 

TOTAL 89 0 

Develop application one-time 450 9968 9967.5 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 

TOTAL 9990 0 

Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 

Employer-adopted alternative transportation policy statement PROGRAM SUPPORT STRATEGYExternal Employee Ride Matching ProgramRideshare & alternative transportation focus group"Best Workplaces for Commuters" RecognitionRideshare flyer (quarterly)Rideshare orientation for new employeesInternal Ride Matching

C-37
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

TOTAL 89 0 

Research and post information one-time 1 22 22 0 Annual Outreach to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 1 22 

TOTAL 22 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 5 requests/month Admin labor recurring 0 0 5 111 

TOTAL 266 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58 62

TOTAL 107 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 3 66 66 0 

TOTAL 155 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 0.5 11 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 133 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 10 x 12 feet bathroom with closet (Project Cost)

one-time 0 52500 8542 

Onsite/Local Food ServiceOnsite/Local Child CareShowers and Lockers OnsiteSERVICES AND FACILITES STRATEGYRideshare mapPersonalized commute assistanceInternal Guarenteed Ride Home ServiceExternal Guaranteed Ride Home Service

C-38
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 40 886 

TOTAL 1063 8542 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 Contract preparation Admin labor one-time 24 532 532 0 3 Refrigerators delivery fee capital 0 2,621 426 5 Microwave ovens delivery fee capital 0 1,474 240 5 dining tables and 20 chairs delivery fee capital 0 3,161 514 Cabinets, Counter, Sink - 5 x 6 feet capital 0 10,081 1640 Space required is 3 x 100 sq. feet

cost, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 

Cleaning Labor/month recurring 0 0 20 443 Supplies recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 1063 2821 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Service contract one-time 18519 18519 0 Electricity costs - owner pays (like getting gas) 00 

TOTAL 18873 0 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 0 0 0 Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 0 0 0 

TOTAL 00 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor recurring 16 354 354 0 Space required is 100 sq. feet

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0.00 0 0 

TOTAL 354 0 

Onsite Vending MachinesOnsite Breakroom and KitchenetteElectric Vehicle RechargingOnsite Bike RepairOnsite ATM

C-39
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Service contract preparation Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Space required is 300 sq. feet (machines - 6 soft drink and 6 snacks)

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 0 

Electricity costs - operate 24/7 – power is already available

same cost as refrigerator recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 709 0 

Space (outdoor) required is 100 sq. feet per rack for 6 bicycles

No cost recurring 0 0 

3 Racks – 6 bicycles/rack

Cost & labor to install capital 0 1,377 224 

TOTAL 0 224 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Space required No cost recurring 0 0 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

TOTAL 133 0 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Space required is 200 sq. feet 

space costs, $/sq. ft./month recurring 0 

12 Bikes capital 1800.00 4752 Tire pumps capital 48.00 1312 Helmets capital 240.00 6312 Locks capital 168.00 44

TOTAL 354 249 

Develop policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Space required No cost recurring 0 0 Setup/Cleanup Labor recurring 0 0 15 332 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

Bicycle RacksEmployer provided bicyclesHealth FacilitiesFitness Area and/or Classes

C-40
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

TOTAL 133 0 

Coordinate and distribute lunch Admin labor recurring 0 192 4253 

Gas for employer vehicle recurring 0 0 

Process forms & payment Admin labor recurring 0 876 19403 

TOTAL 0 0 

Cost for 350 employees Cost per emplo recurring 0 0 

Savings - Postage & Printing 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Set up costs (assume payroll is processed electronically)

Admin labor one-time 20 443 443 0 

Balance accounts, process checks Admin labor recurring 0 0 15 332 

TOTAL 797 0 

Setup/Cleanup Labor recurring 0 0 30 665 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 7 159 

TOTAL 0 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to Employees Labor recurring 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 89 0 

Prepare policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Balance accounts, purchase and sell stamps, inventory stamps

Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 

TOTAL 177 0 Check CashingBreak and/or Lunch ActivitiesDry CleaningEmployer Organized Lunch Delivery (twice/month)Direct Deposit PayrollPostal Service

C-41
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Space (outdoor) required No cost recurring 0 0 3 6' Picnic Table Equipment capital 0 0 1680.00 273 

TOTAL 354 273 

Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Paper and ink Materials one-time 0.2 4 58.00 62 

Organize/post info Admin labor recurring 0 0 2 44 

TOTAL 107 0 

0

Policy development Admin labor one-time 12 266 266 0 

TOTAL 266 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 12 266 266 0 - Alternate Site Inspections

Admin and Employee Labor

recurring 52.5 1163 53 0 1163 5 111 5 

Training

Admin and Employee Labor

recurring 17.5 388 18 0 388 2 44 2 

Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 2 44 44 0 2 44 

TOTAL 1861 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 

TOTAL 177 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 

TOTAL 177 0 Onsite picnic tablesMap to local conveniencesTRANSPORTATION AND ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES STRATEGYVanpool ProgramCarpool Program Compressed Work Week SchedulesTelecommuting Program

C-42
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Coordinate information Admin labor recurring 0 0 6 133 Provide information to employees Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 Space (outside) required is 100 sq. feet per rack for 6 bicycles

No cost recurring 0 0 

3 Racks – 6 bicycles/rack

Cost & labor to install capital 0 1,377 224 

Storage capital 550 89Repair Kit capital 17 3

TOTAL 177 316 

Solicit and review proposals Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Contract Information Admin labor one-time 16 354 354 0 Shuttle (Extended Van) 5 years, 6% Interest capital 82358 17,831 Gas recurring 0 Maintenance recurring 0 Insurance recurring 0 Outreach to Employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 

TOTAL 753 17831 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Policy development Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 

INCENTIVES STRATEGYFlex Work SchedulesStaggered Work SchedulesMonetary IncentiveBicycle Program Shuttles

C-43
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Incentive

10% employee participation

recurring 0 

Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive

10% employee participation

recurring 0 420 

Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 8% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 1% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive 1% employee participation recurring 0 Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Transit SubsidyBicycle SubsidyStartup IncentiveVanpool SubsidyExtra Time Off

C-44
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 8 177 177 0 Incentive

10% employee participation

recurring 0 

Incentive Compensation Package recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 177 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Balance accounts, purchase and distribute passes, inventory passes

Admin labor recurring 0 0 8 177 

TOTAL 133 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 6 133 133 0 50% discount meal (1/month)

10% employee participation

recurring 0 0 

Coordinate and distribute meals recurring 0 0 6 133 

TOTAL 133 0 

Painting & Stenciling bumpers Labor one-time 6 133 133 0 Materials - paint & stencils one-time 330 330 0 

TOTAL 463 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 1 22 22 0 Track employee points, give out prizes Admin labor recurring 0 0 50 5 Prize

Some provided by District

recurring 0 0 

Preferencial ParkingPoints ProgramDiscount Transit PassesDiscounted Meals

C-45
Attachment 6: Tier Two Estimated Costs for Every Menu Option 

Rule Element

Description of Expenditure Frequency

Admin Labor 

(hours)

Admin Labor ($)

Employee Labor 

(Hours)

Employee Labor 

($) 

Materials ($)

Other Operations 

($)

Total One-Time 

Costs ($/yr)

Equipment & 

Installation ($)

Annualized ($/yr)

Admin Labor 

(hrs/yr)

Admin Labor 

($/yr)

Employee Labor 

(hrs/yr)

One-Time Costs R

Capital Costs

TOTAL 111 0 

Development of policy and procedures Admin labor one-time 4 89 89 0 Outreach to employees Admin labor one-time 2 44 44 0 Receive entries, drawing, notify employees

Admin labor recurring 0 0 4 89 

Prize recurring 0 0 

TOTAL 133 0 

Notes and assumptions

Number of employees 350Labor rate for wages, benefits, overhead $22.15

Sales tax rate, $/$1.00 0.09Electricity costs $/kwhr 0.15Cost recovery factor for annualized costs 0.1627Cost recovery factor for annualized costs (5 years)

0.26380

Material costs includes supplies and small equipmentcosts

Prize Drawing

C-46
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix D: Socioeconomic Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

D-1

APPENDIX D 

Socioeconomic Analysis 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Appendix D: Socioeconomic Analysis December 17, 2009 

Final Staff Report 

with Appendices for Rule 9410

D-2

This page is intentionally blank. 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

PROPOSED RULE 9410 

(EMPLOYER-BASED TRIP REDUCTION)

DRAFT 

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 

Prepared for 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Prepared by 

Applied Development Economics 

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560  Walnut Creek, California 94596  (925) 934-8712 

2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 168  Sacramento, CA 95833  (916) 923-1562 

www.adeusa.com

CONTENTS 

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1

2. Introduction................................................................................................................3

3. Description of Draft Rule 9410...................................................................................5

4. Methodology...............................................................................................................7

5. Impacted Industries Subject To Draft Rule 9410 ........................................................9

6. Socio-economic Impacts..............................................................................................17

Appendix A: Long-Term Net Profit Ratios By Industry: Dun and Bradstreet ................25

Appendix B: Agricultural Net Profit Ratios: Dun and Bradstreet....................................27

Appendix C: Response to California League of Food Processors and Manufacturers’ 

Council of the Central Valley...........................................................................................27

Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The District seeks to adopt Rule 9410 (Employer-Based Trip Reduction) to satisfy the 

goals of the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The analysis shows that 

a wide range of industries are potentially affected by the proposed rule. The analysis 

concludes that industries in the private and public sectors are not significantly 

impacted by the proposed rule. Small businesses are not disproportionately impacted 

as well. 
2 Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

“This page intentionally left blank” 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 3 

2. INTRODUCTION 

This report describes the socioeconomic impacts of Draft Rule 9410 (Employer-Based 

Trip Reduction) dated October 15, 2009. Following this introduction, the report 

summarizes the proposed requirements and describes the methodology for the 

socioeconomic analysis. In Section 5, the report describes the economic characteristics 

of sources affected by the proposed requirements. The sixth section analyzes the 

socioeconomic impacts of compliance costs on the affected sources and the regional 

economy. 

The report is prepared pursuant to the provisions of AB2051 (Section 40728.5 of the 

California Health and Safety Code), which requires an assessment of socioeconomic 

impacts of proposed air quality rules. The findings in this report can assist District staff 

in understanding the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed requirements, and can 

assist staff in preparing a refined version of the rule. Figure 1 is a map of the eightcounty region that comprises the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. As indicated in the 

map, Kern County is not completely in the District. 

FIGURE 1 

MAP OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
4 Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

“This page intentionally left blank” 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 5 

3. DESCRIPTION OF DRAFT RULE 9410 

This section of the report begins by reviewing the context within which the District 

seeks to adopt Rule 9410. Then, this section discusses Rule 9410 as currently written. 

Between 2000 and 2020, the population of the San Joaquin Valley is expected to grow 

by 60%. In contrast, the total population for the state of California is expected to grow 

29% over the same time period. Population growth typically leads to increased vehicle 

activity and increased emissions of ozone precursors, slowing the progress made by 

regulations that require newer automobiles to pollute less than older models. 

Furthermore, the Valley’s total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is increasing at an even 

faster rate than the population. So the Valley has more people, and they’re generally 

driving more. 

While the District cannot regulate the vehicles themselves or the fuels the vehicles use, 

the District can reduce mobile source emissions through other avenues. The District’s 

Emissions Reduction Incentive Program (ERIP) provides financial incentives to help 

replace older cars and engines through a few different programs. One program targets 

cars that have a history of needing smog repairs, but are currently legally registered 

and able to be driven. Based on the results of an emission test, incentives are available 

for up to $5000 to replace an older car. Other incentives are also given so older engines 

are replaced with newer, cleaner engines years before these engines would be required 

to be replaced through regulation or natural attrition. The District encourages 

carpooling, trip linking, and similar activities through Healthy Air Living, the 

District’s principle public outreach effort. Through the District’s Indirect Source 

Review (ISR) Rule 9510, the added vehicle miles traveled that results from new 

development is mitigated through onsite and off-site measures. The District will also 

reduce vehicle emissions through adoption and implementation of Rule 9410, 

Employer Based Trip Reduction. The District committed to this rule in both the 2007 

Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Consistent with the District’s plan commitments, Rule 9410 would require larger 

employers (those with 100 or more eligible employees) to establish employee trip 

reduction programs to reduce VMT, reducing emissions associated with work 

commutes. The draft rule proposes a menu-based Employer Trip Reduction 

Implementation Plan (ETRIP) and periodic reporting requirements to evaluate 

performance on a phased-in compliance schedule. Employers can choose which 

services and programs work best for their operations and their employees. The goal of 

the ETRIP is to provide employees with opportunities that make ridesharing and 

alternative transportation more accessible while not requiring a certain number of 

participants, as employers cannot legally mandate their employees’ activities outside of 

working hours. The District will make the periodic reporting as simple as possible and 

will allow for electronic reporting. The reporting component of the rule will help the 
6 Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

employer and the District assess how successful the ETRIP is in facilitating alternative 

transportation and ridesharing. The District will provide guidance documents detailing 

the various menu options employers may implement to help to reduce employee 

commute trips throughout the compliance schedule. 

The stated purpose of Draft Rule 9410 is to improve ambient air quality by reducing 

air pollutant emissions that result from vehicle commute trips to worksites with 100 or 

more eligible employees. The rule requires employers to implement an Employer Trip 

Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) to provide employees with opportunities 

that make ridesharing and alternative transportation more accessible. Employers with 

at least 100 eligible employees would be subject to Rule 9410. Exempt employees 

include the following (see Rule definitions for more information): 

  Those not arriving at work between 6am-10am 

  Agricultural workers 

  Emergency health and safety employees 

  Employment agency employees 

  Field personnel 

  Field construction workers 

  Independent contractors 

  Home garage employees 

  Part-time employees 

  Seasonal employees 

  Volunteers 

  On-call employees 

There are three main components of compliance in Draft Rule 9410, which are 

discussed in greater detail in the staff report of September 14, 2009: 

  Employer registration 

  Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) 

  Employee Commute Verification and Annual Report 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7 

4. METHODOLOGY 

The socioeconomic analysis involves the use of information provided directly by 

affected sources, as well as secondary data used to describe the industries affected by 

the proposed Rule 9410. The approach is briefly described below. 

Applied Development Economics (ADE) began the analysis by reviewing US Census 

data called Public Use Microdata Series (PUMS). Using PUMS, ADE identified the 

specific industries in which employees in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region 

who commute between 6:00 am and 10:00 am work. Having identified the industries, 

ADE then prepared a statistical description of the industry groups of which the 

affected sources are a part, analyzing data on the number of jobs, sales levels, the 

typical profit ratios, and other economic indicators for each industry. 

This report relies heavily on the most current data available from a variety of sources, 

such as the 2002 Economic Census and the State of California’s Employment 

Development Department (EDD) Labor Market Information Division. For purposes 

of estimating profits, ADE reviewed industry-specific financial ratios issued by Dun 

and Bradstreet and the US Internal Revenue Services. 

With the above information, ADE was able to estimate net after tax profit ratios for 

sources affected by the proposed amendments. ADE calculated ratios of profit per 

dollar of revenue for affected industries. The result of the socioeconomic analysis 

shows what proportion of profits the compliance costs represent. Based on assumed 

thresholds of significance, ADE discusses in the report whether the affected sources are 

likely to reduce jobs as a means of recouping the cost of rule compliance or as a result 

of reducing business operations. To the extent that such job losses appear likely, the 

indirect multiplier effects of the jobs losses are estimated using a regional IMPLAN 

input-output model. 

When analyzing the socioeconomic impacts of proposed new rules and amendments, 

ADE attempts to work closely within the parameters of accepted methodologies 

discussed in a 1995 California Air Resources Board report called “Development of a 

Methodology to Assess the Economic Impact Required by SB513/AB969” (by Peter 

Berck, PhD, UC Berkeley Department of Agricultural and Resources Economics, 

Contract No. 93-314, August, 1995). The author of this report reviewed a 

methodology to assess the impact that California Environmental Protection Agency 

proposed regulations would have on the ability of California businesses to compete. 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has incorporated the methodologies 

described in this report in its own assessment of socioeconomic impacts of rules 

generated by ARB. One methodology relates to determining a level above or below 

which a rule and its associated costs is deemed to have significant impacts. When 

analyzing the degree to which its rules are significant or insignificant, ARB employs a 
8 Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

threshold of significance that ADE follows. Berck reviewed the threshold in his 

analysis and wrote, “The Air Resources Board’s (ARB) use of a 10 percent change in 

[Return on Equity] ROE (i.e. a change in ROE from 10 percent to a ROE of 9 

percent) as a threshold for a finding of no significant, adverse impact on either 

competitiveness or jobs seems reasonable or even conservative.” 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 9 

5. IMPACTED INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO DRAFT 

RULE 9410 

This section of the socioeconomic analysis describes demographic and economic trends 

in the San Joaquin Valley region. The first part of this section compares the San 

Joaquin Valley region against California as a whole, and provides a context for 

understanding demographic and economic changes that occurred within the San 

Joaquin Valley region between 1998 and 2008. Starting with sub-section 5.2, the second 

part of this section narrows the focus of the socioeconomic analysis to industries 

affected by the proposed Rule 9410. The second part of this section describes the 

economic characteristics of potentially impacted industries that might be subject to 

these rules. 

5.1 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS 

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

The San Joaquin Valley region experienced tremendous population growth during the 

1990s. Many came to this area because of affordable housing. As a result, population 

increased significantly. The eight-county region’s population increased by 24 percent 

(or approximately 2.2 percent annually), from 3.2 million in 1998 to 3.9 million in 

2008. In the last five years, the region’s population grew by 2.2 percent annually 

between 2003 and 2008, the same rate of growth over the ten-year period from 1998 to 

2008. While the State of California’s population increased by 14 percent (or 

approximately 1.4 percent annually) between 1998 and 2008, all the counties in the 

region experienced faster rates of growth than California over the period, as Table 1 

shows. While, by many standards, Madera County continues to be a small county– at 

150,887 residents according to the Department of Finance–it still experienced an 

annual growth rate of 2.8 percent between 1998 and 2008. Between 2003 and 2008, this 

county continued to grow annually but at a slightly lesser rate of 2.7 percent. In the 

same five-year period, Kern, Merced, and San Joaquin Counties experienced rapid 

growth, growing annually by 2.9 percent, 2.4 percent, and 2.2 percent respectively, as 

Table 1 below shows. As demonstrated in the following section on regional economic 

trends, the demographic changes that occurred in the San Joaquin Valley region during 

the 1990s and into the new century significantly influenced the economy of this eightcounty region. 
10 Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

TABLE 1 

POPULATION TRENDS 

 1998 2003 2008 98-03 03-08 98-08 

State 33,225,655 35,652,700 38,049,462 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 

Region 3,192,439 3,540,392 3,956,003 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 

 Fresno 781,936 846,485 931,098 1.6% 1.9% 1.8% 

 Kern 637,227 708,753 817,517 2.2% 2.9% 2.5% 

 Kings 120,957 137,411 154,434 2.6% 2.4% 2.5% 

 Madera 114,137 131,821 150,887 2.9% 2.7% 2.8% 

 Merced 203,181 227,132 255,250 2.3% 2.4% 2.3% 

 San Joaquin 546,852 616,477 685,660 2.4% 2.2% 2.3% 

 Stanislaus 428,272 483,705 525,903 2.5% 1.7% 2.1% 

 Tulare 359,877 388,608 435,254 1.5% 2.3% 1.9% 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Department of Finance

REGIONAL ECONOMIC TRENDS

Economic development practitioners and planners have traditionally divided 

economies into two broad industrial categories—the economic base and local support 

industries. Economic base industries are the drivers of local and regional economies in 

that these industries draw income into a local economy by selling products outside of 

the local economy, much like the export industries of a national economy. Accrued 

earnings then circulate throughout the local area in the form of wages and salaries; 

investments; purchases of fixed assets, goods, and services; and generation of more jobs 

and wealth. The economic base is typically comprised of industries within the 

manufacturing, minerals-resource extraction, and agricultural sectors. There are also 

the “local support industries” such as retail or service sectors, the progress of which is a 

function of the economic base and demographic changes, and more so the latter than 

the former. As population increases in a given area, demand for services–such as 

realtors, teachers, and healthcare–increases, as does demand for basic retail items like 

groceries, gas for commuting, or clothing at the local apparel shops. 

Agriculture is the economic base of the San Joaquin Valley region by virtue of the 

amount of goods this sector produces and exports throughout the nation and the 

globe. Slightly less than 14 percent of all workers in the region are employed by 

industries within agriculture, as Table 2 shows. In 1998, approximately 13.1 percent of 

all workers worked in agriculture. By 2003, this ratio stood at 14 percent. In fact, over 

the five-year period between 2003 and 2008, employment in agriculture increased at a 

modest pace of one percent per year. 

Between 2003 and 2008, local support industries gained in prominence within the San 

Joaquin Valley region. Service-rendering industries employed the most workers as a 

proportion of total employment in the region. Service-rendering industries comprise 

71 percent of all jobs, including public sector positions. In other words, 932,713 jobs 

out of a total of 1,317,365 jobs are in service-rendering industries. Excluding the public 

sector, service-rendering jobs account for 52 percent of all jobs in 2008. In 2003, 

service-rendering industries (excluding the public sector) represented 51 percent of all 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 11 

jobs, indicating that the transition toward a services economy was in place as early as 

the mid to late 1990s with the significant increase in the number of people during that 

time. 

Employment increases in service-rendering industries are consistent with regional 

population growth. In the region, local support industries of local and private 

education and health increased annually by 3.0 percent and 2.7 percent respectively 

between 2003 and 2008. 

Construction and financial services are two other local support industries that grew in 

accordance with the region’s population surge; however, with the downturn in the 

national economy, these industries’ rates of growth have lowered dramatically. 

Employment in construction grew by a 6.7 percent per year in the five-year period 

stretching from 1998 to 2003. Between 2003 and 2008, construction continued to grow 

but by a slower rate of 0.9 percent per year. Likewise for financial services, which grew 

annually by 3.9 percent between 1998 and 2003, and has since grown by a slight 0.9 

percent per year. 

Close examination of Table 2 shows that the region experienced modest growth in 

manufacturing, as employment in this sector grew annually by 0.9 percent between 

2003 and 2008. This modest increase reversed substantial declines experienced between 

1998 and 2003, when manufacturing employment dropped annually by 0.6 percent. 

What was a regional bright spot between 1998 and 2003, transportation and 

warehousing experienced negative 1.1 percent declines between 2003 and 2008, as 

compared to the 2.7 percent annual growth in the previous five-year period.
12 Applied Dev

TABLE 2 

ECONOMIC TRENDS: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 1998-2008 

 ----------------1998--------------- ----------------2003---------------- ----------------2008--------------- --

 NAICS Estab. Employment 

Average 

Pay Estab. Employment 

Average 

Pay Estab. Employment 

Average 

Pay Re

ALL 80,398 1,060,454 $33,566 92,231 1,209,849 $40,577 100,414 1,317,365 $39,543 10Ag, Natural Resources 11 7,580 139,953 $18,285 8,646 169,556 $23,354 7,371 178,522 $21,714 Utilities 21 251 9,533 $66,831 213 8,340 $81,309 185 10,512 $82,627 Mining 22 165 4,231 $72,458 179 5,071 $86,065 169 5,618 $81,296 Construction 23 6,124 49,851 $38,969 6,074 69,065 $46,870 6,705 72,312 $44,716 Manufacturing 31-33 2,998 113,344 $40,989 2,779 110,002 $48,735 2,662 115,153 $43,352 Wholesale 42 2,749 33,365 $47,726 2,722 37,124 $53,053 3,027 45,299 $46,510 Retail 44-45 9,586 121,132 $26,446 8,941 132,956 $31,349 8,882 143,910 $25,892 Transport Warehousing 48-49 2,306 33,821 $38,946 2,237 38,554 $44,962 1,957 36,514 $40,166 Information 51 653 14,885 $43,401 692 14,257 $53,695 625 15,328 $47,417 Finance and Insurance 52 2,637 27,792 $46,709 3,046 30,690 $59,530 3,373 32,027 $50,112 Real Estate 53 2,575 13,180 $26,755 2,607 15,932 $34,144 2,784 15,897 $32,633 Prof Technical Services 54 4,064 25,130 $44,216 4,501 31,812 $52,467 4,839 36,411 $46,773 Mgmt. of Companies 55 321 17,997 $52,338 316 13,988 $60,045 288 10,551 $55,323 Admn and Waste Services 56 2,910 44,283 $22,362 2,768 48,182 $28,986 2,947 58,761 $27,165 Private Educational Serv. 61 459 7,107 $25,456 480 9,298 $29,532 497 10,781 $27,407 Health Services 62 6,082 90,304 $38,243 6,526 110,647 $47,867 6,983 126,598 $44,058 Arts, Entertainment, Rec 71 617 10,386 $16,985 621 10,244 $20,192 641 11,172 $17,305 Food & Accommodations 72 5,050 70,335 $12,860 4,942 78,805 $15,831 5,312 90,404 $14,020 Other Services 81 20,157 41,069 $21,165 30,390 47,370 $25,731 35,629 52,505 $21,606 Unclassified 99 85 199 $38,033 1,769 2,534 $26,836 Local Govt. 409 51,325 $45,674 437 60,768 $56,307 477 68,469 $51,051 Local Govt., Education 881 90,200 $39,664 1,487 109,087 $48,304 1,792 118,716 $78,718 State, ALL 1,464 23,639 $46,051 1,166 28,463 $56,515 1,078 31,639 $51,222 Federal, ALL 360 27,592 $52,749 376 29,439 $66,395 424 27,732 $58,945 Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Employment Development Department, LMID 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 13 

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED INDUSTRIES 

Whereas the previous section described the larger economic context within which the 

District is contemplating proposed amendments to Rule 9410, this section analyzes 

trends of industries directly affected by the proposed amendments. This rule affects a 

broad array of industries in the private and public sectors. While affecting a broad 

array of industries, the rule itself applies to work-sites with more than 100 eligible 

workers. For purposes of this analysis, we assume the rule applies to all businesses 

employing at least 100 workers. As the table below shows, the bulk of employers in 

the region employ less than 100 workers, or 67,440 out of 68,959 establishments (97 

percent). 

 TABLE 3 

NUMBER OF PRIVATE SECTOR ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE SJV REGION SUBJECT TO DRAFT RULE 

9410: EMPLOYER-TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total 

Establishments 

Establishments 

Employing 

Less than 100 

Establishments 

Employing 

100-249 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Establishment 

Employing 

More than 

500 

Agriculture 7,245 6,932 177 84 52 

 crop 5,563 5,250 177 84 52 

 livestock 1,661 1,661 

 other agriculture 21 21 0 0 0 

Mining 367 343 12 8 4 

Construction 7,157 7,062 76 14 5 

Manufacturing 2,653 2,417 157 50 29 

Wholesale 3,318 3,253 57 8 0 

Retail 10,198 9,959 199 39 1 

Transportation/warehousing 1,840 1,805 29 3 3 

Information 641 620 10 8 3 

Finance and Insurance 3,493 3,475 9 3 6 

Real Estate 3,094 3,089 4 1 0 

Professional and Technical 5,146 5,113 25 5 3 

Management of Companies 298 289 3 6 0 

Administrative/Support/waste 2,986 2,868 83 24 11 

Education 637 628 6 0 3 

Health 7,686 7,484 150 16 36 

Arts and recreation 705 695 3 3 4 

Food and accommodations 5,793 5,737 54 2 0 

Other services 5,702 5,671 26 3 2 

TOTAL 68,959 67,440 1,080 277 162 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics (QCEW) and US Census County Business Patterns 

Similar to Table 3 above, the table below identifies the number of workers by industry 

by size of employers. While almost 97 percent of the establishments in the region 

employ less than 100 workers, businesses employing no more than one hundred 

workers in aggregate employ 60 percent of the region’s workers. Thus, 40 percent of 

the workers in the region work for businesses that employ more than one hundred 

workers, even though these businesses, as a share of all businesses, comprise three 

percent of all establishments. With respect to agriculture, the analysis controls for 

seasonal workers by assuming the employment trends for non-seasons represent the 
14 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

baseline case for employment in agriculture. Data for this adjustment come from the 

Agricultural Bulletin.1

TABLE 4 

NUMBER OF WORKERS BY SIZE OF EMPLOYERS: PRIVATE SECTOR: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

REGION: DRAFT RULE 9410: EMPLOYER-BASED TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total 

Number of 

Workers 

Workers In 

Establishments 

Employing 

Less than 100 

Workers in 

Establishments 

Employing 

100-249 

Workers in 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Workers in 

Establishment 

Employing 

More than 

500 

Agriculture 115,528 37,688 19,363 20,530 37,946 

Mining 14,563 4,738 2,387 2,726 4,712 

Construction 82,323 62,176 11,934 4,770 3,443 

Manufacturing 107,556 39,747 24,018 17,035 26,757 

Wholesale 47,526 35,701 9,100 2,726 0 

Retail 148,189 103,930 30,283 13,287 689 

Transportation/warehousing 25,410 16,970 4,923 1,022 2,495 

Information 14,021 7,141 2,089 2,726 2,066 

Finance and Insurance 33,179 25,657 1,939 1,022 4,561 

Real Estate 16,104 14,570 1,193 341 0 

Professional and Technical 38,750 29,554 4,326 1,703 3,166 

Management of Companies 7,138 4,050 1,044 2,044 0 

Administrative/Support/waste 57,644 27,907 13,128 8,177 8,433 

Education 12,395 7,589 1,641 0 3,166 

Health 139,342 67,521 23,123 5,451 43,247 

Arts and recreation 15,905 8,977 1,193 1,022 4,712 

Food and accommodations 94,538 85,056 8,802 681 0 

Other services 40,308 33,433 4,475 1,022 1,377 

TOTAL 1,010,418 612,403 164,962 86,284 146,770 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics (QCEW) and US Census County Business Patterns 

Table 5 below includes estimates on amount of revenue generated by businesses in 

industries affected by Draft Rule 9410. Total revenues were estimated using a variety 

of sources. For industries other than agriculture, the US Economic Census 2002 was a 

key source for estimating revenue. That source was updated using information from 

the US Census’ Annual Survey of Manufacturers and the US Census’ Annual Services 

Report. For agriculture, a key source was the annual agricultural commissioners’ 

report, which tracks a number of economic data by detailed crop and livestock for 

each county in California. With the information from the variety of sources 

mentioned above, the consultant then estimated revenues generated by employers with 

100 to 249 workers, 250 to 499 workers, and over 500 workers based on a per worker 

approach using data from Table 4. Crop farm revenues were based on harvested 

acreage, not number of workers. 

 

1

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=158 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 15 

TABLE 5 

ESTIMATED REVENUES: INDUSTRIES IN THE SJV REGION BY SIZE OF EMPLOYER 

NAICS Industry Code Total Revenues 

Revenues Of 

Establishments 

Employing Less 

than 100 

Revenues of 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Revenues of 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Revenues of 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture $23,842,573,927 $8,013,228,993 $4,228,530,600 $4,398,469,266 $7,202,345,068 

Mining $7,636,745,280 $2,543,353,212 $1,050,571,840 $1,558,644,560 $2,484,175,668 

Construction $16,846,517,975 $12,765,413,704 $2,672,906,175 $801,715,863 $606,482,232 

Manufacturing $47,990,478,364 $14,488,250,057 $9,390,077,162 $7,641,317,916 $16,470,833,229 

Wholesale $67,361,388,120 $51,814,641,984 $11,790,415,750 $3,756,330,387 $0 

Retail $41,610,992,244 $28,685,335,874 $9,065,007,887 $3,680,452,220 $180,196,263 

Transportation/warehousing $3,495,567,077 $2,270,356,037 $618,643,393 $114,992,313 $491,575,334 

Information $4,041,448,390 $2,110,907,960 $649,446,260 $652,846,622 $628,247,547 

Finance and Insurance $17,102,196,191 $12,764,149,575 $923,726,765 $701,598,991 $2,712,720,860 

Real Estate $3,126,131,412 $2,828,755,495 $231,335,996 $66,039,922 $0 

Professional and Technical $5,516,372,671 $4,207,327,255 $615,870,209 $242,501,554 $450,673,653 

Management of Companies $227,883,647 $129,289,936 $33,336,600 $65,257,111 $0 

Administrative/Support/waste $3,808,312,584 $2,001,245,755 $853,105,572 $469,617,169 $484,344,089 

Education $930,316,661 $569,551,410 $123,161,507 $0 $237,603,744 

Health $15,653,142,151 $6,897,347,337 $2,020,997,406 $696,581,189 $6,038,216,219 

Arts and recreation $1,384,696,858 $736,273,812 $111,338,998 $102,577,357 $434,506,691 

Food and accommodations $4,881,070,941 $4,366,851,123 $480,428,773 $33,791,045 $0 

Other services $5,180,823,690 $4,223,825,126 $608,937,001 $133,080,502 $214,981,062 

TOTAL $270,636,658,185 $163,580,014,665 $45,413,967,898 $25,263,047,176 $36,379,628,446 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics (QCEW), US Census County Business Patterns, USDA Agricultural 

Commissioners’ Annual Report, 2002 US Census Economic Census, US Census Annual Manufacturers’ Survey, and US Census Annual 

Services Report 

A critical part of any socioeconomic analysis involves estimating net profits generated 

by industries and sources affected by proposed rules such as Draft Rule 9410. So as not 

to overstate net profits and thus understate impacts, the consultant employs long-term 

averages that attempt to smoothen out years when the economy (and industries) 

generally was doing well from years when the economy was not performing as well. 

Appendix A lists long-term net profit ratio employed by the consultant for the 

purpose of this socioeconomic analysis. For agriculture, we employed Dun and 

Bradstreet net profit ratios for agricultural categories, such as “cash grains”, “field 

crops”, “vegetables”, “fruit and tree nuts”, “beef cattle (feedlots)”, beef cattle (except 

feedlots)”, “dairy farms”, and “hogs”. Net profit ratios for agriculture are also over a 

long-term period (see Appendix B). 

Table 6 includes estimates on amount of net profits generated by industries in the 

eight-county region. Of the estimated $8.5 billion in net profits, $3.5 billion is 

generated by businesses employing more than 100 workers, which as indicated earlier, 

represent six percent of the overall number of establishments. In other words, six 

percent of the region’s establishments generate almost 41 percent of the region’s 

estimated net profits, which underscores the importance of large-businesses in any 

economy. 
16 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

TABLE 6 

ESTIMATED NET PROFITS: INDUSTRIES IN THE SJV REGION BY SIZE OF EMPLOYER 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total Net Profits 

(All establishments) 

Net Profits Of 

Establishments 

Employing Less 

than 100 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture $1,126,378,595 $374,678,367 $195,805,988 $204,747,443 $351,146,797 

Mining $454,386,344 $151,329,516 $62,509,024 $92,739,351 $147,808,452 

Construction $553,127,340 $419,131,083 $87,760,419 $26,323,004 $19,912,833 

Manufacturing $1,345,379,796 $433,280,683 $268,308,311 $201,108,304 $442,682,498 

Wholesale $1,336,000,864 $1,027,657,066 $233,843,246 $74,500,553 $0 

Retail $747,855,297 $517,162,100 $155,586,867 $71,412,307 $3,694,023 

Transportation/warehousing $157,883,113 $102,544,414 $27,942,060 $5,193,819 $22,202,819 

Information $143,471,418 $74,937,233 $23,055,342 $23,176,055 $22,302,788 

Finance and Insurance $1,028,982,138 $767,976,333 $55,577,560 $42,212,873 $163,215,372 

Real Estate $219,350,221 $198,484,344 $16,232,076 $4,633,801 $0 

Professional and Technical $216,977,325 $165,488,205 $24,224,228 $9,538,394 $17,726,497 

Management of Companies $8,963,423 $5,085,404 $1,311,240 $2,566,780 $0 

Administrative/Support/waste $149,793,628 $78,715,666 $33,555,486 $18,471,609 $19,050,867 

Education $35,507,086 $21,737,879 $4,700,664 $0 $9,068,543 

Health $521,771,405 $229,911,578 $67,366,580 $23,219,373 $201,273,874 

Arts and recreation $46,156,562 $24,542,460 $3,711,300 $3,419,245 $14,483,556 

Food and accommodations $153,753,735 $137,555,810 $15,133,506 $1,064,418 $0 

Other services $239,526,749 $195,281,515 $28,153,187 $6,152,755 $9,939,291 

TOTAL $8,485,265,039 $5,006,881,791 $1,304,466,094 $827,466,704 $1,346,824,300 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on Dun and Bradstreet 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 17 

6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

This section of the report analyzes socioeconomic impacts, if any, stemming from the 

proposed draft rule. The first part of this section discusses annual compliance costs. 

Section 6.2 discusses general business responses to compliance costs. Section 6.3 

analyzes the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Rule 9410. 

6.1 COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES 

Table 5 summarizes the estimated annualized costs associated with Rule 9410. District 

staff prepared extensive spreadsheets that detail and itemize how the annual cost were 

developed. That information is available on the Internet at: 

http://www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm

Below is a summary of the annual cost stemming from Rule 9410. On average, worksites subject to the rule will spend an estimated $3,190 a year. On November 4, 

industry stakeholders presented their estimates on annual costs stemming from 

proposed Draft Rule 9410. The California League of Food Processors and the 

Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley presented their respective annual cost 

estimate for Tiers 1 and 2, or $6,824 and $10,490 respectively. We estimated “Migrant 

and Seasonal Worker Protection Act Tier 1” and “Migrant and Seasonal Worker 

Protection Act Tier 2” cost in the stakeholder scenario, by combining both the 

industry stakeholders’ and District’s cost estimates. Overall, work-sites subject to the 

proposed rule will spend an estimated $9,972 a year, in the industry stakeholder cost 

scenario. This $9,972 average applies only to manufacturers. 

TABLE 7 

Average Annual Cost Per Worksite: Stemming from Draft Rule 9410: 

Industry Stakeholder and District Scenarios 

 

Type of Worksite 

District: 

Average annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

Stakeholder: 

Average annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

Total $3,190 $9,972 

Tier 1 $2,310 $6,824 

Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act Tier T1 $2,460 $7,267 

Tier 2 $3,249 $10,490 

Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act Tier T2 $4,741 $15,307 

Source: ADE, based on San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and 

MCCV/CLFP 
18 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

Table 8 below aggregates costs identified in the table above, in order to compare 

aggregate net profits against aggregate costs. In aggregate, in the District cost scenario, 

industries will bear almost $5.5 million in cost each year as a result of Rule 9410, with 

agricultural sector bearing a disproportionate amount of the costs, at $1.4 million. 

Table 9 includes cost estimates using industry-stakeholder costs. The only difference 

between the District and industry-stakeholder costs is in the manufacturing line-item. 

According to the California League of Food Processors and the Manufacturing 

Council of the Central Valley, manufacturers in the region will bear $2.4 million in 

annual costs because of the proposed draft rule. In the industry stakeholder cost 

scenario, aggregate annual costs amount to $7.1 million for all industries, not just 

manufacturing. 

TABLE 8 

AGGREGATE COSTS STEMMING FROM DRAFT RULE 9410: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION 

INDUSTRIES: DISTRICT COST SCENARIO 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total Number of 

Establishments 

(> 100 workers) 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture $1,399,610 $806,281 $366,826 $226,503 

Mining $89,312 $51,035 $25,518 $12,759 

Construction $315,782 $255,177 $44,656 $15,949 

Manufacturing $765,531 $513,544 $159,486 $92,502 

Wholesale $220,090 $194,573 $25,518 $0 

Retail $775,101 $647,512 $124,399 $3,190 

Transportation/warehousing $124,399 $105,261 $9,569 $9,569 

Information $79,743 $44,656 $25,518 $9,569 

Finance and Insurance $70,174 $41,466 $9,569 $19,138 

Real Estate $28,707 $25,518 $3,190 $0 

Professional and Technical $118,019 $92,502 $15,949 $9,569 

Management of Companies $41,466 $22,328 $19,138 $0 

Administrative/Support/waste $392,335 $280,695 $76,553 $35,087 

Education $44,656 $35,087 $0 $9,569 

Health $660,271 $494,406 $51,035 $114,830 

Arts and recreation $47,846 $25,518 $9,569 $12,759 

Food and accommodations $194,573 $188,193 $6,379 $0 

Other services $111,640 $95,691 $9,569 $6,379 

TOTAL $5,479,255 $3,919,443 $982,441 $577,371 

Source: ADE, Inc. 

“This section of the page intentionally blank” 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 19 

TABLE 9 

AGGREGATE COSTS STEMMING FROM DRAFT RULE 9410: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION 

INDUSTRIES: INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER SCENARIO (MANUFACTURING ONLY) 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total Number of 

Establishments 

(> 100 workers) 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Annual Costs for 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture $1,399,610 $806,281 $366,826 $226,503 

Mining $89,312 $51,035 $25,518 $12,759 

Construction $315,782 $255,177 $44,656 $15,949 

Manufacturing $2,353,411 $1,565,616 $498,604 $289,190 

Wholesale $220,090 $194,573 $25,518 $0 

Retail $775,101 $647,512 $124,399 $3,190 

Transportation/warehousing $124,399 $105,261 $9,569 $9,569 

Information $79,743 $44,656 $25,518 $9,569 

Finance and Insurance $70,174 $41,466 $9,569 $19,138 

Real Estate $28,707 $25,518 $3,190 $0 

Professional and Technical $118,019 $92,502 $15,949 $9,569 

Management of Companies $41,466 $22,328 $19,138 $0 

Administrative/Support/waste $392,335 $280,695 $76,553 $35,087 

Education $44,656 $35,087 $0 $9,569 

Health $660,271 $494,406 $51,035 $114,830 

Arts and recreation $47,846 $25,518 $9,569 $12,759 

Food and accommodations $194,573 $188,193 $6,379 $0 

Other services $111,640 $95,691 $9,569 $6,379 

TOTAL $7,067,134 $4,971,515 $1,321,559 $774,060 

Source: ADE, Inc. 

6.2 BUSINESS RESPONSES TO COMPLIANCE COSTS 

Industries impacted by the proposed amendments may respond in a variety of ways 

when faced with new regulatory costs. These responses may range from simply 

absorbing the costs and accepting a lower rate of return, to shutting down the affected 

business operation altogether and, where practical, shift from lower-value to highervalue product and or service. Impacted industries might also seek to pass costs to users 

of services or purchasers of goods. Affected sources may also seek to renew efforts to 

increase productivity and reduce costs elsewhere in their operation in order to recoup 

the regulatory costs and maintain profit levels. 

Stakeholders who attended two socioeconomic workshops expressed concern about 

the overall state of the economy, wondering if now is a time to adopt measures such as 

the proposed Rule 9410. In addition, concern was expressed by representatives from 

the agricultural sector, who expressed concerns regarding car-pooling by ag laborers, 

particularly if legal questions were fully vetted with respect to the potential for risk. 

Concern was also voiced that analysts use best available data with respect to ag 

employment and net profits generated by ag industries, so as to not understate impacts 
20 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

to this sector, particularly because this sector as a “price taker” is not in a position to 

pass costs to consumers. 

Dialogue between the District and affected stakeholders led to a number of rule 

improvements to address stakeholder’s concerns such as phasing in the rule over 

several years to provide employers time for planning their individualized approaches 

to the rule and refining the scope of requirements in order to avoid conflicts with the 

federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The District also 

explicitly committed to provide extensive support to mitigate employers’ 

administrative burden 

6.3 IMPACTS ON AFFECTED INDUSTRIES 

This section of the report analyzes estimated after tax net profits of affected industries 

against anticipated costs associated with implementation of proposed Rule 9410. 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND SMALL BUSINESS DISPROPORTIONATE 

IMPACT ANALYSIS: INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY PROPOSED DRAFT RULE 9410 

As Tables 10 and 11 show, annual costs stemming from the proposed project when 

expressed as a ratio of net profit are below the ten-percent threshold used for purposes 

of determining whether costs are significant. Because the rule is aimed at businesses 

employing more than 100 workers, this rule also does not disproportionately impact 

small businesses. 

TABLE 10 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF DRAFT RULE 9410: DISTRICT ANNUAL COST 

SCENARIO 

NAICS Industry Code 

Cost as Percent 

of Net Profits 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture 0.12% 0.22% 0.19% 0.11% 

Mining 0.02% 0.03% 0.04% 0.01% 

Construction 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.06% 

Manufacturing 0.06% 0.12% 0.06% 0.05% 

Wholesale 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 

Retail 0.10% 0.13% 0.08% 0.00% 

Transportation/warehousing 0.08% 0.10% 0.03% 0.18% 

Information 0.06% 0.06% 0.11% 0.04% 

Finance and Insurance 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.05% 

Real Estate 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 

Professional and Technical 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.10% 

Management of Companies 0.46% 0.44% 1.46% 0.00% 

Administrative/Support/waste 0.26% 0.36% 0.23% 0.19% 

Education 0.13% 0.16% 0.00% 

Health 0.13% 0.22% 0.08% 0.49% 

Arts and recreation 0.10% 0.10% 0.26% 0.37% 

Food and accommodations 0.13% 0.14% 0.04% 0.00% 

Other services 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% 0.10% 

TOTAL 0.10% 0.22% 0.36% 0.31% 

Source: ADE, Inc. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 21 

TABLE 11 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF DRAFT RULE 9410: INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER 

ANNUAL COST SCENARIO (MANUFACTURING ONLY) 

NAICS Industry Code 

Cost as Percent 

of Net Profits 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Costs as a 

Percent of Net 

Profits for 

Establishments 

Employing More 

than 500 

Agriculture 0.12% 0.22% 0.19% 0.11% 

Mining 0.02% 0.03% 0.04% 0.01% 

Construction 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.06% 

Manufacturing 0.26% 0.58% 0.25% 0.07% 

Wholesale 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 

Retail 0.10% 0.13% 0.08% 0.00% 

Transportation/warehousing 0.08% 0.10% 0.03% 0.18% 

Information 0.06% 0.06% 0.11% 0.04% 

Finance and Insurance 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.05% 

Real Estate 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 

Professional and Technical 0.05% 0.06% 0.07% 0.10% 

Management of Companies 0.46% 0.44% 1.46% 0.00% 

Administrative/Support/waste 0.26% 0.36% 0.23% 0.19% 

Education 0.13% 0.16% 0.00% 

Health 0.13% 0.22% 0.08% 0.49% 

Arts and recreation 0.10% 0.10% 0.26% 0.37% 

Food and accommodations 0.13% 0.14% 0.04% 0.00% 

Other services 0.05% 0.05% 0.03% 0.10% 

TOTAL 0.20% 0.38% 0.16% 0.06%

Source: ADE, Inc. 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY 

PROPOSED DRAFT RULE 9410 

Draft Rule 9410 will affect agencies in the public sector, not just establishments in the 

private sector. This section of the report analyzes socioeconomic impacts on the 

public sector. 

To begin with, it is important to indicate that the public sector is not motivated by 

profit, for the most part. The public sector delivers services generally known as 

“public goods.” In economics, a public good is a good that is “non-rivalrous” and “nonexcludable,” meaning, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual 

does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one 

can be effectively excluded from using the good. In other words, every one equally and 

fairly accesses public educational service, police protection, local parks, and public 

infrastructure such as sidewalks and roads, to name a few public goods. Thus, 

decisions with respect what costs this sector absorbs (i.e. what public goods/services to 

render) in large part are budgetary policy decisions not necessarily predicated on 

whether a service/good is “profitable” as understood in the private sector. In this 
22 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

light, costs stemming from Draft Rule 9410 should be compared against public sector 

expenditures. 

The table below presents data on the state of public sector in the San Joaquin Valley 

region. At the local level, the bulk of public sector establishments are local public 

elementary and secondary schools. There are 1,780 schools in the region employing 

almost 110,000 workers. For federal agencies, expenditures are based on federal budget 

issued by the White House/US Congress in 2008, as well as US Statistical Abstract. 

Expenditure estimates for the State of California are from the California Legislative 

Analysts Office. Expenditure estimates for local governments (except schools, 

hospitals, and utilities) are based ratio of $127,272 per worker. Data for hospitals are 

based on Economic Census 2002, whereas estimates for utilities are based on Public 

Sector Economic Census 2002. School figures come from the socioeconomic impact 

analysis for the school bus rule, adjusted for inflation. 

TABLE 12 

Profile of Public Sector: San Joaquin Valley Region, 2008 

 Establishments Employment 

Average 

Employment 

Aggregate 

Expenditures 

(est.) 

Federal Agencies/Departments 171 9,258 54 $3,937,895,180 

 Military/National Security 19 9,674 509 $8,629,450,085 

 Hospitals 3 1,027 342 $146,981,460 

 Postal Service 196 6,022 31 $599,598,542 

State Agencies/Departments 642 23,155 36 $3,538,375,846 

 Correctional Institutions 11 15,992 1,454 $2,435,289,935 

 Hospitals 55 1,886 34 $270,054,572 

 Elementary and Secondary Schools 2 73 37 $9,077,852 

 Colleges and Universities 355 4,418 12 $350,505,617 

 Other Agencies/Departments 3 328 109 $50,045,971 

Local Agencies/Departments 243 26,301 108 $3,587,450,766 

 Hospitals 14 11,926 852 $1,707,323,274 

 Utilities 148 3,305 22 $931,005,585 

 Elementary and Secondary Schools 1,780 109,719 62 $13,582,010,590 

 Junior Colleges 24 10,370 432 $82,959,075 

 Other local agencies 208 1,886 9 $240,004,545 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Economic Census, and US Public Sector Census 

The EDD LMID does not release public sector data by county and region that show 

how many public sector agencies employ more than 100 workers. The EDD LMID 

does release this information for the state as a whole, although it combines local, state 

and federal entities in its data set. As the table below shows, 11 percent of all public 

sector entities in California employ more than 100 workers. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 23 

Table 13 

Distribution of Public Sector Establishments: State of California, 2008 

 Number of Businesses by Size Category 

Industry Total 0-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 

250-

499 

500-

999 1000+ 

Federal, State and Local Government 31,896 7,255 4,364 4,677 6,891 5,182 2,322 584 334 287 

 100% 23% 14% 15% 22% 16% 7% 2% 1% 1% 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on EDD LMID Size of Business Data (http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=138) 

Based on Table 13 above, we estimate the number of public sector entities employing 

more than 100 workers. For purposes of a conservative analysis, we assume that all 

federal military/national security establishments, federal hospitals, and local hospitals 

employ more than 100 workers. As it is, their respective average amounts to 509 

workers per establishment (military/national security), 342 workers per establishment 

(federal hospitals), and 850 workers per local hospitals. Also, elementary schools in 

the region do not employ more than 100 workers, for example. Thus, the remaining 

entities were scaled in accordance with the 11 percent factor in the table above. Table 

14 below shows that public sector entities are not significantly impacted by Draft Rule 

9410, as cost to expenditure ratios are well below one percent. Thus, Draft Rule 9410 

does not significantly impact the public sector. 

“This section of the page intentionally blank” 
24 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

TABLE 14 

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Draft Rule 9410: Public Sector: District Cost Scenario 

 

Public Sector 

Establishments 

Employing 

More than 100 

Workers 

Aggregate 

Expenditures 

(est.) Cost* 

Cost to 

Expenditure 

Federal Agencies/Departments 19 $433,168,470 $60,004 0.01% 

 Military/National Security 19 $8,629,450,085 $60,610 0.00% 

 Hospitals 3 $146,981,460 $9,570 0.01% 

 Postal Service 22 $65,955,840 $68,776 0.10% 

State Agencies/Departments 71 $389,221,343 $225,278 0.06% 

 Correctional Institutions 11 $2,435,289,935 $35,090 0.00% 

 Hospitals 6 $29,706,003 $19,300 0.06% 

 Colleges and Universities 39 $38,555,618 $124,570 0.32% 

Local Agencies/Departments 27 $398,605,641 $86,130 0.02% 

 Hospitals 14 $1,707,323,274 $44,660 0.00% 

 Utilities 3 $18,871,735 $9,570 0.05% 

 Middle/High Schools 105 $801,186,018 $334,950 0.04% 

 Junior Colleges 3 $10,369,884 $9,570 0.09% 

 Other local agencies 22 $25,385,096 $70,180 0.28% 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Economic Census, and US Public Sector Census 

(*note: annual costs are based on average annual cost (i.e. $3,190 annual cost per establishment) estimate of the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District) 

 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 25 

APPENDIX A: LONG-TERM NET PROFIT RATIOS BY 

INDUSTRY: DUN AND BRADSTREET 

TABLE A-1 

LONG TERM NET PROFIT 

AVERAGE RECESSION EXPANSION 

3.4% 3.2% 3.8% SIC ALL INDUSTRIES 

3.4% 3.5% 4.1% 01 Agricultural production—crops 

2.9% 3.4% 2.9% 02 Agricultural production—livestock and animal specialties 

3.5% 3.5% 3.8% 07 Agricultural services 

5.1% 5.0% 5.1% 08 Forestry 

3.9% 4.9% 3.5% 09 Fishing, hunting, and trapping 

3.0% 1.2% 4.1% 10 Metal mining 

3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 12 Coal mining 

6.0% 4.7% 7.0% 13 Oil and gas extraction 

5.8% 15.5% 6.3% 14 Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels 

2.4% 2.3% 2.6% 15 General contractors and operative builders 

3.3% 3.0% 3.5% 16 Heavy construction, except building 

3.2% 2.9% 3.5% 17 Special trade contractors 

2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 20 Food and kindred products 

5.2% 5.1% 5.2% 21 Tobacco products 

2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 22 Textile mill products 

2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 23 Apparel and other textile products 

3.1% 3.1% 3.3% 24 Lumber and wood products 

3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 25 Furniture and fixtures 

3.1% 2.7% 3.4% 26 Paper and allied products 

3.6% 3.4% 4.0% 27 Printing and publishing 

3.7% 3.4% 4.1% 28 Chemicals and allied products 

2.7% 2.2% 3.0% 29 Petroleum and coal products 

3.4% 3.3% 3.8% 30 Rubber and misc. plastics products 

2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 31 Leather and leather products 

3.5% 3.3% 3.7% 32 Stone, clay, and glass products 

3.4% 2.6% 3.9% 33 Primary metal industries 

3.6% 3.2% 3.9% 34 Fabricated metal products 

3.7% 3.1% 4.3% 35 Industrial machinery and equipment 

3.8% 3.2% 4.3% 36 Electronic & other electric equipment 

3.4% 2.9% 3.7% 37 Transportation equipment 

3.9% 3.3% 4.6% 38 Instruments and related products 

3.3% 3.4% 3.7% 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 

10.7% 8.2% 11.3% 40 Railroad transportation 

2.6% 2.6% 2.9% 41 Local and interurban passenger transit 

2.3% 2.1% 2.5% 42 Trucking and warehousing 

4.0% 3.5% 4.4% 44 Water transportation 

3.1% 2.7% 3.3% 45 Transportation by air 

26.3% 22.6% 26.3% 46 Pipelines, except natural gas 

2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 47 Transportation services 

7.6% 6.2% 11.1% 48 Communication 

6.5% 5.8% 7.2% 49 Electric, gas, and sanitary services 

2.0% 1.9% 2.2% 50 Wholesale trade—durable goods 

1.5% 1.4% 1.6% 51 Wholesale trade—nondurable goods 

2.0% 2.1% 2.2% 52 Building materials & garden supplies 

2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 53 General merchandise stores 

1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 54 Food stores 

1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 55 Automotive dealers & service stations 

3.4% 3.3% 3.8% 56 Apparel and accessory stores 

2.6% 2.7% 2.9% 57 Furniture and homefurnishings stores 

3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 58 Eating and drinking places 

2.5% 2.6% 2.9% 59 Miscellaneous retail 

 60 Depository institutions 

6.0% 6.2% 7.5% 61 Nondepository institutions 

3.3% 4.1% 3.7% 62 Security and commodity brokers 

 63 Insurance carriers 

 64 Insurance agents, brokers, & service 

7.0% 6.0% 8.2% 65 Real estate 

6.0% 4.1% 7.9% 67 Holding and other investment offices 

5.9% 5.0% 7.1% 70 Hotels and other lodging places 

3.9% 4.0% 4.5% 72 Personal services 

3.9% 3.6% 4.7% 73 Business services 

3.0% 3.0% 3.4% 75 Auto repair, services, and parking 
26 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

TABLE A-1 

LONG TERM NET PROFIT 

AVERAGE RECESSION EXPANSION 

3.4% 3.2% 3.9% 76 Miscellaneous repair services 

3.6% 3.7% 4.3% 78 Motion pictures 

3.3% 3.3% 3.6% 79 Amusement & recreation services 

3.3% 2.8% 3.9% 80 Health services 

8.5% 7.2% 10.0% 81 Legal services 

3.8% 3.3% 4.2% 82 Educational services 

3.0% 2.4% 3.4% 83 Social services 

8.2% 5.2% 10.0% 84 Museums, botanical, zoological gardens 

3.8% 2.9% 4.2% 86 Membership organizations 

3.7% 3.6% 4.1% 87 Engineering & management services 

 88 Private households 

4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 89 Services, nec 

Source: ADE, Inc.; based on Dun & Bradstreet 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 27 

APPENDIX B: AGRICULTURAL NET PROFIT RATIOS: 

DUN AND BRADSTREET 

TABLE B-1 

AG NET PROFIT RATIOS 

Description SIC Code Level 

10-year 

avg. 

10-yr 

mdn. Recession Growth 

 UQ 14.2 14.1 14.7 13.7 

Wheat 0111 MD 6.6 7.0 5.9 7.1 

 LQ 2.1 3.0 1.1 2.8 

 UQ 10.5 9.8 9.7 11.1 

Corn 0115 MD 5.1 3.7 3.9 6.0 

 LQ 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 

 UQ 10.7 12.8 10.7 10.7 

Cash grains, nec 0119 MD 4.0 5.3 3.5 4.8 

 LQ -2.2 0.9 -3.7 -0.2 

 UQ 16.1 16.1 18.4 14.3 

Cotton 0131 MD 8.1 6.5 9.6 6.9 

 LQ 2.7 1.7 2.5 2.9 

 UQ 13.5 13.5 13.5 

Sugarbeats 0133 MD 10.3 10.3 10.3 

 LQ 3.9 3.9 3.9 

 UQ 10.0 8.7 10.0 10.0 

Irish potatoes 0134 MD 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.1 

 LQ -0.2 -0.2 -0.8 0.2 

 UQ 16.8 15.5 13.4 19.6 

Field crops, excp. cash grains nec 0139 MD 6.9 6.6 6.7 7.0 

 LQ 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.7 

 UQ 9.2 8.0 10.1 8.5 

Vegetables and melons 0161 MD 3.7 2.9 4.3 3.2 

 LQ 0.2 -0.2 0.5 -0.1 

 UQ 14.6 14.9 13.3 15.6 

Berry crops 0171 MD 7.9 7.7 7.2 8.5 

 LQ 3.5 3.2 1.5 5.0 

 UQ 14.1 9.7 17.9 11.1 

Grapes 0172 MD 5.5 4.7 6.6 4.6 

 LQ 2.3 1.9 2.8 1.9 

 UQ 14.1 12.7 10.3 16.9 

Tree nuts 0173 MD 5.8 6.4 3.4 7.7 

 LQ 0.0 1.0 -4.7 3.5 

 UQ 11.2 11.7 8.9 13.0 

Citrus fruits 0174 MD 4.6 4.7 3.3 5.7 

 LQ -1.1 -1.9 -3.0 0.5 

 UQ 8.7 7.2 10.7 7.1 

Deciduous tree fruits 0175 MD 3.4 2.4 4.7 2.4 

 LQ -0.5 -0.4 0.2 -1.1 

 UQ 9.8 9.0 10.3 9.4 

Floriculture and nursery products 0181 MD 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.2 

 LQ 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 

 UQ 14.9 15.0 12.9 16.6 

General farms, primarily crops 0191 MD 5.9 5.0 5.0 6.5 

 LQ 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.3 

 UQ 6.0 6.3 4.8 7.0 

Beef cattle feedlots 0211 MD 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.9 

 LQ 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.2 

 UQ 18.4 18.7 18.6 18.2 

Beef cattle, except feedlots 0212 MD 5.6 5.9 6.3 5.0 

4.1 LQ -2.3 -0.8 -0.1 -4.1 

 UQ 9.3 9.9 9.2 9.3 

Hogs 0213 MD 2.9 3.6 3.0 2.8 

 LQ -2.5 -3.6 -3.8 -1.4 

 UQ 11.1 9.5 12.2 10.2 

Dairy farms 0241 MD 3.7 3.0 4.3 3.2 

 LQ 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 
28 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

TABLE B-1 

AG NET PROFIT RATIOS 

Description SIC Code Level 

10-year 

avg. 

10-yr 

mdn. Recession Growth 

 UQ 7.1 6.6 7.0 7.2 

Chiecken eggs 0252 MD 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.8 

 LQ 0.2 0.5 0.6 -0.1 

 UQ 10.0 9.3 11.2 8.8 

Turkey and turkey eggs 0253 MD 5.6 6.1 4.9 6.3 

 LQ 2.6 2.5 1.6 3.7 

 UQ 7.1 5.7 7.1 

Poultry hatcheries 0254 MD 2.9 3.3 2.9 

 LQ 0.3 0.8 0.3 

 UQ 12.0 11.7 11.4 12.6 

Animal specialties, nec 0279 MD 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.2 

 LQ 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.6 

 UQ 12.0 9.2 19.8 4.3 

General farms, primarily livestock/animal specialties 0291 MD 6.4 5.7 9.8 3.1 

 LQ 2.7 2.2 3.2 2.2 

 UQ 10.5 11.5 9.3 11.4 

Soil preparation services 0711 MD 4.3 4.1 3.2 5.2 

 LQ 1.1 1.0 0.2 1.8 

 UQ 9.4 8.3 11.0 8.2 

Crop planting, cultivating and protecting 0721 MD 3.7 3.1 4.0 3.4 

 LQ 1.0 0.7 1.2 0.8 

 UQ 8.6 8.5 8.2 8.8 

Crop harvesting, primarily by machine 0722 MD 2.7 2.6 3.5 2.2 

 LQ 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.9 

 UQ 7.9 7.2 8.3 7.6 

Crop prep services for market, except cotton ginning 0723 MD 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 

 LQ 4.6 0.7 0.5 7.9 

 UQ 16.8 16.1 17.6 16.3 

Cotton ginning 0724 MD 6.3 5.9 6.6 6.1 

 LQ 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.1 

 UQ 11.6 11.1 10.0 12.9 

Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits 2084 MD 5.9 4.6 4.7 6.6 

 LQ 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 

 UQ 11.9 12.6 11.7 12.1 

Distilled and blended liquors 2085 MD 7.4 8.1 8.0 7.0 

 LQ 3.6 2.9 2.4 4.5 

 10-year avg. 10-yr mdn. Recession Growth 

 UQ 12.5 11.9 12.3 12.7 

Crop MD 5.7 5.3 5.5 5.5 

 LQ 1.0 1.1 0.3 1.4 

 UQ 10.3 9.6 11.2 9.7 

Livestock MD 4.2 4.2 4.6 3.9 

 LQ 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 

 UQ 11.7 11.1 11.9 11.6 

Crop ands Livestock MD 5.1 4.9 5.2 4.9 

 LQ 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.1 

 UQ 10.7 10.3 10.9 10.5 

Farm services MD 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 

 LQ 1.8 0.8 0.8 2.5 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on Dun and Bradstreet 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 29 

APPENDIX C: RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA LEAGUE 

OF FOOD PROCESSORS AND MANUFACTURERS’ 

COUNCIL OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Nichole Corless, George Heinen, and Scott Nestor 

From: Tony Daysog, ADE

Copy: Doug Svensson, ADE 

Date: November 19, 2009 

Re: Response to Inquiries from the CLFP and MCCV 

Applied Development Economics prepared this memo in response to the questions 

posed by the California League of Food Processors, which asked, “Of the number of 

establishments employing at least 100 workers, how many employ 100 ‘qualified’ 

workers? In a separate memo, the California League of Food Processors and the 

Manufacturers’ Council of the Central Valley presented annual cost figures higher 

than what was estimated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air District. In this 

memo, we respond to these two issues. First we discuss the source of data on 

businesses and establishments by number of workers. Then, we discuss how we 

treated the data for purposes of the socioeconomic impact analysis. We conclude with 

a socioeconomic impact analysis based on cost figures presented by the California 

League of Food Processors and the Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley. 

Establishments By Number of Workers: Data Source: County Business 

Pattern 

In analyzing economic trends in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region, Applied 

Development Economics relied heavily on the US Census Bureau’s annual County 

Business Patterns. In this publication, the US Census Bureau organizes data by 

county, industry code, and size of establishment in terms of number of workers. The 

most current data available from County Business Patterns is for the year 2007. 

The US Census Bureau obtains data placed in the County Business Patterns in the 

following manner. Each year, the US Census surveys businesses across the country 

through the “Report of Organization Survey.” The US Census distributes findings 

from this survey across a number of federal agencies maintaining economic databases. 

Among the various databases the US Census places findings from the “Report of 

Organization Survey,” the Census places survey findings in what is called the 
30 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

“Business Register.” Other agencies such as the US Internal Revenue Service place data 

into the Business Register. Thus, via the Business Register, the US Census Bureau and 

other agencies generate accurate and consistent data on businesses throughout the 

nation. Data for the annual publication called the County Business Patterns come 

from Business Register. 

The US Census Bureau organizes County Business Patterns data according to varying 

levels of industrial codes. For example, manufacturing in general is represented by the 

two-digit NAICS codes range of “31-33.” A particular group of manufacturers, such as 

food processors, are grouped under the three-digit NAICS of “311”, which is a sub-set 

of two-digit “31” NAICS code. Particular food processors such as “breakfast cereal 

manufacturers” are represented by a more detailed NAICS code consisting of six digits, 

or “311230” in the case of “breakfast cereal manufacturers.” NAICS code “311230” is a 

sub-set of “311”. For purposes of the socioeconomic impact analysis, the consultant 

analyzes trends at the detailed six-digit level, and, as appropriate, reports findings at 

either the six-, two- or three-digit NAICS code levels. 

In addition to organizing data by specific industry codes, the US Census Bureau also 

organizes County Business Patterns data by size of establishment, which is defined by 

a range of workers. Thus, the US Census Bureau identifies the number of 

establishments with “1 to 4” workers, “5 to 9” workers, “10 to 19” workers, “20 to 49” 

workers, “50 to 99” workers, “100 to 249 workers”, “250 to 499” workers, “500 to 999” 

workers, “1000 to 2499” workers, “2500 to 4999” workers and “over 5000” workers. 

How We Treat Cases Where Businesses Employ More than 100 Workers But 

Not More than 100 “Qualified” Workers 

As currently stated, proposed Draft Rule 9410 affects establishments employing at least 

100 “eligible” workers. Thus, an establishment employing 120 workers might not 

necessarily be subject to the proposed rule, if in this hypothetical case 30 of the 120 

workers work night shifts, with the balance of the workforce working during hours 

and conditions covered under the proposed rule. In this example, the establishment 

employs 90 “eligible” workers out of a total workforce of 120, meaning that this 

hypothetical establishment would not be subject to the proposed draft rule. Because 

County Business Pattern data do not indicate how many of the establishments 

employing between “100 and 249” workers are “eligible” workers per proposed Draft 

Rule 9410, for purposes of a conservative socioeconomic impact analysis, we assume 

that all establishment employing between “100 and 249” workers will be subject to the 

rule. In other words, proposed Draft Rule 9410 may affect fewer establishments than 

the number in our analysis, but for purposes of a conservative socioeconomic impact 

analysis, we opted to assume that socioeconomic impacts stemming from the rule 

would fall on a greater (rather than lesser) number of businesses within the “100 to 

249” size range. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 31 

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Industry Stakeholder Cost Estimates 

In a November 4, 2009 memo called “Joint Comments from MCCV & CLFP: 

Employer-Based Trip Reduction Rule 9410,” The California League of Food 

Processors and the Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley presented their 

respective annual cost estimate for Tiers 1 and 2, or $6,824 and $10,490 respectively. 

We included these costs next to the District’s initial cost estimates. These costs are 

presented below, which also includes revised cost figures for the Migrant Seasonal 

Worker Protection Act. We estimated an average of $9,972 using the stakeholders’ 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 annual cost estimates. 

Annual Cost Stemming from Draft Rule 9410: Industry Stakeholder and District 

Scenarios 

 

Type of Worksite 

District: 

Average annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

Stakeholder: 

Average annual 

cost/worksite 

until 2014 

Total $3,190 $9,972 

Tier 1 $2,310 $6,824 

Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act Tier T1 $2,460 $7,267 

Tier 2 $3,249 $10,490 

Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act Tier T2 $4,741 $15,307 

Source: ADE, based on San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and 

MCCV/CLFP 

In an e-mail transmission to the consultant, the California League of Food Processors 

asked, “Why are the annual total costs so much lower for larger employers? On a peremployee basis they might be somewhat lower, but wouldn’t the total annual costs 

incurred by an employer with 1,000 employees be greater than one with 100 workers?” 

When conducting socioeconomic analyses, one of the first things we attempt to 

discover through our preliminary analysis and the initial workshops we help facilitate 

is whether costs associated with a rule scale in conjunction with specific factors, or 

whether costs more or less are fixed regardless of the size of business. We concluded 

that costs stemming from the rule do not ratchet upward in accordance with the 

number of workers, in part because much of the success of the project relies on various 

communication approaches the cost of which more or less is the same whether there 

are 100 or 1,000 employees. While the “services and facilities” element of the proposed 

Draft Rule 9410 involves hard-costs (see “on-site vending machine” and “on-site break 

room and kitchenette”), more than likely, companies with more than 100 workers are 

already providing these hard costs even before rule adoption, such that for businesses 

interested in pursuing these elements of the project, true impacts stemming from the 
32 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

rule is an incremental fraction above the initial outlay, with no significant difference in 

impacts based upon size of establishment. For these reason, we conclude that the 

District’s $3,190 of industry stakeholders’ $9,972 average (for manufacturers only) are 

the appropriate unit of analysis to be applied against businesses employing more than 

100 workers. 

The table below shows the aggregate cost impacts based on the $9,972 average 

absorbed by affected industries and businesses with more than 100 workers. Below 

this table is another one which shows that impacts are less than significant across the 

board. 

Aggregate Costs Per Industry Stakeholder Cost Estimates: Cost Applies Only to 

Manufacturers 

 

NAICS Industry Code 

Total 

Establishments 

> 100 workers 

Establishments 

Employing 100-

249 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Establishment 

Employing More 

than 500 

Manufacturing $2,353,411 $1,565,616 $498,604 $289,190 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics (QCEW) and US Census County Business Patterns 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 33 

Comparison of Aggregate Net Profits to Aggregate Costs Per Stakeholder Cost 

Estimates 

          

NAICS Industry Code 

Total Net 

Profits > 100 

workers 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing 

100-249 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing 

Between 250-

499 

Net Profits of 

Establishments 

Employing 

More than 500 

Manufacturing 0.26% 0.58% 0.25% 0.07% 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on Dun and Bradstreet 
34 Applied Development Economics, Inc.

This page is intentionally blank.