1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL STAFF REPORT 

Proposed Rule 9610 

(State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated 

through Incentive Programs) 

June 20, 2013 

Prepared by: Jeannine Tackett, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Anna Myers, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed by: Jessi Fierro, Strategies and Incentives Manager 

Todd DeYoung, Strategies and Incentives Manager 

Errol Villegas, Strategies and Incentives Manager 

Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategies and Incentives 

I. SUMMARY

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) currently operates 

one of the largest and most well-respected incentive programs in California. Since 

1992, the District’s incentive programs have provided over $500 million in incentive 

funds, resulting in over 100,000 tons of lifetime emission reductions. Each District 

incentive investment is matched by investments on the part of the participating 

businesses, public agencies, and residents, who together have also invested over $400 

million on these projects. These combined efforts have accelerated the adoption of 

cleaner technologies beyond what is achieved by stringent regulations alone, and in 

sectors for which the District has limited regulatory authority (mobile sources). The 

significant reductions seen through these voluntary incentive programs have resulted in 

significant improvements to air quality and public health, and have advanced the Valley 

towards attainment of increasingly stringent federal air quality standards (also called 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS). 

The District has been lauded for its efficient and effective use of incentive funding and 

programs, and has become a model for grant programs throughout the state. In 

addition to locally-generated funding sources, support from federal and state sources 

has been critical in bringing much-needed incentive funds to the Valley. 

Although incentive programs result in real air quality benefits, the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has not historically granted credit to the District for incentivebased emission reductions in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). When given SIP 

credit, incentive-based emission reductions can be used alongside regulatory-based 

emission reductions to meet certain federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, such as 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

demonstrating attainment, fulfilling commitments for long-term measures under CAA 

§182(e)(5) (“black box reductions”), meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) or rate 

of progress (ROP) emission reduction milestones, or satisfying contingency measure 

requirements. District Rule 9610 (State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission 

Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs) will establish a mechanism through 

which incentive-based emission reductions can receive SIP credit. 

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND 

A. The Need for Incentive Programs in SIPs 

EPA periodically reviews and establishes health-based NAAQS for ozone, particulates, 

and other pollutants. Once a standard is set, EPA designates areas as attainment or 

nonattainment. EPA also adopts implementation rules which, with the CAA, establish 

required components for attainment plans. By meeting planning and attainment 

requirements, local air districts avoid federal sanctions and improve public health. 

Traditional regulatory controls are a core component of the District’s attainment 

strategies. Since 1992, the District has adopted over 500 new rules and amendments, 

reflecting technologies and methods far beyond minimum control levels. Although new 

opportunities for stronger regulatory controls continue to become increasingly scarce, 

the District evaluates all sources of air pollutant emissions for new emission reductions 

opportunities in each attainment plan. 

Federal law requires reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), best available control technology (BACT), and/or 

best available control measures (BACM), depending on the requirements associated 

with a particular attainment plan. In addition, an attainment plan as a whole must 

demonstrate sufficient emission reductions to achieve attainment, to meet reasonable 

further progress (RFP) milestones, and satisfy contingency measure emission 

reductions requirements. 

Given the significant emission reductions already being achieved in the Valley through 

adopted regulatory strategies and the significant investment necessary to achieve new 

emission reductions from stationary sources, the Valley is at the point of diminishing 

returns from achieving additional reductions through the adoption of new regulatory 

controls. Yet the Valley continues to face significant challenges under current and 

upcoming federal air quality standards. The District thus pursues comprehensive, multifaceted strategies that reach beyond traditional regulations to include incentive 

programs, technology advancement efforts, and more. 

For regulatory measures contained in attainment plans, the District is able to 

incorporate future reductions that are projected through implementation of such 

measures into the plan. A similar mechanism has been lacking for projected reductions 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

achieved through incentive-based measures. With the significant growth in the District’s 

incentive-based programs and diminishing opportunities for further reducing emissions 

through regulatory measures on stationary sources, the lack of a similar SIP-creditability 

mechanism for incentive-based measures is now a major deficit in developing 

attainment plans. 

Emission reductions from non-regulatory strategies, such as incentives, have generally 

not been accounted for or given full credit in attainment plans to meet federal CAA 

requirements. Establishing a framework for these programs to receive SIP credit is 

important for ensuring the continued success of both incentive programs and the 

District’s attainment plans. While other mechanisms are available to account for 

incentive-based measures in SIPs, this rule establishes a clear framework to achieve 

this goal. 

B. Interagency Development of SIP Credit for Incentives 

In developing the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District and ARB recognized the need for 

additional emission reductions from sources outside of the District’s regulatory authority 

to meet the stringent 1997 8-hour ozone standard, particularly from mobile sources. 

Subsequently, the plan called for significantly increased incentive funding to help 

accelerate attainment of the standard. Since then, the District has advocated to 

increase incentive funding for the Valley, resulting in significantly increased funding the 

last several years. The District has seen a ten-fold increase in funding for incentive 

programs since 2006. Recognizing the importance of incentive-based emission 

reductions in addressing increasingly stringent federal standards, the District and EPA 

have been working together to develop an administrative framework for providing 

federal SIP credit for incentive programs. 

As part of this effort, the District and the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) collaborated to ensure that 

both agencies’ incentive programs meet EPA’s criteria for incentive based reductions to 

be SIP-creditable. In December 2010, the District, EPA, the California Air Resources 

Board (ARB), and USDA NRCS signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

establishing a general framework to ensure that reductions in emissions resulting from 

the voluntary incentives receive SIP credit (Appendix A). All parties involved agreed to 

work collaboratively to develop a mechanism to provide SIP credit for emission 

reductions from federal, state, and local incentive programs that meet the EPA integrity 

principles (also referred to as SIP-creditability criteria) of being surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent. 

NRCS and EPA continued to work together to develop a mechanism pursuant to the 

CAA to quantify SIP credit for emission reductions from farm equipment, achieved 

through voluntary incentive programs at the state/local level. As a result of these 

continued efforts, EPA and NRCS signed Implementation Principles for Addressing 

Agricultural Equipment under the Clean Air Act, in July 2012 (Appendix B). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

C. Upcoming ARB Regulation for Agricultural Equipment 

The 2007 San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan, approved by 

EPA, contained an ARB commitment to present to their Board a regulation for off-road 

mobile agricultural equipment in 2013. The regulation would move California towards 

meeting ambient air quality standards for the Valley by utilizing the cleanest available 

technologies. Specifically, the approved SIP includes a goal to achieve emission 

reductions of 5-10 tons per day (tpd) of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from mobile 

agricultural equipment in the Valley by 2017 to accelerate progress toward attainment of 

the federal 1997 ozone standard. 

ARB’s rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for State Implementation Plan Credit from 

Mobile Agricultural Equipment in the San Joaquin Valley, will be submitted for approval 

to their Board in October 2013. The proposed regulation will provide a mechanism to 

ensure that the agricultural industry’s voluntary participation in incentive programs in the 

Valley is recognized by EPA. ARB’s proposed regulation will define the criteria and 

process that ARB will use to determine that the reductions from the use of incentives 

generated from federal, state, and local funds spent on qualifying mobile agricultural 

equipment projects are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent, and are 

therefore eligible for SIP credit. Although there are many similarities between ARB’s 

and the District’s approaches, ARB’s regulation for mobile agricultural equipment is 

separate from District Rule 9610. 

D. Related EPA Guidance 

There are several EPA guidance documents related to SIP credit for innovative 

emission reductions programs. These documents are guidance, as opposed to 

regulatory mandates that must be followed. Also, some of this guidance primarily 

relates to purely voluntary programs with little or no enforcement mechanisms, not the 

enforceable incentive programs encompassed in Rule 9610. 

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation 

Plans (1997) 

In this guideline, EPA notes that SIP credit is appropriate for voluntary mobile source 

emission reduction programs (VMEP). These measures have the potential to contribute 

emission reductions needed for progress toward attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. This guideline describes the terms and conditions for establishing and 

implementing VMEPs, and the basic framework for ensuring that VMEPs become 

eligible for SIP credit. Generally, a State would submit a SIP which: 

1) Identifies and describes a VMEP; 

2) Contains projections of emission reductions attributable to the program, along 

with relevant technical support documentation; 

3) Commits to monitor, evaluate, and report the resulting emissions effect of the 

voluntary measure; and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

4) Commits to remedy in a timely manner any SIP credit shortfall if the VMEP 

program does not achieve projected emission reductions. 

Under this guideline, EPA set a limit on the amount of emission reductions allowed for 

VMEPs in a SIP. The limit is set at three percent (3%) of the total projected future year 

emission reductions required to attain the appropriate NAAQS. Further, where emission 

reductions are expected to exceed the 3% limit, EPA would anticipate the state to use 

the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) to take credit for said emission reductions. 

Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs (2001) 

EPA encourages the development and submittal of discretionary EIPs to increase 

flexibility, stimulate the use of less costly, innovative emission reduction measures, and 

provide greater incentives for developing and implementing pollution prevention strategies, 

possibly with fewer resources. For incentive-based emission reductions to be given SIP 

credit, the EIP guidance requires emissions reductions from incentive projects to satisfy 

four SIP-creditability “integrity principles:” surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and 

permanent. EIP measures are not subject to a SIP-credit limitation, as voluntary 

measures are. 

Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan 

(2004) 

This guidance encourages the development of voluntary and emerging measures to 

meet SIP requirements. A voluntary measure is a measure or strategy that (unlike 

traditional measures or EIPs) is not enforceable against an individual source. An 

emerging measure is a measure or strategy that (unlike traditional measures or EIPs) 

does not have a high level of certainty for quantification purposes. A measure can be 

both a voluntary and an emerging measure. 

This guidance provides some flexibility in meeting established SIP requirements for 

enforceability and quantification; provides a clear process by which new approaches 

can be developed and evaluated; establishes appropriate limitations which govern the 

conditions under which these new approaches can be applied; and provides provisional 

pollutant reduction credit upfront for attainment, RFP, ROP, or maintenance 

requirements to encourage the substantial investment required to implement new 

pollutant reduction approaches. 

EPA set a limit on the amount of SIP credit allowed to be claimed for these voluntary 

and/or emerging measures to six percent (6%) of the total amount of emission 

reductions required for the ROP, RFP, attainment, or maintenance demonstration 

purposes. The limit is presumptive in that EPA believes it may approve measures into a 

SIP in excess of 6% where a clear and convincing justification is made by the State as 

to why a higher limit should apply in their case. Any request for a higher limit will be 

reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis; any approval of emerging measures under 

this policy will be conducted through full notice-and-comment rulemaking in the context 

of a particular state SIP revision. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Incorporating Voluntary Stationary Source Emission Reduction Programs into 

State Implementation Plans (2001) 

This guideline is the EPA final policy regarding the granting of explicit SIP credits for 

voluntary stationary source emission reduction programs under section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act. This policy is a complement to the voluntary mobile source emissions reduction 

policy that has been in place since October, 1997. Voluntary measures are an 

alternative to traditional command and control approaches that have the potential to 

encourage new, untried and cost-effective approaches to reduce emissions. 

Economic incentive programs differ from voluntary measures in that under a State’s 

EIP, emission reductions (or actions leading to emission reductions) must either be 

identifiable and enforceable against a specific source or the EIP submittal must include 

fully adopted contingency measures and contains a State commitment to automatically 

implement contingency measures, if necessary; the State will only count emission 

reductions on a retrospective basis; or the State has used the control strategy in a 

similar situation, has achieved positive results, and gets preliminary approval from the 

relevant EPA Regional Office to use the provision. 

EPA limits the amount of emission reductions allowed in a stationary source voluntary 

measures program to three percent (3%) of needed reductions for ROP, RFP, or 

attainment demonstration purposes. This is not 3% of an area’s total emission 

inventory. For example, if a State projects emissions in the attainment year to be 100 

tons per day over the emissions needed to show attainment, the State could take credit 

for emission reductions from stationary source voluntary measures of up to 3 tons per 

day. In the case of maintenance demonstrations, voluntary measures can account for 

no more than 3% of the reductions needed to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. 

These maintenance-related voluntary measures would be in addition to those measures 

that were previously adopted for attainment or RFP/ROP determination purposes. 

E. Successful Incentive Programs Implemented in the Valley 

The District operates one of the largest and most well-respected incentive programs in 

California. The District’s incentive programs have been developed around several core 

principles, including cost-effectiveness, integrity, effective program administration, 

excellent customer service, efficient use of District resources, fiscal transparency, and 

public accountability. 

To ensure public funds are spent appropriately and as intended, the District’s incentive 

program is regularly audited by outside agencies, including professional accountancy 

corporations on behalf of the federal government, ARB, the California Department of 

Finance (DOF), and the California Bureau of State Audits. These comprehensive and 

rigorous independent audits focus on every aspect of District administered incentive 

programs, including internal programmatic and fiscal policies and procedures as well as 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

field validation of projects. A recent ARB audit noted that the District’s incentive 

program is “efficiently and effectively achieving their emission reduction objectives”.1

 

The District is a statewide leader in incentive programs, with several elements being 

held as models for other air districts throughout California. As a result, ARB has 

routinely called upon the District to administer statewide incentive programs on their 

behalf and on behalf of other local air districts. Recent examples include administering 

the Lower Emission School Bus Program on behalf of ARB and 18 other air districts, the 

statewide Agricultural Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) program and the statewide School 

Bus Retrofit Program. 

The District also works closely with other agencies, such as NRCS, to implement 

incentive programs in the Valley. The majority of the District’s incentive grant 

programs are based on incentive program guidelines developed through a public 

process and adopted by ARB, such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) and Proposition 1B: Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program (Proposition 1B). The District also has a 

strong working relationship with NRCS, with both agencies implementing programs 

to replace agricultural equipment. 

In addition to locally-generated funding sources, support from federal and state sources 

has been critical in bringing much-needed incentive funds to the Valley. Other public 

agencies, including ARB and the USDA NRCS, also implement effective incentive 

programs to reduce emissions in the Valley. Since 2009, the District has successfully 

partnered with the NRCS to fund the replacement of mobile agricultural equipment 

within the Valley. This partnership between the District, NRCS and Valley agricultural 

stakeholders addresses the commitment made by ARB in their 2007 San Joaquin 

Valley 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan of achieving emission reductions of 5-

10 tons per day of NOx from mobile agricultural equipment in the Valley by 2017 to 

accelerate progress towards attainment of EPA’s 1997 ozone standard. Due to this 

partnership and the investment of Valley agricultural stakeholders, the programs are on 

pace to exceed this commitment several years in advance of the 2017 target. 

Although the District’s incentive program process can vary from program to program, 

per the applicable guidelines, the general incentive process is as follows: 

 Application completeness: District reviews received application for completeness 

and mails a letter to the applicant regarding application status 

 Pre-inspection: Once the application is deemed complete, pre-inspection is 

conducted by the District or a contracted agent: 

 

1

 ARB: 2011 San Joaquin Valley APCD Incentive Program Review and Audit Reports (January 2013). 

Retrieved May 2013 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/audits/2011/san_joaquin_valley.htm 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

o The engine, equipment, or practice is physically inspected to verify the 

condition of the engine and/or equipment, all unique identifiers such as 

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine Serial Numbers (ESN) are 

recorded, and it is confirmed that the engine and/or equipment is 

operational. 

o Photographs are taken of the engine, equipment, or practice and an 

inspection report is completed. 

o The inspection report and photographs are then reviewed by District staff 

to verify the information on the application. 

 Usage documentation: For applicable project types, usage documentation from 

the applicant is then requested and used to calculate the projected emissions 

reductions, cost-effectiveness, and incentive amount to be issued by the District. 

 Resolve outstanding NOVs: Applicants found to be in violation of any District 

rules or that have any outstanding Notice of Violations (NOV) during the 

application process will not be issued a contract for an incentive project until such 

time that all outstanding issues are resolved. 

 Execute contract: All parties sign the contract and the applicant, now referred to 

as the grantee, is notified to start their project. All activities related to the project 

are now covered under legally binding, enforceable contract provisions. 

 Claim for Payment: The grantee purchases and/or installs the new 

engine/equipment and submits a Claim for Payment (CFP) packet. The District’s 

receipt of the CFP triggers a post-inspection to be scheduled. 

 Post-inspection: A District employee or contracted agent inspects the new 

engine/equipment in the applicant’s possession and documents critical 

information with photographs. The dismantling facility is also inspected to 

confirm that the old engine/equipment has been properly destroyed, as illustrated 

in Figure 1. 

 Payment: After the District reviews the inspection reports and verifies the old and 

new engine/equipment information, the CFP is paid. 

 Contractual reporting requirements: The grantee is required to annually report to 

the District actual usage for the previous year, provide proof of insurance, and 

certify that they still own the engine/equipment for the duration of years required 

in the contract. The number of years required to report varies by project type, 

from one year to 20 years. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Figure 1 Photographs of the dismantling of a tractor 

1. Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program 

The Carl Moyer Program is a grant program that funds the incremental cost of 

installing/operating cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. Adopted in 1999 by 

ARB and governed by CH&SC §44275-44299.2, this program provides incentives to 

help obtain early or extra emission reductions, especially from emission sources in 

environmental justice communities and areas disproportionately impacted by air 

pollution with a primary objective of obtaining cost-effective and surplus emission 

reductions. 

ARB’s manages program funds, develops and maintains guidelines, and determines 

cost-effectiveness methodologies. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (developed 

publicly and available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm) 

ensure that emission reductions funded through the program are permanent, surplus, 

quantifiable, and enforceable (see Table 1 of this staff report). 

Air districts use ARB’s Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to select, fund, and monitor 

projects in their jurisdiction. The program guidelines allow for multiple funding options, 

and each air district is allowed to choose which options to administer each year. 

Currently, the District provides funding for the following options under the Carl Moyer 

Program: 

 Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicles – repower, retrofit, and replacement options 

 Stationary Agricultural Sources – repower and new electric purchase options 

 Locomotives – repower and alternate technology switcher options 

 Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles – retrofit and replacement options 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

As allowed in the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, ARB can issue a case-by-case 

determination for a specific incentive project that follows alternative procedures, but still 

meets the four integrity principles requirements. 

2. Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

In November 2006, California voter approval of Proposition 1B authorized $1 billion in 

bond funding to reduce air pollution associated with the movement of freight along 

California’s major trade corridors. The program supplements ARB’s diesel regulations 

by funding early compliance or providing extra emission reductions beyond those 

required by current rules. Subsequent legislation established standards and procedures 

for the expenditure of these funds. Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-02-

07 provides further direction to ensure accountability and transparency in administering 

bond-funded programs. 

ARB developed the Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines for Implementation (Proposition 1B Guidelines) (available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/gmbond.htm) in consultation with stakeholders, 

including: air districts, metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, industry, 

and community interest groups. The Proposition 1B Guidelines’ robust administrative 

requirements establish transparency and accountability measures, and ensure that 

emission reductions are enforceable throughout the project life. 

Through the Proposition 1B program, the District provides incentive funds to reduce 

emissions from eligible heavy-duty trucks traveling through California’s major trade 

corridors and locomotives. Available funding options include retrofit, repower, replace, 

and a tiered truck transaction, which involves retrofitting and replacing two different 

trucks. The District has conducted a comprehensive outreach and marketing campaign 

for Proposition 1B to ensure that the Valley’s Proposition 1B funds are fully liquidated 

and the emission reduction benefits of the program are realized. 

3. Combustion Systems Improvement of Mobile Engines 

In 2009, the NRCS established the California Air Quality Initiative to provide financial 

assistance to address air quality concerns through the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program. Through this initiative, NRCS provides incentive funds to assist farmers to 

replace, repower, or retrofit diesel powered agricultural equipment with the goal of 

ensuring the resulting reductions meet the SIP creditability criteria of being surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent (see Table 1 of this staff report). 

NRCS based its robust administrative requirements on the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines to ensure that emission reductions are enforceable, are achieved throughout 

the life of a project, and all integrity principles are met. The NRCS Combustion System 

Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive program guidelines are available at ftp://ftp-
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/AQI/2012_Combustion_Systems_Improvement_Polic

y_and_Procedures.pdf. 

The Combustion Systems Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive program is unique 

from other incentive programs in that NRCS is explicitly prohibited from identifying 

grantees by name. As directed by the Farm Bill (Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. § 

608d(2))), NRCS must maintain the confidentiality of information provided by an 

agricultural producer participating in the NRCS Combustion Systems Improvement of 

Mobile Engines incentive program. The information is exempt from mandatory 

disclosure and may not be used in judicial or administrative proceedings without the 

consent of the person involved. 

Since 2009, the NRCS program, in combination with the District’s program, has 

provided over $105 million in incentives for agricultural equipment replacement. Eligible 

participants are owners of land in agricultural or forest production or persons who are 

engaged in livestock, agriculture, or forest production on eligible land and that have a 

natural resource concern on the land. 

Applications are accepted on a continuous basis with periodic application ranking cutoffs. Applications are ranked for funding based upon ranking criteria developed with 

input from Local Work Groups, Stakeholders, and the State Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC). The ranking score of a project is based on multiple factors 

including but not limited to: 

 Whether or not the project location is in an area that has an EPA NAAQS nonattainment designation for PM2.5, PM10 and Ozone and what type of 

designation that area has (for example “extreme” nonattainment). 

 If there are currently any local or state agriculturally based air emission 

regulatory requirements for the area that the project is located. 

 The emission level of the baseline equipment/engine and the emission factors of 

the new/replacement equipment/engine. 

 The amount of NOx, ROG, and PM that is projected to be reduced by funding the 

project. 

The ranking criteria ensure that the projects with the greatest amount of reductions, 

resulting in the highest air quality benefit will be selected for funding. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

III. PROPOSED RULE 9610 

A. Overview 

Rule 9610 is an administrative mechanism to take SIP credit for incentive-based 

emission reductions. The key components of the District’s Rule 9610 SIP-crediting 

process include: 

 Incentive Program Guidelines for specific programs, developed through a 

public process with opportunity for public commenting and EPA concurrence. 

 A Manual of Procedures, which assures that all incentive program guidelines 

used for SIP creditability are publicly available and maintained in a centralized 

location on the District’s website. 

 Annual Demonstration Reports, to quantify the amount of emissions reductions 

achieved by incentive programs meeting the requirements in Rule 9610 and 

compares these reductions to SIP commitments. 

The purpose of Rule 9610 is to serve as an administrative mechanism for the District to 

receive credit towards SIP requirements for emission reductions achieved in the Valley 

through incentive programs administered by the District, NRCS, and ARB. Through 

program implementation and reporting, the goal is to receive credit for incentive-based 

emission reductions that satisfy EPA’s four integrity principles: 

 Surplus: emission reductions are not otherwise required by any federal, state, or 

local regulation or other legal mandate. These emission reductions must also be 

in excess of the baseline inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration. 

 Quantifiable: emission reductions can be reliably determined and replicated 

through the use of well-established, publicly available emission factors and 

calculation methodologies. 

 Enforceable: based on the following: 

 The emission reductions must be independently and practicably verifiable 

through inspections, monitoring, and/or other mechanisms; 

 Incentive program violations are defined through legally binding contracts, 

including identifying party or parties responsible for ensuring that emission 

reductions are achieved; 

 Grantees are obligated to provide all records needed to demonstrate that 

emission reductions are achieved; and 

 The public has access to all emission-related information for reductions 

claimed in the annual demonstration report, as outlined in Section 4.0 of 

Rule 9610. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

 Permanent: for the lifetime of the project, assured by actions taken to physically 

destroy, or permanently disable baseline equipment or vehicles, or to 

permanently amend practices to ensure the reduction of emissions for the 

duration of the project life. 

Table 1: Incentive Program Demonstration of Integrity Principles 

Carl Moyer Proposition 1B NRCS 

Surplus Accounts for compliance dates 

and emissions reductions 

claimed by adopted regulations. 

Minimum project life 

requirements (generally three 

years) ensure overall costeffectiveness, that the program 

does not fund actions taken to 

comply with regulatory 

deadlines, and that emission 

reductions are real for the 

project life. 

ARB verifies the project’s 

compliance with state 

diesel regulations. Funded 

trucks noted as such in the 

state’s online regulation 

reporting database to 

ensure that the new truck 

will not be used towards 

compliance during the 

project life. 

Off-road agricultural 

equipment is not 

currently subject to 

regulations mandating 

use of cleaner engines. 

Quantifiable Calculation methodology, 

formulas, and emission factors 

in guidelines and approved 

through a public process. 

Emission control technologies 

certified or verified by ARB (or, 

for some categories, by EPA or 

the International Maritime 

Organization). 

Reductions quantified with 

ARB’s Project Benefits 

Calculator, publically 

available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bon

ds/gmbond/gmbond.htm

and regularly updated by 

ARB. 

NRCS quantifies 

emissions reductions 

using established Carl 

Moyer Program 

calculation 

methodologies and 

emission factors. 

Enforceable Enforceable contracts, based on 

program guideline requirements, 

signed by the District and 

grantee to ensure projects fully 

accomplished and integrity 

principles met. Provisions 

include, but are not limited to, 

grantee usage reporting, 

destruction of the baseline 

equipment/engine, and 

allowance for District project 

audit at any time during project 

life. 

Enforceable contracts, 

based on program 

guidelines, signed by the 

District and grantee to 

ensure projects fully 

accomplished and integrity 

principles are met. 

Provisions include, but are 

not limited to, grantee 

usage reporting, operating 

location requirements for 

the new vehicle, 

destruction of baseline 

engine, and allowance for 

District project audit at any 

time during project life. 

Enforceable contracts 

signed by both NRCS 

and grantee to ensure 

projects fully 

accomplished and 

integrity principles are 

met. Provisions 

safeguard funding and 

reductions. Should a 

grantee breach, NRCS 

receives liquidated 

damages and funds 

another project. 

Permanent District post inspections of new 

equipment and verification that 

baseline equipment destroyed. 

District post inspections of 

new equipment and 

verification that baseline 

equipment destroyed. 

NRCS post inspections 

of new equipment and 

verification that 

baseline equipment 

destroyed. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

B. Use of Projected Incentive Program Reductions SIPs 

Within individual attainment plans, the District may identify an incentive-based 

emissions reduction commitment for a specific future year or years, and utilize Rule 

9610 as a potential administrative mechanism for demonstrating progress towards such 

a commitment. Depending on the need, this commitment may represent the emissions 

reductions needed for attainment, RFP, contingency, or other Clean Air Act 

requirements. This Rule 9610 commitment will be limited to an amount of emissions 

reductions deemed reasonable in light of secured or reasonably anticipated funding and 

the estimated availability of emissions reductions projects and willing participants, 

based on historical participation and estimates of remaining equipment. The Rule 9610 

emissions reductions need and the reasonableness of Rule 9610 emissions reductions 

projection will be documented within the attainment plan. 

The District will identify all relevant attainment plan(s) commitments for Rule 9610 in 

annual demonstration reports compiled pursuant to Rule 9610. The District will show 

that the total emissions reductions from SIP-creditable incentive programs meets, at a 

minimum, the attainment plan commitments for each year for which there is such a 

commitment. In this way, the District will, in a transparent process, verify that all 

attainment plan needs associated with Rule 9610 have been met. 

Emission reductions credited through Rule 9610 will not replace the need for or CAA 

requirements associated with regulatory controls. In each attainment plan, the District 

will continue to evaluate regulatory opportunities to satisfy any applicable RACT/RACM 

or BACT/BACM requirements. However, once all reasonable regulatory options are 

exhausted, crediting incentive-based reductions through Rule 9610 will help the District 

assure that the attainment plan as a whole achieves sufficient SIP-creditable emissions 

reductions to achieve attainment, to meet RFP milestones, and satisfy contingency 

measure emissions reductions requirements. 

In addition, where Rule 9610 emissions reductions from on-road mobile sources are 

credited in a SIP for RFP or attainment, federal transportation conformity requirements 

(40 CFR 93 Subpart A) will continue to be met. 

C. Revisions to Proposed Rule 9610 

Clarifications have been added to Proposed Rule 9610 based on recent comments, 

discussions, and collaborations with EPA regarding the May 21, 2013 version of 

Proposed Rule 9610. These changes clarify the rule and reduce redundancy, and 

do not change the meaning, intent, or requirements of rule language. 

Section 2.0 Definitions 

 For consistency with other acronyms defined in Section 2.0, the definition for 

EQIP (Section 2.10) was reorganized. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 15 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Section 3.0 Incentive Program Guidelines 

 For identified Carl Moyer Guidelines in Section 3.1.1, each project type was 

subdivided into subsections of 3.1.1 to better clarify which specific project types 

are allowed under the Carl Moyer Guidelines. 

 The word “replacement” was moved from Section 3.1.1.1 to Section 3.1.1.2, 

since Carl Moyer Program Guidelines for the replacement of On-Road HeavyDuty Vehicles is specific to Fleet Modernization activities, as identified in Section 

3.1.1.2. This clarifies the existing intention of the rule and program applicability. 

 Section 3.1.1.5 was removed, and the specific Carl Moyer Incentive Program 

Guidelines that had been included in that section were distributed throughout 

Sections 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.4 to improve clarity. 

 The language in Sections 3.1.2 (NRCS EQIP guidelines) and 3.1.3 (ARB 

Proposition 1B Incentive Program guidelines) was updated to improve 

transparency by identifying specific versions of the guidelines used, thereby 

making it easier for stakeholders to find relevant documents. 

 The term “reductions” was added to Section 3.2 to clarify that the annual 

demonstration report will include a quantification of emissions reduced. 

 Section 3.2.2 already referenced the SIP submittal and approval process through 

reference to Section 7.0 of the rule. Therefore, this section was reworded to 

remove redundant language. 

Section 4.0 Annual Demonstration Report 

 The term “reductions” was added to Section 4.5.8 to clarify that the annual 

demonstration report will include a quantification of emissions reduced. This is 

consistent with the original intent of the rule as demonstrated in the May 21, 2013 

draft annual demonstration report, its appendices, and the accompanying annual 

demonstration report data sheet, each made available for public review and 

comment. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

D. Proposed Rule 9610 

The following is a summary of rule language with explanations on intent, and 

interpretation of rule language. 

Section 1.0 Purpose 

The purpose of Rule 9610 is to serve as an administrative mechanism for the District to 

receive SIP credit for emission reductions achieved in the Valley through incentivebased programs. The purpose statement in the first draft rule further clarified that the 

incentive programs may be administered by the District or by other public agencies, 

which could include, but would not be limited to, NRCS and ARB. Proposed rule 

language has been updated to specify that programs must be administered by the 

District, ARB, or NRCS to be considered for SIP credit under Rule 9610. Any incentivebased emission reductions submitted for SIP credit must meet the requirements for SIPcredibility as defined in rule language. 

Section 2.0 Definitions 

The Definitions section of this rule provides clarity and support for the requirements 

presented within the rule. While some definitions come from existing District regulations 

and state and federal guidance documents, many of the definitions are unique to this 

rule. To assist with the understanding of rule terminology, the following is a discussion 

of the definitions that may be unique to this rule. 

Case-by-Case Determinations. Case-by-case determinations are alternative 

procedures approved by ARB for specific projects, as authorized under the Carl Moyer 

Program Guidelines. An air district may request ARB review of a project or other Carl 

Moyer Program element on a case-by-case determination as provided for in the 

guidelines. ARB may approve such a project or other program element if the outcome 

of this approval would result in emission reductions that are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent, and is not prohibited by law. 

All case-by-case determinations submitted for review to ARB are made available to the 

public via web posting at ARB’s Carl Moyer Program website, and the District is 

required by the Carl Moyer guidelines to keep a copy of the determination in the project 

file. Less than one percent of District administered incentive programs involve case-bycase determinations. 

Enforceable. For the purposes of this rule, emission reductions are enforceable if the 

incentive program includes provisions for ensuring the following: emission reductions 

are verifiable, incentive program violations are defined through legally binding contracts, 

grantees are obligated to provide all records needed to demonstrate that emission 

reductions are achieved, and the public has access to all emissions-related information 

for reductions claimed. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 17 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Funding Source. As defined by Rule 9610, a funding source is a source of funding used 

to implement incentive programs, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local 

sources. Funding sources for District-administered incentive-based projects include, 

but are not limited to Proposition 1B, the Carl Moyer Program, the federal Diesel 

Emissions Reductions Act (DERA), AB 923 (which authorized a $2-per vehicle DMV 

fee), and AB 118 (Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)). Another funding source is 

the NRCS Combustion Systems Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive program. 

The District is engaged at the state and federal levels to craft policy and funding targets 

that account for the Valley’s unique challenges and need to accelerate emission 

reductions, particularly from sources not under the District’s regulatory authority. 

Toward that end, the District works closely with the Valley’s legislative delegation to 

ensure that the Valley’s needs are well represented in discussions of where to focus 

funding throughout the state and region as a whole. 

Grantee. A grantee is a person, business, association, public agency, or other entity 

that enters into a contract with the District, NRCS, or ARB to reduce emissions under an 

incentive program. An example of a grantee could be a truck fleet business that 

contracts with the District to retrofit an older truck engine, or perhaps a small farmer 

who enters into a contract to replace an agricultural irrigation pump engine. 

Implementation Date. For the purposes of this rule, the implementation date for a 

project is the date on which the new or replacement equipment, vehicle, or practice 

funded through an incentive program is put into service. For incentive projects 

administered by the District, this date is determined and verified by the final sales 

invoice provided by the grantee to the District during the incentive project process. 

Incentive Program. An incentive program is a program that reduces emissions by 

promoting the adoption of lower emitting equipment, vehicles, or practices through the 

distribution of financial incentives to a grantee. Examples of incentive programs 

include, but are not limited to, the Carl Moyer Program, the NRCS Combustion Systems 

Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive program, the Proposition 1B Program, and 

other District administered incentive programs. Additionally, incentive programs may be 

administered by a public agency other than the agency that created the program; for 

example, the District administers incentive programs using funds and ARB developed 

guidelines from the Carl Moyer Program. 

Incentive Program Guidelines. Incentive program guidelines are administrative 

procedures, quantification methodologies, eligibility criteria for projects, cost 

effectiveness criteria, reporting practices, and/or other procedures and methodologies 

used to implement incentive programs. For incentive-based emission reductions to 

qualify as SIP-creditable, the incentive program guidelines must meet the criteria as 

presented in Section 3.0 of Rule 9610. 

Inspection. For purposes of this rule, an inspection refers to a physical inspection of the 

equipment, vehicle, or practice. This definition clarifies requirements under the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 18 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

definitions of Contract and Enforceable, as well as annual report requirements under 

Section 4.6 (Project Monitoring and Enforcement). 

Permanent. Draft rule language defined permanent as being ensured by permanently 

(for the project life) disabling, physically destroying, or otherwise ensuring the reduction 

of emissions in the Valley from existing or baseline equipment or vehicles. Proposed 

rule language has been updated to remove ambiguous language in order to avoid a 

potential misunderstanding that incentive programs could allow higher emitting 

equipment to move outside the Valley. Proposed rule language now clarifies that the 

baseline equipment or vehicles must be physically destroyed or permanently disabled, 

or practices must be permanently amended to ensure the reduction of emissions for the 

duration of the project life. 

Quantifiable. For the purposes of this rule, emission reductions are quantifiable if they 

can be reliably determined through the use of well-established, publicly available 

emission factors and calculation methodologies. 

SIP. State Implementation Plan; the draft rule language provided a definition specific 

for this rule. Proposed rule language has been updated to be consistent with CAA 

Section 110(a). 

SIP-Creditable Emission Reduction. For purposes of this rule, reductions of emissions 

achieved through incentive programs that are Surplus, Quantifiable, Enforceable, and 

Permanent, in accordance with Rule 9610. 

SIP Shortfall. For purposes of this rule, a SIP shortfall is when a commitment made 

pursuant to Section 7.0 in an adopted SIP to achieve a certain amount of SIP-creditable 

emission reductions is not achieved. This definition of SIP Shortfall has been updated 

in the proposed rule to point to Section 7.0 requirements for SIP commitments. 

Surplus. For the purposes of this rule, emission reductions are surplus when they are 

not otherwise required by regulations and are in excess of the baseline emission 

inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration. 

Section 3.0 Incentive Program Guidelines 

Section 3.0 of the rule provides incentive program guidelines used for SIP-creditable 

incentive-based emission reductions. In the April 2013 version of the rule Section 3.1 

had each subsection dedicated to a specific incentive program guideline and identified 

specific units within each guideline that would qualify for SIP-creditable incentive-based 

emission reductions, including a section that allowed for the future use of incentive 

program guidelines not identified in the rule provided such guidelines are reviewed 

through a public process with a specification that guidelines developed to reduce 

emissions from mobile sources are developed in consultation with ARB. And Section 

3.2 of draft rule language provided requirements for the Manual of Procedures. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 19 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

The May 2013 proposed rule language included updates as described below. 

Section 3.1 specifies that the SIP-creditable emission reductions will be quantified in 

accordance with incentive program guidelines that provide for SIP-creditable emission 

reductions. This section specifically identifies project types and associated guidelines 

that are pre-qualified by EPA as meeting SIP-creditability requirements. Section 3.1 is 

divided into the following subsections, with each subsection identifying the specific 

versions of the approved incentive program guidelines, including date of guideline 

amendment or adoption: 

 Section 3.1.1 is specific to the use of Carl Moyer Program Guidelines for 

incentive projects funded by either the Carl Moyer Program or non Carl Moyer 

funding sources and lists project types that qualify under these guidelines 

including On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle replacement, new vehicle purchase, 

repower, or retrofit; On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle fleet modernization; Off-Road 

Compression-Ignition Equipment repower, retrofit, or replacement; and Portable 

and Stationary Agricultural Source repower, new purchase of electric motor or 

retrofit. 

 Section 3.1.2 is specific to the NRCS Combustion System Improvement 

Conservation Practice Standard 372 and associated NRCS Program Combustion 

System Improvement of Mobile Engines Guidelines for incentive projects funded 

by EQIP funds. 

 Section 3.1.3 is specific to the Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program Guidelines for incentive projects funded by Proposition 1B 

funds or non-Proposition 1B funds, for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks repower, 

replacement, PM retrofit, or PM + NOx retrofit. 

Section 3.2 is a new section to the proposed rule. Under this section the District may 

quantify emissions under this rule in accordance with incentive program guidelines not 

specifically identified in Section 3.1, provided the District submits to EPA, pursuant to 

Section 7.0, a demonstration that each such guideline provides for SIP-creditable 

emission reductions. Incentive program guidelines subject to these procedures may 

include ARB Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, NRCS Combustion System Improvement 

Conservation Practice Standard 372 and associated NRCS Program Combustion 

System Improvement of Mobile Engines Guidelines, and ARB Proposition 1B Goods 

Movement Emission Reduction Program Guidelines: 

 Section 3.2.1 requires that incentive program guidelines developed to reduce 

emissions from mobile sources be developed in consultation with ARB. 

 Section 3.2.2 states that notwithstanding Sections 3.1 and 3.2, case-by-case 

determinations may be used to quantify SIP-creditable emission reductions, 

provided that they are reviewed through a public process and submitted to EPA 

for approval into the SIP, as outlined in Section 7.0. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 20 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Section 3.3 provides requirements for the development and maintenance of a Manual of 

Procedures for SIP-creditable incentive-based emission reductions claimed pursuant to 

this rule. The Manual of Procedures assures that all incentive program guidelines used 

for SIP creditability are publicly available and maintained in a centralized location on the 

District’s website. To increase public understanding and awareness of the guidelines 

and the role they play in the SIP-creditability of emission reductions, the website will 

also contain a description of how each incentive program guideline ensures that the 

incentive program emission reductions are SIP-creditable. 

Section 4.0 Annual Demonstration Report 

Section 4.0 provides specific requirements and guidelines for the content of the annual 

demonstration report that the APCO will submit to ARB and EPA to claim SIP credit for 

incentive-based emission reductions. 

Section 4.1 requires that the annual demonstration report contain a description of the 

incentive program guidelines used for implementation of incentive programs generating 

claimed SIP-creditable emission reductions. The required description will include a 

discussion of how the incentive program guidelines ensure that the emission reductions 

are SIP-creditable. This description will include a list of any guidelines that are being 

used for the first time under this rule. This level of transparency is further supported by 

Section 3.3, whereby a Manual of Procedures that includes all incentive program 

guidelines in it is maintained on the District’s website; and Section 5.3, whereby 

previously submitted annual demonstration reports containing this description shall also 

be maintained on the District’s website. 

Section 4.2 requires the reporting of SIP-creditable emission reductions generated 

through incentive programs, as implemented in preceding years. This accounting of 

SIP-creditable emission reductions would be summarized by pollutant, years the 

emission reductions are occurring (project life), cost effectiveness, funding amount, 

incentive program guideline(s), and project type. This requirement is intended to 

include all SIP-creditable emission reductions being claimed in the SIP for that annual 

demonstration report. The term “preceding years” is not intended to include SIPcreditable emission reductions from past annual demonstration reports that are no 

longer applicable. For example, if a project life of a SIP project has ended in 2015 and 

the final reporting of those SIP-creditable emission reductions are accounted for in the 

2016 annual demonstration report, then the 2017 annual demonstration report would 

not include the reductions from that project. 

Section 4.3 provides the requirement that any adjustments to emission reductions 

claimed in prior annual demonstration reports be reported in the annual demonstration 

report for the year the adjustments are made and shall provide the cause for the 

adjustments. An example may include the adoption of new local, state, or federal 

requirements that might affect the surplus nature of emission reductions achieved by 

incentive programs. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 21 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Section 4.4 requires the annual demonstration report to identify SIP commitments 

identified in District adopted SIPs (by year, pollutant, and magnitude), which the District 

has satisfied, in whole or in part, through SIP-creditable emission reductions. Section 

4.4 also requires the District to identify and quantify SIP commitment shortfalls, if any, 

and remedies for addressing said shortfalls. 

Section 4.5 (Project Information) outlines incentive project specific information to be 

provided in the annual demonstration report. The annual demonstration report will 

include the following information as applicable: 

 Project identification

 Project location 

 Project type 

 Project life 

 Implementation date 

 Funding amount 

 Incentive program guideline(s 

 Quantified emissions 

 Description of both the baseline and the new equipment, vehicles, or 

practices: the annual demonstration report shall include the description of both 

the baseline and new equipment, vehicles, or practices as applicable: 

o Make and model of equipment or vehicle 

o Equipment or vehicle rating or horsepower 

o Model year 

o Historical and projected annual usage 

 Additional project details: as necessary to demonstrate the SIP-creditable 

emission reductions claimed in the annual demonstration report. This additional 

information may vary based on the incentive program guidelines used to 

administer the project, and provides the District with a mechanism to request any 

additional information to ensure that the emission reductions are SIP-creditable 

prior to claiming the emission reductions in the annual demonstration report. 

Section 4.6 (Project Monitoring and Enforcement) includes requirements for the 

reporting of monitoring and enforcement activities of incentive project contracts. 

Incentive program guidelines have specific, and sometimes unique, requirements for 

project monitoring and enforcement practices to be implemented by the public agency 

administering the incentive program; however, incentive projects that result in SIPcreditable incentive-based emission reductions at least contain portions that fulfill the 

requirements of this rule. Section 4.6 requires the annual demonstration report to 

contain a summary of monitoring and enforcement activities conducted, including a 

summary of project audits, usage reports, inspections, and other project monitoring 

activities; and an identification of projects that do not satisfy contractual requirements 

including enforcement actions and remedies such as penalties and additional 

contractual requirements. This rule requirement ensures transparency on behalf of the 

public agency administering the incentive program with regards to confirming that 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 22 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

incentive-based emission reductions claimed in the annual demonstration report are 

enforceable and permanent, as defined in the rule. 

Section 4.7 (Incentive Program Evaluation) requires the District to perform a 

retrospective assessment of the performance of its incentive program to evaluate 

overall incentive program performance and develop recommendations for future 

enhancements to incentive program implementation. The EPA Improving Air Quality 

with Economic Incentive Programs guideline suggests that air districts taking SIP credit 

for incentive-based emission reductions perform this assessment and report to EPA on 

at least a triennial basis. By incorporating this process, requirements, and report into 

the annual demonstration report, the District is going above and beyond EPA guidance. 

The District has incorporated the other requirements of the EPA guidance throughout 

the rule. These requirements include: a public process (incorporated into Section 5.0), 

reporting of the amount of emission reductions actually realized through the incentive 

program (incorporated into Sections 4.2 and 4.3), and reporting of the effects on 

incentive-based emission reductions in attainment of SIP commitments (incorporated 

into Section 4.4). 

Section 5.0 Annual Demonstration Report Process 

Section 5.0 provides the framework for the frequency, deadlines, and public process of 

the annual demonstration report. The APCO is required to submit an annual 

demonstration report to ARB and EPA for concurrence no later than August 31 of each 

year after releasing the draft annual demonstration report to the public and presenting it 

to the District Governing Board. Rule language also provides the requirement that 

previously submitted annual demonstration reports shall be made available on the 

District’s website. Refer to Section 3.3 for more details about the on-line documentation 

of incentive program guidelines. 

The draft rule required that the most recent three final annual demonstration reports be 

available on the Districts website, as appropriate. Proposed rule language has been 

updated to remove this three report minimum. See the proposed rule for specific 

language. 

Section 6.0 Recordkeeping Requirements 

Section 6.1 requires that all documents created and/or used in implementing the 

requirements for the annual demonstration report be kept and maintained as required 

by the applicable incentive program guidelines. Additionally, consistent with the 

California Public Records Act and other related requirements, such records shall be 

made available for public review, as will be discussed in the annual demonstration 

report. 

Section 6.2 provides language acknowledging the legal limitations placed on the NRCS 

Program Combustion System Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive program by the 

Federal Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. §608d(2)). This limitation specifically 

prohibits NRCS from disclosure of records. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 23 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Section 7.0 Use of Projected Incentive Program Reductions in SIPs 

Draft rule language previously called this section “Use of Projected Incentive Program 

Reductions as Control Strategies in SIPs.” In draft rule language Section 7.0 stated that 

the District may identify SIP-creditable emission reduction commitments in District 

adopted SIPs to address federal CAA requirements with the caveat that the 

commitments shall be limited to the amount of emission reductions that the District 

reasonably projects to be achieved and that such commitments shall be accounted for 

in the annual demonstration report. 

Proposed rule language has an updated section title and also has been updated to 

clarify that where the District intends to rely on projections of SIP-creditable emission 

reductions under Rule 9610 to satisfy federal CAA SIP requirements, the District shall 

identify the specific amounts of SIP-creditable emission reductions for a particular year 

or years in the relevant SIP. Each SIP submission in which the District relies on such 

projections shall contain a demonstration that the applicable incentive program 

guidelines continues to provide for SIP-creditable emission reductions. In addition to 

this clarification, new Section 7.4 requires that if either the District or EPA find that there 

is a SIP shortfall for a particular year, the District will adopt and submit to EPA, by 

specified dates, substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent emission 

reductions as expeditiously as practicable and no later than any applicable 

implementation deadline in the CAA or EPA’s implementing regulations. Rules and 

measures may include a variety of means of identifying and quantifying additional 

needed emission reductions, including additional control strategies; surplus and not-yetcredited reductions from adopted control strategies; or incentive-based reductions. 

IV. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND RELATED 

REQUIREMENTS 

The District worked closely with EPA, ARB, and NRCS to develop proposed new Rule 

9610 and supporting components such as the annual demonstration report and the 

Manual of Procedures web page. 

A. Public Workshop for Rule 9610 

The District hosted a public workshop to present, discuss, and hear comments on the 

draft rule and draft staff report on April 9, 2013. The draft rule and staff report were 

made available on the District’s website prior to the public workshop, and a two week 

comment period followed the public workshop. All comments received on or before 

April 23, 2013 were considered and incorporated into the draft rule or staff report. 

B. Public Hearing for Rule 9610 

In accordance with California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40725, the 

proposed rule and final draft staff report were publicly noticed prior to the Governing 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 24 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Board public hearing to consider adoption of New Rule 9610. The proposed rule, final 

draft staff report, 2013 Draft Annual Demonstration Report, and other supporting 

documents were made available for public comment on May 21, 2013. No comments 

were received during the subsequent two-week comment period. The public is also 

invited to provide comments during the public hearing for proposed adoption of this rule. 

C. CEQA 

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section15060(c)(3), this project is not 

subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as 

defined in Section 15378. 

V. REFERENCES 

California Air Resources Board [ARB], (2013, January 2), Incentive Program; Program 

Review Report, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fiscal Years 

2006-07 through 2009-10, Sacramento: CA 

California Air Resources Board [ARB], 2010, Proposition 1B: Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Program Proposed Update to Guidelines for Implementation 

Staff Report, Sacramento: CA. 

California Air Resources Board [ARB], 2011, The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, 

Sacramento: CA. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], (2012, December 20). 

2012 PM2.5 Plan [Pm2.5 Plan], Fresno: CA. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], (2012, May 2), Consider 

New Approach for Receiving Federal Credit for Emissions Reductions Achieved 

Through District Incentive Programs Towards Meeting District Obligations Under 

the State Implantation Plan, Fresno: CA: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District. Retrieved from 

http://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2012/May/

StudySession/FinalGBItem5-SIPcreditfoincentives_05-02-12.pdf 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], (2007, April 30). 2007 

Ozone Plan [Ozone Plan], Fresno: CA. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], (2010, December 7) SIP 

Credibility of the Off-Road Agricultural Equipment Replacement Incentive 

Programs, Fresno: CA.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 25 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2001, Draft Economic Incentive 

Program Guidance (EPA-452/D-99-001), Washington DC 

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2001, Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs (EPA-452/R-01-001), Washington DC 

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2004, Incorporating Emerging 

and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP), North Carolina. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2001, Incorporating Voluntary 

Stationary Source Emission Reduction Programs into State Implementation 

Plans – Final Policy

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District [SJVAPCD], United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 

and California Air Resources Board [ARB], 2010, Statement of Principles 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 26 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix A: Statement of Principles June 20, 2013 

A-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Appendix A 

Statement of Principles Outlining the Approach to SIP-Creditability 

of Voluntary Incentive Programs 

June 20, 2013 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Statement of Principles June 20, 2013 

A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

This page intentionally blank. 
A - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Statement of Principles June 20, 2013 

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix B: Implementation Principles June 20, 2013 

 B-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Appendix B 

Implementation Principles for Addressing Agriculture Equipment 

under the Clean Air Act 

June 20, 2013 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix B: Implementation Principles June 20, 2013 

 B-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

This page intentionally blank. 
Appendix B: Implementation Principles SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT June 20, 2013 B-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
Appendix B: Implementation Principles SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT June 20, 2013 B-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
Appendix B: Implementation Principles SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT June 20, 2013 B-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Proposed Rule 9610
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix B: Implementation Principles June 20, 2013 

B-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Appendix C 

Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

June 20, 2013 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

PROPOSED NEW RULE 9610 

DATED May 21, 2013 

EPA REGION IX COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: Revise the Purpose of the rule to include a requirement that 

emission reductions from incentive programs become creditable for SIP 

purposes upon EPA approval of a SIP submission that satisfies the applicable 

requirement of the clean air act and this rule. 

RESPONSE: See response to EPA Comment 13 from the comments submitted 

for the April 9, 2013 draft rule below. 

2. COMMENT: Update Section 3.1 to further clarify the approved guidelines. 

RESPONSE: Section 3.1 has been updated as requested; please refer to 

proposed rule language. 

3. COMMENT: Update Section 3.2. Add language requiring public review to 

Section 3.2.1. Make Section 3.2.2 into a new Section 3.3 and update language 

to require additional public review of, and EPA approval into the SIP, for all 

incentive-based emission reductions claimed in the annual demonstration report 

for case-by-case determinations. 

RESPONSE: Section 3.2.1 is consistent with current practices for development 

of incentive program guidelines; therefore, adding language to require public 

review is redundant. Section 3.2.2 already referenced the SIP submittal approval 

process through reference to Section 7.0 of the rule. Therefore this section was 

reworded to remove redundant language. 

4. COMMENT: Update Section 3.3 to add language that updates the manual of 

procedures to specifically address only those incentive program guidelines used 

to quantify emission reductions. 

RESPONSE: The Manual of Procedures website identifies all incentive program 

guidelines available for use to claim SIP credit under Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the 

rule; as such, identifying all incentive program guidelines is the appropriate 

action. No change will be made to rule language. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

5. COMMENT: Update Section 3.2 to add language that clarifies that the listed 

guidelines allowed for usage for claiming SIP credit would include subsequent 

versions of said guidelines. 

RESPONSE: The current rule language already allows for subsequent versions 

of said guidelines. Therefore, the requested revision is redundant to the current 

rule language. 

ARB COMMENTS 

6. COMMENT: The ARB supports the District’s proposed Rule 9610. The 

proposed rule recognizes that incentives complement regulatory programs and 

that emission reductions achieved by incentive programs should be included in 

the SIP, and provides an administrative framework to report to the EPA that 

emission reductions achieved from incentive programs are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent, making them eligible for SIP credit. The stringent 

criteria established by ARB in the program guidelines for the Carl Moyer and 

Proposition 1B programs provide the necessary technical foundation for 

calculating the SIP benefits of incentive programs. The rule would provide credit 

for projects funded under guidelines developed by the USDA NRCS. Also, the 

rule allows for the possibility of additional incentive program guidelines to be 

developed by the District in consultation with ARB. 

RESPONSE: The District thanks the ARB for their continued support and 

recognition of the importance of this project. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

One comment letter was received after the comment period deadline. This letter was 

from Earthjustice (EJ). 

7. COMMENT: The update to the Draft rule does not address approvability of the 

District’s program with regards to enforceability and emission reductions being 

surplus. (EJ) 

RESPONSE: Please see responses to EPA Comment 4 and EJ Comments 24 

and 25 from the comments submitted for the April 9, 2013 draft rule below. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

DRAFT NEW RULE 9610 

DATED APRIL 9, 2013 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: Please revise rule language to remove the statement “and other 

public agencies” and replace it with “NRCS and CARB.” The existing language 

could allow program implementation by agencies with insufficient resources and 

air pollution authority, or that otherwise fail to fulfill federal requirements such as 

those in CAA §110(a)(2)(E). 

RESPONSE: Proposed rule language and final draft staff report have been 

updated. 

2. COMMENT: To avoid the misunderstanding that incentive programs could allow 

higher emitting equipment to move outside the Valley, please revise the definition 

of permanent to specify that equipment or vehicles would be permanently retrofit, 

and limit applicability to equipment and vehicles. 

RESPONSE: The term “permanently retrofit” was not added to rule language 

because the contracts between the District, ARB, or NRCS and the grantee 

include provisions to ensure that the installed equipment for retrofits remains 

installed and in operating condition on the equipment or vehicle during the 

duration of the project life. 

3. COMMENT: Definition of the term “SIP” is inconsistent with the Federal 

definition in CAA section 302(q). One way to address this would be to define 

“Adopted SIP” (instead of “SIP”) here, add a separate definition for “Applicable 

SIP” consistent with CAA section 302(q), and ensure appropriate use of these 

two terms throughout the rule.

RESPONSE: To be consistent with the CAA, the District has updated the 

definition of “SIP” to be consistent with CAA Section 110(a). 

4. COMMENT: For clarity, please revise the definition of Surplus to clarify the 

emission reductions are not accounted for in future baseline inventories 

underlying a SIP attainment demonstration. Then delete the definition 2.25 

because it would no longer be necessary. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

RESPONSE: Proposed rule language regarding baseline inventories has been 

updated and Section 2.25 has been removed from rule language accordingly. 

5. COMMENT: Please ensure that the latest California program guidelines, 

emission factors and assumptions are used when reductions are quantified, and 

that the calculation of emission reductions specifies the geographic areas (since, 

e.g., counties have separate on-road emissions budgets) and time period for 

which they apply.

RESPONSE: Proposed rule language has been updated to clarify that the latest 

program guidelines will be used relevant to when the contract is entered into. 

See Section 3.0 for specific language. Incentive Program Guidelines dictate the 

calculation methodologies including assumptions; therefore, it would be 

redundant to add that language to rule language. 

Any need for geographic information would be limited to reductions credited in 

the plan for RFP or attainment, and for on-road mobile only, so requiring 

geographic information for all incentive programs would be overbroad. In 

addition, any future use of on-road mobile incentive program reductions in the 

SIP will be governed by 40 CFR 93 Subpart A, so there is no need to replicate 

those requirements in 9610. 

6. COMMENT: EPA may need assistance clarifying that the guidelines identified in 

Section 3.0 demonstrate that they fulfill relevant national requirements. 

RESPONSE: The District, ARB, and NRCS are committed to work with EPA on 

this task. 

7. COMMENT: The use of alternative incentive program guidelines in Sections 

3.1.4, 3.1.1.11, and 3.1.3.6 provide broad director’s discretion inconsistent with 

long-standing national policy as recently reiterated, for example, in EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking regarding excess emissions (78 FR 12460, February 22, 

2013). These paragraphs could be deleted; caveated as subject to 3%/6% limits 

for voluntary/emerging measures; or modified to add the requirement that 

program guidelines must be approved by EPA into the SIP. 

 

RESPONSE: Based on continuing discussions with EPA on these issues, rule 

language has been updated in Sections 3.0 and 7.0. Beyond Rule 9610, 3%/6% 

limits for voluntary/emerging measures are also available per EPA guidance (see 

discussion in the staff report). Section 3.1.1.11 and 3.1.3.6 have been deleted 

from rule language. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

8. COMMENT: Because they rely on director’s discretion, the rule must clarify that 

projects with case-by-case determinations do not generate SIP-creditable 

emission reductions.

RESPONSE: Section 3.2 has been updated to describe the process by which 

the District will submit case-by-case determinations to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. 

9. COMMENT: To clarify the obligation to address any shortfalls consistent with 

national policy, please update Section 4.4 to state the District will identify specific 

commitments in adopted SIPs and/or applicable SIPs which the District has 

satisfied in whole or in part through SIP creditable emission reductions achieved 

in accordance to Section 4.2. Clarify that such commitments may include 

emission reductions commitments to meet CAA requirements. The District shall 

identify and quantify SIP shortfalls from incentive program commitments, 

describe the specific remedies to be implemented by the District consistent with 

associated SIP creditable emission reductions commitments to remedy the 

shortfall. 

RESPONSE: Based on continuing discussions with EPA on these issues, rule 

language (Section 7.0) has been updated. 

10. COMMENT: We suggest a new subsection, such as a Section 4.8 clarifying that 

SIP-creditable emission reductions from on-road mobile sources as identified in 

the annual demonstration report may be available for use in transportation 

conformity determinations if such SIP-creditable emission reductions satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 9610 and are included in a motor vehicle emissions budget 

that EPA has approved into a SIP or found to be adequate or otherwise meet 

federal conformity requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 93.

RESPONSE: The suggested section has not been added to the rule, since this 

situation is already governed by 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3 and 4) and other sections of 

the federal transportation conformity regulation. See also the response to 

Comment 5. 

11. COMMENT: To clarify the obligation to address any shortfalls consistent with 

national policy, please revise Section 7.0 to replace ambiguous language 

regarding the identification of SIP-creditable emission reductions in SIPs with 

specific language requiring the District to identify specific SIP-creditable emission 

reductions for specific year(s), and language clarifying that if EPA finds a SIP 

shortfall, the District will adopt and submit to EPA, no later than two years after 

any such finding, substitute rules and/or measures that will achieve equivalent 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

emission reductions in a timely manner and no later than any applicable 

implementation deadline and no later than any applicable implementation 

deadline in the CAA or EPA’s implementing regulations. 

RESPONSE: Based on continuing discussions with EPA on these issues, rule 

language (Section 7.4) has been updated with more specific language about how 

and when shortfalls are to be remedied. 

12. COMMENT: We recommend adding language to Section 1.0 clarifying that 

emissions reduced from incentive programs will become creditable for SIP 

purposes upon EPA approval of a SIP submission that satisfies the provisions of 

Rule 9610 and identifies specific amounts of emission reductions to be credited 

toward a specific SIP purpose. 

RESPONSE: The rule identifies the process for identifying and receiving SIPcredit for incentive-based emissions reductions. 

13. COMMENT: We recommend that the definition of “SIP shortfall” be revised to 

link it to Section 7.0 requirements. 

RESPONSE: The definition of SIP Shortfall has been updated. Please see 

proposed rule language. 

14. COMMENT: We recommend clarifying that paragraph 4.5.9 requires separate 

reporting for each piece of equipment even if a project consists of many pieces of 

equipment.

RESPONSE: Section 4.5.9 of proposed rule language has been updated to 

include this clarification. 

15. COMMENT: For clarity, please include all “Project Types” in each Carl Moyer 

chapter which are eligible for SIP credit. For example, paragraph 3.1.1.4 lists 

“repower,” “retrofit” or “replacement,” while Carl Moyer chapter 7 also lists “new 

equipment purchase.” As written, we understand that “new equipment purchase” 

would not be eligible for SIP credit under Rule 9610. Note that the Carl Moyer 

guidelines define “Project Type” within the Carl Moyer Program which does not 

correspond to the definition of “Project Type” in Section 2.21 of Rule 9610.

RESPONSE: The definition of Project Type is specific to this rule language to 

provide consistency between various incentive program guidelines in the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

District’s annual demonstration report. Section 2.21 clarifies that the project type 

is defined in each applicable incentive program guideline. 

16. COMMENT: We recommend deleting paragraph 3.2.3 since case-by-case 

determinations are, by definition, case-by-case, and thus are not appropriate as 

generally-applicable guidelines.

RESPONSE: Case-by-case is defined in Section 2.4 and is now addressed in 

Section 3.2. 

17. COMMENT: Project information should identify each case-by-case 

determination.

RESPONSE: See response to Comment 16. 

18. COMMENT: We recommend clarifying Section 4.7 to explain that assessing the 

ability of the program to provide reductions that are initially anticipated and to 

require that a summary of the public comments and District responses about the 

draft report be included.

RESPONSE: Section 4.7 includes a retrospective assessment of the 

performance of the District’s incentive programs to evaluate overall performance 

and develop recommendations for future enhancements. Additionally, a 

summary of the public process for the Annual Demonstration Report will be 

included in the assessment. 

19. COMMENT: For further transparency, consider requiring all reports be made 

available online.

RESPONSE: Rule language has been updated to remove the three report 

minimum requirement. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Comments were submitted during the public workshop and for a two-week commenting 

period following the public workshop. Comments were submitted by the following 

stakeholders: 

Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) 

Earth Justice1 (EJ) 

E & B Natural Resources (E&B) 

West Kern Water (WKW) 

20. COMMENT: What was the process for developing the definition of SIP 

creditable emission reductions? Is it based on EPA guidance or language in the 

Clean Air Act? (EJ) 

RESPONSE: The definition of SIP-creditable emission reductions is based on 

the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. The District has worked closely with EPA 

to develop a process under Rule 9610 that ensures the SIP-creditability of 

reductions claimed under Rule 9610. Refer to the References section of the final 

draft staff report for the list of EPA guidance documents. 

21. COMMENT: How can the public participate in the process to ensure that 

emissions reductions occur? What role can the public play in this process (i.e. 

enforcement) if emissions reductions do not occur as anticipated? (CCA, EJ) 

RESPONSE: As noted in the rule, program guidelines and the Manual of 

Procedures will be publically available. Incentive guidelines are updated through 

a public process, whereby the public has opportunities to provide comments and 

participate in the development of said guidelines. In addition, the annual 

demonstration reports will provide all emissions-related information for reductions 

claimed in the report, so that all emissions reductions can be independently 

verified. The annual demonstration reports will compare achieved reductions to 

SIP commitments and will identify remedies for addressing any shortfalls. The 

annual demonstration report will be made available to the public before submittal 

to ARB and EPA. 

22. COMMENT: Are the emission reductions claimed in the annual demonstration 

report for SIP credit based on actual emission reductions or estimations of the 

emission reductions based on funding? (WKW) 

																																																								

1

 On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

RESPONSE: Emission reductions claimed for SIP-credit in the annual 

demonstration reports would be based on actual emission reductions. 

23. COMMENT: Will the SIP-creditable emission reductions be from incentive 

programs for agricultural sources only, or will other sources be allowed to 

participate? 

RESPONSE: SIP-creditable emission reductions are not limited to agricultural 

sources; many emission reductions from incentive program would be from mobile 

sources. 

24. COMMENT: The Clean Air Act does not allow SIPs to be built upon emission 

reductions that are not enforceable. These incentive-based emission reductions 

do not meet the CAA’s longstanding requirement that emission reductions relied 

upon in SIPs be enforceable. CAA statutory requirements are not open for 

redefinition by the District, or even EPA. The annual demonstration report 

offered as a backstop to assure emission reductions are achieved is similarly 

unenforceable. (EJ)

RESPONSE: Economic incentive programs are enforced through legally-binding 

contracts, as noted in EPA guidance (such as the 2001 Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs). In addition, as explained in the rule (Section 2.8 

and related requirements), Rule 9610 insures that SIP-creditable incentive-based 

reductions can be independently verified and that all emissions-related 

information is publically available. 

25. COMMENT: The District is proposing that SIPs could be merely a description of 

the amount of money that is available to subsidize emission reductions. Instead 

of trying to make the incentive programs creditable by changing the definition of 

what is required for such credit and using incentives as a substitute for regulatory 

requirements, the District should promulgate the regulatory requirements and use 

subsidies to incentivize early adoption/compliance. (EJ)

RESPONSE: The commenter appears to misunderstand the concept of Rule 

9610 with relation to SIPs. As explained in the final draft staff report, incentivebased emission reductions would not be used to replace regulatory 

requirements. In fact, the District has adopted and implemented many of the 

nation’s toughest regulations, exceeding minimum federal requirements. 

Incentives and regulations are not an either-or scenario – both are playing an 

important role in providing cost-effective emissions reductions and improving 

Valley air quality. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix C: Comments and Responses June 20, 2013 

 C-12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

26. COMMENT: The District insists on pursuing these emission reductions on a 

project-by-project basis; instead, it can adopt source-specific rules that are 

subject to enforcement by EPA and the public. (EJ)

RESPONSE: See response to Comment 25. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Appendix D 

Manual of Procedures 

for Proposed Rule 9610 (State Implementation Plan Credit for 

Emission Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs) 

June 20, 2013 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Manual of Procedures 

for Proposed Rule 9610 (State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission 

Reductions Generated through Incentive Programs 

Pursuant to Section 3.3 of Proposed Rule 9610, the District will develop and maintain a 

Manual of Procedures for SIP-creditable incentive-based emission reductions claimed 

through this rule. The Manual of Procedures assures that all incentive program 

guidelines used for SIP creditability are publicly available, and maintained in a 

centralized location on the District’s website. To increase public understanding and 

awareness of the guidelines and the role they play in SIP-creditable of emission 

reductions, the website will also contain a description of how each incentive program 

guideline ensures that the incentive program emission reductions are SIP-creditable. 

The following is the design and contents of the Manual of Procedures web page that will 

be presented and maintained on the Districts website after adoption of the proposed 

rule. 

Manual of Procedures 

The on-going mission of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (District) is to improve air quality and protect the health of residents in the 

San Joaquin Valley air basin (Valley). Incentive programs achieve emission 

reductions beyond those achieved by regulations alone by accelerating the 

adoption of cleaner technologies. Since 1992, the District’s incentive programs 

have provided over $500 million in incentive funds, resulting in over 100,000 tons 

of lifetime emission reductions. 

SIP-Creditability of Incentive-Based Emission Reductions 

When given State Implementation Plan (SIP) credit, incentive-based emission 

reductions can be used to complement regulatory-based emission reductions to 

assist meeting federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. District Rule 9610 

(State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated through 

Incentive Programs) establishes a process through which incentive-based 

emission reductions can receive federal SIP credit. For incentive-based 

emission reductions to receive SIP-credit, the District must demonstrate that the 

emission reductions are Surplus, Quantifiable, Enforceable, and Permanent. 

The following is a brief discussion of each of these elements as applicable to the 

District and incentive-based emission reductions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Surplus 

The District funds incentive projects based on incentive program guidelines 

that ensure that the resulting emission reductions are not otherwise required 

by any federal, state, or local regulation or other legal mandate. The 

emission reductions must also be in excess of the SIP baseline emission 

inventories underlying a SIP demonstration; meaning the base year, 

attainment year, and interim year emissions inventories as reported in a SIP 

that serve as a primary starting point for modeling and other SIP analyses. 

Quantifiable 

The District evaluates the potential reductions that would be achieved by 

replacing the old equipment with the new equipment using the established 

calculation methods and emissions factors in the appropriate program 

guidelines. To be quantifiable, emission reductions must be reliably 

determined and replicated through the use of well-established emission 

factors and calculation methodologies, as outlined in applicable incentive 

program guidelines. Using well-established emission factors and calculation 

methodologies ensure that the emission reductions can be replicated. 

Enforceable 

Emission reductions are enforceable if the incentive programs include the 

following provisions: 

o The emission reductions must be independently and practicably 

verifiable for the duration of the project life through inspections, 

monitoring, and/or other mechanisms; 

o Incentive program violations are defined through legally binding 

contracts, including identifying party or parties responsible for ensuring 

that emission reductions are achieved; 

o Grantees are obligated to provide all records needed to demonstrate 

that emission reductions are achieved; and 

o The public has access to all emission-related information for reductions 

claimed in the annual demonstration report. 

Permanent 

For purposes of SIP-creditability of incentive-based emission reductions, 

permanent is defined as permanent for the lifetime of the project. 

Permanence is ensured by actions taken to physically destroy or permanently 

disable, existing or baseline equipment, practices, or vehicles. 

Mobile Sources 

 

A large portion of the projects that are currently being funded are from mobile 

sources. These projects provide a unique challenge in that they may opreate only 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

a percentage of time within the San Joaquin Valley. To ensure that SIP-creditable 

emissions reductions are only reported for the amount occuring in the San 

Joaquin Valley, the District requires that percent use in the District is reported at 

the time an application for funding is submitted. This information is also reported 

by the grantee each year during the project life through the annual Usage Report 

Surveys that every grantee is contractually required to complete and submitt to 

the District. 

Each program guideline addresses California operation within it’s specific 

methodology but percent use in the San Joaquin Valley is not adjusted for within 

the program guideline methodolgies. The District uses the percent use in the San 

Joaquin Valley reported by the grantee to adjust the total emissions reductions for 

each project prior to reporting SIP-creditable emissions reductions with Rule 

9610. The formula for adjusting for percent use in the San Joaquin Valley is as 

follows: 

Total Lifetime NOx Reduced (tons) * (Percent Operation in SJV/100) = NOx 

Lifetime Reduced Adjusted Percent Operation (tons) 

(5.59 tons/life) * (90%/100) = 5.03 tons 

The formula is repeated for each pollutant being reported. 

Incentive Program Guidelines 

Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program Guidelines 

The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl 

Moyer Program) has been successfully implemented through the cooperative 

efforts of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and air districts in 

California. As directed by the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC), 

ARB’s role is to oversee the Carl Moyer Program by managing program 

funds, developing and maintaining guidelines, and determining costeffectiveness methodologies. Air districts use the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines to select, fund, and monitor projects in their jurisdiction by 

providing grants to public and private entities for the incremental cost of 

cleaner-than-required engines and/or equipment. 

The guidelines include robust administrative requirements to ensure that 

emission reductions are enforceable and are achieved throughout the life of a 

project. The District has used the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines to develop 

the practices that are currently in place to ensure all emissions are surplus, 

quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent, and that emission reductions are 

SIP-creditable. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Carl Moyer Guidelines: 

 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (approved 4/28/2011): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm. 

o Sample Calculations: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2011gl/suppdoc

s/examcalcs2011.pdf

 2008 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (approved 3/27/2008): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm

o Sample Calculations (Appendix E): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/cmp_guidelines

_part4.pdf

 2005 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (approved 11/17/2005): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/archive/archive.htm

o Sample Calculations (Appendix D): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/archive/2005_Carl_Moyer

_Guidelines_Part4.pdf

The following is a summary of how Carl Moyer Guidelines ensure emissions 

reductions are SIP-creditable. 

Surplus 

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that projects are surplus to 

regulations by only allowing projects to be selected that are not required by 

any federal, State or local regulation, memorandum of 

agreement/understanding with a regulatory agency, settlement agreement, 

mitigation requirement, or other legal mandate. For example, the guidelines 

have accounted for each adopted regulation to determine the compliance 

dates of any affected engines and emission benefits claimed by each 

regulation have been determined. Minimum project lives are established in 

each component to ensure that the program does not fund actions taken to 

comply with regulatory deadlines. The minimum project life requirement also 

ensures the overall cost-effectiveness of the program and that the emission 

reductions are real for the life of the project. The below summary provides 

more detail about how the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that the 

SIP-creditability integrity criteria of “Surplus” is fulfilled: 

 Requirement that emission reductions generated by incentive 

programs are not required by other regulation 

o (Moyer Guidelines Chapter 2, Project Criteria A, H, I, MM). 

 Protocols for quantifying maximum project life and maximum emission 

reductions which account for upcoming regulatory deadlines for a 

given source category 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

o (Moyer Guidelines Chapter 2, Project Criteria B, I and MM). 

 Assurance that baseline equipment was in use 

o (Moyer Guidelines Chapter 3, Section Z.6(B) and AA.2.). 

 Assurance that new/upgraded equipment is not already accounted for 

in future-year inventories underlying a SIP attainment demonstration 

by natural fleet turnover, finite equipment life or incentives 

o The definition of surplus in the Moyer guidelines requires that 

the emission reductions achieved are above and beyond those 

required under existing regulations that are incorporated into a 

SIP. As part of the SIP development process, ARB reviews the 

Moyer project mix to ensure that the amount of emission 

reductions credited to program are not included in the future 

year inventories specific to each individual attainment 

demonstration. 

 Procedures that ensure that old equipment was used in the geographic 

area of interest 

o (Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 2, Section S and Chapter 3, Section 

Z.6.(B)). 

Quantifiable 

The District evaluates the potential reductions that would be achieved by 

replacing the old equipment with the new equipment using the established 

calculation methodologies and emissions factors in the program guidelines. 

The calculation methodology, including calculation formulas, assumptions, 

emission factors and sample calculations are part of the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines and have been approved through a public process. To ensure that 

real, quantifiable emission reductions are achieved over the life of a project, 

the program guidelines require that emission control technologies be certified 

or verified by ARB (certification or verification by the EPA or International 

Maritime Organization may be allowed for some source categories for which 

ARB does not have a certification or verification program). The below 

summary provides more detail about how the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 

ensure that the SIP-creditability integrity criteria of “Quantifiable” is fulfilled: 

 Emissions data needed to calculate emission reductions must be 

publicly available current and accurate. This should include 

appropriate emission factors, load factors, and other conversion 

factors. 

o Moyer Guidelines, Appendix D (Publicly Available) and Chapter 

1, Section E.7 (Allows ARB Executive Officer to modify the 

Guidelines under a public process, to keep them effective and 

up-to-date.) 

 Guidelines include necessary formulas and instructions to calculate 

emissions based on above data, and explicit instructions to ensure 

appropriate data are used in calculations 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

o Moyer Guidelines, Appendix C (contains formulas and 

instructions) 

o Moyer Guidelines, Supplemental document, “Sample 

Calculations” (contains formulas and instructions) 

o Requirement Moyer Guidelines, Appendix C, Section B.5, and 

Supplemental document, “Sample Calculations” (contains 

explicit instructions regarding inputs) 

 Requirement to provide activity data sufficient to determine actual 

emission reductions. 

o Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section Z.6.(B) 

 Requirement to demonstrate the percentage of emission reductions 

that occur in the geographic area of interest, and are therefore SIP 

creditable 

o Moyer Guidelines, Section S. 

o Moyer Guidelines, Section Z.6.(B) 

 Requirement to periodically audit completed projects to verify emission 

reduction projections are fulfilled 

o Moyer Guidelines Chapter 2, Sections Z.10. 

o Moyer Guidelines Chapter 3, Sections EE. 

Enforceable 

Emission reductions and other required actions are enforceable if: they are 

independently verifiable; program violations and those liable are defined; 

information needed to determine emission reductions is available to the 

public; and they are practicably enforceable in accordance with other EPA 

guidance on practicable enforceability. The below summary provides more 

detail about how the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines ensure that the SIPcreditability integrity criteria of “Enforceable” is fulfilled: 

 Require grantees to provide all necessary recordkeeping and reporting 

needed to verify emissions reductions 

o Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section Z.9 and DD 

 Require inspections to ensure incentive program information is 

consistent with actual operating equipment 

o Moyer Guidelines Chapter 3, Sections AA and BB. 

 Identify liable parties and liability associated with contract 

noncompliance 

o Moyer Guidelines Chapter 3, Section Z.11. 

Permanent 

To ensure that the SIP-creditable emissions reductions are permanent, 

actions such as pre-inspections and post inspections of the new equipment 

and verification that the baseline equipment has been destroyed through the 

required process as described in the program guidelines are performed. The 

below summary provides more detail about how the Carl Moyer Program 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Guidelines ensure that the SIP-creditability integrity criteria of “Permanent” is 

fulfilled: 

 Data needed to determine and track location of activity 

o Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section DD 

 Provisions for ensuring that the project was completed, including the 

verification of disposition of baseline equipment. 

o Moyer Guidelines Chapter 3, Sections AA and BB 

Proposition 1B Goods Movement Guidelines 

Proposition 1B Goods Movement Guidelines were developed by ARB in 

consultation with stakeholders, including: air districts, metropolitan planning 

organizations, port authorities, shipping lines, railroad companies, trucking 

companies, harbor craft owners, freight distributors, terminal operators, local 

port community advisory groups, community interest groups, and airports. 

The guidelines include robust administrative requirements to ensure that 

emission reductions are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent. 

Proposition 1B Guidelines: 

 2013 Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines (approved 1/25/2013): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/gmbond.htm. 

o Sample Calculations and Project Calculator coming soon 

 2010 Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines (approved 03/25/2010): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/archives/archives.htm 

o Sample Calculations 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/prop_1b_goods_mo

vement_2008-09_calculator_directions.pdf 

o Project calculator in Excel format can be found under Technical 

Tools and Documents on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/gmbond.htm 

 2008 Proposition 1B: Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program 

Guidelines (approved 02/28/2008): 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/archives/archives.htm 

o Sample Calculations 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/docs/calculator_directions

_031108.pdf 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

o Project Calculator in Excel format can be found under Technical 

Tools and Documents on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/archives/archives.htm 

The following is a summary of how Proposition 1B Guidelines ensure emissions 

reductions are SIP-creditable. 

Surplus 

The Proposition 1B program supplements ARB’s diesel regulations by funding 

early compliance or providing extra emission reductions beyond those 

required by current rules. The program guidelines require that the District 

ensure all trucks being considered to receive funding have had ARB verify 

compliance with the state’s diesel regulations and further require that any 

trucks under contract with the district be noted as such in the state’s online 

regulation reporting database. This ensures that the new truck will not be 

used towards compliance during the project life ensuring that the emissions 

reductions are surplus. Chapter 6 Section E discusses the requirements that 

fleets remain in compliance with the Truck and Bus Regulation and that 

program funded equipment cannot be used towards compliance with the 

regulation. 

Quantifiable 

The District evaluates the potential reductions that would be achieved by 

replacing the old equipment with the new equipment using the Project 

Benefits Calculator created by ARB. The calculator is available to the public 

on ARB’s website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/bonds/gmbond/gmbond.htm and 

is updated by ARB on a regular basis. Chapter 2 Section C Discusses 

Proposition 1B program emission reduction calculations. 

Enforceable 

The District has created enforceable contracts, based on requirements in the 

Proposition 1B Program guidelines, which are signed by both District 

management and the grantee to ensure that projects are fully accomplished 

and the integrity criteria are met. The legally binding contracts include, but 

are not limited to, usage reporting requirements for the grantee, operating 

location requirements for the new vehicle, the destruction requirements of the 

baseline equipment/engine, and an allowance for the District to conduct an 

audit of the project at any time during the project life. Appendix A of 

Proposition 1B Program guidelines details contract requirements for truck 

projects. 

Permanent 

To ensure that the SIP-creditable emissions reductions are permanent, 

actions such as post inspections of the new equipment and verification that 

the baseline equipment has been destroyed through the required process as 

described in the program guidelines are performed. Chapter 4 Section A of 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

the Proposition 1B program discusses scrap and post inspection 

requirements. 

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Combustion System Imrpovement of Mobile Engines Guidelines 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) Combustion System Improvement of Mobile 

Engines Guidelines (Guidelines) implements robust administrative 

requirements for incentive projects based on those in the Carl Moyer Program 

Guidelines to ensure that emission reductions are surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and permanent. 

NRCS Guidelines: 

 NRCS General Manual, Title 450, Part 401 – Conservation Practice 

Standards: 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=19430 

 NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) FY 2013 

EQIP Program Information. National Air Quality Initiative: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality

_Initiative_ProgDesc.pdf. 

 NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 372 – Combustion System 

Improvement (approved September 2010): 

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CA/372-std-09-

2010.pdf 

 NRCS Combustion System Improvement 372 Operation & 

Maintenance (approved September 2010): 

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/treemenu.aspx 

 NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 372 – Environmental Quality 

Incentive Program California Air Quality Emission Reductions from 

Replacing Engines FY 2012 Guidelines, Policies, and Procedures 

(approved December 2011, updated May 2, 2012): ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/AQI/2012_Combustion_Systems_Im

provement_Policy_and_Procedures.pdf

 NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 372 – Worksheets: calculation, 

emission factors, certification, and destruction certification: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality

_Initiative_Attachments.pdf
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

 NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 372 – Conservation Practice 

Specification: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CA/372-

spec-09-2010.doc. 

 NRCS Interim Conservation Practice Standard 723 – Combustion 

System Air Emission management (approved May 2009): 

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CA/CA-Interim-723-

Combustion-Systems-AQ-Management_May_2009.pdf

 NRCS General Manual, Title 450, Part 407 – Documentation, 

Certification, and Spot Checking (amended October 2009): 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer.aspx?hid=25728

The following is a summary of how NRCS Guidelines ensure emissions 

reductions are SIP-creditable. 

Surplus 

Under the NAQI, page 3 of the CA-NRCS program guidelines specifies that 

SIP creditable emissions reductions are “achieved from contracts or parts of 

contracts funded under the air quality initiative [that] are not required by any 

federal, state, or local regulation, settlement agreement, mitigation 

requirement, or other legal mandate.” A rule or regulation does not currently 

exist for off-road mobile agricultural equipment, so the emission reductions 

resulting from replacing existing mobile off-road agricultural engines funded 

under the NAQI per Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) 372 - Combustion 

Systems Improvement are surplus. The FY 2013 National Air Quality 

Initiative Programs Description is posted on-line at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality_Initiati

ve_ProgDesc.pdf. The 2012 CA-NRCS program guidelines are posted online at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/AQI/2012_Combustion_Systems_Improve

ment_Policy_and_Procedures.pdf 

Quantifiable 

The District provided technical assistance to CA-NRCS in developing their 

calculation methodologies. The methodologies from the Carl Moyer Program 

are the basis for components included in CPS-372 and its supporting 

documents for the NAQI, including the CA-NRCS program guidelines. The 

District provided technical assistance to CA-NRCS in developing their 

calculation methodologies, which are consistent with the Carl Moyer Program. 

The NRCS Field Office Technical Guide places a ten-year lifespan for 

projects implemented under CPS 372 – Combustion System Improvement, 

which is also consistent with the Carl Moyer program. A conservation 

practice lifespan is the minimum time (in years) the implemented practice is 

expected to be fully functional for its intended purpose (NRCS General 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-13 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Manual, Title 450, Part 401.15) 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=19430. 

A list of California NRCS practice standard life-spans are posted on-line at: 

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CA/List_of_Practices_Lifespa

ns_2012-12_CA_Numeric.xlsx

The emission reductions for each project are calculated using the 

methodologies outlined in the Carl Moyer Guidelines. Additionally, all 

equipment engines are inspected to verify they are certified to ARB standards 

before they are paid out. All equipment engines are cross-referenced against 

an ARB executive order that verifies the emission of every equipment engine. 

The NRCS calculation worksheets and emission factors are posted on-line at: 

ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality_Initiati

ve_Attachments.pdf

Enforceable 

The NRCS inspects equipment in proposals prior to contract development to 

verify the existing mobile off-road agricultural equipment is operational per 

CPS-372 specifications. Destruction of existing equipment is certified by the 

disposal operator and participant and date-stamped photos are provided. 

Certification worksheet is posted on-line at: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality_Initiati

ve_Attachments.pdf. On an annual basis NRCS reviews at least 5% of all 

active projects. From these project reviews NRCS verifies that the new 

equipment is still operational. 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer.aspx?hid=25728. Per 

Subpart C, 512.22, participants have control of the land for the length of the 

proposed contract through deed, lease, or other written authorization. If the 

applicant does not own the land, the landowner must give written consent to 

install, operate, and maintain the practice through the lifespan of the practice. 

This is conducted through a partnership with the USDA Farm Service Agency, 

who is responsible for program eligibility support. 

Subpart F covers Contract Administration and provides for recovering 

liquidated damages for certain deviations to a contract. Handling contract 

violations are addressed in Subpart H where violations of contract terms must 

be corrected by the participant within a reasonable period of time to comply. 

If the violation continues, the contract may be terminated and future program 

participation deferred. 

Permanent 

NRCS eligibility is based on the county that the tractor resides in; in this case 

the tractor has to reside within one of the eight counties of the San Joaquin 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-14 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Valley. Under the NAQI, the NRCS prioritizes applications based on a 

county’s non-attainment designation within California. Applications received 

from attainment areas are not eligible. Currently, only the emission 

reductions originating from within the eight San Joaquin Valley counties are 

seeking SIP credit under this proposal. The destruction of the existing mobile 

off-road engines and equipment are verified per CPS 372 specifications, 

posted on-line at: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CA/372-

spec-09-2010.doc. Destruction certification worksheets are posted on-line at: 

ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/programs/EQIP/2013/2013_EQIP_Air_Quality_Initiati

ve_Attachments.pdf. The NRCS also has a stipulation that the tractor has to 

be tied to the land where it is in use. This requires that the tractor be used 

100% of the time in the San Joaquin Valley. Under the NAQI, NRCS staff 

verifies by site visit the operational condition of the existing mobile off-road 

agricultural equipment. Destruction of the existing equipment and emissions 

certification verifications are performed to determine contract compliance. 

The NRCS Combustion Systems Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive 

program is unique from other incentive programs in that NRCS is explicitly 

prohibited from identifying grantees by name. As directed by the Farm Bill (Food 

Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. § 608d(2))), NRCS must maintain the 

confidentiality of information provided by an agricultural producer participating in 

the NRCS Combustion Systems Improvement of Mobile Engines incentive 

program. The information is exempt from mandatory disclosure and may not be 

used in judicial or administrative proceedings without the consent of the person 

involved. 

Terminology 

Each program guideline varies in the use of terms for calculation methodolgies 

and project information. The following table identifies the variations between Rule 

9610 terminology and the program guideline terminology. 

Rule 9610 Prop 1B Moyer NRCS Description 

Project 

Identification 

Project 

Name 

 Project 

Identification 

 Project 

Identification 

Unique identification number 

given to a project by the 

implementing agency 

Project Type 

Project 

Option 

Component, 

Component 

Option, and 

Primary Function 

Primary 

Function 

Describes the type of project 

and equipment being funded 

Old Engine 

Year 

Engine 

Model Year Model Year 

Engine Year 

(baseline) 

Manufacturers model year of 

the old engine 

Annual Miles CA VMT Miles Traveled N/A 

Miles travel per year for on-road 

vehicles 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-15 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Rule 9610 Prop 1B Moyer NRCS Description 

New GVWR GVWR GVWR N/A 

 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

applicable to on-road vehicles 

only 

Cost New 

Equipment/ 

Vehicle 

Total Project 

Cost ($) 

Cost of Reduced 

Technology 

Cost of New 

Engine or 

Equipment 

The total amount of money to 

purchase the new replacement 

vehicle, engine or equipment. 

Does not account for amount of 

grant funding. 

Funding 

Amount 

Prop 1B 

Investment Funding Amount Payment 

Amount of grant money 

provided to implement incentive 

project. 

Previously Submitted Annual Demonstration Reports 

The District’s annual demonstration report submitted to EPA and ARB serves as 

the reporting mechanism to claim credit in the SIP for incentive-based emission 

reductions in the Valley that are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and 

permanent. The draft annual demonstration report is made available to the 

public and presented to the District Governing Board prior to submittal to EPA 

and ARB no later than August 31 of each year. 

The annual demonstration report provides a description of program guidelines 

used and how each ensures emission reductions are SIP-creditable, accounting 

of emission reductions achieved through implemented incentive projects, 

provides a summary of SIP commitments for which SIP-creditable emission 

reductions will be used to satisfy; provides project specific information, 

summaries of District project monitorng and enforcement activities; and a 

retrospecitve evaluation of the District’s incentive program performance with 

recommendations for improvements as appropriate. 

2013 Draft Annual Demonstration Report 

Additional Resources 

Proposed District Rule 9610 

Proposed Staff Report with Appendices for adoption of Rule 9610 

District Grant and Incentive Programs 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix D: Manual of Procedures June 20, 2013 

 D-16 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

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

Appendix E: ARB Letter of Support for Proposed Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 E-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

Appendix E 

ARB Letter of Support for Proposed Rule 9610 

June 20, 2013 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix E: ARB Letter of Support for Proposed Rule 9610 June 20, 2013 

 E-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Proposed Rule 9610 

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT June 20, 2013 E-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

 for Proposed Rule 9610
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT June 20, 2013 E-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

 for Proposed Rule 9610