Carl Moyer Program

This page last reviewed September 16, 2014

Case-by-Case Determinations


An air district may request ARB approval of a project or other Carl Moyer Program (CMP) element that varies from the requirements of the CMP Guidelines on a case-by-case (CBC) basis. ARB may approve such a project or other program element if this approval would not adversely impact achievement of real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and cost-effective emission reductions, would not significantly reduce program transparency, and is not prohibited by statute.

These case-by-case decisions are based on CMP Guidelines and supplementary guidance (including emails and mail-outs) in effect on the date of the decision. Please also note that projects must consider all supplementary guidance issued as of the fully executed contract date. Therefore, future supplementary guidance issued prior to contract execution that would change the eligibility or funding amount for a project will supersede these case-by-case decisions.

These decisions are posted to assist districts in preparing a case by case request. These decisions are project specific and may not be applicable to other projects. Districts should seek the guidance of ARB staff for each determination that is not addressed in the CMP Guidelines and supplemental materials.

For more information on case by case decisions, refer to the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, (Chapter 3, Section Y).

Current Case-By-Case Determinations



Moyer Administration (4) - Updated October 17, 2013


Reference # 2011-38
Request: Consider as fully expended an in-progress marine project, Scandia 09-07, delayed because of a State of Emergency
Air District: Mendocino County AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Guidelines, Program Administration, Section O(1)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: In March 2011, severe rainstorms and flooding struck Humboldt County, leading to the declaration of a State of Emergency by Governor Brown. This natural event caused delays and parts delivery disruptions that halted timely completion of a Mendocino County AQMD marine repower project, Scandia 09-07, in which the engine had been delivered to the installer (in Humboldt County) and paid for by the grantee. If the District pays the grantee for the engine by June 30, 2011, this project will be considered fully expended for the purpose of meeting the Carl Moyer Program Year 11 expenditure deadline. District post-inspection and payment must occur by December 31, 2011. This project must also still comply with all other applicable Guideline criteria.

Determination Date: June 9, 2011
Contact: Tim Hartigan (916) 324-0202
Reference # 2011-46
Request: Allow photographic evidence as destruction documentation (Project # 11MOY27).
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Part III-Program Administration, Section 31(c)
ARB Action: No Action / CBC approval not required.

Determination: 2008 Guidelines require documentation of baseline engine destruction by district staff either “in-person or through photographic or video evidence,” in accordance with district policies and procedures. Since district staff has photographic evidence, Moyer staff considers this situation to be an internal policy issue for the district.

Determination Date: July 18, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference # 2013-05
Request: Allow the district to co-fund a project with funding from Moyer program Years 13 and 14 while operating under 2008 Guidelines. (Project Number: CM12-10).
Air District: Northern Sonoma County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 2, Section KK
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: According to the Guidelines, it is necessary to operate under the 2011 guideline requirements when a district begins spending Year 14 grant funds. The District, which is operating under the 2008 Guidelines, has a project that they cannot fully fund with the remaining monies from their Year 13 grant. The District is also preparing to execute other urgently timed contracts for its Year 14 grant cycle, and has concern that some of these year 14 contracts may be executed while the final Year 13/Year 14-funded contract is still in draft. ARB recognizes that it is not always possible to expend yearly grants in discrete amounts, nor is it always possible to fully control the timing of contract execution. On occasion, it may be necessary to overlap funding years.

The district is permitted to co-fund their final Year 13 project with some of their Year 14 monies and to execute the contract under the terms of the 2008 Guidelines, provided the equipment meets eligibility requirements. Note this approval is granted only for the allowance of this co-funding of the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: February 19, 2013
Contact: Jennifer Kozumplik (916) 445-3516
Reference # 2013-37
Request: Allow the district to conduct pre-inspections after contract execution for Stationary Diesel Agricultural Engines projects.
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Program Administration, Section AA.6
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district has provided a written justification of reduced staff resources associated with delaying pre-inspections for some of its projects. The District Policies and Procedures manual includes a description of the timeline by which the district will conduct a pre-inspection post contract execution as well as language ensuring that no payment will be made prior to pre-inspection and equipment verification. As such, the district meets the case-by-case allowance requirements as defined in Program Administration Section AA.6, with the stipulation that this case-by-case approval is contingent on the district updating its contract to include a clause for voiding the contract if the equipment specifics are not met as described in the contract.

Determination Date: October 17, 2013
Contact: Jennifer Kozumplik (916) 445-3516

Shrink


On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles (16) - Updated September 11, 2014


Reference # 2010-01
Request: Extend the June 30, 2010 delivery deadline for new purchase of urban buses.
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): Chapter III, Section IV(c)(2)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: The lead time for procurement of urban transit buses is unusually long due to higher than usual demand, which is beyond the control of the applicant or air district. Therefore, for this urban bus new purchase project, that had a fully executed contract before December 31, 2009, the air district may extend the delivery deadline to June 30, 2011, rather than the existing July 1, 2010 deadline. Air districts with similar transit bus projects with contracts executed on or before December 31, 2009 may request case-by-case approval for a similar delivery deadline extension.
    Documentation Required
  • The applicant must provide documentation from the bus manufacturer (for inclusion in the project file) that buses cannot be delivered by June 30, 2010, and provide a time line for delivery.

Determination Date: Dec. 22, 2009
Contact: Peter Christensen (916) 322-1520
Reference # 2010-02
Request:
Extend the June 30, 2010 delivery deadline for new purchase of solid waste collection vehicles.
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): Chapter III, Section IV(c)(2)
ARB Action: Not approved

Determination: The June 30, 2010 delivery deadline is confirmed for solid waste collection vehicles. The apparent reason for a potential delivery delay is related to the applicant’s limited resources, which is not sufficient to justify an extension.

Determination Date: Dec. 24, 2009
Contact: Peter Christensen (916) 322-1520
Reference # 2010-05
Request: Extend the June 30, 2010 delivery deadline for new purchase of urban buses
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): Chapter III, Section IV(c)(2)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: As discussed in CBC #2010-01, the lead time for procurement of urban transit buses is unusually long due to higher than usual demand, which is beyond the control of the applicant or air district. Therefore, for this urban bus new purchase project, that had a fully executed contract before December 31, 2009, the air district may extend the delivery deadline to June 30, 2011, rather than the existing July 1, 2010 deadline. Air districts with similar transit bus projects with contracts executed on or before December 31, 2009 may request case-by-case approval for a similar delivery deadline extension.
   Documentation Required
  • The applicant must provide documentation from the bus manufacturer (for inclusion in the project file) that buses cannot be delivered by June 30, 2010, and provide a time line for delivery.

Determination Date: April 23, 2010
Contact: Peter Christensen (916) 322-1520
Reference # 2010-16
Request: Applicant is requesting an exception to the requirement to install a diesel particulate filter as part of an on-road repower project.
Air District: Northern Sierra AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2005 Guidelines, Chapter I, Section V(D)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination:  This repower with retrofit project was originally approved based on a cost-effectiveness calculation that included the repower cost and the cost of a passive filter which was verified for the engine. The engine repower component of this project has already been completed and is successfully generating emission reductions.  Subsequently, data logging performed by an authorized retrofit installer shows that the exhaust temperatures are too low for any passive filter. Documentation has been provided by the retrofit manufacturer. The geographic truck activity pattern does not allow for a filter that uses plug-in type active regeneration. An active filter is verified for the engine that uses an on-board fuel burner that would not be subject to the same geographic activity issue, but the cost of that filter is substantially higher than the passive filter included in the funding contract.  Since the higher cost was not included in the original contract, it would be prohibitive for the applicant. Therefore, the applicant may complete this project without installing a retrofit. The emission reductions achieved by the repower alone must be cost-effective with respect to the repower-alone funding amount. No funding may be granted toward the cost of the DPF.
Requirements Upon Approval
  • In addition, the air district must notify the grantee in writing that the truck is subject to the Statewide Truck & Bus Regulation and must meet all compliance deadlines and other regulatory requirements.

Determination Date: June 3, 2010
Contact: Peter Christensen (916) 322-1520
Reference # 2010-34
Request:
Applicant requested approval to repower 25 on-road diesel solid waste collection vehicles (SCAQMD Project #63).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter III, Section IV(d)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The proposed repower project involves a substantial quantity of the same chassis and engine combination, which allows repowered vehicles to meet the requirements of the engine manufacturer quality assurance process that is equivalent to an OEM package. The proposed project includes a prototype vehicle that will be thoroughly reviewed and tested to ensure that the installation meets OEM requirements, and the successful prototype installation will be replicated in the other vehicles with the same chassis and engine combination. The district may approve the proposed repower project subject to the following conditions:

(1) Carl Moyer Program funding may not be used for any costs associated with the prototype vehicle or vehicles;

(2) Project contract(s) may not be executed until the prototype testing specified by the engine manufacturer is successfully completed;

(3) Written documentation from the engine manufacturer confirming that the prototype was successful must be maintained in the project file;

(4) Particulate matter (PM) emission reductions are not surplus to the SWCV Regulation, therefore PM must not be included in the cost-effectiveness calculation.


Determination Date: September 21, 2010
Contact: Peter Christensen (916) 322-1520
Reference # 2010-55
Request: Applicant requested approval to repower four (4) 1997 model-year diesel solid waste collection vehicles (SWCV) with 2010 model-year natural gas engines. (SCAQMD Project #45).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter III, Section IV(d)
ARB Action: Not Approved

Determination: The applicant was not able to provide documentation from the engine manufacturer of successful testing of a prototype with the same engine and chassis configuration. Applicant may reapply for funding after a successful prototype repower is completed, consistent with the on-road repower criteria in Chapter 4 of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines.

Determination Date: May 05, 2011
Contact: Lynsay Carmichael  (916) 322-0407
Reference # 2011-47
Request: Allow a heavy heavy-duty truck replacement for a baseline medium heavy-duty truck equipped with a heavy heavy-duty engine (Project ID: CM09/10-11)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.3.(C)(1) and (2) and Section C.4.(D)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The proposed Fleet Modernization Project would replace a medium heavy- duty weight class truck (GVWR of 33,000 pounds) powered with a heavy heavy-duty engine with a heavy heavy-duty weight class truck (GVWR of 34,000 pounds) powered with a heavy heavy-duty engine. Both the baseline and replacement vehicles are powered with heavy heavy-duty engines and the combined gross vehicle weight of both vehicles are the same. The replacement truck would be used in the same vocation and in exactly the same manner as the baseline truck. In addition, a new medium heavy-duty truck with a medium heavy-duty intended service class engine would not be able to perform equivalent work to the baseline truck. Considering these factors, the air district may authorize this truck replacement if all other requirements of the Guidelines are met.

Determination Date: July 22, 2011
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2012-07
Request: Allow an engine certified to an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) family emission limit (FEL) of 0.3 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) to be funded under the Fleet Modernization program using an interpolated emission factor for 0.5 g/bhp-hr levels (Project ID: AB923-OR-07)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.5.(B)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The proposed Fleet Modernization Project would replace a 1998 model year heavy-duty engine with a 2012 model year heavy-duty engine. The replacement engine executive order specifies a NOx emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr and NOx FEL of 0.3 g/bhp-hr. The Guidelines specify in Chapter 5, Section C.4.(A) that engines certified with a NOx FEL of 1.20 g/bhp-hr or lower are eligible for funding. Chapter 5 also specifies a maximum funding amount of $50,000 for heavy heavy-duty engines certified to a level of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less and emission factors listed in Appendix D, Table D-4 are to be used for cost-effectiveness calculations. Table D-4 lists emission factors by model years but doesn't include the applicable emission standards for engines certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The 2010 emission factor based on an emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr, which the replacement engine exceeds, cannot be used. The cost-effectiveness calculations must use interpolated emission factors for heavy heavy-duty engines certified to NOx emissions of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or lower (2.65 grams per mile (g/mi) for NOx and 0.2 g/mi for reactive organic gases). The district must use the interpolated emission factors for this AB923 project in their local grant database to properly calculate the project cost-effectiveness. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the SLOAPCD grant database.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: March 20, 2012
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2012-15
Request: Allow engines certified to an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) family emission limit (FEL) of 0.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) or less to be funded under the Fleet Modernization Program using an interpolated emission factor for 0.5 g/bhp-hr levels (Project Numbers: CM11/12-6, CM11/12-8, CM11/12-12)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.5.(B)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The dealership that will be providing the replacement vehicles for the above listed projects has ordered engines from the manufacturer that will be certified to the 2010 emission standards for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. The dealership has informed the district that although the delivered engines will meet the 2010 certification requirements, they may be certified to a NOx FEL of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, which would require a modified cost-effectiveness calculation. A case-by-case determination is not required for engines delivered that are certified to a NOx emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. This CBC applies to engines delivered that are certified to a NOx FEL above 0.2 g/bhp-hr, but less than or equal to 0.5 g/bhp-hr.

The Guidelines specify in Chapter 5, Section C.4.(A) that engines certified to a NOx FEL of 1.20 g/bhp-hr or lower are eligible for funding. Chapter 5 also specifies a maximum funding amount of $30,000 and $50,000 for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to a NOx emission level of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, respectively, and emission factors listed in Appendix D, Tables D-3 and D-4 are to be used for cost-effectiveness calculations. Tables D-3 and D-4 list emission factors by model years but don't include the applicable emission standards for engines certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The 2010 emission factor based on an emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr, which the replacement engine(s) exceeds, cannot be used. The cost-effectiveness calculations must use interpolated emission factors for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to NOx emissions of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or lower. For medium heavy-duty vehicles, that is 1.19 grams per mile (g/mi) for NOx emissions and 0.03 g/mi for reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. For heavy heavy-duty vehicles, that is 2.65 g/mi for NOx emissions and 0.2 g/mi for ROG emissions. The district must use the interpolated emission factors for these projects in their local grant database to properly calculate the project cost-effectiveness. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL database comment field for each project listed.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: June 7, 2012
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2012-20
Request: Allow engines certified to an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) family emission limit (FEL) of 0.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) or less to be funded under the Fleet Modernization Program using an interpolated emission factor for 0.5 g/bhp-hr levels (Project Number: AB923-2011-9)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.5.(B)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The dealership that will be providing the replacement vehicles for the above listed projects has ordered engines from the manufacturer that will be certified to the 2010 emission standards for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. The dealership has informed the district that although the delivered engines will meet the 2010 certification requirements, they may be certified to a NOx FEL of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, which would require a modified cost-effectiveness calculation. A case-by-case determination is not required for engines delivered that are certified to a NOx emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. This CBC applies to engines delivered that are certified to a NOx FEL above 0.2 g/bhp-hr, but less than or equal to 0.5 g/bhp-hr.

The Guidelines specify in Chapter 5, Section C.4.(A) that engines certified to a NOx FEL of 1.20 g/bhp-hr or lower are eligible for funding. Chapter 5 also specifies a maximum funding amount of $30,000 and $50,000 for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to a NOx emission level of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, respectively, and emission factors listed in Appendix D, Tables D-3 and D-4 are to be used for cost-effectiveness calculations. Tables D-3 and D-4 list emission factors by model years but don't include the applicable emission standards for engines certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The 2010 emission factor based on an emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr, which the replacement engine(s) exceeds, cannot be used. The cost-effectiveness calculations must use interpolated emission factors for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to NOx emissions of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or lower. For medium heavy-duty vehicles, that is 1.19 grams per mile (g/mi) for NOx emissions and 0.03 g/mi for reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. For heavy heavy-duty vehicles, that is 2.65 g/mi for NOx emissions and 0.2 g/mi for ROG emissions. The district must use the interpolated emission factors for these projects in their local grant database to properly calculate the project cost-effectiveness. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL database comment field for each project listed.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: July 5, 2012
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2012-38
Request: Exempt Spurr Company (Spurr) from reflashing the remaining eligible engines in the fleet for Fleet Modernization project (Project ID: CM11/12-4)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.2.(I) and Chapter 4, Section D.1.(D)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Spurr reflashed a 1996 model year Cummins engine (VIN: 1FVXDMCBVP691010) in their fleet to meet the requirements of the Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.2.(I) and Chapter 4, Section D.1.(D). During the reflashing procedure, their engine control module software (ECM) was erased and rendered the vehicle inoperable. After incurring a significant cost of restoring the ECM, Spurr requested that they be exempt from reflashing the remaining engines in their fleet eligible for reflash. After the review of all the documentation regarding the matter, it has been decided that Spurr is exempt from reflashing the requested engines and the reflash requirements for Project CM11/12-4 have been met. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the SLOAPCD grant database.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project nor does it constitute a blanket approval for similar projects. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: September 28, 2012
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2013-09
Request: Allow the repower of a heavy heavy-duty truck using a certified model year 1996-2000 on-road engine.
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 4, Section D.4.
ARB Action: Not Approved

Determination: The proposed repower project would replace a 1988 heavy-duty diesel engine with a heavy-duty diesel engine with any model year from 1996 to 2000. The truck owner would be required to purchase a verified particulate matter filter using private funds. The proposed vehicle only operates in San Luis Obispo county, an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) exempt county as defined in the Truck and Bus regulations (California Code of Regulations, title 13, section(d)(46)). The regulation exempts vehicles operating exclusively in NOx exempt counties from reducing NOx emissions from existing engines if the engines are retrofitted with particulate matter filters. Chapter 2, Section HH. requires that replacement engines in repower projects be certified to the current applicable emission standard. However, as specified in Chapter 4, Section D.4., repowers specifically for on-road vehicles can use replacement engines certified to a NOx emissions level of 0.5 g/bhp-hr. In addition, single vehicle repowers are prohibited based on the required original engine manufacturer quality assurance process. As a NOx exempt county and with the NOx reductions being surplus to the regulation, the district requested that the project be exempt from the requirements. The NOx emission standards for model years 1996 through 2000 engines are 4.0-5.0 g/bhp-hr and exceed the required emission standards for replacement engines, hence the case-by-case request is not approved.

Determination Date: April 3, 2013
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2013-12
Request: Allow engines certified to an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) family emission limit (FEL) of 0.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) or less to be funded under the Fleet Modernization Program using an interpolated emission factor for 0.5 g/bhp-hr levels (Project Numbers: CM12/13-4 Mueller Transport; CM12/13-5 JV Express; CM12/13-6 Jeff Dye Trucking)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.5.(B)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The dealership that will be providing the replacement vehicles for the above listed projects has ordered engines from the manufacturer that will be certified to the 2010 emission standards for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines. The dealership has informed the district that although the delivered engines will meet the 2010 certification requirements, they may be certified to a NOx FEL of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, which would require a modified cost-effectiveness calculation. A case-by-case determination is not required for engines delivered that are certified to a NOx emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. This CBC applies to engines delivered that are certified to a NOx FEL above 0.2 g/bhp-hr, but less than or equal to 0.5 g/bhp-hr.

The Guidelines specify in Chapter 5, Section C.4.(A) that engines certified to a NOx FEL of 1.20 g/bhp-hr or lower are eligible for funding. Chapter 5 also specifies a maximum funding amount of $30,000 and $50,000 for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to a NOx emission level of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or less, respectively, and emission factors listed in Appendix D, Tables D-3 and D-4 are to be used for cost-effectiveness calculations. Tables D-3 and D-4 list emission factors by model years but don't include the applicable emission standards for engines certified to 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The 2010 emission factor based on an emission standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr, which the replacement engine(s) exceeds, cannot be used. The cost-effectiveness calculations must use interpolated emission factors for medium and heavy heavy-duty engines certified to NOx emissions of 0.5 g/bhp-hr or lower. For medium heavy-duty vehicles, that is 1.19 grams per mile (g/mi) for NOx emissions and 0.03 g/mi for reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. For heavy heavy-duty vehicles, that is 2.65 g/mi for NOx emissions and 0.2 g/mi for ROG emissions. The district must use the interpolated emission factors for these projects in their local grant database to properly calculate the project cost-effectiveness. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL database comment field for each project listed.

Note this approval is only for the projects listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the projects conform to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: April 18, 2013
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2014-02
Request:Allow the build sheet of a newer, similar model truck to meet the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) documentation requirements for the baseline truck in a Fleet Modernization project (Project Number AB923-OR-13-4)
Air District: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section C.3.(C)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines require documentation of the existing vehicle's GVWR for fleet modernization projects. As specified in Chapter 5, Section C.3.(C)(3), if a photo of the manufacturer tag showing GVWR or the manufacturer build sheet is unavailable, districts may request a case-by-case approval of alternate GVWR documentation. The existing vehicle is a 1977 Peterbilt dump truck and the manufacturer no longer has record of the build sheet. However, the district has the build sheet for a similar model 1980 Peterbilt dump truck that was used for an earlier project. The district provided the build sheet and photos of both trucks and their associated tags showing model and serial numbers and chassis weights. Since all the documentation provided shows the trucks to be similar models from the same manufacturer, the build sheet documentation from the 1980 truck can be used to meet GVWR documentation requirements for the 1977 truck.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost-effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: March 27, 2014
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2014-13
Request: Allow the district to fund a fleet modernization project with Sonora Union High School that would replace two retrofitted light heavy-duty vehicles that are not yet included in the eligible weight class group and to use extended usage history in determining funding amounts.
Air District: Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Section A., Section C.2.(C), C.3.(C), C.5.(A)-(B).
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The two light heavy-duty school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 14,500 pounds and are currently compliant with the Truck and Bus Regulation. The new replacement buses would provide emission reductions that are surplus to the regulation. Currently, as specified in Chapter 5, Section C.3.(C), the vehicles must be over 19,500 pounds to be eligible. Considering that staff is proposing changes to the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (Guidelines) that will expand on-road replacement eligibility to include light heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR over 14,000 pounds, these light heavy-duty buses can be replaced under the program.

The Guidelines require usage documentation for the previous 24 months to determine cost-effectiveness of fleet modernization projects as specified in Chapter 5, Section C.2.(C) and C.5.(A). The Guidelines also require that the emission factors, which also affect cost-effectiveness calculations, be based on the baseline and replacement engines as can be seen in Chapter 5, Section C.5.(B). The Tuolumne County APCD submitted school district fleet data to justify use of mileage over the last 10 years, rather than the last two years, for calculation of cost effectiveness and grant amounts. School district data showed that a last-10-year averaging period, while still conservative relative to typical usage during the project life, was more indicative of projected replacement bus usage. ARB staff found the provided data consistent with the usage continuum typical of school buses in other projects and agreed that an extended usage history can be used but it must include the previous 24 months.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost-effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: June 25, 2014
Contact: Danielle Robinson  (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2014-19
Request: Allow Allow the trade-down of two retrofitted school buses, in lieu of destruction, for two non-retrofitted school buses in a neighboring air district.
Air District: Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 5, Sections C.3.(C) and C.11.(C).
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: A fleet modernization project with Sonora Union High School (donating school district) would replace two retrofitted school buses and, in lieu of their destruction, donate them to the Calaveras Unified School District (recipient school district), which is in a neighboring air district. The Lower Emission School Bus Program provided funding for the retrofit of two Sonora school buses, gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 14,050 pounds and engine model years (MY) 1997, to be donated with remaining contract terms to be fulfilled by the recipient school district. In turn, the recipient school district would dismantle two non-retrofitted school buses, GVWR of 9,500 pounds and engine MY 1988 which have higher NOx and PM emissions and are not subject to the Truck and Bus regulation. The destruction of the older, lighter non-retrofitted school buses provides a substantial reduction in exposure for children in the recipient air district.

The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (Guidelines) Chapter 5, Section C.11.(C) specify the destruction of the baseline vehicles. To preserve the LESBP public investment of the baseline retrofitted buses and given that the recipient district is destroying school buses not subject to Truck and Bus regulation, the baseline school buses will not be destroyed and will instead remain in service.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost-effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 11, 2014
Contact: Nancy Noble  (626) 459-4495

Shrink


Emergency Vehicles (4) - Updated May 20, 2013


Reference # 2010-35
Request: Applicant requested approval to repower one fire engine (pumper) (SCAQMD Project #75).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter III, Section IV(d)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This vehicle is an authorized emergency vehicle as described in California Vehicle Code section 165, and exempt from applicable ARB in-use regulations. The fire engine chassis provides sufficient space that eliminates the space constraint issue associated with many traditional repower projects. The project is cost-effective with a 14 year project life and a conservative fuel consumption rate of 1 gallon per hour.

Determination Date: February 2, 2011
Contact: Lynsay Carmichael  (916) 322-0407
Reference # 2011-57
Request: The applicant requested approval to replace 24 on-road prisoner buses under the Emergency Vehicle Chapter (SCAQMD Project #27).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Guidelines, Chapter 6
ARB Action: Approved – Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination: The prisoner buses are authorized emergency vehicles as described in California Vehicle Code section 165 and exempt from applicable ARB in-use regulations. The project has a 14 year project life and the district must use the diesel urban bus emission factors found in table D-5 of the 2011 Guidelines.

Determination Date: November 01, 2011
Contact: Neva Lowery  (916) 324-1209
Reference # 2012-32
Request: The applicant requested approval to replace 13 on-road prisoner buses under the Emergency Vehicle Chapter (SCAQMD Project # 73).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Guidelines, Chapter 6
ARB Action: Approved – Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination: The prisoner buses are authorized emergency vehicles as described in California Vehicle Code section 165 and exempt from applicable ARB in-use regulations. The project has a 14 year project life and the district must use the diesel urban bus emission factors found in table D-5 of the 2011 Guidelines

Note this approval does not constitute a blanket approval for similar projects

Determination Date: September 27, 2012
Contact: Neva Lowery  (916) 324-1209
Reference # 2013-15
Request: Exception for Emergency Vehicle Dismantle Requirements (13MOYFA1).
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 6, Section C.6(C)(3) and Section C.8 (A) and (D)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Per Chapter 6, Section C.6(C)(3) Bay Area AQMD requests an alternative disposition for the old fire truck to be donated for display at the heritage museum in Sunnyvale. In lieu of Chapter 6, Section C.8 (A), the City of Sunnyvale will render the engine useless by punching a hole in the engine block. For Chapter 6, Section C.8 (D), the frame rails do not need to be cut in this case as it may pose a safety issue. The District will ensure all other vehicle destruction requirements are met. A written understanding is required, with a donation or conveyance letter, to ensure that the museum and fire department understand that the engine will not be operated or transferred for life. The engine must remain inoperable. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL database comment field for each project listed.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: May 20, 2013
Contact: Neva Lowery  (916) 324-1209

Shrink


Off-Road Engines and Equipment (27) - Updated December 24, 2013


Reference # 2010-07
Request:
Applicant requested to modify contracted project to exchange two harvesters originally contracted to be repowered with two substitute harvesters that operate more annual hours.  The removed engines would be installed in the originally contracted harvesters, as an engine trade-down, with the originally contracted engines to be scrapped.
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter V, Section IV(b)(11)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Staff confirmed that all the engines involved are not subject to any state or district regulatory requirements.  The District was asked to include a comment in CARL to reflect that there is a swap in the engines and include information on all engines involved in the project.
Requirements Upon Approval
  • The contract must be amended to reflect the addition of the two new harvesters and specify that only installations of the two new Tier 3 engines would be paid for by Moyer.


Determination Date: Mar. 16, 2010
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2010-13
Request: Replace two tractors, each with engines less than 150 horsepower with one tractor of over 250 horsepower.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter VII, Section IV(b)(5)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided dealer documentation justifying that the new tractor, due to its size, can accomplish the same amount of work as both smaller tractors working together.  The documentation stated that the new tractor can pull a 20 ft disc with less time than the two baseline tractors can pull a 10 ft disc each.  Staff determined that, due to the nature of this replacement project and work performed, in contrast to Section IV(b)(5), the usage of the two existing tractors should not be summed to determine the usage of the new tractor.  The district shall utilize an average of the annual usage rates of the baseline for the usage rate of the new tractor.  The annual emissions from each of the baseline tractors are to be summed to determine baseline emissions for the project.  In addition, the same load factor should be used in the cost effectiveness calculation for the new and existing tractors because the new tractor is accomplishing the same work as the old tractors working together, and thus the load on the new engine should be comparable to the load experienced by the existing engines.

Determination Date: May 24, 2010
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2010-30
Request: Replace two tractors, each with engines less than 50 horsepower with one tractor of about 100 horsepower.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter VII, Section IV(b)(5)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: The district provided dealer documentation justifying that the new tractor is needed to perform the same agricultural operations as the existing tractors. The documentation stated that when the existing tractors were purchased to perform the work on 80-inch center rows, the only tractors available for that spacing, and low enough to get in the housing entrance of 7 feet were two wheel drive models at 35 to 50 horsepower. Since then, various tractor manufacturers have begun selling "Mudder or Row Crop" tractor that allows various wheel spacings and crop clearance, but most models, because of the diversity of the agricultural market, are offered at 90 horsepower and above. The dealer also stated that there is no two wheel drive tractor with less than 50 horsepower that is capable performing work on 80-inch center rows that can replace the existing tractors.

Determination Date: August 24, 2010
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2010-40
Request: Use a particulate matter (PM10) emission factor of 0.088 grams per brakehorsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for Tier 3 engine with a horsepower over 175.
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Appendix B, Table B-13
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: The district noted that in Appendix B, Table B-13, the emission factor for a Tier 3 engine is higher than its Tier 1 equivalent for PM10 in the greater than 175 horsepower range. The emission factor for the PM10 (Tier1 engine) is 0.108 g/bhp-hr and the PM10 (Tier 3 engine) is 0.112 g/bhp-hr. These emission factors would result in a PM10 increase when replacing an equipment with a Tier 1 engine with an equipment with a Tier 3 engine, which is inconsistent with the difference in standards to which the engines are certified. ARB staff noted the emission factors discrepancies and intends to release an advisory outlining more accurate emission factors for the various horsepower groups. In the interim, Moyer confirmed with inventory that the correct PM10 emission factor for a Tier 3 engine with a horsepower over 175 should be 0.088 g/bhp-hr.

Determination Date: September 22, 2010
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2011-04
Request: Allow the district to conduct pre-inspections after contract execution for Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (ERP) projects.
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Program Administration, Section 31(f)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: The district has provided a written justification of reduced staff resources associated with delaying pre-inspections for ERP projects. The ERP contract includes a clause for voiding the contract if the baseline equipment specifics are not met as described in the contract. The district Policies and Procedures manual includes a description of the timeline by which the district will conduct a pre-inspection post contract execution as well as language ensuring that no payment will be made prior to pre-inspection and equipment verification. The district has met the case-by-case allowance requirements as defined in Program Administration Section 31(f).

Determination Date: February 1, 2011
Contact: David Salardino (626) 575-6679

Reference # 2011-18
Request: Allow replacement of existing 65 horsepower tractor with a tractor whose engine (95 horsepower) is greater than 125 percent of the original engine horsepower. (Project Number CMP 12-6)
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter VII, Section IV (c)(4)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided dealer documentation justifying that the new tractor is needed to perform the same agricultural operations as the existing tractor. The documentation stated that the existing tractor is a rare configuration with specific width and clearance, in combination with a transmission creeper feature needed in the raising of a particular crop. Since the closest replacement tractor available with the specifications necessary to meet the needs of the applicant is a tractor with a 95 horsepower engine, this project is eligible provided all other applicable guideline criteria are met.

Determination Date: March 29, 2011
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2011-28
Request: Allow replacement of an existing front end loader with a backhoe. (Project Number 11-ORERP Backhoe Replacement)
Air District: Glenn County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter VII, Section IV(c)(2)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination:The district provided justification that the replacement backhoe will perform the equivalent tasks as the existing front end loader. The documentation stated that while the replacement backhoe may have smaller loading capacity than the existing loader, the work being performed by the replacement piece of equipment will be the same as the existing equipment. Therefore, this project is eligible provided all other applicable guideline criteria are met.

Determination Date: April 19, 2011
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2011-33
Request: Allow the air district to comingle local mitigation funds with Moyer funds for an Equipment Replacement Program (ERP) project (Project #:AP101109).
Air District: Santa Barbara APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter II, Section (c)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination:The District has requested to combine $143,000 of local mitigation funds with $57,000 of Carl Moyer Program funds to fund one project. The district stipulations for mitigation funds require the project to provide at least 10 tons of NOx emission benefit for the project lifetime and be cost effective at $14,300 per ton. To combine funds, the district must ensure the project is cost-effective at $16,400 per ton and meets Moyer criteria. In this case by case, the total funds put toward the project $200,000 (the incremental cost) must be considered in the Moyer program cost-effectiveness calculation. The project's total lifetime NOx emission reductions is 16.5 tons, 11 tons NOx are being credited to the mitigation fund and 5.5 tons NOx are being credited to the Moyer program. All of the project's ROG and PM emission reductions are credited to the Moyer program. Since the district's mitigation program is receiving credit for a portion of the project's emission benefits, the Moyer portion of the project must meet the Moyer cost-effectiveness limit based solely on the emission benefits claimed for Moyer (i.e., the remaining non-mitigation claimed benefits). Following this procedure, the project meets the cost-effectiveness for both Moyer and the District mitigation requirements with a 4 year project life. The emissions for each program are accounted for and distributed to each program so there is no duplicate counting of emissions.

Determination Date: May 6, 2011
Contact: Laura Zaremba-Schmidt (626) 459-4394
Reference # 2011-35
Request: Allow replacement of two existing 124 horsepower (hp) agricultural wheel loaders with two agricultural wheel loaders whose engines (162 hp) are greater than 125 percent of the original hp. (Project Numbers C-7478 & C-7477 – Central California Almond Growers Association)
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(D)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination:Dealer and manufacturer documentation was provided justifying that the new wheel loaders are equivalent to the old wheel loaders and will perform the same agricultural operation as the existing wheel loaders. The documentation stated that the replacement wheel loaders have the same configuration, bucket size, weight and are designed to perform the equivalent work. Since the closest replacement wheel loaders available with the specifications to meet the needs of the applicant are wheel loaders with 162 hp engines, these projects are eligible provided all other applicable guideline criteria are met.

Determination Date: June 6, 2011
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2011-61
Request: Allow the replacement of two harvester tractors rated at 62 engine horsepower (hp) and 42 engine hp with one harvester tractor whose engine (99 hp) is greater than 125 percent of the lowest horsepower of the existing equipment engines. Determine the usage by calculating a ratio of the usage hours of the two existing tractors. (Project Number CMP 13-4 – Renner Ranches)
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.1(F)(1)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided documentation that the new tractor will perform the same agricultural operations as the two existing tractors combined. The number of hours the new tractor will operate will be less than the sum of the usage hours of the two existing tractors due to the increased size and capacity of the new tractor. Furthermore, the district provided documentation that the 99 hp tractor is the lowest rated hp tractor equipped with a current emission standard engine that is capable of performing the work of the existing tractors.

The district must include the estimated usage of the new tractor in the contract and all data and methodology used to estimate usage must be included in the project file. In addition, the same load factor should be used for the new and existing tractors because the new tractor is accomplishing the same work as the old tractors combined and thus the load on the new engine should be comparable to the load experienced by the existing engines.

Determination Date: December 9, 2011
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2012-16
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Numbers: CM10/11-6a,b, CM10/11-9)
Air District: San Luis Obispo APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Determination Date: May 30, 2012
Contact: Dave Salardino (626) 575-6679
Reference # 2012-17
Request: Allow the district to conduct pre-inspections after contract execution for Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (ERP) projects.
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section AA.6.
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Under case-by-case (CBC) 2011-04 the district has previously been approved to conduct pre-inspections after contract execution for projects funded under the 2008 Guidelines. This CBC extends that approval to include projects funded under the 2011 Guidelines. All documentation required under Chapter 3, Section AA.6. has been provided to ARB by the district.

Determination Date: June 5, 2012
Contact: Dave Salardino (626) 575-6679
Reference # 2012-22
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped with a 2012 engine certified to a Family Emission Limit (FEL) above the current (Tier 4) standard. (Project Number: CM10/11-6a)
Air District: San Luis Obispo APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3(A)(4)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow engine manufacturers to certify engines above the emission standards, i.e., to a FEL. On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with engines equivalent to previously certified Tier 3 engines, but either produced under the flexibility provisions of the off-road new engine regulations, or certified to a Tier 4 FEL standard. Previously this project was given a case-by-case approval to fund equipment that had a potential to be shipped with a flexibility engine (CBC # 2012-16, Executive Order U-R-004-0461) instead of a true Tier 3 engine (Executive Order U-R-004-0409) as originally contracted. Instead the equipment was delivered with an equivalent engine, but which was certified to a Tier 4 FEL above the standard (Executive Order U-R-004-0456). It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine, with a Tier 3 flexibility engine or Tier 4 FEL engine installed. Eligibility is approved for this equipment utilizing emission factors consistent with the Tier 3 emission levels. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: July 30, 2012
Contact: Dave Salardino (626) 575-6679
Reference # 2012-24
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Number: 13Moy36 – Unit 2)
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 10, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2012-30
Request: Request to use Tier 1 emission factors to calculate the emission reductions for an off-road repower project in which the equipment was produced under the flexibility provisions. (Project Number: CMF13-102)
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 7, Section D.1.(F)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Current guidelines state that for baseline equipment originally produced under the “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers,” the baseline emission rates shall be determined by the model year and horsepower rating of the engine. The emission factor is then selected by using the emission factor for the previous applicable Tier emission standard. In this project, the equipment engine was a 2006 model year with a horsepower rating between 130 ≤ kW < 225 (175 ≤ hp < 300). This would indicate that a Tier 3 engine would be the effective standard in place at the time the equipment was produced. Based on the guideline criteria, the baseline emission reduction calculations would be based on Tier 2 standard, the previous applicable emission standard. When the air district pre-inspected the equipment, the emission control information label confirmed that the baseline equipment was produced under the flex provisions and that the reference engine family listed on the emission label indicated that the family was certified to the Tier 1 standards. Since the project will realize emission reductions based upon repowering an engine meeting the Tier 1 standards to an engine meeting the Tier 3 standards, this request is approved.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 6, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2012-34
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Number: CMP 13-34)
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered early in 2012, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 20, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2012-39
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Numbers: C-7859-A Todd Ventura; C-8692-A Florencio Cruz)
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 2, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference # 2012-36
Request: Allow the electrification of three rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes with a 16 year project life while the existing diesel engines remain installed and operational for a limited number of hours each year. (Project #17)
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 7, Section D.2 & Chapter 3, Section BB.4
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines currently allows up to a 7 year project life for a repower only project, based on a diesel-to-diesel repower. The district provided justification of a 16 year project life for the electrification of three rubber tired gantry cranes that are currently equipped with diesel engines, citing electrical power installations of this type typically have an expected life of 20+ years. Furthermore, the district also requested a deviation from the engine destruction requirement because the diesel engines will still be necessary for minimal propulsion activities for maintenance and minor operating purposes. Staff has approved these aspects of this project contingent on the applicant and/or district meeting the following conditions:
  1. All cargo handling equipment must be in compliance with the regulatory requirements.
  2. Hour meters must be maintained on the RTG crane diesel engines.
  3. The maximum limit on each diesel engine usage (30 hours annually based on a rolling three year average) must be stated in the contract and deducted from calculated emission reductions.
  4. The contract must include relevant minimum contract requirements, specified in Chapter 3, Section Z of the 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, including but not limited to Section Z.6.(C) and Section Z.6.(D)(2).

Eligible cost include the cable reel system, power trenches, electrical material needed to connect the substation to the crane (e.g. cable connectors, cable drum, power junction, conduits), retrofit installation costs (e.g. engineering, city approval, etc.), partial cost of substation transformer (consistent with Chapter 12, Section C.6.(D)) , and installation of a vault to house electrical items (includes electrical and civil work). Note this approval covers the three RTG cranes listed below:
  • Equipment ID: T-12, Serial Number: 7WG04138
  • Equipment ID: T-13, Serial Number: 7WG02958
  • Equipment ID: T-14, Serial Number: 7WG03016

This approval does not constitute a blanket approval for all projects similar to this one. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 8, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference # 2012-42
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Number: C-8371 John Romanini & Sons)
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered early in 2012, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 15, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2012-46
Request: Allow for funding of two pieces of off-road equipment shipped in 2012 with flexibility engines. (Project Number: 13MOY18 – Unit 1 and Unit 2)
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: November 16, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2012-49
Request: Allow for funding of an off-road piece of equipment that was shipped in 2012 with a flexibility engine. (Project Number: CMP 13-31)
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(A)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The off-road new engine regulations include provisions that allow equipment manufacturers (often called original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) to build new equipment with newly manufactured engines that meet previous tier emission standards. These provisions are called “flexibility provisions for equipment manufacturers.” On January 1, 2012, new Tier 4 emissions standards took effect for engines 75 to 175 horsepower. As a result, some new equipment is being produced with flexibility engines that meet the Tier 3 emission standard levels. It has been noted that for equipment ordered around January 1, it is difficult to know whether the off-road equipment would be shipped with a new true Tier 3 engine rather than equipment with a Tier 3 flexibility engine installed. To account for this situation, ARB notified air districts that for contracts entered into during this time of transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4 standards, case-by-case requests would be considered for projects where equipment with flexibility engines were delivered to dealers when districts and applicants had an expectation that the equipment would be shipped with true Tier 3 engines.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 18, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2012-50
Request: Allow replacement of existing 78 horsepower (hp) tractor with a tractor whose engine (115 hp) is greater than 125 percent of the original engine hp. (Project Number 14MOY11)
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.3.(D)
ARB Action: No action / No CBC needed

Determination: The district received manufacturer documentation of the availability of equipment meeting the current Tier in the equipment configuration needed to perform tasks required by applicant. The documentation shows the replacement equipment will perform equivalent functions of the old equipment. Guideline criteria allow for air district discretion to approve funding for equipment where the horsepower increase is greater than 25 percent in instances where equipment in the old horsepower range is not available or the new higher horsepower equipment will result in equal or less annual emissions. With the documentation obtained by district staff included in the project file, no approval is required for this project and is eligible provided all other applicable guideline criteria are met.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 18, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2013-25
Request: Allow calculation of emission reductions using an unadjusted load factor for an off-road equipment replacement project in which a 370 horsepower Tier 1 crawler tractor is replaced with a 235 horsepower interim Tier 4 Alt NOx hybrid crawler tractor. (Project Number TBD-CM13078)
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Appendix C, Section B.(5)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: According to the guidelines, for projects where the horsepower of the baseline and reduced technology differ by more than 25 percent, the load factor must be adjusted to account for the work performed by engines with different horsepower. In this case, the applicant proposes to replace a higher horsepower crawler tractor with a lower horsepower hybrid crawler tractor. The district received documentation that the replacement equipment can perform the same work as the baseline equipment due to the nature of the work and the design of the hybrid system. Based upon this justification, the emission reductions may be calculated for this project without adjustment to the replacement equipment load factor. Please note additional thorough analysis of off-road hybrid systems is needed to fully understand the emission benefits of such systems. As such, the treatment of emission benefits within the Carl Moyer Program for off-road hybrid projects may change in the future as a result of subsequent studies and analysis.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 26, 2013
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2013-27
Request: Allow calculation of emission reductions using an unadjusted load factor and allow payment of original grant amount for an off-road equipment replacement project in which a 455 horsepower uncontrolled excavator is replaced with a 321 horsepower interim Tier 4 Alt NOx hybrid excavator. (Project Number CMF13-110)
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Appendix C, Section B.(5)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: According to the guidelines, for projects where the horsepower of the baseline and reduced technology differ by more than 25 percent, the load factor must be adjusted to account for the work performed by engines with different horsepower. For this project, the grantee would like to purchase an alternative hybrid excavator with lower horsepower than the original contracted higher horsepower excavator. In addition, the district would like to pay the grantee the original contracted grant amount for the hybrid replacement equipment. The district received documentation that the replacement equipment can perform the same work as the baseline equipment due to the nature of the work and the design of the hybrid system. Based upon this justification, the emission reductions may be calculated for this project without adjustment to the replacement equipment load factor. With the unadjusted load factor used in the updated emission reduction calculations, original grant amount is below the applicable cost-effectiveness limit and is lower than the maximum allowable grant. As such, the district may pay the original contract amount. The project contract must be amended to reflect the lower horsepower hybrid equipment. Please note additional thorough analysis of off-road hybrid systems is needed to fully understand the emission benefits of such systems. As such, the treatment of emission benefits within the Carl Moyer Program for off-road hybrid projects may change in the future as a result of subsequent studies and analysis.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 3, 2013
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2013-29
Request: Allow replacement of three uncontrolled diesel forklifts with three Tier 4 diesel forklifts using up to a maximum project life of 5 years. (Project Number 14MOY44)
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.1(C)(1)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The air district received documentation stating that the existing diesel forklifts were used for material handling primarily to handle lumber, unload trailers, loading racks and loading trucks and are not classified as rough terrain class 7 forklifts. (Per the Guidelines, diesel rough terrain forklifts are allowed a maximum project life of 3 years). Based upon the information provided and due to how the equipment is used, it is acceptable to use up to a maximum project life of 5 years consistent with class 5 diesel industrial forklifts. In addition, the emission reduction calculations must use load factors associated with forklifts in industrial applications.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 10, 2013
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2013-40
Request: Allow replacement of an existing tractor and self-propelled swather with a tractor and swather attachment. (Project Number AV0114#RR)
Air District: Antelope Valley AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 9, Section C.1.(F) and Section C.3.(C)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines state “only the attachments normally sold with the original equipment, as determined by the district, are eligible for reimbursement on the replacement equipment.” In this case two vehicles, a tractor and a swather will be replaced by a tractor with a swather attachment. This is consistent with guideline criteria that “the replacement equipment must execute the same job as the old equipment” while achieving the additional emission benefits by retiring two pieces of equipment.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 16, 2013
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2013-42
Request: Allow a 10 year project life for the replacement of three uncontrolled diesel ground support equipment (GSE) with three electric GSE. (Project Number: 15MOY18)
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 8, Section D.1(A)(1); Chapter 9, Sections C.1(C)(1) and C.1(C)(4)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: : The district requests approval to allow the replacement of three uncontrolled diesel GSE with three electric GSE utilizing a project life of 10 years. The district notes that the similar electric GSE have operated for over 10 years in the applicant's fleet. This is consistent with Chapter 8, Section D.1(A)(1), which allows for up to 10 years for a new electric purchase of off-road equipment.

A 10 year project life is approved based on the requirement that the emission reductions are determined using on a "split project life," as described in Chapter 9, Section C.1.(C)(4). Chapter 9, Section C.1(C)(1) allows a maximum project life of five years for the replacement of a diesel GSE with a new diesel-fueled GSE. The extension of the project life by an additional five years is justified so long as the additional emissions reductions are based on the reductions achieved from a new Tier 4 "Alternate NOx" diesel engine compared to zero-emission electric equipment.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effective limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for this project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 24, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485

Shrink


Locomotives (8) - Updated September 16, 2014


Reference #2010-25
Request: Allow use of alternative fuel consumption rate factor of 18 bhp-hr/gal for switch locomotive.
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2008) Appendix B, Table B-25 (updated 3/10)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: The accepted fuel consumption rate factor for switch locomotives represents a blend of factors from a wide variety of locomotives used for switching nationwide.  The District has provided BSFC and duty cycle data for the subject locomotives that substantiates the use of a larger fuel consumption rate factor of 18 bhp-hr/gal.

Determination Date: August 4, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2010-28
Request:
Allow work to commence on project prior to certification of locomotive engines (locomotive remanufacture kit).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2008) Chapter 8, Section IV, (d);

Part III (Program Administration), Section 32.

ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: The proposed project includes use of locomotive engines that are not yet certified.  Due to the nature of locomotive certification and the limited use of this particular engine in this particular application, practical considerations require at least one locomotive to be remanufactured prior to certification for emission testing purposes.  The contractual agreement may allow the applicant to commence work at the applicant’s own risk prior to EPA emissions certification of this equipment.  The District shall structure the agreement to prevent the expenditure of any Moyer funds in the event that the engines are not certified for any reason and there shall be no payment of any kind prior to the engine manufacturer receiving EPA emissions certification for the engine in the installed configuration.  If the certification emission levels are not equal to or lower than the levels used to determine eligibility and the contracted funding amount, the contract must be amended to reflect the lower updated funding amounts. No funding of any kind is allowed prior to certification, regardless of the allowance to commence work at the applicant’s risk prior to EPA certification.

Determination Date: August 4, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2010-26
Request:
Allow use of hours in grant agreement for project activity data for AESS Idle Limiting Device (ILD) on CALTRANS commuter locomotive. Project VET-07-0148.
Air District: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2005) Chapter 8, Section V, (A)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Per the guidelines, ILD emission reductions are normally calculated based on the assumption that annual fuel consumption will be reduced by approximately 3%, in the absence of better data. Per the application, the annual fuel consumption of these locomotives is 327,000 gallons per year, and 3$ fuel saved would be 9,810 gallons, which is 3,270 hours of idle reduced per year at 3 gallons per hour. However, the District used 1,426 hours per year in the agreement based on data provided by the applicant and derived from actual locomotive in-use data. The 1,426 hours included in the agreement is both more conservative than the standard methodology, and based on data measured directly from the equipment. Staff notes that fuel saved by the AESS is also available from the EMU, but hours is a more direct measurement of this type of activity.

Determination Date: September 23, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2010-29
Request: Allow re-purposing of baseline Tier II locomotive engines from proposed PHL project in other Moyer projects within the state.
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2008) Part III (Program Administration), Section 31
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: The baseline engines are Tier II with substantial remaining useful life and relatively low emissions compared to the typical existing fleet of locomotive switch engines of similar power. Replacement of other existing uncontrolled engines in other applications at the ports or elsewhere in the state, instead of destroying the engines as required by the guidelines, could potentially double the emission reductions from the proposed project and significantly improve the overall cost effectiveness. Leveraging these emission reductions would yield a substantially more effective and responsible use of state funds. The District shall expend every reasonable effort to re-purpose the baseline engines elsewhere within the District or state in order to maximize the efficiency of state emission reduction incentive funds. Any additional emission reductions generated anywhere in the state by the repurposing of these engines may be used to calculate the total cost effectiveness for the entire project and may, therefore, be used to allow additional funding for the project. Such calculations of additional cost effectiveness must be approved by ARB staff.

Determination Date: October 1, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516

Reference #2011-45
Request: Allow funding of eight wayside power connections to replace the use of head end power (HEP) engines to supply hotel power for commuter trains during layovers (Project VET-11-0177).
Air District: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 11, Sections A and D.6.
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Wayside power would enable potentially significant emission reductions by providing plug-in power and eliminating the use of the on-board HEPs while in the station during layover. As a surplus source of emission reductions, wayside power is eligible and remains subject to all other applicable sections of the guidelines, including cost effectiveness.

District staff should exercise caution and due diligence with respect to the project, grant agreement and activity monitoring/reporting because the project applicant does not operate or control the source of emission reductions.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: October 26, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-43
Request: Allow funding of wayside power connections to replace the use of head end power (HEP) engines to supply hotel power for commuter trains during layovers (Project 14MOYL1).
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 11, Sections A and D.6.
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Wayside power would enable potentially significant emission reductions by providing plug-in power and eliminating the use of the on-board HEPs while in the station during layover. As a surplus source of emission reductions, wayside power is eligible and remains subject to all other applicable sections of the guidelines, including cost effectiveness.

Equipment eligible for funding includes; transformer (as required to modify the available grid voltage to the requirements of the train), and all equipment connected to the secondary side of the transformer (ex; switch gear, conduit, wire, wayside power cabinet, and cables required to connect to the train). Installation costs for eligible equipment are also eligible expenses, including labor, materials and professional design costs.

District staff should exercise caution and due diligence with respect to the project, grant agreement and activity monitoring/reporting since mutual cooperation is required by multiple entities (rail operator, station operator, etc.) in order to realize the emission benefits.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: November 2, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2013-10
Request: 1) Allow work to commence on project prior to certification or verification of locomotives and, 2) allow existing baseline locomotives to be retained for LNG demonstration project
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 2 (General Criteria), Section G, Section Z, Section AA and Section DD; Chapter 3 (Program Administration), Section BB.4; Chapter 11 (Locomotives), Section D.2.(A) and (B)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Proposed grant is for up to $52M in local AB 923 funds for up to 20 Tier 4 passenger locomotives at a cost of $6,295,000 each

1)The proposed project includes purchase of locomotives that are not yet certified. Due to the nature of locomotive construction, manufacture, and emission testing procedures, practical considerations generally require at least one locomotive to be manufactured prior to certification or verification for emission testing purposes. The ARB approves the District’s request that the grant agreement for this proposed project allow the applicant to commence work at the applicant’s own risk prior to emissions certification or verification of this equipment with the following conditions:

  • The District shall structure the agreement to prevent the expenditure of any funds until after the locomotives are certified or verified.

  • If the locomotives are not ultimately certified or verified to meet Tier 4 standards, then the district must take appropriate action to ensure the project still meets all program goals and cost effectiveness requirements. Mitigation measures may include a lower grant payment or no payment as determined by the District in accordance with Moyer Guidelines and authorizing statutes.

  • In the event that US EPA elects to postpone the Tier 4 implementation date and these locomotives are certified to Tier 3 standards with FEL levels equivalent to Tier 4, payment cannot be made by the District for emission reductions to Tier 4 levels unless the ABT credits have been retired or their ownership has been transferred to the District; or the district may elect to pay a lower grant amount based on the actual standard of certification. As explained above, if the certification or verification emission levels are not equal to or lower than the levels used to determine eligibility and the contracted funding amount, the agreement must be amended to reflect any lower updated funding amounts and all program requirements, including limitations due to cost-effectiveness and co-funding must remain satisfied.

  • If the locomotives are sold and released under an EPA issued experimental operating permit, payment may not be made until after subsequent verification or certification of the locomotives is completed by EPA or ARB. No payment of any kind is allowed prior to certification or verification, regardless of the allowance to commence work at the applicant’s risk or the delivery and acceptance of the equipment by the grantee.


2) The proposed project also includes retention of up to five of the existing baseline locomotives for use in alternative fuel, including LNG, demonstration projects in the SCAQMD district. The grant agreement may allow these limited term demonstration projects, but must include a reasonable and finite period of time for the demonstrations.


Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Note this approval is only to allow work to begin on this project prior to equipment certification and allow retention of baseline locomotives for alternative fuel demonstration projects; it does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to all applicable guidelines and statutes, including cost-effectiveness and co-funding limitations, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: April 18, 2013
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2014-21
Request: Allow use of Megawatt-hours instead of gallons as an alternative measure of locomotive usage for reporting purposes only. This allowance would apply to the six Union Pacific switcher locomotives (UPY894, UPY895, UPY896, UPY897, UPY898, UPY899) currently under contract and located at the Roseville Yard. Project #'s: VET-06-0255-A, VET-08-0059-A,and VET-05-0068-A
Air District: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2005, Chapter 8, Section V.A, page VIII-10, and 2008, Chapter 8, Section IV.(a)(4), page VIII-5
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Locomotive emission reductions were originally calculated based on fuel consumption (gallons). To validate the use of an alternative method, the grantee provided the air district with measurements of megawatt-hour and the equivalent fuel consumption readings executed simultaneously for various switcher locomotives over a specific period of time. This approach provided a mechanism to correlate how many average megawatt-hours were generated based on a specific amount of fuel consumed. The analysis indicated that the switchers in the Roseville Yard average usage is 149 gallons of diesel per one megawatt-hour of electricity generated (149 gallons/Megawatt-hour).

The methodology used by the grantee is reasonable for estimating fuel consumption based on megawatt-hours generated for these locomotives, in order to report usage per the contract requirement. However, it should be noted that, while fuel is consumed during idle,there are no megawatt-hours generated during idling operations. As such, the analysis more accurately provides a conversion factor of 149 gallons/(Megawatt-hour plus Idle).

Determination Date: September 16, 2014
Contact: Adriana Smith (916) 323-5450

Shrink


Marine Vessels (61) - Updated September 2, 2014


Reference # 2010-04
Request: Eligibility Consideration of Surplus Emissions from Supply Boats
Air District: Santa Barbara County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Program, Chapter II, Section (b), (h); Chapter IX; Section IV (b)(2);
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The District requested assistance in determining if supply boat emissions are surplus, and therefore, eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding. The supply boats are not subject to the Commercial Harbor Craft Rule (adopted November 2007) and are not specifically named in a platform permit. However, the supply boats are included in a local air pollution control district permitted facility monitoring plan and are allowed to operate with operational limits of 8.4 g/bhp-hr NOx, 0.42 g/bhp-hr ROG, 0.79 g/bhp-hr PM. The district confirms compliance with these limits with source test data.

Since the supply boats are not subject to the Commercial Harbor Craft Rule, they are eligible for funding provided they are also surplus to the district’s local requirements. In this case, the supply boats must be in compliance with district’s permit monitoring plan and the repowered engine must meet the operational limit for NOx that is at least 15 percent below the baseline engine. When determining cost effectiveness and eligibility, the baseline engine would be represented by operational limits in the monitoring plan. For a Tier 2 engine, 751 horsepower or greater, using the emission factors in Table B-21b, there is a slight increase in ROG emissions. If the supply boat does not meet the facility operational limits for ROG, the permitted entity must provide emissions offset to ensure there is no net increase in emissions at the facility.

This project is approved for a case by case determination and is overall cost effective. If modifications to the Commercial Harbor Craft Rule are adopted that affect the surplus emissions aspect of the project, a grant must be executed for the project before the rule has been adopted to remain eligible for funding. To accurately enter the case specifics of this type of project, non-calculation entry in the CARL database is necessary.

Determination Date: Feb. 1, 2010
Contact: Laura Zaremba-Schmidt (626) 459-4320
Reference # 2010-17
Request: At the request of the District, allow baseline engines in a Year 11 tugboat project be used by a third party to participate in fuel testing, prior to being scrapped as required in the Moyer Guidelines.  The replaced engines would be scrapped prior to the contract’s deadline for the repowered tugboats to be in service of 12/30/10, and before the Moyer applicant would be paid for the repowers.
Air District: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter IX.
ARB Action:
Case-by-case approval is not necessary.

Determination: This request is allowable, and a case-by-case approval is not necessary, as long as the contract follows the Moyer Guidelines.
    Requirements Upon Approval
  • The Moyer applicant can’t be paid for the engine repower until the replaced engines are scrapped.

  • If the replaced engines are not scrapped by the contract deadline of 12/30/2010, the project is ineligible for Moyer funding.

    Suggestions for the District
  • Verify that the Moyer applicant is not being paid by the fuel manufacturer.

  • Talk to the Moyer applicant and the fuel manufacturer to determine where the fuel manufacturer is in ARB’s fuel verification process to make sure they are confident that they can finish testing by 12/30/2010.

Determination Date: June 3, 2010
Contact: Margo Eaddy (626) 575-6775
Reference # 2010-36
Request:
Funding eligibility for marine vessel electrification
Air District: Santa Barbara County APCD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter II(q), and Chapter IX, Section II (Maximum Eligible Funding Amounts), and Table 9-2
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: Proposed project is electric repower of 26 foot, 17,000 lb displacement, 36Hp diesel harbor craft (water taxi/tour boat) commonly known as Lil' Toot. There are currently no explicit guidelines for a project of this kind. The emission reductions from the proposed project would be both surplus to existing regulations and quantifiable and therefore eligible for funding. Eligibility shall be similar to other repower and electrification projects at 85% funding. Note also that the project is subject to applicable cost effectiveness and all other applicable guidelines and statues regulating Moyer grants.

Important specific details to note for this project are:

(1) Infrastructure, such as a dock mounted battery charger or modifications to shore electric service, is by statute, not eligible for Moyer funds. Other district funds may be appropriate for this expense.

(2) Chapter IX, Section IV (b) Repower, details a list of eligible costs in item (6) and ineligible costs in item (7). In addition to the eligible expenses listed in item (6), batteries, vessel mounted battery chargers, and other expenses directly related to the electric repower are eligible for funding.


Determination Date: September 23, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference # 2010-24
Request: To consider a ship-side project to qualify as complete and operational though the final inspection of the integrated shore power system can not occur prior to January 1, 2011.
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV(c)(8)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: The Carl Moyer Program funded three marine vessel retrofits to be complete and operational no later than January 1, 2011. This project occurs in harmonization with a Goods Movement project that funds the shore-side aspect. Although the ship-side retrofits have been installed and have the capability to utilize shore power, the shore-side berth is not scheduled for completion until late December 2010. Given these vessels operate on a 5 week schedule, the integrated shore power system can not be tested as operation prior to January 1, 2011.

Staff has taken the above into consideration and approves this case-by-case request that the project would qualify as complete and operational if the following conditions are met.

To ensure that each project is complete and operational, the air district must perform the following prior to January 1, 2011:

(1) Determine if the ship-side project is complete and operational (i.e. capable of utilizing shore-side shore power). This determination should be conducted as an inspection aboard each vessel funded with Carl Moyer Program funds in conjunction with documentation from the grantee that the retrofit is operational.

(2) Obtain each vessel's planned schedule of operations from the grantee for the last visit in 2010 and all return visits after January 1, 2011.


To ensure that the integrated shore power system is able to realize the emission reductions as contracted, the air district must perform the following as soon as practically possible after January 1, 2011:

Staff must present upon each vessel's first visit to ensure that each vessel and the shore power terminal are operating as intended. Subsequent visits may be necessary.

Determination Date: September 26, 2010
Contact: Duong Trinh (626) 350-6560
Reference # 2010-52
Request: Funding eligibility for off-road Tier 4i auxiliary engines in marine applications.
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section II (Maximum Eligible Funding Amounts)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: Proposed project is the repowering of marine auxiliary engines with off-road Tier 4i engines. Tier 4i and Tier 4 engines are eligible for the same funding levels as Tier 3 engines.

All projects must still conform to existing surplus rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: November 8, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference # 2010-51
Request: Funding eligibility for unverified marine retrofit
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV (Project Criteria)
ARB Action:
Not Approved

Determination: Proposed project is installation of unverified marine retrofits on three tugboats. In order to be eligible for funding, all equipment must be certified, verified, or otherwise reviewed by appropriate staff or agencies to evaluate claims of emission reductions. The proposed retrofit/re-manufacture kit is currently still under review by ARB staff that has responsibility for marine regulations. This project is not eligible for funding at this time.

Determination Date: December 2, 2010
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference # 2011-01
Request: Review of submitted documentation to demonstrate surplus emission reductions for a shore power project extending beyond 2014.
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV(c)(8)&(9)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination: Terminal activity was submitted for the previous three years (January 2008 through October 2010). Submitted documentation also included a list of vessels that are currently retrofitted and those with plans to be retrofitted in time to meet the requirements of the Shore Power Regulation. Documentation received from the grantee indicates that they are committed to achieving surplus emission reductions of 10 percent beyond that required by the Shore Power Regulation in each of the three implementation phases. The executed contract between the grantee and district must include provisions that if the surplus emission reductions are not achieved, the grantee must return a proportionate amount of funds commensurate with the shortfall in usage to the district (consistent with Section IV(c)(7)).

Furthermore, this case-by-case request is approved with the following condition. Due to the activity requirements of the Shore Power Regulation, the grantee may not request a waiver for underutilization during the contract period (reference the Board approved revisions to the 2008 Guidelines (March 25, 2010), Section 33(d)(4)). The district must include language in the contract prohibiting the grantee from obtaining a waiver from the required contract usage.

Determination Date: January 20, 2011
Contact: Duong Trinh (626) 350-6560
Reference # 2011-02
Request: Use of an off-road engine in a marine propulsion application not meeting the requirements of U.S. EPA Part 1042.605
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guideline Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV(a)(3)
ARB Action:
Not Approved

Determination: ARB has issued previous guidance (Mail-out #MSC 09-05) allowing the use of an off-road engine as a repower solution in either a marine auxiliary or propulsion engine application as long as it meets the provisions of U.S. EPA Part 1042-605. In this case, however, due to concerns including the potential for increase engine emissions from engine modifications or operation under a marine duty cycle, labeling requirements, engine warranty, and other safety issues, the use of off-road engines that do not meet the federal requirements referenced above are not eligible for Carl Moyer Program funding in a marine propulsion application.

Determination Date: January 24, 2011
Contact: Duong Trinh (626) 350-6560
Reference # 2011-08
Request: Approve funding eligibility of two marine repower projects, in which during the post-inspection the inspector was unable to view the destroyed engines of the vessels (SCAQMD Projects #10649 and #10604).
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter IX, Section IV(b)(8) and Part III, Section 31(c)
ARB Action:
Approved

Determination:The baseline engines were scrapped prior to the inspector's visit to the licensed DMV dismantler to visually inspect the destroyed engines. However, the District received engine destruction documentation from the dismantler. To protect against similar issues in the future, the District will convene a staff meeting with their inspectors and the project officers and emphasize this case and ask them to be more active in communicating the Guideline requirements both to the contractors and the dismantlers.

Determination Date: March 2, 2011
Contact: Margo Eaddy (626) 575-6775
Reference #2011-14
Request: Allow funding of design and engineering costs for shore power at Port of Oakland (Project #10MSIF-SP-1).
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV(c)(1) and Section IV(c)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: The 2008 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines state, “Up to 50% of the total cost of a shore power transformer (whether on board the vessel or at dock) is eligible for Carl Moyer funding.” Any costs directly related to the transformer and its installation may reasonably be included in the total cost, such as labor for installation, and costs of site preparation. However, “The Carl Moyer Program shall not pay for modifications or enhancements made to the shore-side electrical infrastructure needed to bring power to the terminal.” Design and engineering costs associated with the transformer are considered professional labor costs required to complete the installation and are eligible for funding. Case-by-case decisions are project specific and may not be applicable to other projects.

Determination Date: March 11, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2011-15
Request: Eligibility of repower of marine auxiliary engines over 600kW in Hornblower Inspiration (project #CMF11/12-228).
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2008) Chapter IX, Section IV(a)(10)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: U.S. EPA marine engine regulations require the use of a certified remanufacture kit, if available, at any remanufacture for engines over 600kW (800 hp). Guidelines require case-by-case approval for these engines because the EPA requirement could mandate adjustment of the baseline to the remanufactured emissions level. Repowers are not subject to the EPA requirement of using a certified remanufacture kit. The baseline engines are not proposed to be remanufactured and there is no calendar requirement to remanufacture, nor is there a certified remanufacture kit available. The owner of this vessel proposes repowering these auxiliary generators with lower emission, lower power engines due to repurposing of the vessel.

Determination Date: March 17, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2011-53
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (FV Ossian [Project CMP 13-8], FV Fishwish [Project CMP 12-01], FV Rose Marie [CMP 12-52])
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: October 13, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2011-54
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (60 vessels total; Victoria [Project #3], Sea Hawk [Project #4], Cheri [Project #7], Victory [Project #8], Kim Than [Project #9], Horizon [Project #11], Skipjack [Project #12], Bottom Scratcher [Project #13], San Pedro Pride [Project #14], Sunshine [Project #15], Pacific Viking [Project #16], Truline [Project #17], Aahi [Project #18], Starlight [Project #20], Alexa Marie [Project #23], Provider [Project #25], Matt Walsh [Project #27], Than Ha [Project #32], Saigon [Project #33], Blue Dragon [Project #35], Pacific Leader [Project #37], Blackbeard [Project #39], Reel Loco [Project #40], Rescue 2 [Project #41], Guardian [Project #42], San Pedro [Project #43], King Neptune [Project #44], Sampson [Project #45], Pt. Fermin [Project #46], Pointe Vicente [Project #48], Harbor Patrol #4 [Project #49], Harbor Patrol #1 [Project #50], Harbor Patrol #7 [Project #51], Harbor Patrol #3 [Project #52], Two Harbors [Project #57], Second Stage [Project #59], Paradiso [Project #61], Bad Influence [Project #64], Pedro Bandit [Project #65], Eileen [Project #74], Ocean Adventure [Project #75], Mona Lisa [Project #76], New Del Mar [Project #77], Marlin [Project #78], Fiesta [Project #79], Maria T [Project #80], Helana [Project #81], Tortuga, [Project #82, Santa Maria [Project #83], Dana Pride [Project #84], Liberty [Project #86], Dead or Alive [Project #87], Rebel II [Project #88], Tuffy II [Project #89], Donz Rig [Project #91], Dragon [Project #92], Sun Diver [Project #93], Mr C [Project #95], Seacret [Project #96], Chelsea Marie [Project #101] )
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: October 13, 2011
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-02
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (Sea Adventure II [Project CMF11/12.2-204], Harbor Captain [Project CMF11/12.2-205])
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: January 26, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-03
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (Dolphin II [Project CMF11/12.2-208], Her Grace [Project CMF11/12.2-201], Sea Haven [Project CMF11/12.2-202])
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: January 31, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-04
Request:Eligibility of marine transmissions (D/V Marissa [Project CMF11/12.2-210])
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: February 27, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-05
Request: Allow repower of vessels with marine auxiliary engines less that 100 hp (75kW) that meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 marine emission standards. (Project Numbers: CMF11/12.2-201 “Her Grace”; CMF11/12.2-202 “Sea Haven”; CMF11/12.2-203 “Ana Maria”))
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(A)(2)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: For marine repower projects, Moyer guidelines require engines less than or equal to 100 hp (75kW) that are installed after January 1, 2009 to meet U.S. EPA Tier 3 marine standards unless it can be demonstrated that a Tier 3 engine is unavailable or infeasible. This requirement does not accurately reflect that U.S. EPA marine engine standards are based upon not only power but engine displacement. For those engines less than 100 hp (75 kW) and with a displacement 0.9 and 1.2 liters/cylinder (l/cyl.), Tier 3 standards are not applicable until 2013. District staff has requested that the above listed projects be repowered with Tier 2 engines in light of the required applicable emission standards because these engines are between 0.9 and 1.2 l/cyl. At the next opportunity, ARB will update the guideline criteria where necessary to clarify and accurately reflect the true federal standards.

Determination Date: March 6, 2012
Contact: Rhonda Runyon (626) 350-6551
Reference #2012-08
Request: Eligibility and calculation methodology for commercial harbor craft shore power (Pacific Tug CMF11/12.2-209)
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Guidelines, Chapter 12, Section C (6) and Appendix D
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Shore power for commercial harbor craft may be a potential source of emission reductions by eliminating the use of on-board diesel generators while at dock. These are generally surplus emission reductions, unless subject to local rule, because commercial harbor craft are not subject to the shore power regulations applicable to larger, ocean-going cargo and passenger cruise vessels.

Shore power for commercial harbor craft is eligible for Moyer Program funding and is subject to all applicable sections of the guidelines, including, but not limited to;

  • Maximum eligible funding limits of 100% for non-transformer expenses on board the vessel, 50% for expenses on the dock between the vessel and the transformer, and 50% for transformers on the vessel or dock.

  • Applicants for commercial harbor craft shore power do not need to submit a terminal plan or necessarily submit the entire fleet roster, since those requirements are only for ocean going vessels subject to the shore power regulations.

  • The emission factors for shore power shown in Appendix D, Table D-22 were derived from surveys of larger ocean going vessels and are generally not appropriate for harbor craft. Instead, the appropriate emission factors from Table D-20a or Table D20b should be used.

  • Emission reduction calculations should follow the framework and equations used for auxiliary repowers.

  • Proposed method to estimate potential hours of connection to shore power by calculating the difference between the auxiliary generator engine hours and propulsion engine hours is acceptable (assuming that the propulsion engines are generally not operated at the dock for significant periods of time).

  • Proposed 20% adjustment to estimated potential hours of connection to account for the time to connect/disconnect and/or short stops at the dock without connecting is acceptable.

  • Note that only generator activity of a commercial nature is eligible for consideration; personal or residential use after hours for smaller vessels is not eligible.

  • Grant agreement must contain the applicant’s commitment in kW-hrs of electric power, and a pro-rated amount of the funding must be returned in the event of underutilization unless the district chooses to pursue other remedies as described in the guidelines.

  • A kW-hr meter must be provided for the vessel connection(s) for activity reporting.

  • The number of kW-hrs in the grant agreement must be equivalent to the number of generator shut down hours used in the emission reduction estimate and cost-effectiveness calculations.


Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: April 2, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-10
Request:Eligibility of marine transmissions (Marisa Emi [Project CMF11-12.2-213], Saronga [Project CMF11-12.2-212])
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Determination Date: April 5, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-13
Request:Eligibility of marine transmissions (PacMan [Project 13MOY39])
Air District: BAAQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: April 18, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-09
Request: Donation of Baseline Engine of Historical Interest to Museum (Rival [CMF 12-209])
Air District: San Diego APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section BB (4)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Guidelines require destruction of baseline engines in order to ensure emission reductions are real. Proposed limited museum exhibit use of less than three hours per year is consistent with intent of engine destruction, but will allow preservation of early diesel history.

An agreement is required between the District and the Antique Gas and Steam Museum to ensure use is limited and prevent subsequent resale and re-use. The following terms are required in the agreement:

  • The engine must be identified by engine serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model, engine model year, engine displacement, and previous owner.

  • Museum must agree to never transfer ownership of the engines to any other entity.

  • If the engine is deemed surplus for any reason, it must be destroyed, and the agreement must describe how the engine will be destroyed, and the method of destruction must match the method of destruction that the SDAPCD requires for its Carl Moyer Program.

  • Museum must agree to only allow the engines to be used for instructional or demonstration purposes.

  • Museum must agree to never allow the engines to be used in vehicles or equipment that operate outside of the museum's facilities.

  • Museum must agree to never allow the engines to do work in California, other than being used for instructional or demonstration purposes at the museum's facilities.


Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Note this approval is only for the project listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control regulations.

Determination Date: April 18, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-14
Request:Eligibility of marine transmissions (Aliotti Bros. skiff [M-224]; Charlie Noble [M-229])
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: April 26, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-18
Request:Eligibility of marine transmission (Vinland [M-231])
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: June 21, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-19
Request:Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Pacific Seas [CMP 14-4])
Air District: North Coast Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: July 3, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-26
Request:Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Imperial [13MOY136], and F/V Seastar [13MOY98])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 20, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-25
Request:Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Jumpin Jack [CMP 14-9])
Air District: North Coast Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 21, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-27
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (R/V Robert G. Brownlee [13Moy91])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 28, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-28
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Viking [CMP 14-7])
Air District: North Coast Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved.

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 28, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2012-31
Request:Eligibility of marine transmission (34 vessels total: San Pedro Special [Project #24A]; St. Katherine [Project #24B]; St. Katherine Skiff [Project#24C]; Sea Dragon [Project #29]; Playhouse [Project #31]; Speculator [Project #34]; Lucky Marie [Project #3]; Katalina Phan [Project #6]; Washington [Project #7]; Osprey [Project #8]; Pioneer [Project #10]; Betty-G [Project #11]; Black Pearl [Project #15]; Don Ciccio [Project #16]; Elizabeth M. [Project #18]; Keith K. [Project #19]; Westerly [Project #20]; Groucho [Project #25]; Sharon Leigh [Project #26]; Challenger [Project #28]; Great Escape [Project #30]; Scott [Project #32]; Triton [Project #38]; Island Clipper [Project #40]; Breakaway[Project #45]; Odyssey [Project #46]; Highliner [Project #51]; Kathy Jean [Project #54]; In-Seine [Project #56]; Caroline [Project #59]; Epic [Project #63]; Sundiver II [Project #68]; Ocean Sentinel [Project #83]; Tonnage [Project #87])
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 7, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2012-35
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (Craig G [CMF 13-203])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 25, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2012-40
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (MV Rhumb Punch [Project 13-205], FV Blue Sky [Project 13-204])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 5, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-41
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (MV Taylor Anne II [Project 14MOY4], MV Stella Lind [Project 14MOY7])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 5, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-44
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (FV EBBCO [CMF13-206]; FV Sea Nag [CMF13-207]; FV Dolphin II [CMF13-209])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: November 1, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2012-48
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (FV Josie Lynn [CMF13-210]; FV Constitution Charters [CMF13-208])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 20, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2012-51
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (FV Osprey [14MOY18])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmission. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 24, 2012
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2012-52
Request: Allow the adjustment of load factors when the horsepower difference between the baseline and replacement engines is less than 25 percent (FV Saronga [CMF11-12.2-212])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(B)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district has a contract for a marine repower for the vessel Saronga that was approved for two engine repowers (one main, one auxiliary) in April 2012. The contractor completed the auxiliary engine repower (existing uncontrolled repowered to Tier 3 standards) prior to June 30, 2012, but requested additional time to complete the main engine repower after fishing season is over. During the dismantling of the existing main engine, the contractor discovered significant damage to the vessel hull which needed to be fixed, and as a result of the high costs involved, the owner decided to cancel all the work on the main engine repower. Consequently, the current contract contains only the auxiliary engine.

Chapter 12, Section C.2.(B) of the 2011 Carl Moyer Guideline (Guidelines) states that “for all marine repower projects, the replacement engine must provide at least 15 percent NOx reduction relative to the baseline engine.” The original cost-effectiveness calculations in CARL for the main and aux engine repowers confirmed a reduction of NOx emissions of over 15 percent. However, once the main engine was removed, the reduction in CARL decreased to 6 percent.

Per the Guidelines, projects in which the horsepower of the baseline technology and reduced technology are different by more than 25 percent, the load factor must be adjusted. As such, CARL did not automatically adjust the load factor in the replacement auxiliary engine because the horsepower difference was only 20 percent. However, upon a closer examination of the project, specifically the usage of the engines and the amount of power required for their operation, district staff concluded that the power required for both the baseline and replacement engines are essentially the same as a result of the low horsepower ratings of the engines. Consequently, the district believes the load factor should be adjusted for this project. When the replacement load factor is adjusted, the NOx emission reduction is 21 percent. The Guidelines does not prohibit districts from adjusting the load factors in cases where the horsepower difference is less than 25 percent. Therefore, no approval is required for this project, and the project is considered eligible provided all other applicable guideline criteria are met and all the relevant documentation is included in the project file.

Please include this reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: December 27, 2012
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-1
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Pacific Pride [Project CMP 14-1])
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: January 22, 2013
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2013-2
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (FV Royal Dawn [CMF13-211])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: January 22, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-03
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Susan Lee [14MOY26])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: January 30, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-06
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Sockeye Summers [CM13-05])
Air District: Northern Sonoma County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: February 27, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-07
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Vessel Mussel Point [14MOY23]; M/V San Joaquin River [14MOY27])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the projects conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and are surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the projects in the CARL database.

Determination Date: March 5, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-08
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Juliet Leigh [CMF14-203])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: March 20, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-11
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V McGhee Marie [CMF14-209])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: April 4, 2013
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2013-13
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Mariana Queen [CMF14-210])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: April 18, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-19
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Golden Bear [13MOY31])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: July 19, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-24
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Fish Taxi [CMF15-201])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Note this approval is only for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project; it is limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: August 28, 2013
Contact: John Ellis (626) 350-6516
Reference #2013-23
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission and propeller (F/V Misty Dawn [14MOY45])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved for marine transmission/Denied for propeller

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. The eligibility of a new propeller is denied because the replacement of propellers occurs frequently during regular maintenance. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 9, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-31
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Salty Lady [14MOY47])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 17, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-32
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Katherine [CMP 15-8])
Air District: North Coast Unified AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 23, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-34
Request: : Eligibility of marine transmissions (46 vessels total: Bugs [Project #1]; Dauntless [Project #4]; Integrity [Project #5]; Obsession [Project #6]; Loren [Project #8]; California [Project #10]; Renegade [Project #11]; Scott K2 [Project #15]; Miss Christi [Project #16]; Fatt Flattie [Project #17]; High Life [Project #18]; Kiwi Magic [Project #22]; Indian [Project #23]; Ocean Angel V [Project #24]; 7064 [Project #25]; Leah Gail [Project #26]; Salt Water Taffy [Project #27]; Scuba Cat [Project #28]; Captain Jack [Project #29]; Lost Boys [Project #34]; Ferrigno Boy [Project #35]; Cape Blanco [Project #36]; Cape Blanco – Skiff [Project #37]; Ferrigno Boy - Net Skiff [Project #38]; Craig G [Project #40]; Vintage [Project #41]; Strata [Project #42]; Miss Deception [Project #46]; New Sunbeam [Project #48]; Asante [Project #52]; Linda Faye [Project #67]; Pt. Vicente [Project #68]; Ashley Robyn [Project #69]; Balboa [Project #70]; Newport [Project #71]; Shannon Rose [Project #72]; Tanker 1 [Project #74]; Sea Pearl [Project #76]; Sea Jade [Project #77]; Paula Ann [Project #92]; Afishinado [Project #93]; Alyssa C. [Project #98]; Pacific Sprit [Project #100]; Sundiver Express [Project #106]; Croacia [Project #108]; Shell Fish [Project #109])
Air District: South Coast AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the projects conform to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and are surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 2, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-36
Request: Eligibility of marine transmissions (M/V Shelter Island; M/V Ballast Point [CMF15-202])
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of new marine transmissions for the vessels listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the projects conform to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and are surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: October 30, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-39
Request: : Eligibility of marine transmission (F/V Ginwood [15MOY51])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: November 20, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2013-41
Request: : Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Sea Wolf [15MOY38])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: November 26, 2013
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-01
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Quinn Delta [15MOY71])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor’s or applicant’s statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: February 13, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-04
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission, propeller, and steering system (F/V Salish Tradition [15MOY77])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved for marine transmission and steering system/ Denied for propeller

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission and steering system for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. The eligibility of a new propeller is denied because the replacement of propellers occurs frequently during regular maintenance. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: March 28, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-06
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Taylor Anne II [15MOY121])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved for marine transmission

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: May 19, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-07
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Stella Lind [15MOY125])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved for marine transmission

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: May 19, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-11
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Hero [15MOY126])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved for marine transmission

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: June 9, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-15
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Fishin' Game [15MOY137])
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbour Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: July 10, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-16
Request: Eligibility of marine transmission (M/V Yaznak [Project #405])
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 12, Section C(2)(D)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Program guidelines state that incidental equipment is an eligible expense when it is a necessary part of the engine repower; and an ineligible expense when it is required for maintenance or repair purposes. Ordinarily, a statement from the vendor or applicant that the new reduced emissions engine is not compatible with the existing baseline transmission is sufficient justification for eligibility; please retain a copy of the vendor's or applicant's statement(s) in the project file.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of a new marine transmission for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Harbor Craft Regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: July 18, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485
Reference #2014-20
Request: Allow the repower of two diesel propulsion engines with one diesel propulsion engine in a marine vessel (M/V Safari [CMP 14-02])
Air District: Mendocino County AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 2, Section T; Chapter 9, Section C.1.(F)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district has requested a marine vessel repower to replace two diesel propulsion engines (Mercury Diesel 3.6L, S/N F0306698 & F03066953, 160 horsepower each) with one diesel propulsion engine (Yanmar 8LV350C, EYDXN4.46D8C, 350 horsepower). Per Chapter 2, Section T, projects that vary from the requirements of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines may be approved on a case-by-case basis if the project is demonstrated to achieve real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, cost-effectiveness emission reduction benefits in California for the full project life. Additionally, Chapter 9, Section C.1.(F) of the 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines allows for the replacement of two (or more) pieces of old, like equipment with one piece of equipment. Therefore, the two for one engine repower is approved. The district shall utilize a summation of the two baseline engine emissions in calculating the project cost-effectiveness.

Please note that this approval is only limited to the eligibility of the two for one engine repower for the vessel listed above and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost-effectiveness limits and all other applicable guidelines and statutes. Furthermore, this approval is predicated on the vessel being surplus to existing emission control rules, including the most recent Commercial Harbor Craft regulation adopted by the Board.

Please include this case-by-case reference number in the comment field for the project in the CARL database.

Determination Date: September 2, 2014
Contact: Dinh Quach (626) 350-6485

Shrink


Agriculture Sources (38) - Updated June 30, 2014


Reference # 2010-03
Request:
Use of fuel usage data instead of hours for determining cost effectiveness of an Agricultural pump repower project
Air District: Santa Barbara County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(a)(8)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The applicant provided the air district two years of historical fuel log entries specific for the baseline agricultural pump engine. The air district provided ARB a two-month sample of fuel log sheets. ARB’s review of the fuel logs indicates that this data is specific to the baseline agricultural pump repower engine. The air district may determine project cost effectiveness based on these fuel records.

Determination Date: Feb. 16, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-06
Request:
Swap the engines required for destruction in two agricultural engine repower projects. Uncontrolled and remotely located engines, exempt from the Stationary Agricultural ATCM, will be destroyed instead of Tier 1 engines.  The Tier 1 engines will be moved and installed at the uncontrolled engines locations. These two projects are under the 2005 Moyer guidelines.
Air District: Lake County AQMD
Guideline Section(s): 2005 Guidelines, Chapter II, Section VIII (D)(Carl Moyer Program Criteria)

2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section V(b)(13)

ARB Action: Approved.  Project not completed with case-by-case approval. Project applicant decided to move forward with the traditional engine repower project without the engine swap.

Determination: The air district submitted project applications, remote location engine maps, and coordinates for the uncontrolled and Tier 1 engines.  The air district is in attainment for all PM and ozone national ambient air quality standards, and as such, has the ability to register remotely located engines exempt from the Stationary Agricultural ATCM. These projects provide additional emission reductions from the cleaner Tier 1 engine operating instead of the exempted uncontrolled engine. The contract will include all three engines. Pre-inspections will include uncontrolled and Tier 1 engines.  Post-inspections will verify the destruction of the uncontrolled engines, the installation and operation of the Tier 1 engines at the remote locations, and the installation and operation of the new Tier 3 engines.  CARL comment box on the engine/equipment page will note the CBC approval, date, engine swap, and that emission reductions were claimed from the Tier 1 to Tier 3 repower.

Moyer funds will only pay for the installation of new, controlled (Tier 3) engines.  Moyer will not claim these additional emission reductions from replacing the uncontrolled engines with the Tier 1 engines. In addition, no Moyer funding will be available in the future for the repowering of the Tier 1 engines not destroyed in the repower projects.

Determination Date: Apr. 5, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-08
Request: Include all of the project’s connecting electric line from the pole to the motor (1200 feet) into the state Moyer funded portion of the grant award for a diesel engine to electric motor repower project. The current Carl Moyer Program Guidelines allow up to 10 feet of connecting electric line to be included into the state funded portion of the project grant award. The requesting air district currently does not have local funds to pay for additional infrastructure costs associated with electric power projects and their local utility does not provide any assistance with the infrastructure costs.
Air District: Lassen County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(a)

Mail-out # MSC 09-05/Advisory 08-009

ARB Action: Not approved

Determination: The air district submitted to ARB the project application, district engine permit, and property map specifying the agricultural engine location. ARB, with input from all the air districts, established the current allowable connecting electric line length cap to provide reasonable state funding allowances for necessary peripheral equipment associated with electric repowers. ARB has determined that, under current Guidelines, the requested amount of connecting line amounts to infrastructure, and thus state funds cannot be used to pay for the requested amount. ARB staff commits to reanalyze the issue of infrastructure versus project costs during the upcoming efforts to revise the Guidelines.

Determination Date: May 5, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-14
Request: Allow Moyer funds for a portable chipper repower project used in logging/forestry operation.
Air District: Northern Sierra AQMD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section III

Mail-out # MSC 10-24 (March 25, 2010 Board approved revisions)

ARB Action: No Action/Does not require case-by-case approval

Determination: This equipment is regulated under the Portable Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), which the Air Resources Board (Board) modified on January 28, 2010 including a one-year extension for uncontrolled equipment/engines that have current and valid registration in the statewide Portable Engine Registration Program (PERP) or with the local air district as of December 31, 2009.  This provision allows a fleet owner to select one uncontrolled engine, or no more than five engines not to exceed 500 hp, to remain in operation until December 31, 2010. 

This equipment also falls under the definition of portable farm equipment as defined in HSC 39011.5 statute. This statute also defines eligible agricultural sources for Moyer funding in Chapter 10.  On March 25, 2010, the Board approved Moyer guideline changes (Mail-out # MSC 10-24), which included language implementing SBX2_3, which allows for Moyer funding of projects up to the compliance date of the applicable regulation.  Together these two Board changes allow this equipment to be eligible. 

The applicant provided the air district copies of the equipment’s PERP registration and a letter certifying that this equipment is the only equipment in their fleet to receive the one-year extension and they will file the PERP certification paper work, when it becomes available.  The district verified that the PERP registration was current and valid for this equipment.  This project must be under a fully executed contract, and the engine must be installed and in operation prior to the revised December 31, 2010 deadline compliance date.  ARB asked the air district when entering this project into CARL to include on the equipment page, comment box “project subject to SBX2_3 and amendments to Portable ATCM adopted January 2010”.  Air districts with similar forestry portable repower projects do not need to request a case-by-case approval.

Determination Date: May 27, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-22
Request: Replace two agricultural pump engines operating one pump, each engine is 200 horsepower or less, with one engine of over 250 horsepower operating the same pump.
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(b);

Part II, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section IV; and Appendix C, Section II.A.1.

ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided an Agricultural Assistance Project application for the diesel engine repower of two engines operating in series to be repowered with one newer engine. The current guidelines do not contain guidance on replacing two engines with one engine and methodology for performing the cost effectiveness analysis.

The district shall utilize an average of the annual usage rates of the baseline engines for the usage rate of the new engine. The annual emissions from each of the baseline engines are to be summed to determine baseline emissions for the project. In addition, the same default load factor should be used in the cost effectiveness calculation for the new and existing engines. In this particular setup the load factor adjustment required per Appendix C, Section II.A.1 is not required for this 2 for 1 engine repower. For this particular project the existing, pre 1970 engines (total rated horsepower of 365) are configured to perform the same work as the considerably smaller-rated horsepower, new engine will perform. The assumption is that the existing two-engine configuration is providing more power than the pumping system requires. Therefore the load factor adjustment is not required for this greater than 25 percent horsepower reduction.

Determination Date: August 18, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-39
Request:
Due to an error in a pre-inspection, allow the District to accept fuel use records and other supporting documentation in lieu of District inspector witnessing agricultural pump engine operation.
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Program Administration Chapter, Section 30(b)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: In a proposed project to repower seven diesel agricultural pumps with electric motors, one baseline engine listed in the application was, in error, not pre-inspected by District staff due to an apparent miscommunication with a ranch hand. Instead, another engine was mistakenly pre-inspected. After the discovery of this error during the post-inspection, the applicant provided the District with past fuel delivery records along with other information that supported that the engine was in operation at the time of the pre-inspection. The District verified that the baseline engine in question was destroyed by the grantee.

Determination Date: September 3, 2010
Contact: Liz Ota (916) 327-9435
Reference # 2010-19
Request:
Utilize Moyer funds for engines owned by an agricultural irrigation district that provides irrigation water for local farms.
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section I, and HSC 39011.5
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: These stationary engines are regulated under the Stationary Engine ATCM. The district provided documentation that these engines irrigate local farmland used to grow crops thus meeting the agricultural operations definition in the Stationary Engine ATCM. Engines subject to this definition are subject to the agricultural provisions of the ATCM. These engines also fall under the definition of Agricultural Sources as defined in HSC 39011.5 statute that defines eligible agricultural sources projects for Moyer funding. Therefore, these engines are eligible for Moyer funding provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria including being surplus to the agricultural provisions of the Stationary Engine ATCM and under the cost effectiveness cap.

Determination Date: September 7, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-33
Request:
Utilize Moyer funds for engines owned by an agricultural service company that provides crop-spraying service for local farms.
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section I, and HSC 39011.5, and Chapter V, sections I and VI
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The applicant for project number, C-3726, provided the district documentation that an agricultural service company owns these sprayer engines and these engines are used 50 percent of the time or more in agricultural use. Engines owned by agricultural service companies do not fall under the agricultural provisions of the Stationary Engine ATCM or under the agricultural sources definition in HSC section 39011.5, but are regulated under the Portable Engine ATCM. These engines meet the farm equipment definition in Chapter V, Section VI and are eligible for funding subject to SBX2_3. These agricultural portable engines will follow the criteria outlined in Chapter X for Moyer funding. Therefore, these engines are eligible for Moyer funding provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria including being surplus to local rules and permit conditions, surplus to the fleet compliance deadlines of the Portable Engine ATCM and under the cost effectiveness cap.

Determination Date: September 28, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-41
Request: Include pump and labor costs associated with the close-couple irrigation pump motor system (VCAPCD Project #12-37 and 12-44).
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(a)(5);

Part II, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section IV

ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Project #12-37 and 12-44 includes a booster pump diesel engine repower with a close-couple motor pump system. The close-couple motor pump system is an integrated system. As such, replacement of the pump is an integral component in the diesel engine repower to electric motor project.

Due to the fact that the purchase costs associated with the motor include the pump as well, these closed-couple motor/pump system costs and associated installation costs are eligible for Agricultural Assistance Program funding costs, provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria, are under the cost effectiveness cap, and are installed and operational prior to 1-1-2011. Costs and labor associated with the plumbing hookup for the new pump are not eligible for Agricultural Assistance Program funding.

Determination Date: October 7, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-49
Request: To include pump and labor costs associated with a “matched-pair” irrigation pump motor system (VCAPCD Project # 11-9) for a diesel engine repower to electric motor project.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(a)(5);

Part II, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section IV

ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The applicant provided documentation that conversion of the existing pump such that it would be compatible with the new electric motor would cost the same as purchasing a new pump specifically designed to work with the new electric motor. The allowance of the pump and associated installation costs are eligible for inclusion into the Agricultural Assistance Program funding costs provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria, are under the cost effectiveness cap, and are installed and operational prior to 1-1-2011. Costs and labor associated with the plumbing hookup for the new pump are not eligible for Moyer grant funding.

Determination Date: October 20, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-46
Request: Include pump and labor costs associated with a submersible irrigation pump motor system (SLOCAPCD Project # CM08/09b).
Air District: San Luis Obispo County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(a)(5)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Project # CM08/09b includes a wellhead diesel pump engine repower with an electric motor submersible pump system. The submersible electric motor/pump system is an integrated system such that the pump and motor are in a single combined housing. As such, replacement of the pump is an integral component in the diesel engine repower to electric motor project.

Due to the fact that the purchase costs associated with the motor include the pump as well, this submersible motor/pump system costs and associated installation costs are eligible for inclusion into the grant funding costs provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria, are under the cost effectiveness cap. The applicant has redesigned the irrigation system resulting in the new required motor horsepower size being significantly smaller than the existing engine. While reducing the cost of the overall project, this results in the need for new plumbing. Thus, ARB will allow the costs and labor associated with the plumbing hookup to be eligible for Moyer grant funding.

Determination Date: October 20, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010-53
Request: Extend the Agricultural Assistance project (#12-45) completion date past the Stationary Engine ATCM compliance date.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section II, Third Bullet
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district has received documentation that the lead time for larger horsepower (hp) sized diesel engines, engines greater than 300 hp, is unusually long due to higher than usual demand. The contract for this irrigation engine repower project was fully executed contract on September 14, 2010 and the engine order placed on September 16, 2010. Since the delivery delay is beyond the control of the applicant, the air district may extend the delivery deadline and installation deadline to February 15, 2011, rather than the existing December 31, 2010 deadline. However, this determination is contingent on the applicant's existing engine receiving an extension from the local air district to operate past the Stationary Engine ATCM compliance deadline.

Documentation from the engine dealer that this engine cannot be delivered prior to December 31, 2010, along with a timeline for delivery and engine installation must be included in the project file.

Determination Date: December 8, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010- 58
Request: Extend the Agricultural Assistance project (#12-44) completion date past the Stationary Engine ATCM compliance date.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section II, Third Bullet
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district is requesting a 30-day extension for this diesel to electric motor repower project. The district has received documentation from the applicant that the project completion was delayed because of weather and utility hookup delays. The contract for this irrigation engine repower project was fully executed on September 14, 2010 after which utility upgrade service was requested. Since the rain associated work delays and utility hook-up schedule are beyond the control of the applicant, the air district may extend the project deadline to January 31, 2011, rather than the existing December 31, 2010 deadline. However, operation of the baseline engines after December 31, 2010 is contingent upon the applicant receiving an extension from the local air district. Otherwise, the baseline engines must be removed from service, and post-inspected by the district by January 1, 2011.

Documentation from the applicant regarding the weather and utility hookup delays of why the new motor cannot be installed prior to December 31, 2010, along with a timeline for work completion and utility hookup schedule must be included in the project file.

Determination Date: December 22, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2010- 59
Request: Extend the Agricultural Assistance project (#12-37) completion date for 90 days past the Stationary Engine ATCM compliance date.
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Agricultural Assistance Program, Section II, Third Bullet
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district is requesting a 90-day extension for this diesel to electric motor repower project. The district has received documentation from the applicant that the project completion was delayed because of utility hookup scheduling delays resulting from air district and ARB administration delays.

The air district board approved the contract for this project on September 14, 2010, the applicant did not receive the grant agreement for several more weeks due to administrative error. The grant agreement was fully executed on October 5, 2010, after which the utility upgrade was ordered. The utility company is unable to complete the utility hookup before January 1, 2011. Since these delays are beyond the control of the applicant, the air district may extend the project installation deadline to March 31, 2011, rather than the existing December 31, 2010 deadline. This approval is contingent upon the air district confirming that the existing engines are removed from service, and post-inspected by the district by January 1, 2011.

Documentation from the applicant regarding the utility hookup and other administration delays of why the new motors cannot be installed prior to December 31, 2010, along with a timeline for work completion and utility hookup schedule must be included in the project file.

Determination Date: December 23, 2010
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2011-07
Request:Verify engine functional use with fuel use records and other supporting documentation in lieu of district inspector witnessing agricultural pump engine moving water. (Project # C-8040)
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD (for Great Basin Unified APCD)
Guideline Section(s): 2008 Guidelines, Program Administration Chapter, Section 30.b(4)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Due to scheduled irrigation well refurbishment maintenance the pre-inspection was able to confirm engine operation but not functional engine use for this Great Basin project. After the pre-inspection, the applicant provided the District with past fuel delivery records along with other information that supported the engine’s functional use prior to the scheduled well maintenance. The district during the post-inspection will verify the functional use of the new motor and the irrigation well.

Determination Date: March 1, 2011
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2011-09
Request: Replace three operating agricultural pump engines with four electric pump motors; decreasing the total engine horsepower from 349 to 230 hp while providing the same irrigation needs. (Project # CMP-YR12-20)
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter X, Section IV(b)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided an application and an engineering proposal to repower a three engine pumping station with four electric motors. The current guidelines do not contain guidance on replacing multiple engines with electric motors. The district shall utilize a summation of the three baseline engine emissions in calculating project cost effectiveness. The cost of the additional new pump will not be part of the cost of the project paid by the district.

Determination Date: March 1, 2011
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2011-40
Request: Replace two operating agricultural pump engines with one electric pump motor, decreasing the total engine horsepower from 267 to 150 hp. (Project # CMP-YR13-05)
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 10, Section C.2.(C)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided a written request for a 2 for 1 engine repower project that includes replacing an irrigation pump engine and booster pump engine with one electric motor. The current guidelines require a case-by-case request if the total number of existing engines is different than the total number of replacement engines/motors. The district shall utilize a summation of the two baseline engine emissions in calculating project cost effectiveness. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: July 13, 2011
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2012-11
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: C-19244).
Air District: San Joaquin Valley APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation demands. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: April 13, 2012
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2012-21
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CM 11/12-5).
Air District: San Luis Obispo County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation needs in meeting upper and lower vineyards watering demands. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: July 6, 2012
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2012-33
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CMPYR1401).
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation required by planting different crops during the different growing seasons. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: September 18, 2012
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2012-37
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CMF13-401).
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This booster pump project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to pump the water to an irrigation reservoir that uses gravity to irrigate crops. The VFD is needed to adjust the amount of power needed from the electric motor to pump the water to the reservoir. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: November 1, 2012
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916) 322-1522
Reference # 2012-45
Request: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) on behalf of Colusa County APCD is requesting the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Numbers: RAP-2013-01 - Strain Orchards 115, RAP-2013-02 - Strain Orchards 725).
Air District: CAPCOA (Rural District Assistance Program projects assigned to Colusa County APCD)
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: These CAPCOA, Rural District Assistant Program evaluated projects will be assigned to Colusa County APCD. These projects include the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation required by planting different crops during the different growing seasons. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: November 14, 2012
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2012-47
Request: Use documentation of acre-feet water use to determine annual usage for agricultural pump electrification project (Project Number: CMF13-401).
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 3, Sections W.6. and Z.6.(B)(1) and Chapter 10, Section C.1.(E)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project is to repower a Tier 3 engine with an electric motor. The Tier 3 engine had been purchased through the Carl Moyer Program under a previous project. As part of that previous project the current Tier 3 engines was inspected on June 27, 2011 and had less than 20 hours of use. At time of application for the new project, October 3, 2012, the hour meeting reading showed 3,372 hours of use. A subsequent inspection on October 16, 2012 showed an hour meter reading of 3,424.5 hours. The applicant also provided monthly pump meter readings for acre-feet of water pumped over the 2 year period of October 2010 to October 2012. Using the hour meter readings for over a one year period (June 2011 to October 2012), and the acre-feet pump readings over that same period, provided a calculated correlation between acre-feet of water pumped, and hourly engine usage, allowing for hourly usage to be calculated for a 2 year period (2,012.5 hours/year). The district may utilize this amount to determine cost-effectiveness and eligible grant amount, and, at the districts discretion, the usage does not need to be specified in the contract, as allowed per Guidelines, Chapter 3, Sections W.3 and Z.6.(B)(1). Note this approval is granted only for the determination of the appropriate usage documentation, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: November 21, 2012
Contact: David Salardino (626)575-6679
Reference # 2013-04
Request: The applicant owns agricultural land in Butte County AQMD and in Tehama County APCD and is requesting an engine swap for the required engine destruction for this agricultural irrigation pump repower project located in Butte County (Project # CM13-13-13). The applicant would like to destroy the engine that has logged significant more operating hours located in Tehama County and move the Butte County engine to the Tehama site.
Air District: Butte County AQMD and Tehama County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapters 2, Section DD and 3, Sections AA and BB.4
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The district provided information documenting that both baseline engines are similarly horsepower size Tier 1 engines. The engine swap for destruction will not affect the project emissions, project cost effectiveness, or increase the engine emissions generated in Tehama County.

The contract will include all three engines. Pre-inspections will include both Tier 1 engines located in Butte County AQMD and Tehama County APCD. Post-inspections will verify the destruction of the Tier 1 engine from Tehama County, the installation and operation of the Tier 1 engine from Butte County to Tehama County, and the installation and operation of the new interim Tier 4 engine. Moyer funds will only pay for the installation of new, controlled (interim Tier 4) engine.

The applicant will cover the changes associated with the baseline engine swap and the engine swap will not change the engine compliance deadlines. The applicant will notify Tehama County APCD in writing no later than 14 days after the Tier 1 diesel engine installation per section 93115.8(c)(3) of the Stationary Engine ATCM and pay any fee required by the district per section 93115.8(d). Note this approval is granted only for the baseline engine swap associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: February 19, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-14
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CM 12/13-7).
Air District: San Luis Obispo County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying water flows required for vineyard irrigation and vineyard frost protection. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: May 2, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-16
Request: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CM 18-14-CMP-03).
Air District: Lassen County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying water flows required for irrigating different size fields. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for the project provided they meet all other applicable guideline criteria and the total funding provided is under the cost effectiveness cap. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above, and does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: May 28, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-18
Requests: Replace two operating agricultural pump engines with one electric pump motor and variable frequency drive (VFD), decreasing the total engine horsepower from 230 to 200 hp. Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for the total cost of the variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: CMP-YR15-01).
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3) and C.2.(C)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This 2 for 1 engine repower to an electric motor project includes a VFD to meet varying water flows for irrigating different crops and to adjust to seasonal groundwater variations. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case (CBC) approval from ARB. A 2 for 1 engine repower project also needs a CBC approval from ARB. A CBC exemption has been granted, to include the total cost of the VFD as part of the eligible expenses for the project and to allow this 2 for 1 engine repower project. For this 2 for 1 project the district shall utilize a summation of the two baseline engine emissions in calculating the project cost effectiveness. Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above and to allow for the 2 for 1 project. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: July 23, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-20
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for the total cost of the variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Numbers: 15-007, 15-008 and 15-015)
Air District: Tehama County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: These diesel to electric motor repower projects include a VFD to meet varying water flows for irrigating crops farmed on different soil types (15-007), for adjusting to seasonal groundwater variations (15-008), and operating two different irrigation systems (15-015). The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case (CBC) approval from ARB. A CBC exemption has been granted, to include the total cost of the VFD as part of the eligible expenses for these projects. Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the projects listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the projects. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the projects conform to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and are surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field for each project.

Determination Date: July 25, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-21
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for the total cost of the variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: 15-017).
Air District: Tehama County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This diesel to electric motor repower project includes a VFD to meet varying water flows for irrigating crops farmed on different soil types The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case (CBC) approval from ARB. A CBC exemption has been granted, to include the total cost of the VFD as part of the eligible expense for this project. Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field for each project.

Determination Date: July 26, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-26
Requests: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) on behalf of Glenn County APCD is requesting the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: RAP-14-18).
Air District: CAPCOA (Rural District Assistance Program project assigned to Glenn County APCD)
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This CAPCOA, Rural District Assistant Program evaluated project will be assigned to Glenn County APCD. This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation required by planting different crops and irrigating different size fields. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB.

A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for this project. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: August 26, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-28
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for an electrification project that will utilize a used electric motor instead of a new motor. (Project Numbers: SMQV004183 and SMQV004230).
Air District: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.2.(A)(1)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: A CBC exemption has been granted to the Moyer guidelines, to allow the grant funding for a used, not new, electric motor as the replacement in a diesel repower to electric motor project. In order for the district to reimburse the eligible costs for this project the grantee must agree to the following conditions during the contract period:

1. Allow the district to conduct random spot inspections of the used motors, with 24-hour notification.
2. Notify the district within seven days if a motor or pump becomes non-operational.

Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the used motor cost associated with the projects listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, is surplus to existing emission control rules, and meets DERA grant funding requirements. Although these projects follow the 2011 Moyer Guidelines it is the districts intention that they will be funded with federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds. Please include a copy of this posting approval with the DERA project files.

Determination Date: September 19, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-30
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Number: M-315).
Air District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This project includes the installation of a new electric motor with a VFD to meet varying irrigation required by planting different crops, to adjust to seasonal groundwater variations, and different soil types. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case approval from ARB.

A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of the VFD may be included as part of the eligible expenses for this project. Note this approval is granted only for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: September 20, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-33
Requests: Allow Moyer grant funding for a family emission limits (FEL) engine above the current (Tier 4 final) standard. (Project Numbers: 15-8).
Air District: Ventura County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 2 Section Y, HH; Chapter 10 Section C.2.(I) and Agricultural Assistance Program D.2
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The guidelines allow the applicant to request that the replacement engine have the same manufacturer as the existing engine. For this project the applicant has requested the same manufacturer and this manufacturer currently does not have a Tier 4 final engine available. A 2013 FEL Tier 4 final engine is currently available from this manufacturer. A CBC exemption has been granted to the Moyer guidelines to allow the funding of a FEL engine for a diesel engine repower project if the district utilizes the previous (Tier 4 interim) tier emission factors for this replacement engine. This particular engine family had previously been certified to the Tier 4 interim standards, with an FEL below the Tier 4 interim standard.

Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the FEL engine associated with the project listed above provided the engine is installed and operation prior to 1-1-2016. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, is surplus to existing emission control rules, and meets Agricultural Assistance Program (AAP) funding requirements. Although this project follows the 2011 Moyer Guidelines it is the district's intention that they will be funded with local district funds via the Agricultural Assistance Program (AAP). Please include a copy of this posting approval with the AAP project files.

Determination Date: October 17, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2013-22
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for the total cost of the variable frequency drive (VFD) that costs more than 50 percent of the new electric motor cost (Project Numbers: CMP-YR15-07, CMP-YR15-08, CMP-YR15-09, CMP-YR15-20 and CMP-YR15-22).
Air District: Colusa County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Sections C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: These diesel to electric motor repower projects include a VFD to meet varying water flows required for irrigating different size fields. The VFD cost is greater than the guidelines cap, which is allowed only via a case-by-case (CBC) approval from ARB. A CBC exemption has been granted, to include the total cost of the VFD as part of the eligible expenses for the projects listed above.

Note this approval is granted for the inclusion in the grant of the VFD unit cost associated with the project listed above. This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district’s responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: October 31, 2013
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2014-03
Requests: The District has asked to use the new motor information from the project invoices in lieu of recording the information during the post-inspection (Project Numbers: 2010-80 and 2010-81).
Air District: Feather River AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 3, Sections BB.1(C)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Due to a miscommunication with the applicant the post inspections were performed after the submersible pumps were installed inside the irrigation wells and the wells were grout sealed. During post-inspection the District inspection was able to verify the submersible pumps were operational and moving water, but was not able to verify the equipment model number, horsepower size, or serial number. Installed pump information is included in the project invoice, although the serial number was not recorded prior to the installation and is not listed on the invoice. A CBC exemption has been granted to allow the use of the motor information from the project invoices in lieu of recording this information during the post-inspections.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: March 28, 2014
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2014-05
Requests: Allow the applicant to receive Moyer grant funding for a trash pump (Project Number CM14-01).
Air District: Shasta County AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Section C.1(J)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: A diesel trash pump-engine system is an integrated system that is sold as a single pump-engine device contained in the same framed housing. A case-by-case exemption has been granted, the total cost of trash pump may be included as part of the eligible expenses for this project.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: May 9, 2014
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522

Reference # 2014-12
Requests: Use EPA certification emission levels instead of LSI emission factors contained in Appendix, Table D-14 for a stationary agricultural pump engine (Project Number 15-021).
Air District: Tehama County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Appendix D, Table D-14
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: This EPA certified stationary natural gas engine meets the district's emission and permitting requirements and is therefore eligible for Moyer grant funding. A case-by-case exemption has been granted to use the EPA certification values instead of the mobile engine emission factors contained in Appendix D, Table D-14 in the project cost effectiveness calculation. The emission factors of Table D-14 are specifically for engines certified to the off-road standards, and therefore are not appropriate for use with certified stationary engines. The EPA certification contains an oxides of nitrogen (NOx) value, as well as a volatile organic carbon (VOC) value which is to be used for the reactive organic gases (ROG) emission factor, as VOC and ROG are considered synonymous. Additionally, the EPA certification contains no value for particulate matter (PM). ARB approves the District's proposal of utilizing the AP-42 PM values for a lean-burn uncontrolled engine.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: June 12, 2014
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522
Reference # 2014-14
Requests: Allow the funding for the full cost of the variable frequency drive (VFD) equipment as part of the not yet included new guideline language (Project Number CMF14-401).
Air District: San Diego County APCD
Guidelines Section(s): (2011) Chapter 10, Sections C.1.(L)(3)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The original estimate for the new motor and VFD met the requirements of the current 2011 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (i.e., the VFD was less than 50% of the cost of the new motor). However, the actual new motor cost was less than the estimate resulting in a final VFD project cost being slightly greater than 50 percent of the new motor cost triggering a case-by-case request. Because the original estimate for the motor was higher than the actual cost, ARB approves the payment of the VFD per Chapter 10, Section C.1.(L)(3) based on the original estimate for the new motor cost.

This approval does not constitute a comprehensive review of the project. It is the district's responsibility to verify that the project conforms to applicable cost effectiveness limits, all other applicable guidelines and statutes, and is surplus to existing emission control rules. Please include this case-by-case reference number in the CARL comment field.

Determination Date: June 30, 2014
Contact: Katherine Garrison (916)322-1522

Shrink


Light-Duty Vehicles (2) - Updated November 25, 2010


Reference # 2010-20
Request: Allow Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement (VAVR) Contracts to be regarded as multi-equipment contracts for expenditure tracking purposes
Air District: Antelope Valley AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): Part III, Section 18 (b)(c)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: Carl Moyer program funds for multi-equipment projects are considered fully expended when one invoice for that project has been paid. The funds must be expended by the deadline, which is at the end of the two-year grant cycle. Funds must be liquidated, meaning all payments for the project have been made, by four years after the beginning of the grant cycle. Antelope Valley AQMD uses a third-party contractor to administer their VAVR program. The amount dedicated through the contract is $42,000. Since more than half of the contract amount is paid, the contract to complete VAVRs will be regarded as a multi-equipment project. The district is obligated to ensure liquidation of the full contract before the liquidation deadline. ARB will track district progress toward achieving the liquidation requirement.

Determination Date: June 25, 2010
Contact: Jennifer Kozumplik (916) 445-3516
Reference # 2013-38
Request: 1) Allow the district to fund Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement (VAVR) program projects that have experienced a non-operational period or lapse in registration that occurred at the beginning of the required two-year registration period. 2) Allow the funding of registered vehicles in the program that have a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) work date indicated by the DMV records that is seven calendar days or less after the registration expiration (so long as the DMV has not assessed a fee indicating a lapse in registration). 3) Allow the use of vehicle history information, such as a DMV letter or website information, current and two past registration certificates or DMV records, to satisfy the proof of registration documentation requirement.
Air District: San Luis Obispo APCD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Chapter 13, Light Duty Vehicles, Section D.3.
ARB Action: No action / No CBC needed

Determination: Guideline criteria allow air districts some discretion to approve funding for vehicles as part of the VAVR program. While the Guidelines require registration for the most recent 24 month period, the Guidelines do allow for a vehicle to have been placed in non-operational status for two or fewer months, or to have a lapse in registration for less than six months. The Guidelines do not prohibit the non-operational or registration lapse period from being at the beginning of the 24 month registration period. Additionally, if the DMV has not levied a fine for late registration (which may often be the case when the work is less than seven days from the registration expiration, due to payment processing time) then the vehicle is considered to have continuous registration over that period. Lastly, the Guidelines provide flexibility pertaining to registration documentation, such that information obtained from the DMV, including its website, as well as copies of the current and past two year registration certificates, indicating continuous registration, are reasonable and allowable forms of documentation.

Determination Date: November 21, 2013
Contact: Yvonne Sanchez (626) 575-6618

Shrink


Lawn and Garden (1) - Updated September 6, 2012


Reference # 2012-29
Request: Allow the use of a seller's permit to justify the minimum 2-year California business license requirement for lawn mower merchants under Lawn and Garden
Air District: Bay Area AQMD
Guidelines Section(s): 2011 Guidelines, Chapter 14, Section C.7(B)(1)
ARB Action: Approved

Determination: The Guidelines require that the merchant have a minimum 2-year business license in California. Although, the current merchant RW Direct, a division of Positec, Inc., has held a valid California business license since April 2011, it does not meet the 2-year requirement. The District has provided additional documentation to justify this request by submitting the seller's permit under the former merchant title DR Division, also a division of Positec, Inc., and predecessor to RW Direct. This evidence substantiates the request and thus meets the requirements of the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines.

Determination Date: September 6, 2012
Contact: Adriana Smith (916)323-5450

Shrink


School Bus Case-by-Case Determinations

preload