Technical Support Document for the Revision 

To the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for the Texas Substitute Program of the 

Federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program 

 EPA - Region 6 

 December 2000 
2 

 Technical Support Document for the Revision 

 To the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

 for the Texas Substitute Program of the 

 Federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program 

 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean 

Air Act; Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 

7401-7671q. The Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP) is contained in 

Subchapter II, part C, entitled, "Clean Fuel Vehicles," of Title II 

of the Clean Air Act, as amended November 15, 1990 (CAA), sections 

241 - 250 (42 U.S.C. 7581-7590). Part C was added to the CAA to 

establish two programs: a clean-fuel vehicle pilot program in the 

State of California (the California Pilot Test Program) and a Federal 

CFFP in certain ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas. 

Regulations for the Federal CFFP were promulgated on March 1, 1993 

(58 FR 11901), and have been codified at 40 CFR sections 88.301-93 

- 88.313-93. 

The CAA required certain States to adopt and submit to EPA SIP 

revisions containing a CFFP for nonattainment areas with 1980 

populations greater than 250,000 that are classified as severe or 

worse for ozone, or which have a design value of at least 16.0 ppm 

for carbon monoxide (CO). 

In Texas, the following Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(CMSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) designated ozone 

nonattainment are classified serious and above and required to 

implement a CFFP. The Houston/Galveston/Brazoria CMSA was 

classified as Severe and has as its nonattainment area the counties 

of Harris, Montgomery, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Liberty, 

Chambers, and Galveston. The Dallas/Fort Worth CMSA was classified 

as Serious and has as its nonattainment area the counties of Dallas, 

Tarrant, Collins, and Denton. The El Paso MSA was classified as 

serious and has as its nonattainment area the county of El Paso. 

The CAA provides that the States’ CFFP SIP revisions must require 

fleet operators with 10 or more centrally fueled vehicles or capable 

of being centrally fueled to include a specified percentage of 

clean-fuel vehicles in their purchases each year. There are 

additional specifications in section 246 of the CAA with which the 

States’ SIP revisions must also comply, including the requirements 
3 

that covered fleet operators must operate the Clean Fuel Vehicles 

(CFVs) in covered nonattainment areas on a clean alternative fuel, 

defined as a fuel on which the vehicle meets EPA’s CFV standards. 

EPA promulgated emission standards for CFVs in September 1994. (See 

40 CFR 88) 

 

The CFFP will introduce lower pollution emitting vehicles, "clean 

fuel vehicles" (CFV's), into centrally fueled fleets by requiring 

covered fleet operators to include a percentage of CFV's in their 

new fleet purchases. The goal of the CFFP is to reduce emissions 

of non-methane organic gasses (NMOG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and 

CO through the introduction of CFV's into the covered areas. Both 

NMOG and NOx are precursors of ozone and, in most areas, their 

reduction will reduce the concentration of ozone in covered ozone 

nonattainment areas. Reductions of vehicular CO emissions will 

reduce the concentration of CO in covered CO nonattainment areas. 

Congress chose centrally fueled fleets because operators of these 

fleets have more control over obtaining fuel than the general public. 

Additionally, the control which operators maintain over their fleets 

simplifies maintenance and refueling of these vehicles. Finally, 

because fleet vehicles typically travel more miles on an annual basis 

than do non-fleet vehicles, they provide greater opportunity to 

improve air quality on a per vehicle basis. 

Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(4), allows States 

to opt-out of the Federal CFFP by submitting, for EPA approval, a 

SIP revision consisting of a substitute program resulting in as much 

or greater long term emissions reductions in ozone producing and 

toxic air emissions as the Federal CFFP. The EPA may approve such 

a revision "only if it consists exclusively of provisions other than 

those required under this Act for the area." 

Unless a State chooses to opt-out of the CFFP per section 182(c)(4)(A) 

of the CAA; section 246 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7586, directs a State 

containing covered areas to revise its SIP, within 42 months after 

enactment of the CAA, to establish a CFFP, whereby at least a 

specified percentage (as discussed in Section F of this document) 

of all newly acquired vehicles of covered fleets, beginning with 

model year (MY) 1998 and thereafter, shall be CFV's and such vehicles 

shall use the fuel on which the vehicle was certified to be a CFV 

(or shall use a fuel which will result in even less emissions than 

the fuel which was used for certification), when operating in the 

covered area. 
4 

On May 22, 1997, and April 23, 1998, EPA issued guidance and a direct 

final rule respectively, allowing a one year delay of the CFFP in 

those areas that are unable to meet the purchase requirements cited 

in the CAA. (See 63 FR 20103, April 23, 1998) 

 

II. REVIEW OF TEXAS CFFP SIP REVISION

The State of Texas choose to opt-out of the Federal CFFP pursuant 

to section 182(c)(4) of the CAA in a committal SIP revision submitted 

to EPA on November 15, 1992. In July 1994, Texas submitted the 

State’s opt-out program in a SIP revision to EPA and adopted rules 

to implement the Texas CFF program. The Texas Clean Fuel Fleet SIP 

was revised based upon State legislative changes and submitted to 

EPA in a letter dated August 6, 1996. On June 20, 1997, the 

supporting legislation for the August 6, 1996, submittal was modified 

and, as a result, the legislative authority in the submittal was no 

longer in effect. On October 17, 1997, the Region proposed 

disapproval of the Texas Clean Fuel Fleet SIP due to changes in the 

State law that altered the current SIP submittal, and because the 

State had not made a convincing and compelling equivalency 

determination with the Federal CFFP. See 62 FR 53997. 

The Region received a further SIP revision on August 27, 1998, to 

Chapter 114 and the State’s plan for implementing a substitute 

program to opt out of the Federal CFFP. The revision was adopted 

after reasonable public notice and public hearing as required by 

sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.102(f). 

The State is withdrawing the August 6, 1996, SIP revision. On 

October 1, 1998, the Region determined the SIP revision met 

completeness criteria. The State also submitted supplemental 

technical clarification information in a letter to the EPA dated 

November 17, 2000 (Attachemnt A). Texas’ CFF substitute plan is 

comprised of a State fleet program - the Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) 

program - supplemented with additional volatile organic compound 

(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission controls. The additional 

emission controls are used to make up the shortfall between the TCF 

and the Federal CFF programs, and are controls beyond those required 

by the CAA. Details on the calculations for the TCF emission 

reductions and shortfalls and control measures used to make up the 

shortfalls, can be found later in this TSD. 

The areas affected by this program include the counties of 

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, 

Montgomery, and Waller. These eight counties comprise the 
5 

Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area. The El Paso 

nonattainment area includes El Paso county. The Dallas/Fort 

Worth nonattainment area includes the counties of Collin, Dallas, 

Denton, and Tarrant. The Beaumont/Port Author Nonattainment area 

includes the counties of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange. Texas has 

submitted the El Paso, Dallas/Ft Worth and Houston/Galveston ozone 

nonattainment areas into the Texas SIP for the Texas Clean Fleet 

Program. 

The following is an analysis of the August 27, 1998, Texas SIP 

revision (with the supplemental technical clarification information 

submitted November 17, 2000) to identify concerns regarding 

conformance to the requirements of the Federal CFFP as provided in 

section 246 of the CAA and appropriate sections of 40 CFR part 88. 

This analysis will also determine the State’s substitute program 

emissions reduction equivalency to the Federal CFFP. Texas improved 

their technical position by work on fleet inventory and modeling the 

differences between the State and Federal program. By continuing 

to understand the differences and likeness between each program, the 

technical approach is enhanced for the equivalency demonstration and 

the State substitute program will likely withstand challenges. 

A. Subchapter A. Definitions. Section 114.3. 

 Covered Areas 

Requirements: 

Areas (Covered Areas) required to implement a CFFP are defined 

in section 246(a)(2) of the CAA. 

The Proposed Revision: 

Page 16 of the Revision, 30 TAC Chapter 114, Section 114.3, 

 “Low Emission Vehicle Fleet Definitions.” The State rule 

 defines covered areas as “affected areas” with a population 

 of 350,000 or more and classified as a serious, severe, or 

 extreme nonattainment area. Texas removed the specific 

 definitions of the Houston/Galveston, Beaumont/Port Arthur, 

 Dallas/Ft Worth and El Paso nonattainment areas. The 

 Federal definition of covered area is with a 1980 population 

 of 250,000 or more classified as a serious, severe, or 

 extreme nonattainment area. The different population 

 numbers could cause confusion and misapplication of the 

 regulation for Beaumont/Port Arthur moderate ozone 

 nonattainment area. However, Texas has acknowledge that if 

 the Beaumont moderate ozone nonattainment area is bumped-up 
6 

 to serious, the area would be subject to the State CFF 

 substitution programs. 

 Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has fulfilled the requirements 

for the establishment of a CFFP in the appropriate Serious and 

above nonattainment areas. The Texas CFFP substitute SIP 

revision has identified the appropriate covered areas as the 

Houston/Galveston, Dallas/Ft Worth, and El Paso ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

Continue Subchapter A. Definitions. Sections 114.1 and 114.3. 

Requirements: 

Sections 241(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. 7511, and 40 CFR 88.302-94 define specific terms that 

are to be used in the State regulations. 

The Proposed Revision: 

30 TAC Chapter, Sections 114.1 and 114.3 contains definitions 

of terms used by Texas in their rule. This Revision has removed 

some terms from the previous submittal and redefined terms that 

were consistent with section 241(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) 

and (7) of the CAA as well as 40 CFR part 88.302-94. The 

definitions of “Capable of being centrally fueled”, “Centrally 

fueled”, ”Clean-fuel vehicle”, and “Control” were removed in 

this revision. “Affected area” substitutes for “Covered 

area.” “Affected entity” substitutes for “Covered fleet 

operator.” The word 

 “control” is still used in the definition of “Private 

 entity.” 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, Texas definition of “Fleet Vehicle” in Section 

114.3 is not consistent with the CAA and as found in 40 CFR 

88.302-94. One hundred percent centrally fueled vehicles or 

capable of being centrally fuel and parked at a residence are 

not exempted from the requirements of the Federal CFF program. 

The fact that one or more vehicles in a fleet is/are not 

centrally fueled does not exempt the entire fleet from the 

Federal CFF program. The fact that a vehicle is not centrally 

fueled does not mean it could not be centrally fueled in 

accordance with the definition of “capable of being centrally 

fueled.” The fact that the use of fleet less than 50 percent 

of the total annual vehicle miles traveled or time in any one 
7 

affected area does not mean it is exempted from the Federal CFF 

program. Texas’ definitions creates inconsistency with the 

Federal CFF program by providing different means of determining 

what vehicles are in the program, (control and can be centrally 

fueled or capable as compared to operates primarily) and 

promoting the exclusion of certain fleet vehicles (school 

buses), (100% centrally fueled or capable and parked at a 

individual residence) that are required in the Federal CFF 

program. The Revision has not fulfilled the requirements that 

the definitions of appropriate terms in the Revision be 

consistent with the CAA and as found in 40 CFR 88.302-94. 

C. Covered Fleets 

Requirements: 

Section 241(5) of the CAA defines the vehicles/fleets that must 

be in a CFFP. 

Revision: 

Section 114.150 “Requirements for Mass Transit Authorities” 

identifies Mass Transit fleets and Section 114.151 

“Requirements for Local Government and Private Persons” 

identifies local governments fleets greater than 15 vehicles, 

excluding law enforcement and emergency vehicles, and private 

persons fleets greater than 25 vehicles, excluding emergency 

vehicles, that are to be included in the Texas CFFP. Mass 

Transit fleets must ensure that at least 50 percent of their 

fleet vehicles are certified. The number of vehicles in a 

covered fleet for the Texas CFFP, by legislative design, does 

not match the number of vehicles in a covered fleet defined in 

the Federal CFFP set forth in section 241(5) of the CAA. 

School buses used to transport students are not included in 

Texas’ definition of a fleet vehicle. Which means they are not 

a covered fleet, as in the Federal CFF program, in the 

Houston/Galveston, Dallas/Ft Worth and El Paso nonattainment 

areas. Texas also excludes fleet vehicles that are “capable 

of being centrally fueled” by their definition of “operate 

primarily.” Any motor vehicles that operate less than 50 

percent of the total annual vehicle miles traveled or time in 

any one affected area means those fleet vehicles can be capable 

of being centrally refueled and should not be excluded as 

“covered fleet vehicles.” The Texas Clean Fleet program will 

reduce the number of fleet vehicles that would have been in the 

Federal CFF program resulting in less fleet aggregation, thus, 

less CFV’s purchased. 
8 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, Texas corrected the deficiencies in the 

 previous submittal and identified the appropriate Federal 

 Clean Fuel Fleet aggregation in the El Paso, Dallas/Ft 

 Worth, and Houston/Galveston nonattainment areas and 

 compared them to their Texas Clean Fleet program aggregation 

 for the same areas. The Texas Clean Fleet program still 

 excludes certain covered fleets from their total fleet 

 aggregation in the El Paso, Dallas/Ft Worth, and 

 Houston/Galveston nonattainment areas which causes a 

 shortfall in the number of vehicles as compared to the FCFF 

 program. Texas’s technical approach and equivalency 

 determination method has quantified accurately as possible 

 the covered Federal and State program fleets in the 

 nonattainment areas. The State has done an adequate 

 determination of fleet vehicle baseline numbers for 

 comparison and the Revision’s technical evaluation is 

 sufficiently comprehensive to determine their program 

 shortfalls. Noted shortfalls and input differences between 

 the programs are modeled by use of Texas’ technical formula 

 spreadsheet. 

D. Vehicles Classes Covered 

Requirements: 

Section 242, 42 U.S.C. 7582, Section 243, 42 U.S.C. 7583, and 

Section 245, 42 U.S.C. 7585 of the CAA and 40 CFR 88 Subpart 

C defines the vehicle classes and emission standards covered 

in the CFFP. In addition, Section 245(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7585, exempts heavy-duty vehicles more than 26,000 Gross 

Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) from clean-fuel emission 

standards. 

Revision: 

Section 114.3 “Low Emission Vehicle Fleet Definitions” defines 

a “certified” vehicle as a vehicle that has been issued a 

certificate of conformity by EPA......with the standards as 

defined in 40 CFR parts 86 and 88. The definition of 

“Clean-fueled vehicle” was removed from the revision which 

identified the class or category of clean fuel vehicles 

certified to applicable emission standards. In addition, 

section 114.152. “Use of Certain Vehicles for Compliance” was 

repealed and the applicable requirements was moved to Section 
9 

114.150 and 114.151. The classes of vehicles included in the 

Revision are now identified in the definitions of “Low emission 

vehicle (LEV)” and “certified.” 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has fulfilled the requirements 

concerning the vehicle classes which must be in a CFFP. 

E. Clean Fuel Vehicles (CFV) 

Requirements: 

Section 241(7) of the CAA, requires a CFV must be defined as 

a motor vehicle in one of the vehicle classes that are certified 

by the EPA to meet, for any MY, one of the three sets of 

increasingly stringent clean fuel vehicle emission standards 

that apply to CFV in that vehicle class for that MY. These 

standards are referred to as Low-emission vehicle (LEV) 

standards, Inherently low emission vehicles (ILEV) standards, 

Ultra low-emission vehicle (ULEV) standards, and Zero-emission 

vehicle (ZEV) standards. The emission standards for these 

vehicles are found in 40 CFR 88.104-94, 40 CFR 88.105-94, 40 

CFR 88.306-94, 40 CFR 88.311-93, and 40 CFR 88.311-98. 

 

Revision: 

Section 114.1 defines a “Low emission vehicle (LEV)” as a 

vehicle which has been certified to meet, for any model year, 

applicable standards under the Federal CAA, Part C, Subchapter 

II, and a set of emission standards, contained in 40 CFR 

88.104-94, 40 CFR 88.105-94, and 40 CFR 88.311-93, that 

classifies it as a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV), Inherently Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV), Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV), or 

a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV). Section 114.152 “Use of Certain 

Vehicles for Compliance” was repealed and the applicable 

requirements was moved to Section 114.150 and 114.151. Section 

114.150 “Requirements for Mass Transit Authorities” allows 

certain vehicles acquired before September 1, 1999, but not 

certified to CFFP standards, to be counted toward compliance 

with a fleet implementation schedule for the affected entity’s 

total fleet while in use by that entity provided these vehicles 

are capable of operating on any of the following fuels: 

electricity, ethanol or ethanol/gasoline blends of 85% or 

greater ethanol, LPG(propane), methanol or methanol/gasoline 

blends of 85% or greater methanol, or natural gas. Section 

114.151 “Requirements for Local Governments and Private 

Entities” allows certain vehicles acquired before September 1, 
10 

1995, but not certified to CFFP standards, to 

 be counted toward compliance with a fleet implementation 

 schedule for the affected entity’s total fleet 

 while in use by that entity provided these vehicles are 

 capable of operating on any of the following fuels: 

 electricity, ethanol or ethanol/gasoline blends of 85% or 

 greater ethanol, LPG(propane), methanol or methanol/gasoline 

 blends of 85% or greater methanol, or natural gas. 

 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has fulfilled most but not all 

of the requirements concerning the emission standards of the 

CFV's that are to be in a CFFP. A reference to 40 CFR 88.306-94, 

“Requirements for a converted vehicle to qualify as a clean-fuel 

vehicle”, is needed in the Texas CFF Program that vehicles 

acquired prior to September 1, 1999 for Mass Transit 

authorities, September 1, 1995 for Local Governments and 

Private Entities, or before SIP approval, and that operates on 

the fuels identified in Section 114.150 and 114.151, need to 

be certified per 40 CFR 88.304-94 and 88.306-94 to qualify as 

a CFFV purchase and to generate credit. The result of this 

omission in the Texas Clean Fleet program allows vehicles not 

certified to CFFV standards to be counted for compliance under 

the schedule where these vehicles would not under the FCFF 

program. 

 

F. Percentage Requirements 

Requirements: 

Section 246(b) of the CAA contains the phase-in requirements 

that the covered fleets must meet with respect to new 

acquisitions. 

Revision: 

Section 114.150 contains the CFV proportion (50%) to total 

covered fleet requirements for Mass Transit Authorities in the 

Texas CFFP. It is unknown what compliance date is required for 

Mass Transit fleets. Since the state program became applicable 

on September 1 1998, it is assumed the Mass transit fleets must 

be in compliance by that date. Section 114.151 contains the CFV 

purchase percentage and proportion requirements for local 

governments and private entities. Both 114.150 and 114.151 

also allow for the conversion of vehicles or the purchase of 

PCC, MERCs, or Texas Mobile Emission Reduction Credit Fund to 
11 

satisfy the percentage requirements. (See Section G below 

concerning the Credit Program.) The requirements of Section 

114.151 are not identical to section 246(b) of the CAA. Texas 

has proposed the following schedule for local government and 

private persons fleet CFV purchase percentage and proportion 

to total fleet percentage requirements: (1) 30% of fleet 

vehicles purchased after September 1, 1998, or at least 10% of 

the fleet vehicles in the total fleet as of September 1, 1998; 

(2) 50% of the fleet vehicles purchased after September 1, 2000; 

(3) 70% of the light-duty fleet vehicles purchased after 

September 1, 2002, and at least 50% of the heavy-duty fleet 

vehicles purchased as of September 1, 2002. In addition, 

Section 114.151(c) exempts local governments and private 

persons from the purchase requirements if 70% or more of their 

fleet is/are Clean Fuel Vehicles. 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the state’s phase-in schedule does not 

 match the Federal phase-in schedule program requirements of 

 new CFV acquisitions that must be in a Federal CFF program. 

 The Federal requirements are: 30% of purchases in MY 1999; 

 50% of purchases in MY2000; and 70% of purchases in MY2001+. 

 The state program has a two year span between increasing 

 purchase requirements whereas the Federal program has a one 

 year span between increasing purchase requirements. This 

 results in a slower CFF vehicle compliance accumulation for 

 the state program as compared to the Federal program. 

 

G. Credit Program 

Requirements: 

Section 246(f) of the CAA and 40 CFR 88.304-94 requires the State 

to implement a credit program. The requirements contain tables 

which have specified credit values that must be included in a 

CFFP. A fleet operator can generate credits in any of several 

ways: (1) by the purchase of more CFV’s than the minimum 

required by a CFFP, (2) by the purchase of CFV which meet more 

stringent standards than the minimum required by the CFFP, (3) 

by the purchase of CFV not required by the CFFP, and (4) by the 

purchase of CFV before MY 1999. The credits generated may be 

used by a covered fleet operator to satisfy the purchase 

requirements of a CFFP or may be traded by one covered fleet 

operator to another, provided the credits were generated and 

used in, and both operators are located in, the same 
12 

nonattainment area. Certain restrictions on the trading of the 

credits between vehicle classes must be observed. The credits 

do not depreciate with time and are to be freely traded without 

interference by the state. Non-covered fleet operators can 

voluntarily participate in the CFFP. 

Revision: 

Section 114.157 “Low Emission Vehicle Fleet Program Compliance 

Credits,” Section 114.201 “Mobile Emission Reduction Credit 

Program” and Section 114.202 “Texas Mobile Emission Reduction 

Credit Trading Fund” of the Texas CFFP provides for a Credit 

Program which provides credits for operators who acquire more 

CFV’s and/or convert more vehicles to CFV's than the Texas CFFP 

requires in any year; acquires CFV’s and/or converts vehicles 

to certified CFV’s which meet more stringent emission standards 

than the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards; acquires CFV’s 

in exempted vehicle categories and/or converts exempted 

vehicles to certified CFV’s; or, after EPA approval of the SIP 

Revision, acquires certified CFV’s and/or converts vehicles to 

certified CFV’s prior to MY 1999. The Revision does not contain 

similar tables showing the credit which will be granted for 

CFV’s for the various classes of vehicles for the 

purchasing/acquisition mandate; credit in lieu of 

purchase/acquisition; or purchasing/acquiring more vehicles 

than required; all of which are in the C94 tables, contained 

in Tables to Subpart C of Part 88. 

 The Revision restricts credit issue to the nonattainment 

 area in which they are generated. It is unclear if fleets 

 allowed to use the Texas Mobile Emission Credit Fund are 

 using Mobile Emission Reduction Credits (MERC’s) generated 

 outside the fleets nonattainment areas. 

 Section 114.157 “Low Emission Vehicle Fleet Program 

 Compliance Credits” allows Program Compliance Credits 

 (PCC’s) to be awarded and generated by fleets to meet the 

 state program purchase requirements by the following 

 methodology: 

 (1) LEV - one credit; 

 (2) ULEV - two credits; and 

 (3) ILEV and ZEV - three credits. 
13 

 PCC’s are awarded according to the estimated remaining 

 useful life of the vehicle (normally five years as per 

 commission guidance). Only fleets that are subject to 

 the Texas Clean Fleet program may be awarded PCC’s. The 

 awarding of PCC’s allows entities to generate more credits 

 and thus fleets are able to comply easier with the state 

 program than what would be possible under the Federal CFF 

 program credit tables. This results in less CFV’s being 

 needed to meet the state’s purchase requirements as compared 

 to the Federal CFF program credit tables. 

 MERC’s may be used by other fleets and by stationary 

 sources. The Revision does provide a methodology for using 

 the MERC’s for stationary source VOC and NOX emission 

 trades. MERC’s are awarded to individual vehicles, where 

 applicable, as shown in Tables C and D of the TNRCC credit 

 guidance manual. Tables E and F are used to show the number 

 of additional light-duty and heavy-duty LEV purchases 

 required to generate the minimum one ton of VOC or Nox 

 emission reductions per year needed before fleet-to- 

 stationary source MERC trades are allowed. Fleets may 

 request both PCC’s and MERC’s in their compliance report. 

 Non-road vehicles, though not covered by the Texas Clean 

 Fleet program, may generate MERC’s. Light rail vehicles 

 operated by a mass transit authority may obtain MERC’s. The 

 Federal CFF program does not allow non-road vehicles to 

 generate MERC’s. 

 

 Credit for Non-program Fleets in Nonattainment areas - 

 MERC’s will be an option for any fleet primarily operating 

 in any of the nonattainment areas. PCC’s will be an option 

 only for fleets that are covered by the Texas Clean Fleet 

 program. Fleets in all four nonattainment areas may 

 generate MERC’s regardless of their inclusion in the 

 overall fleet program, however, MERC’s are only tradable 

 within the nonattainment area in which they were generated. 

 Fleets outside of nonattainment areas may generate MERC’s 

 from the purchase of LEV’s. However, these MERC’s cannot 

 be banked. It is unclear if these MERC’s cannot be traded, 

 purchased, or if they are used in the Texas Mobile Emission 

 Reduction Credit Fund. Fleets that are not subject to the 

 Texas Clean Fleet program (less than 16 for local 
14 

 governments and less than 26 for private) but that would be 

 subject to the Federal CFF program (10 or more) can generate 

 credits where the Federal program would not. Resulting in 

 less vehicles accumulated in the state program as compared 

 to the Federal CFF program. 

 

 The Revision restricts fleet to fleet credit trading or 

 purchasing within LDV and HDV classes only. Trading of 

 credits between vehicle subclasses (LDV and LDT) and (LHDV, 

 MHDV, and HDV) is permitted but no trading in an upward 

 direction for HDV subclasses. 

Section 114.201 “Mobile Emission Reduction Credit Program” 

participation is voluntary. Section 114.201(k) specifies that 

the credits will be awarded in two-year increments for the 

period of 1998 through 2002. After 2002, MERC will be awarded 

according to the expected remaining useful life of the vehicle 

(normally five years per TNRCC guidance). The monetary values 

of the credits are to be established by the market and not set 

by the administrative authority. Credits may only be traded, 

sold, banked, for later use by fleet vehicle owners or other 

mobile or stationary sources of emissions within the same 

nonattainment area. 

The Revision provides for mandatory registration of affected 

entities but not voluntary registration of unaffected entities 

(any other persons). The Revision shows calculation formula of 

their purchase/acquisition requirements but no examples. 

Examples are found in the TNRCC guidance manual located at their 

web-site. In order to apply for a MERC, the affected entity 

must submit the certified emission standard of the credit 

vehicle, the annual VMT traveled by the vehicle, the amount of 

time in years the vehicle is expected to be in service and a 

current fleet report per Section 114.150 or 114.155. Upon 

verification by the TNRCC of the credit registration, a 

certificate will be awarded to each vehicle indicating, where 

applicable, the certified air emission standard, the weight 

class of the vehicle, the amount of emissions reduced per year, 

the number of years the emission reduction will be credited, 

and the number of light-duty or heavy-duty vehicle fleet to 

fleet MERC. A total emissions credit summary sheet will be 

issued to the fleet upon issuance of any MERC certificate. MERC 

are banked with the TNRCC Mobile Source Division for fleet to 

fleet trades and with the TNRCC Emissions Bank for trading 

between fleets and stationary sources. 
15 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision is inconsistence with the 

 requirements concerning the establishment of a similar 

 credit program that must be in a CFF program. The use of 

 PCC’s weakens the equivalency with the Federal CFF program. 

 The Texas Clean Fleet credit generation tables are different 

 from the Federal program and do not generate the same 

 credits as determined in the Federal credit tables. The 

 awarding of PCC’s allows entities to generate more credits 

 and thus fleets are able to comply easier with the State 

 program than what would be possible under the Federal CFF 

 program credit tables. This results in less CFV’s being 

 needed to meet the state’s purchase requirements as compared 

 to the Federal CFF program credit tables. The use of non- 

 programed fleets and non-road vehicles for credit generation 

 further lessens the accumulation of CFV’s that would be 

 needed under the Federal CFF program. 

H. Exclusions or Exceptions to Compliance. 

 Requirements: 

 Section 241(5) defines motor vehicles that are not included 

 in the Federal program. Motor vehicles held for lease or 

 rental to the general public, motor vehicles held for sale 

 by motor vehicle dealers (including demonstration vehicles), 

 motor vehicles used for motor vehicle manufacturer product 

 evaluations or tests, law enforcement and other emergency 

 vehicles, or nonroad vehicles (including farm and 

 construction vehicles). In addition, a vehicle which under 

 normal operations is garaged at a personal residence at 

 night shall not be considered to be a vehicle which is 

 capable of being centrally fueled. However, a vehicle 

 parked at a personal residence at night and centrally fueled 

 100 percent of the time is considered a covered vehicle. 

 Revision: 

 Sections 114.153 “Exceptions” and 114.154 “Exceptions for 

 Certain Mass Transit Authorities” provide exceptions (or 

 compliance waivers) from the fleet vehicle purchase 

 percentage requirements of the Texas Clean Fleet for up to 

 two years. Exceptions are determined by TNRCC staff based 

 on the following criteria: 

 

 (1). A firm engaged in fixed price contracts with public 
16 

 works agencies can demonstrate that compliance with the LEV 

 requirements of the Texas Clean Fleet program would result 

 in substantial economic harm to the firm under a contract 

 entered into before September 1, 1997; 

 (2). Fuels required for operating LEV vehicles are not 

 available in the affected areas in which the vehicle 

 operates; 

 (3). The fleet is unable to secure financing provided by or 

 arranged through a supplier for the fuels required to 

 operate the LEV vehicles; 

 

 (4). The projected net costs of the fueling for conversion 

 or replacement and operation of a LEV is reasonably 

 expected to exceed comparable costs of conventional 

 vehicles when measured over the useful life of the fleet 

 vehicle. Include cost calculations for any available state 

 or Federal funding or incentives for use of fuels required 

 to operate LEV’s. 

 (5). Original equipment manufacturer’s vehicles, or 

 converted vehicles, that have been certified by EPA as 

 LEV’s and meet the normal requirements and practices of the 

 local government or private entity are not available. 

 Section 114.154 provides exceptions for certain Mass Transit 

 Authorities confirmed at a tax election before July 1, 1985, 

 and in which the principal city has a population of less 

 than 750,000, according to the most recent Federal census. 

 Exceptions are determined by TNRCC staff based on the 

 following criteria: 

 (1). The authority’s vehicles will be operating primarily in 

 a area in which neither the authority nor the supplier has 

 or can reasonably be expected to establish a central 

 refueling station necessary for the operation of LEV’s. 

 (2). The authority is unable to acquire or be provided 

 equipment or refueling facilities necessary to operate LEV’s 

 at a projected cost that is reasonable expected to result in 

 no greater net cost than the continued use of equipment or 

 refueling facilities used to operate conventional vehicles, 

 measured over the expected useful life of the equipment or 

 facilities supplied. 
17 

 Conclusion: 

The Texas Clean Fleet program allows generous exceptions to 

compliance as compared to the Federal CFF program. 

Realistically, the unavailability of certified CFV’s would 

apply to all fleets under both state and Federal programs, but 

the degree of economic harm and the cost for certified vehicles 

andrefueling infrastructures, and thus the economic burden will 

vary from fleet owner to fleet owner. This makes it very 

difficult to determine the unreasonableness of the program 

requirements. The CAA mandates that the SIP revision require 

fuel providers to make clean alternative fuel available to the 

covered fleets and economical from the standpoint of vehicle 

owners. Section 114.154 allows additional exceptions for Mass 

Transit Authorities in El Paso and Beaumont/Port Arthur should 

it become included in the Texas Clean Fleet program upon 

redesignation or for any future area with a population of less 

than 750,000 designated to serious nonattainment. The results 

of these exceptions in the state rule weakens the purchase of 

CFV’s when compared to the Federal CFF program. 

 

I. Fuel Use 

Requirements: 

Section 246(b) of the CAA and 40 CFR 88.304.93(3) requires that 

the fuel (or a fuel which will result in even less emissions 

than the fuel which was used for certification) on which the 

vehicle was certified to be a CFV be used 100% of the time the 

vehicle is in the covered area. In those cases where covered 

fleet operators choose to have vehicles with conventional 

petroleum backup fuel, substantiation of the use of the required 

fuel in the covered area must be kept as part of the record 

keeping requirements. 

Revision: 

Section 114.155 “Reporting” requires documentation estimating 

the percentages of the vehicles’ operational fuel by the 

measured vehicle miles traveled or time operated on each fuel. 

It does not state clearly that dual-fuel/flexible-fuel vehicles 

are to operate, while in the covered area, on the fuel(s) for 

which it was certified as a CFV. Reports are submitted 

biennially by September 1, of each even number year. Section 

114.156 “Recordkeeping” requires record retention of a minimum 

of three years. 
18 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision is not specific on the 

requirement regarding the certified fuel used by CFV’s in the 

covered area of a CFFP. The biennially reporting instead of 

annual reports is less stringent than the Federal CFF program. 

The state does have guidance documents and report forms 

available for fleet operators at their Internet web-site. 

J. Fuel Availability 

Requirements: 

Section 246(d) of the CAA requires the choice of fuel for the 

CFV’s will be made by the covered fleet operator. Section 

246(e) of the CAA requires the SIP revision shall require fuel 

providers to make clean alternative fuel available to the 

covered fleets. 

Revision: 

The revision does not require fuel providers to make clean 

alternative fuels available to covered fleet operators. 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has not addressed and fulfilled 

the requirements concerning fuel availability in the Texas 

substitute program. 

K. Consultation 

Requirements: 

Section 246(a)(4) of the CAA require the SIP revision must be 

developed in consultation with fleet operators, vehicle 

manufacturers, fuel producers and distributors of motor vehicle 

fuel, and other interested parties taking into consideration 

operational range, specialty uses, vehicle and fuel 

availability, cost, safety, resale values, and other relevant 

factors. 

Revision: 

The State organized public hearings, which met on May 19, 1998 

in Austin and Irving. The comment period closed on May 26, 

1998. The hearings included oral and written testimony and 

participants discussed issues relating to the program. The 
19 

hearing dates were published in the Texas Register. Attendance 

sheets, oral and written comments from the meetings were 

submitted with the Revision. 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has fulfilled the requirements 

concerning consultation in a CFFP. 

L. Record keeping and Monitoring 

 

 Requirements: 

 No specific Record keeping and monitoring requirements are 

 found in the section 246 of the CAA or 40 CFR 88.304-94. 

 

 The State provides a reasonable process to determine which 

 fleets should report data to the State, consistent with the 

 State's approach to "operate primarily in the affected 

 area.” However, the state’ approach to determine which 

 entities are affected by the state program and compliance 

 with fleet purchases is left to the fleet operators. A 

 private fleet is required to count only fleet vehicles when 

 determining fleet size, regardless of the total number of 

 vehicles in their fleet. Local government fleet operators 

 must count all vehicles within their fleets that are 

 required to be registered for use on public roads, excluding 

 law enforcement and emergency vehicles, to determine fleet 

 size for registration purposes. The distinction between 

 fleet vehicles and vehicles is only made for registration 

 purposes. For reporting purposes, both private and local 

 government fleets use the definition of “fleet” vehicles to 

 determine their compliance in percentage of fleet vehicle 

 purchases. Potentially covered fleets are required to 

 register within 90 days of meeting the minimum fleet size 

 for local governments and private fleets. 

Report forms and samples forms used by fleet operators are 

provided in the TNRCC Fleet Guidance Manuel. The TNRCC will 

use the initial registration and biannually reporting to 

determine compliance. However, no detailed description of how 

the data will be processed, maintained, updated and used to 

confirm compliance with unregistered or non-programed fleets. 

The Revision: 

Sections 114.1, 114.3, 114.150, 114.151, 114.153, 114.154, 
20 

114.153-114.157, and 114.201-114.202 were published in the 

Texas Register on August 14, 1998. Section 115.152 was 

repealed. Such publication effectively notifies the regulated 

community of impending regulations. Section 114.151 requires 

affected fleets to register by September 1, 1998 , and those 

fleets that become covered after September 1, 1998 , to register 

with the TNRCC within 90 days of attaining covered fleet status. 

No clear process for updating the fleet list registration on 

a timely basis (between the two years) and no clear process to 

identify non-compliance or unregistered covered fleets. 

Section 114.155 requires that certain information be reported 

to the TNRCC. Most of the information required is included in 

report forms provided in the Guidance Manual provided on their 

web-site. Fueling patterns are not included. It is unknown if 

this information is reported on TNRCC report forms which allows 

the TNRCC to monitor the performance of the operators. 

The SIP Revision does not include copies of report forms used 

by the covered operators. 

Section 114.155 does not give an overview of how the operator 

is to record data on any TNRCC report forms or how the data will 

be processed, maintained, updated and used to confirm 

compliance by covered fleets. An instruction booklet 

developed by TNRCC, and located on their web-site, is helpful 

to assist fleet operators in properly using any provided forms. 

Currently, TNRCC dedicates six people to organize, define the 

data bases, and handle the data which emanates from the Texas 

Clean Fleet program. 

 

 No oversight of the data acquisition process was identified. 

 

 Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has demonstrated reasonable 

adequacy concerning Record keeping and monitoring in a CFFP. 

However, no clear process for updating the fleet list 

registration on a timely basis (between the two years) and no 

clear process to identify non-compliance or unregistered 

covered fleets are in the State rules. 

 
21 

M. Enforcement 

Requirements: 

The State must be able to adequately enforce the requirements 

of the regulations adopted for implementation of their CFFP. 

The Revision: 

The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, also known as 

the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), provides the commission with 

broad enforcement powers in Section 382.011. The executive 

director is charged with the duty to enforce the TCAA, the rules 

promulgated under the TCAA, and orders of the commission. The 

enforcement rules of the commission provide for enforcement 

through administrative proceedings, civil lawsuits, and 

criminal proceedings. Through administrative proceedings, 

the commission impose orders to achieve compliance accompanied 

by penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation. The 

commission may also pursue civil legal proceedings through the 

Office of the Attorney General. Fines of up to $25,000 per day 

per violation, injunctions, court orders, and cost of 

litigation can be assessed in a civil action under the TCAA. 

Criminal enforcement may also be initiated through the Attorney 

General, with fines up to $300,000 and imprisonment of up to 

five years with possible penalties. In addition to the general 

penalty provisions, the rules of the commission require the 

denial of marketable credits in certain situations. 

Violations of the state’s substitute program rules may also 

result in the denial of credits. Enforcement of the emission 

standards and fleet implementation schedule requirements will 

be done through financial penalties and/or credit denial. 

Compliance with the fleet implementation schedule’s purchase 

and proportion percentage requirements will be monitored 

through reporting. Entities affected must report compliance 

with these requirements. Inadequate reporting, fraud, abuse 

or other findings will be liable for the full range of 

enforcement actions and penalties discussed previously. 

In addition, the TNRCC has authority to issue cease and desist 

orders when it deems the public health or the environment is 

in danger of being damaged. 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision has fulfilled statuary 

requirements concerning enforcement in a CFF program. 

 However, the program will need to continue to survey, 
22 

 register, track and conduct random inspections to maintain 

 the integrity of the Texas Clean Fleet program. 

N. TCM Exemptions 

Requirements: 

40 CFR 88.307-94 requires States to exempt any CFV, required 

by law to participate in a CFFP, from temporal-based (e.g., 

time-of-day or day-of-week) transportation control measures 

(TCM) existing for air quality reasons so long as the exemption 

does not create a clear and direct safety hazard. In the case 

of high occupancy vehicle lanes, this exemption only applies 

to CFV that are certified to be ILEV's pursuant to 40 CFR 

88.313-93. 

The Revision: 

The Revision does not address or contain any temporal TCM 

exemptions for CFV’s in the Texas Clean Fleet program. 

Conclusion: 

In EPA's opinion, the Revision is required to address the issue 

of TCM exemptions since the covered area is required to have 

mandatory TCM measures. This makes the State program more 

stringent than the Federal program. The Revisions has not 

fulfilled the requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 88.313-93. 

III. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

TCF Program vs. Federal CFF Program:

Modeling of the federal CFF program and the TCF program was performed 

using a spreadsheet model developed by the TNRCC’s Mobile Source 

Section. The spreadsheet model estimates the number of low emission 

vehicles and conventional vehicles in each program and extrapolates 

the amount of emission reductions generated by each program through 

the number of LEV’s purchased. 

Estimates of the number of LEV’s purchased each year for the TCF 

program and the federal CFF program were calculated by modeling the 

different LEV purchase requirements of each program. For both 

programs, fleet size, base vehicle population, growth rate, turnover 

rate, centrally refueled rate, waiver rate, and program 

effectiveness were modeled. The TCF program also included a 
23 

grandfathering rate. Using the modeling parameters, the 

spreadsheet estimated the covered fleet population for each year. 

The estimated LEV population for each year was obtained by 

multiplying the covered vehicle population by each program’s 

required new purchased percentages. The state’s detailed analysis 

of the calculation methods are contained in the August 27, 1998, SIP 

revision section B.2, and the supplemental technical clarification 

information submitted November 17, 2000. The estimated emission 

reductions attributed to each program were determined by multiplying 

the estimated number of LEV’s purchased each year by an emission 

reduction factor. The emission reductions factors were generated 

by TNRCC using EPA’s MOBILE 5a emissions model. EPA NOTE: The 

emission reduction factors generated by TNRCC are conservative and 

are modeled using TNRCC’s unique inputs to Mobile 5a. The EPA will 

accept the state’s emission reduction factors because other factor 

differences resulted in very small differences in the final total 

tonnage reduced. 

The following is the base LDV and HDV vehicle population for each 

of the nonattainment areas. 

 

Table 1. Base Vehicle Population

 Affected area

TCF Program Federal CFF Program 

LDV HDV LDV HDV 

Houston/Galveston 35,706 3,105 50,121 4,957 

El Paso 2,481 103 4,682 299 

Dallas/Ft Worth 29,105 2,191 41,978 3,160 

TOTAL 67,292 5,399 96,781 8,416 

The following is the input base vehicle population and VOC and NOX 

emission reductions (output) calculated by TNRCC for Hou/Gal, El 

Paso, and D/FW non-attainment areas: 

 
24 

 1998 - 2007 total 

Table 2. Base vehicle Population Tonnage Reductions

LDV HDV VOC NOx 

TCF Program 67,292 5,399 928 822 

Federal CFF 

Program 

96,781 8,416 1,876 1,671 

The above table shows the TCF program has a shortfall in VOC and NOx 

emissions as compared to the federal CFF program. The shortfalls 

between the TCF and Federal CFF programs for VOC and NOx are 948 and 

849 tons, respectively, over the 1998 to 2007 ten year period. 

The turnover rate and the centrally refueled rates used to arrive 

at the above tonnage reductions are not the same as in the States’s 

backup data for the August 27, 1998, SIP revision section B.2. The 

respective rates used are per the technical clarification 

information supplemental dated November 17, 2000. The turnover rate 

input was changed from three years to four and the centrally refueled 

rates of 100 percent and 69 percent for the state and federal 

programs, respectively, were changed to 80 percent for both programs. 

The reason for these changes are: (1) Owners of LDV’s are keeping 

them longer due to the high expense and reliability of the vehicle 

and longer financing time periods. The average time a LDV owner 

keeps their vehicle has grown over the years. A longer turnover rate 

of four years would also be more realistic and supportive of the 

modeled 250 ozone day input calculation and the 100,000 miles 

lifetime emission standards used in the state’s methodology. EPA 

NOTE: The emission reduction differences between the three or four 

year turnover rates are small. However, EPA thinks it is best to 

use practicable input values that attempt to show realistic results 

in the spreadsheet model. (2) The 100 percent centrally refueled 

rate used as an input value in the state program spreadsheet is not 

a valid assumption. The state failed to consider fleets that have 

fleet vehicles not operating primarily (less than 50%) in the 

affected area, or fleet vehicles that met an exemption from the state 

program. (3) The derived surveyed input value for the centrally 

refueled rate of 69 percent for the federal CFF program did not 

include the portion of the surveyed fleet that could be centrally 

refueled. The 69 percent is the percent number of fleets surveyed 

that can or could refuel all of their fleet vehicles all of the time 

in the nonattainment area. The remaining fleets surveyed have a 

portion of their fleet not capable of 100 percent centralized 
25 

refueling and a portion that is or could be capable of 100 percent 

centralized refueling all of the time. That portion of the fleets 

surveyed that is or could be 100 percent centralized refueled all 

of the time was left out of the calculation that derived the 69 

percent. A better way to calculate the surveyed percentage results 

of the fleet population is by using a weighted average (mean) 

methodology. 

The state did a fleet survey in March of 1998 by contacting fleet 

owners and managers and asking questions regarding their fueling 

capabilities as identified in the survey questionnaire. The state 

surveyed medium size (>10 but <26) fleets were 70 out of 124 

registered and large size (>25) fleets were 175 out of 340 registered. 

Their survey calculations showed a central refueling rate of 67 

percent for the medium fleet and 70.2 percent for the large fleet 

with a combined average for medium and large fleets of 69 percent. 

Region 6 obtained a copy of the survey and calculated the following 

results. Medium size fleets surveyed showed a weighted mean of 74.5 

percent and large size fleets showed a weighted mean of 74.9 percent. 

The survey results show a central refueling rate of approximately 

75 percent for both medium and large fleets. The 75 percentage rate 

includes the surveyed fleet population that is not affected by each 

program. To accurately reflect the centralized refueling rate of 

the affected fleet population, the unaffected fleets count are 

removed from the calculations which produces a 85.7 percent 

centralize refueling rate for fleets greater than 10 and less than 

26, and a 87.5 percent centralize refueling rate for fleets larger 

than 25. The final results using the survey shows an approximate 

centralize refueling rate of 87 percent for both medium and large 

fleets. To account for fleets not surveyed, this office used an 80 

percent centralize refueling rate as an input value for approximating 

both affected fleets in the TNRCC spreadsheet tables instead of the 

100 percent centralized refueling rate input value used for the TCF 

program and the 69 percent centralized refueling rate used for the 

federal CFF program. 

The TNRCC agreed with the above discussions, and their technical 

clarification information supplemental dated November 17, 2000, 

reflects those changes. 

As discussed earlier, the State’s CFF Substitute Plan is composed 

of the TCF program and additional VOC and NOx emissions reductions 

as needed so that the State’s CFF Substitute Plan in total will meet 

the Federal CFF requirement for VOC and NOx emissions reductions. 
26 

Shortfall Reconciliation:

Originally, Texas submitted into the SIP anticipated emission 

reductions from the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program to 

make up shortfalls in the equivalency determination. 

Unfortunately, the state cannot substitute the anticipated emission 

reductions of the NLEV program for their TCF program shortfalls. The 

NLEV program is not an appropriate substitute program for the state 

because the NLEV program does not require a SIP revision by Texas 

to achieve the intended reductions in air pollution. Under the NLEV 

regulations the Northeast states, in effect, accept NLEV through a 

SIP commitment. States outside the Northeast do not need to make 

such a SIP revision. Since Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA requires 

the CFF program substitute to be contained in a SIP revision, Texas 

cannot rely on NLEV, a national program which will be implemented 

in Texas without any SIP action by the state, to make up the shortfalls 

in their State CFF Substitute Plan between the TCF program and the 

Federal CFF program. The following paragraphs detail how the 

shortfall is made up, as discussed in the State’s supplemental 

technical clarification information submitted November 17, 2000. 

For the shortfall of VOC emissions the State is using the emission 

reductions achieved through the state requirements codified in 30 

TAC Sections 115.352-115.359, regarding Fugitive Emission Control 

in Petroleum Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing, and 

Petrochemical Processes in Ozone Nonattainment Areas. The state 

requirements codified in 30 TAC Section 115.211(a)(1), regarding 

Volatile Organic Compound Transfer Operations at Gasoline Terminals, 

will also be used to offset shortfalls in emission reductions from 

the state program. The emission reductions from these rules are 

identified in the state’s 15 percent Rate of Progress Plan and go 

above the requirements of VOC RACT. These rules are for VOC emission 

reductions. 

The following table shows the estimated VOC emission reductions from 

controls on fugitive emission and VOC transfer operations in the 

Houston/Galveston, Dallas/Ft Worth and El Paso nonattainment areas. 

 
27 

Table 3. VOC Reductions from Fugitive Emissions and VOC Transfer 

Operations (Estimated for Houston-Galveston, El Paso and Dallas-Fort 

Worth)

Year

Houston-Galveston El Paso Dallas-Fort Worth

Fugitive

VOC 

Tons/Day

Bulk Gas

VOC 

Tons/Day

Fugitive

VOC 

Tons/Day

Bulk Gas

VOC 

Tons/Day

Fugitive

VOC 

Tons/Day

Bulk Gas

VOC 

Tons/Day

1998 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

1999 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2000 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2001 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2002 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2003 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2004 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2005 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2006 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2007 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

Totals = 460.3 33.6 11.3 7.7 0.7 21.7 

Total Combined 

Reduction(TCR)in 

Tons per Day = 493.9 19 22.4 

Total Tons of VOCs

Reduced from 1998 to 

2007 =

(TCR x 250 day

Ozone Year) 123,475.00 4,750.00 5,600.00 

The State has identified excess NOx emission reductions resulting 

from state mandated NOx reduction requirements placed on electric 

generating facilities (EGFs) by the 76th Texas Legislature in Senate 

Bill 7 for the HGA and DFW nonattainment areas. These requirements 

are found in 30 TAC, Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Emissions Banking 

and Trading, Division 1, Utility Electric Generation and Division 

2, Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances. The State 

estimates, and the EPA concurs, that these reductions combined with 

other state mandated reductions will result in a 184 tpd reduction 

from EGFs in the eight-county HGA area. For the DFW area, electric 

utilities reductions of NOx emissions are estimated at 129 tpd. 

Table 4 summarizes the NOx emissions reductions. 

 
28 

Table 4. Estimated NOx Emissions Reductions

Nonattainment Area Tons/Day 1998-2007 

Total Tons 

Houston-Galveston 184 460,000 

Dallas/Fort Worth 129 322,500 

The following table shows EPA’s estimated VOC and NOx emission 

reductions using the TNRCC spreadsheet model for the HGA, DFW and 

El Paso nonattainment areas. 

Table 5. Estimated Tons Reductions for 1998-2007

 VOC NOx 

Federal LDV HDV Total LDV HDV Total 

Hou/Gal 683 329 1012 585 319 904 

El Paso 64 20 84 55 19 74 

D/FW 571 209 780 490 203 693 

Total 1318 558 1876 1130 541 1671 

 VOC NOx 

State LDV HDV Total LDV HDV Total 

Hou/Gal 365 138 503 313 134 447 

El Paso 25 5 30 22 4 26 

D/FW 298 97 395 255 94 349 

Total 688 240 928 590 232 822 

Comparing the estimated emission reductions in Tables 3 and 4 with 

Table 5 shows state controls on fugitive emission and VOC transfer 

operations make up the shortfall of VOC emissions reduction from the 

state’s Clean Fleet program. State controls for NOx emissions in 

the Houston/Galveston and Dallas/Ft Worth nonattainment areas make 

up the shortfall for NOx in those areas. The El Paso nonattainment 

area has a NOx waiver in place, so the state program can make up the 

combined VOC and NOx shortfall from the VOC controls on fugitive 

emissions and VOC transfer operations in the El Paso area. 
29 

IV. Conclusions

The EPA has reviewed the Revision by the State of Texas for 

implementation of a substitute CFF program. EPA’s responsibility 

is to express an opinion on the submittal based on current Federal 

CAA requirements, EPA regulations and guidance. EPA conducted its 

review to obtain reasonable assurance that the program submittal does 

not produce misapplications of the law and is free of material 

misstatements. EPA also evaluated the overall effectiveness of the 

program. EPA believes that its evaluation provides a reasonable 

basis for its opinion. 

In EPA’s opinion, the substitute CFF program (comprised of the TCF 

program, supplemented with additional VOC and NOx emission controls 

for mitigation of TCF program emissions shortfalls) as submitted by 

Texas is sufficient to meet both the VOC and NOx emission reduction 

components of ozone producing pollutants of the federal CFF program. 

Due to the state’s Clean Fleet program departure from many of the 

federal requirements as noted in this technical support document, 

the program by itself is not sufficiently comprehensive of the 

requirements of Sections 110 and 246 of the Act and appropriate 

sections of 40 CFR part 88 to alone substitute for the Federal CFF 

program. However, in combination with the above RACT VOC fugitive 

controls rules and VOC transfer operations rules, and with the 

specified NOx reductions beyond federal requirements to cover the 

federal CFF program NOx reductions shortfall, the state substitute 

program does demonstrate equivalency or better long term reductions 

in ozone producing and toxic air pollutants than the Federal CFF 

program. 

V. Recommendations

 The Regional office recommends approval of the state’s 

substitute CFF program for the Federal CFF program. 
APPENDIX A 

State Supplemental Technical Clarification 

Information Letter 

Dated November 17, 2000
NOTE TO READER: 

The February 7, 2001 (66 FR 9203) direct final rule Federal Register approving the Texas clean 

fuel fleet substitution program and this technical support document for the February 7, 2001 

Federal Register action cite a November 17, 2000, letter from the Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to EPA with additional technical information clarifying 

"how the State would make up the shortfall for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions between the State’s present (August 27, 1998) CFF program and the 

Federal CFF program." The November 17, 2000, letter was not found in EPA files. However, 

the November 21, 2000, letter on the following five pages is probably the letter referred to. 

Also, the November 21, 2000, letter is in EPA files with this technical support document. 
Robert J. Huston, Chairman 

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner 

John M. Baker, Commissioner 

Jeffrey A. Saitas, Executive Director 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

Mr. Gregg A Cooke 

Regional Administrator, Region 6 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Cooke: 

November 21, 2000 

N 

_ _j 

This letter provides the supplemental data relating to the Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) program 

equivalency determination that was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

in a letter from Mr. Thomas Diggs dated October 19, 2000. EPA requested the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission to provide a letter oftechnical supplement to the State's August 

19, 1998 submittal titled "Revisions to Chapter 114 and to the State Implementation Plan." 

Specifically, EPA requested: 

• Tables showing the State's final emissions values for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from the TCF program and comparing any emission shortfalls that 

exist between TCF and Federal Clean Fuel Fleet programs. 

• Quantification of VOC controls above Reasonably Available Control Technology to 

demonstrate substitute programs to make up the VOC shortfalls. 

• Quantification ofNOx controls above federal required programs to demonstrate substitute 

programs to make up the NOx shortfalls. 

• Revised final spreadsheets for both VOC and NOx emissions reflecting the changes in 

turnover years (4 years versus 3) and centrally fueled percentages (80 percent for both 

programs versus I 00 percent - state and 69 percent - federal). 

Enclosed with this letter are two revised tables: Table I for VOC and Table 2 for NOx that outline 

the emission shortfalls for both VOC and NOx, using the revised turnover rate and centrally fueled 

percentages as requested in the EPA letter. The estimated emission shortfalls for the TCF program 

for the 1998-2007 ten-year period are 947.9 total tons or 0.38 tons per day (tpd) for VOC and 848.2 

total tons or 0.34 tpd for NOx. 

11 3087 • 512/239 1000 • Internet address: www.tnrcc.state.tx.us P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 787 · · printn! on recycled paper usmg soy-based ink 

.. -----~ 
Mr. Gregg A. Cooke 

Page2 

November 21, 2000 

The State identified additional VOC emission reductions from VOC controls on fugitive emissions 

and VOC transfer operations in the August 19, 1998 SIP submittal. These are provided in Table 3 

included with this letter. A portion of the additional emission reduction from these VOC control 

strategies was identified as an offset for the VOC shortfalls in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) and 

Houston/Galveston (HGA) nonattainrnent areas. The additional VOC emission reductions are also 

identified to offset the combined VOC and NOx shortfall for the El Paso (EP) nonattainrnent area 

since EP has a NOx waiver in place. 

The State has identified excess NOx emission reductions resulting from state mandated NOx 

reduction requirements placed on electric generating facilities (EGFs) by the 76'h Texas Legislature 

in Senate Bill 7 for the HGA and DFW nonattainment areas. These requirements are found in 30 

TAC, Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Emissions Banking and Trading, Division I, Utility Electric 

Generation and Division 2, Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances. These reductions 

combined with other state mandated reductions call for a 184 tpd reduction from EGFs in the eightcounty HGA area. For the DFW area, electric utilities were required to reduce NOx emissions by 

129 tpd. Both of these reduction measures go beyond federally required controls for NOx in these 

areas and more than make up for any short fall in the state's opt-out Clean Fuel Fleet Program. 

If there are any questions relating to this information, please contact Ms. Hazel Barbour on my staff 

at (512) 239-1439 or by e-mail at hbarbour@tnrcc.state.tx.us. 

Sincerely, 

L--t1"f'f~;"b;~~;;as~, P.E., Executive Director 

atural Resource Conservation Commission 

Enclosures 
Table l . Texas Clean Fleet and Federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program Comparisons - VOC 

Total Combined Emission Reduction Output Page - Configured for RealTime LEV Parameters 

Non-Attainment Area: All Pvt & LciGov VOC Reduc

HDV 

0 Base LEV Population = 

67,292 5,399 Base Fleet Vehicle Population = 96

Growth Rate(%)= 2.2 2.2 Growth Rate(%)= 

Turnover Rate in Years = 4 10.5 Turnover Rate in Years = 

Centrally Refueled(%)= 80 80 Centrally Refueled(%)= 

Average Waiver Rate(%)= 30 30 Average Waiver Rate(%)= 

Grandfathering Rate(%)= 10 1 

Program Effectiveness(%)= 80 80 Program Effectiveness(%)= 

Emission Reduction Variables Emission Reduction Variabl

mission Reduction Factor (g/mlle) = 0.14 0.98 Emission Reduction Factor (g/mlle) = 0

VMT (miles/day) = 100 144 VMT (miles/day) = 1

Days I Ozone Year = 250 250 Days I Ozone Year= 2

State LEV Population calculated with 

the following purchase schedule: 

Year LDV Rate(%) HDV Rate(%) 

9/1/98 30 30 

n 

1998 

9/1/00 50 50 1999 

9/1/02+ 70 50 2000 

2001 

State Program Reduction Output 

LDV HDV 

Years: TONS/DAY TONS/DAY Years: TON

1998 0.001 0.000 1998 0.

1999 0.003 0.001 1999 0.

2000 0.033 0.012 2000 0.

2001 0.106 0.037 2001 0.

2002 0.192 0.064 2002 0.

2003 0.316 0.096 2003 0.

2004 0.430 0.132 2004 0.

2005 0.505 0.169 2005 0.

2006 0.569 0.206 2006 0.

2007 0.596 0.244 2007 0.

-

0.275 --, r Average Reduction per Day: 0.096 - Average Reduction per Day: 

Combined Average Reduction = I 0.371 I Tons/Day Combined Average Reduction = 

Total Tons Reduced (1998- 2007) = I 927.95 I TID • Ozone Yr. Total Tons Reduced 
Table 2. Texas Clean Fleet and Federal Clean Fuel Fleet Program Comparisons - NOx 

Total Combined Emission Reduction Output Page- Configured for RealTime LEV Parameters 

Non-Attainment Area: All Pvt & LciGov 

Base Fleet Vehicle Population = 

Growth Rate(%)= 

Turnover Rate In Years = 

Centrally Refueled(%)= 

Average Waiver Rate(%)= 

es 

LDV 

0 

67,292 

2.2 

4 

80 30 

Grandfathering Rate(%)= 10 

Program Effectiveness(%)= 80 

Emission Reduction Variables 

mission Reduction Factor (g/mlle) = 0.12 

VMT (miles/day)= 100 

Days I Ozone Year = 250 

State LEV Population calculated with 

the following purchase schedule: 

Year LDV Rate(%) 

9/1/98 30 

9/1/00 50 

9/1/02+ 70 

State Program Reduction Output 

LDV 

Years: 

1998 1999 

2000 

2001 2002 2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Average Reduction per Day: 

Combined Average Reduction = 

Total Tons Reduced (1998- 2007) = 

TONS/DAY 

0.001 0.003 0.028 

0.090 

0.164 0.271 0.369 0.433 

0.488 

0.511 

0.236 

HDV 

0 

5,399 

2.2 

10.5 

80 

30 

1 

80 

0.95 

144 

250 

HDV Rate(%) 

30 50 50 

HDV 

TONS/DAY 

0.000 

0.001 0.011 

0.036 0.062 

0.093 0.128 

0.163 0.200 0.237 

0.093 

TID • Ozone Yr. 

Base LEV Population = 

Base Fleet Vehicle Population = 

Growth Rate(%)= 

Turnover Rate In Years = 

Centrally Refueled(%)= 

Average Waiver Rate(%)= 

96

Program Effectiveness(%)= 

Emission Reduction Variabl

Emission Reduction Factor (g/mlle) = 0

VMT (miles/day) = 

Days I Ozone Year = 

1998 1999 

2000 

2001 

Years: 

1998 1999 

2000 

2001 2002 2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Average Reduction per Day: 

Combined Average Reduction = 

Total Tons Reduced 

TON

00

0000

0

0

00
Table 3. VOC Reductions from Fugitive Emissions and VOC Transfer Operations 

(Estimated for Houston-Galveston, El Paso and Dallas-Fort Worth) 

Houston-Galveston El Paso Dallas-Fort Worth 

Year Fugitive Bulk Gas Fugitive Bulk Gas Fugitive Bulk Gas 

voc voc voc voc voc voc 

Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day Tons/Day 

1998 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0,07 2.17 

1999 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2000 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0,07 2.17 

2001 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2002 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0.07 2.17 

2003 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0,07 2.17 

2004 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0,07 2.17 

2005 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 0,07 2.17 

2006 46.03 3.36 1.13 0.77 O.o7 2.17 

2007 46.03 3.36 Ll3 0.77 0,07 2.17 

Accumulated Totals= 460.3 33.6 11.3 7.7 0.7 21.7 

Total Combined Reduction 493.9 19 22.4 (TCR) in Tons per Dav = 

Total Tons ofVOCs 

Reduced from 

1998- 2007 = 123,475.00 4,750.00 5,600.00 

tTCR x 250 dav Ozone Y earl