Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50205 

[FR Doc. 05–16594 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0022; FRL–7959–5] 

Limited Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown 

and Malfunction Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes limited 

approval of revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

excess emissions which we proposed, 

through the parallel processing 

mechanism, on May 9, 2005. 

Specifically, we are finalizing limited 

approval of revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 

101, General Air Quality Rules 

concerning excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) activities. The action will have 

the effect of extending the expiration 

date of certain provisions from June 30, 

2005 to no later than June 30, 2006. 

Texas has made this change to allow for 

additional time before these provisions 

expire from the SIP to submit a revised 

excess emissions rule for our approval 

into the SIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 26, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the following 

locations. Anyone wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the appropriate office 

at least two working days in advance. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality, 

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 

78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar of the Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at 

(214) 665–6691, shar.alan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

1. What actions are we taking in this 

document? 

2. What documents did we use in the 

evaluation of this rule? 

3. Who submitted comments to us? 

4. What is our response to the submitted 

written comments? 

5. What areas in Texas will these rule 

revisions affect? 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

In this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and 

‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background Information 

1. What Actions Are We Taking in This 

Document? 

On May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) we 

proposed limited approval of revisions 

to the Texas SIP pertaining to excess 

emissions during SSM activities. See 30 

TAC, General Air Quality Rule 101, 

subchapter F, sections 101.221, 101.222, 

and 101.223. The currently approved 

Texas SIP provides that these three 

provisions of the State rules, that 

address excess emissions resulting from 

SSM related activities, will expire by 

their own terms on June 30, 2005. In 

granting a limited approval of those 

provisions of the State rule EPA 

interpreted those provisions to mean the 

subsections would expire from the 

approved SIP on that date (June 30, 

2005). 

Our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) 

proposal addressed changes to each of 

these three provisions which would 

extend the expiration date to as late as 

June 30, 2006. Specifically, the State 

revised each of the three subsections to 

provide: 

‘‘This section expires on January 15, 2006, 

unless the commission submits a revised 

version of this section to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for review and 

approval into the Texas state implementation 

plan. If the commission submits a revised 

version of this section, this section expires on 

June 30, 2006.’’ 

See 30 TAC, General Air Quality Rule 

101, Subchapter F, subsections 

101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 101.223(e). 

Today, we are taking final action on 

the May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) proposal. 

Because we proposed to approve these 

revisions prior to the time the State 

completed its state rulemaking process, 

we compared the final version of the 

adopted State submission with the 

submission on which the proposed 

rulemaking was based. The comparison 

reveals no changes in the State’s final 

submission. The change we are 

approving today will, in effect, extend 

the expiration date of the affected 

sections from June 30, 2005 to January 

15, 2006, unless the State submits a 

replacement rule to EPA, which would 

have the effect of extending the 

expiration date in the SIP to June 30, 

2006. 

The EPA believes it is important to 

reiterate our interpretation of the phrase 

in the State’s rule, ‘‘submits a revised 

version of this section.’’ If we receive a 

SIP submission of a state-adopted 

revised version of the specified sections 

prior to January 15, 2006, we will 

review the submission for completeness 

in accordance with our completeness 

regulations. See 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V. If the State fails to submit 

an adopted rule by January 15, 2006, or 

submits a SIP that we determine is 

incomplete, the existing regulations will 

expire from the SIP effective January 15, 

2006. If we find the submission 

complete, then the rule will expire from 

the SIP on June 30, 2006, or at an earlier 

date if so provided by a replacement 

rule that we approve into the Texas SIP 

prior to June 30, 2006. 

The EPA intends to work with the 

State during the State’s rulemaking 

process to identify any issues that 

would prevent our full approval of the 

replacement rule. Although we cannot 

prejudge our ultimate decision on a 

future SIP submission prior to our 

review of such revisions and our 

consideration of any public comments 

in response to our proposed action on 

such submission, we will attempt to 

identify any issues that would prevent 

our full approval of the replacement 

rule during the State’s rulemaking 

process and any preliminary 

discussions we may have with the State. 

We are granting limited, rather than 

full, approval of this SIP submittal. We 

are granting limited approval of this rule 

because we granted limited approval of 

the regulations which are modified by 

this revision. Although this action will 

extend the expiration date of sections 

101.221, 101.222, and 101.223, the basis 

for our limited approval of the State’s 

excess emissions rules remains 

unchanged as explained in our March 

30, 2005 (70 FR 16129) rulemaking 

action. 

2. What Documents Did We Use in the 

Evaluation of This Rule? 

The EPA’s interpretation of the Act on 

excess emissions occurring during SSM 

is set forth in the following documents: 

a memorandum dated September 28, 

1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, 

Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, 

and Radiation, entitled ‘‘Policy on 

Excess Emissions During Startup, 

Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions;’’ EPA’s clarification to the 

above policy memorandum dated 

February 15, 1983, from Kathleen M. 

Bennett, Assistant Administrator for 

Air, Noise, and Radiation; EPA’s policy 

50206 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

memorandum reaffirming and 

supplementing the above policy, dated 

September 20, 1999, from Steven A. 

Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 1999 Policy); 

EPA’s final rule for Utah’s sulfur 

dioxide control strategy (Kennecott 

Copper), 42 FR 21472 (April 27, 1977), 

and EPA’s final rule for Idaho’s sulfur 

dioxide control strategy, 42 FR 58171 

(November 8, 1977); and the latest 

clarification of EPA’s policy issued on 

December 5, 2001. See the policy or 

clarification of policy at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. 

To find the latest Federally approved 

Texas SIP concerning excess emissions 

see 70 FR 16129 (March 30, 2005). 

3. Who Submitted Comments to Us? 

We received written comments on our 

May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) proposed 

limited approval of the Texas SIP 

revision. The comments were submitted 

by the Environmental Integrity Project, 

Galveston-Houston Association for 

Smog Prevention, Sierra Club Lone Star 

Chapter, Blue Skies Alliance, 

Downwinders at Risk, Community InPower and Development Association, 

Public Citizen’s Texas Office, and Texas 

Public Interest Research Group (the 

Commenters) during the public 

comment period. 

4. What Is Our Response to the 

Submitted Written Comments? 

Our responses to the written 

comments concerning the proposed May 

9, 2005 (70 FR 24348), Texas SIP 

revision are as follows: 

Comment #1: The Commenters agree 

that we should grant a limited approval 

of the extended expiration date in 

subsections 101.221(g) and 101.223(e), 

but claim that for the following reasons 

(see Comments #2, 3, and 4) we should 

disapprove the extension of the 

expiration date in subsection 

101.222(h). 

Response to Comment #1: We 

appreciate the Commenters’ support of 

limited approval of subsections 

101.221(g) and 101.223(e). See our 

responses to Comments #2, 3, and 4 of 

this document concerning subsection 

101.222(h). 

Comment #2: The Commenters state 

that an affirmative defense cannot apply 

to emissions exceedances of the 

Federally promulgated performancebased or technology driven standards 

such as New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS), and National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP). While EPA’s 

interpretation of Texas’ rules is clear 

from EPA’s statements in the final 

limited approval (70 FR at 16132), EPA 

should not approve a revision to the 

Texas rules unless Texas clarifies on the 

face of the rule that any affirmative 

defense does not apply to Federally 

promulgated performance-based or 

technology driven standards or other 

Federal requirements. 

Response to Comment #2: We agree 

that in order to receive a full approval 

of the rule, Texas needs to revise the 

rule to make clear that the affirmative 

defense is not available for violations of 

Federally promulgated performancebased or technology driven standards 

such as NSPS and NESHAP. In this 

action, we are only considering a brief 

extension of the existing rule for which 

we issued a limited approval on March 

30, 2005. Because the extension of the 

expiration date is brief, we do not 

believe the underlying flaws in the rule 

mandate a disapproval of the extension 

and that it is appropriate to grant a 

limited approval of the revised 

expiration date. However, we note that 

EPA will not approve any further 

extensions of the expiration date in the 

absence of the State correcting the 

defects in the current rule. See section 

1 of our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24349). 

Comment #3: The Commenters state 

that subsection 101.222(c) exempts 

excess emissions during scheduled 

maintenance, startup, and shutdown 

from permitting requirements, if certain 

criteria are met, and conclude that such 

exemptions could jeopardize SIP’s 

ability to attain and maintain 

compliance with the SIP. In addition, 

the commenters note that EPA’s SSM 

guidance makes clear that scheduled 

maintenance, startup and shutdown 

activities should be accounted for in the 

plan and design, and an affirmative 

defense should not be available. The 

Commenters state that because 

subsections 101.222(c) and (e) violate 

the Act and EPA’s guidance, EPA 

cannot approve an extension of the 

expiration date for these provisions. 

Response to Comment #3: We agree 

with many of the points raised by the 

Commenters regarding the underlying 

flaws with subsections 101.222(c) and 

(e), and those flaws were the basis for 

our limited, rather than full approval of 

the State’s excess emissions rules. See 

section 3 of our March 30, 2005 (70 FR 

16130–16131). 

However, we do not think the brief 

extension of the expiration date at issue 

here will have a significant effect and 

that it is appropriate to grant a limited 

approval of the revised expiration 

provision. As noted above, however, we 

will not grant any further extensions of 

the expiration date in the absence of a 

submitted SIP revision correcting the 

defects in the rule. See section 1 of our 

May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24349). 

Comment #4: The Commenters state 

that because subsections 101.222(b) and 

(d) limit the ability of citizen and EPA 

enforcement, EPA cannot approve the 

extension of the expiration date for 

these provisions under section 

101.222(h). 

Response to Comment #4: In part, we 

based our rationale for a limited, rather 

than a full, approval of Texas SSM rule 

on concerns similar to those expressed 

by the Commenters. See our explanation 

at 70 FR 16130. As provided above, 

however, we do not believe these flaws 

with the rule for which we granted a 

limited approval mandate that we 

disapprove the brief extension of the 

expiration date. 

This concludes our responses to the 

written comments we received during 

public comment period concerning May 

9, 2005 (70 FR 24348), Texas proposed 

SIP revision. 

5. What Areas in Texas Will These Rule 

Revisions Affect? 

These rule revisions affect all sources 

of air emissions operating within the 

State of Texas that are subject to 

emission reduction requirements under 

the State’s SIP approved regulations. 

II. Final Action 

Today, we are finalizing limited 

approval of the deletion of existing SIP 

subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 

101.223(e) and the addition of revised 

subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 

101.223(e) into the Texas SIP. We 

published the proposal for this limited 

approval on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50207 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. The EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 25, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Excess emissions, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 10, 2005. 

Lawrence Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the 

Texas SIP’’ is amended by revising the 

entries for sections 101.221, 101.222, 

and 101.223 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State, approval/, submittal, date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter F—Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities 

* * * * * * * 

Section 101.221 ............................... Operational Requirements .............. 06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from

published date].

With Expiration Date. 

Section 101.222 ............................... Demonstrations ............................... 06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from 

published date].

With Expiration Date. 

Section 101.223 ............................... Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions.06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from 

published date].

With Expiration Date. 

* * * * * * * 

50208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 24, 1997, entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs).’’ 

[FR Doc. 05–16933 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[TX 126–1–7690; FRL–7960–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Dallas-Fort Worth Voluntary Mobile 

Emission Reduction Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Texas. This 

revision approves the Dallas-Fort Worth 

(DFW) Voluntary Mobile Emission 

Reduction Program (VMEP) which is 

relied upon to achieve the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone in the DFW nonattainment 

area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 26, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are in the official 

file which is available at the Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

Copies of any State submittals and 

EPA’s technical support document are 

also available for public inspection at 

the State Air Agency listed below 

during official business hours by 

appointment: Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air 

Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, 

Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

rennie.sandra@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Outline of Topics 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking and Why? 

II. What Are the Federal Requirements? 

III. What Is the Background for This Action? 

IV. What Did the State Submit? 

V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include? 

VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to the January 18, 2001, 

Proposed Rule? 

VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking and 

Why? 

We are approving the DFW VMEP 

into the Texas SIP. We are taking this 

action because the State submitted a SIP 

revision that relies on the VMEP to 

achieve the NAAQS in the DFW ozone 

nonattainment area. 

II. What Are the Federal Requirements? 

Section 172 of the Act provides the 

general requirements for nonattainment 

plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110 

require SIPs to include enforceable 

emission limitations, and such other 

control measures, means or techniques 

as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary to 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date. Today’s action involves 

approval of one of a collection of 

controls adopted by the State to achieve 

the ozone standard in the DFW 

nonattainment area as required under 

section 172. EPA approval of this SIP 

revision is governed by section 110 of 

the Act. 

III. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

In the Federal Register published on 

January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4756) we 

proposed to approve a Voluntary Mobile 

Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP) 

in nine counties (including the DFW 4- 

county area) as local initiatives. The 

counties are Collin, Dallas, Denton, and 

Tarrant along with the surrounding 

counties of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, and Rockwall. 

Voluntary mobile source strategies 

that attempt to complement existing 

regulatory programs through voluntary, 

non-regulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine composition 

constitute the VMEP. EPA concludes 

that the Clean Air Act allows SIP credit 

for new approaches to reducing mobile 

source emissions. This flexible 

approach is consistent with section 110. 

Up to 3% of the total future year 

emissions reductions required to attain 

the appropriate NAAQS may be claimed 

under the VMEP policy.1

Specifically, the guidance suggests 

key points be considered for approval of 

credits. The credits should be 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, 

permanent, and adequately supported. 

The State must timely assess and 

backfill any shortfall pursuant to 

enforceable commitments in the SIP in 

the event that the projected emission 

reductions are not achieved. In addition, 

VMEPs must be consistent with 

attainment of the standard and with the 

Rate of Progress requirements and not 

interfere with other Clean Air Act 

requirements. 

IV. What Did the State Submit? 

The State submitted program 

descriptions that projected emission 

reductions attributable to each specific 

voluntary program. These program 

descriptions were included in the DFW 

1-hour ozone SIP revision submitted 

April 25, 2000. 

V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include? 

The following Table lists the 

programs and projected credits. 

Programs submitted with no credit 

assigned are also listed. 

VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED

Program type VOC benefits 

(tons per day) 

NOX benefits 

(tons per day) 

Alternative Fuel Program ......................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.18 

Employee Trip Reduction ........................................................................................................................................ 0.29 0.53 

Public Education Campaign/Ozone Season Fare Reduction ................................................................................. 0.08 0.15