FINAL ACTION ON RE<;ULATIONS 

### 708 

# Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY
Notice of Final Action [11·028-F] On May 12

. 2011. the Secretary of the Environment adopted : {I) Amendments to Regulation .10 under COMAR 26.11.02 Pennits, Approvals, and Registration: (2) Amendments to Regulation .01 and the repeal of existing Regulation 

### .OS.. I under COMAR 26.11.09 Control or**Fuei-Burnin~** Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations; and (3) New Regulations .01-.04 under a new chapter, COMAR 26.11.36 Distributed Generation.

This action, which was proposed for adoption in 38:2 Md. R. 106-110 (January 14. 2011), has been adopted with the nonsubstantive changes shown below

. Effective Date: June 13, 2011. Attorney General's Certification In accordance with State Government Article, §10-113, Annotated Code of Maryland, the Attorney General certifies that the following changes do not differ substantively from the proposed text. The nature of the changes and the basis for this conclusion are as follows : COMAR 26.11.36

. 04A{4) : Th is change clarifies Regulation .04 by appropriately placing the statement ·•as called for by the CSP ' ' in the subsection lead-in. rather than in paragraph (b) alone. Therefore. §A(4)(a)

- (c) are definitively understood to be actions that are required to be part of the report when called to operate by the CSP. 

## 26.11.36 Distributed Generation

Authority : Environment Article, §-§ 1·101, 1-404 , 2-101

- 2-10 3 , 2·301

- 2- JOJ, I0-102, and I0-1 0 3 , Annotated Code of Maryland .04 Annual Report Requirement for Curtailment Service Providers (CSPs). A

. A CSP that admimstt rs a demand response pro g ram for a participating facility in the Stat e shall provide the following information to the Department in an annual report : (I)- (3) (proposed text unchan g ed) (4) 

### II Theil As called for hv the CSP the dates on wlric h each engine was requested to o pe ra t e durin g the year and the hours of operation on each date, includin g: (a) (proposed tex t unchan ged) (b) The starting and end i ng times when eaclt en g ine was requested to operate lias called for b y the C S PII : and (c) (proposed text u n chang ed) (5)- (7) (proposed t e xt unch anged) B.

- C. {proposed text unch anged) ROB ERT M

. SUMMERS, Ph

. D. Acting Secretary of the E nv ironmen t 

# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 26.11.31 

## Quality Ass11rance Req11irements for

Contim1o11s Opacity Monitors (COMs) Aut/ror/1)• : Ent•ironment Article

. §§1-101, 1-IO.f

. 2 -101-2-103, 2-J0/

- 2- JOJ. /0-/02 , ond 10
· /0J

. Annotated Code of Maryland Notice or Final Action [ 11-024-F-lJ On May 16. 2011, the Secretary of the Environment adopted the repeal of existing Regulations .01-.15 under COMAR 26.11.31 Small Business Pollution Compliance Loan Program and new Regulations .01-.12 under a new chapter. COMAR 26

. 11.31 Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMs). This action

. which was proposed for adoption in 38:2 Md. R. 121-125 (January 14. 201 1), has been adopted as proposed

. Effective Date: June 13,2011. ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph

. D. Secretary of the Environment

MARYLAND**REG1~1ER,** VOLUME 38, ISSU E 12, F RIDAY, JUNE 3, 2011

# •

•

•

# 0 

# \

. PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

.05 Worker Training Course Requirements. A.-B. (text unchanged) C. The training course shall also comply with the requirements of 29 CFR §§1926.1 101 and 1910.134 [(1997), 63 FR 1152 (January 8, 1998)[, which arc incorporated by reference. 

### .06 Contractor/Supervisor Training Course Requirements. A.-B. (text unchanged) C. The training course shall also comply with the requirements of 29 CFR §§1926.1101 and 1910.134 [(1997), 63 FR 1152 (January 8, 1998)), which arc incorporated by reference. .10 Training Course Application. A. (text unchanged) B. Except for training providers in §C of this regulation. an opplicant shall pay by certified check, cashier's check, or money order an annual fee of[$ 100[ $200 for each day of a training course. or portion of a training course, for each initial and review training course for which an applicant seeks approval, including renewals. C.-D. (text unchanged) .11 Training Course Provider Requirements. A.-D. (text unchanged) E. The training provider shall provide students with an opportunity to complete course evaluations on forms provided 

### or approved by the Department. F.-L. (text unchanged) ROBERT M. SUMMERS. Ph.D. Acting Secretary of the Environment 

# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 26.11.31 Quality Assurance Requireme11ts for

Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMs) Authority: Environment Articl e
. §§/-101, 1-404. 2-101-2-103, 2-301-2- 303, 10-102, and 10-103, Annotated Code o f Maryland Notice of Proposed Action [11-024-P-IJ The Secretary of the Environment proposes to repeal ex1stmg Regulations .01

- .15 under COMAR 26.11.31 Small Business Pollution Compliance Loan Program and adopt new Regulations

.01

- .12 under a new chapter. COMAR 26.11.31 Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMs). Statement of Purpose

The purpose ofthis action is to: (I) Repeal the current regulations under COMAR 26.11.31 to retlect the repeal of the Small Business Pollution Compliance Loan Fund effective October I, 2009 (House Bill1416): and (2) CodifY the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures for continuous opacity monitors (COMs). The procedures are currently contained in the Department's Technical Memorandum 90-01 (TM). This action will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval as part of Maryland's State Implementation Plan. 121 Background The TM was adopted in 1991, when continuous emissions monitoring requirements were first promulgated by the State. Those regulations were approved as part of the Department's continuous emission monitoring program by the EPA on February 28. 1996. 

### It is now necessary to promulgate a regulation codifYing the QA and QC procedures found in the 

### TM because the Department proposes to terminate its use. Specifically, the QA and QC procedures for COMs which are currently applied through use of the 

### TM will be incorporated in this new chapter, COMAR 26.11.31. These proposed regulations incorporate by reference the current federal performance and design specification requirements for the operation of opacity monitoring systems. To the extent that the EPA adopts revised requirements in the future, the Department will review those federal procedures and consider amendment of its regulation to adopt and incorporate any federal QA and QCs.
Sources Affected and Location: This action affects any source required to install and operate COMs, including fuel burning equipment with a heat input capacity of 100 million Btu per hour, cement plants, and municipol waste combustors. These sources currently utilize the proposed QA and QC procedures. os found in Part II of the TM. Expected Emissions Reductions: There arc no emission reductions as a result of this action. Comparison to Federal Standards There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action. but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent. Estimate of Economic Impact The proposed action has no economic impact. Economic: Impact on Small Businesses The proposed action has minimal or no economic impact on small bus ines s e s
. Impact on Individuals with Disabilities The proposed action hos no impact on individuals with disabilities

. Opportunity for Public: Comment The Departme nt of the Environment will hold 

### a public hearing on the proposed action on February 

### I 5, 2011, at 10 am. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, lst Floor Conference Rooms. Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720

. Interested person s are invited to attend and express their views. Comments m a y be sent t o Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Env ironment, 1800 Washington Boulevard

. Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720, or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. Comments must be received not later than February 16, 2011, or be submitted at t he hearing. For more information , call Deborah Rabin at (410) 537-3240. Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents are avoilable fo r rev iew at the following location s : The Air and Radiation Mana gement Administration: regional offices of the Department in Cumberland and Salisbury; all local air quality control offices ; and local health departments in those counties not having separate air qual ity control o ffi ces. Anyone needing special accommodations at the public hearing should contact the Department's Fair Practices Office at (410) 537- 3964. TfY users may contact the Department through the Maryland Relay Service at 1-800-735-2258.

MARYLAND REGISTER. VOLUME 38, ISSUE 2, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14,2011PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS 

### 112
Editor's Note on Incorporation by Reference Pursuant to State Government Article, §7-207, Annotated Code of Maryland, the Perfonnance Audit Procedures for Opacity Monitors
. EPA 450/4-92

- 010 March 1992. Atmospheric Research and E xpos ure Assessment Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 has been declared a docum ent generally available to the public and appropriate for incorporation by reference. For thi s reason. it will not be printed in the Maryland Register or the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)

. Copies of this document are filed in spe cial public depositories located throughout the State. A list of these dep?sitories was published in 37 : I Md. R. 9 (January 4, 2010), and is**~va•lable** online at www.dsd.state .m d.us. The document may also be mspected at the office of the Divi s ion of State Documents, 16 Fr ancis Street, Annapolis , Maryland 21401.

•OJ 

### Scope. This chapter codifies the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures previously established by the Department's Technical Memorandum 90-0/ 

### for continuous opacity monitors (COMs). Th e procedures are t ransferred into thi s chapter in regulatory format. In addition, the general provisions and quality control requir ements found in COMAR 26.11.01./0 

### ar e a/so applicable to COMs. 

### .02Applicability. A. The pr oce dures specified by this chapter shall be used to evaluate the effectiveness of afacility's quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) proceduresfor CO Ms. The procedures specify the minimum quality assurance requirementsfor the assessment and control of COM data. B. 

### Source owners and operators using COMs shall meet these minimum req uirement s and are encouraged to develop a nd impleme nt a more extensive QA and 

### QC program or to continue the programs wh ere they already exist

. 

### C. Data collected as a result ofQA and QC measur es required in thi

s chapter shall be submilled to the Department

. These data shall be used by both the Department and the owner or ope rator in assessing the effectiveness of the procedures in maintain ing acceptable operation a nd valid emi ssion data

. D

. All sources using COMs shall develop and implement the required 

### QC plan upon successjitl completion of th e initial performance specification test and shall conduct the required QA procedures beginning with the fir s t calendar quarter following th e successfulperformance specification t est. E

. These procedures explicitly specify th e quality assessment methods to be 

### used for calibration drift and quality audits but do not address the evaluation of monitor installation location or the design specificatioll v erification procedures which are addressed in Appendix B 

### of .JO 

### CFR Part 60.



### • 03 lncorporalion by Refertmce.

A. In this chapter, the following documents are in corporated by refer ence
. B

. Document s Incorporated. (I) Performance Specification I (PSI) und e r 40 

### CF R Part 60, 

### Appendix B. (2) Performance Audit Pr oced ures for Opacity Monitors. E PA 45014-92-0/0 

### March 1992, 

### Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assess m e nt Laboratory, R esea rc h Triangle Park, North Ca rolina 

### 27711. .04 Definitions. A

. In this chapter, the following t erms have the meaning s indicated. B. Term s Defined

. (/) "C alibration drift (CD) "nrea11s the difference in the COM output reading from a reference value after a period ofope ration during which no unscheduled maintenance , repair , or adjustment took place. The reference value may be the simulated zero (or lowlevel) check or the upscale calibration value. (2) 

### "Ca librat ion error " mea11S the difference behveen the opacity values indicated by the COM and the known values ofa series of ca libration attenuators (neutral densityfilters). (3) 

### "Simulated zero check " means the use of a method or device to provide a simulated =era-opa c ity (or /ow-level value behveen zero and 20 

### percent of span value) and thai provides a system check of th e anal yzer internal optical surfaces and all electronic circuitry including the lamp and photodetector assembly. (4) 

### "Span value" means the opacity vah1e at which the COM is selto produce the maximum data disp lay outplll

. (5) 

### "Upscale calibration value " means the opacity value at which a calibration check of the COM is performed by simulating an upscale opacity condition using a neutral density filter or other related technique to produce a known obscuration of the light beam as viewed by the receive r
. 

### .OS Pri11cip/e. A. The QA procedures are a control loop composed of hvo fimclions: (/) Assessment of data quality by measurement of COM performance; and (2} 

### Cont rol and improve m ent of d

ata quality by implementing QC policies and corrective actions

. B

. 

### Wh en the assessment fun c tion indicat es that data quality is inadequate, the control effort shall 

### be incr eased until data quality is acceptable. C. 

### COM Accuracy Determination

. (I) 

### Quarterly performance audits involving a series of checks of

monitoring system compo11ents and operation shall be 

### perf ormed to assess the accu racy of the COM data. Ca librated audit mat e rials shall be requir e d

for certai11 checks as specified by this chapter

. (2) 

### The opa c ity monitor ing data shall be consid ered accurate 

### if the requir ed audits do not id entify p robl ems that detra ct from the accu rac y of the COM data. D. Quality control and corrective actions e nc ompass a variety of polic ies

. specifica t ions, standards, and corrective meas ur es. To accom modat e these site-specific variables , this chapte r tr eats QC
req11ir e me nts in g eneral terms to all ow eac h source owner or ope rator to develop a QC sys t em thai is mor e effective and e fficient for the circunJStances

. However , the final da ta output device used to report emissions to the Department in the quart e rl

y ex c ess emissions report shall be used for all required QA and QC measurements. .06 

### Quality**Co~rtrol Requirement~.** 



### A

. Development and Im plementat ion

. (I) Each source owner or ope rator u sing a COM shall develop
a wrilten quality control (QC) 

### program and submit that program to the Department for approval. (2) A source owner or operator may periodically revise it s QC program to make it more effective and effici ent. Each revised QC program shall be resubmitted to th e Department for approval , along with the prior approved program
. (3) A source owner or operator sha ll implement an approved QCprogram as expeditio usly aspossible. (4) The owner or operator shall maintain a cur rent copy of the approved QCprogram on site for inspect ion
. B. Con t e nts. At a minimum, each 

### QC program shall inc lud e written procedur es whic h describ e in deta i l comp lete, st ep - by

-step procedures and operations fo r each of the fo llowing activities: (/) Opacity calibr ation; MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 38, ISSUE 2, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14,2011

# ' · PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS
(2) Calibration drift determinatiOn and adjustment: (3) Daily, monthly, and quarterly checks of component or system performance; (4) Preventive maintenance, including spare parts inventory; (5) Data recordmg. calculations, and reporting, · (6) Performance audits and zero alignment procedures; (7) Correcti ve actions for malfunctioning COMs; and (8) Notification to the Department for the d1scovery of any outof-control monitor. ,07 Opacity Calibratio11 Drift Assessme111. A. Calibration Drift (CD) Requirement. (/) Source owners and operators using COMs shall check. record, and quantify the CD at two opacity values at/east once daily in accordance w ith the method prescribed by the manufacturer. (2) The COM calibration shall, at a minimum. be adjusted whenever the daily zero (or low-level) CD or the da1ly high-level CD exceeds the limits specified in Performance Specification 

### 1 (PSI) in Appendix 

### B of 40 CFR Part60. B. Recording Requirements for Automatic CD Adjusting Monitors. (/) Monitors that adjust the data to the corrected calibration values automatically (for example, microprocessor control) shall be programmed to record the unadjusted opacity before reselling the calibration, or record the amount of adjustment/hat 1s applied to the ej)1uent opacity measurements

. (2) The data recorded in accordance with §B(l) of this regulation is to be maintained on sitefor review by the Department fo r a p e riod o f 

### 2 year s
. C. Criter/Ofor Excessive Calibration D rift. (1) 

## if either the zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result exceeds the applicable drift specifi c ation in Perf o rmance Specification I fo r jive consecutive daily periods. the COM shall be considered out of control

. (2) 

### If either the z ero (or low-level) or high-l e ve l CD result
exce e ds two times the applicable drift sp ecification in Performance Specification I during any CD check. the COM shall be consid ered out of control. 

### (3) 

### If the COM is o ut of control, th e s o urce owner or operator shall take necessary corr e ctive action to correct the dev10t ion
. (4) The owner or ope rator shall repeat the CD checks no later than 

### 24 hoursfollowing corrective action to repair an out- o f-control COM. D. Out-of-Control Peri od (I) The begmning of the out-of-control peri od is the tim e corresponding to the completion ofthe fifth consecutive daily CD ch

e ck with a CD i n excess of the allowable lim it or the time corresponding to the compl e tion of the da1ly CD check preced in

g the daily CD check that results m a CD in excess of two times the allowable limit

. (2) The end of the o ut- o f-c ontr o l peri od is the t1me corresponding to th e completion of the CD check following corrective action that result i n the CD at both the z ero (or /ow-level) and the high-level measurement pomts be ing with in the
corr es

ponding allowabl e C D lim it. 

### .08Audit Frequency. A. Each COM shall und ergo a performance audit at least once e ach calendar quarter. Successive quarterlyp erformance audit s shall not occur within 2 months

. B. A zero alignment a udit shall be conducted at le ast annuall y
. with each coming before a corres p onding qua rterly performan ce audit. Su c cessive zero alignment audits shall not occur withi n consecutive quart ers. 123 C. When conducting a performance or zero alignment audit. the
owner or operator shall use the same output device as used to report em issions to the Department in the quarterly excess emissions report. 

### .09 Performonce Audit.

A. Each performance audit shall include a series of checks of individual monitoring system components andfactors affecting the accuracy of the monitoring data. 

### B. Calculations for COM data shall be in accordance with monitor specific calculations in the EPA document Performance Audit Procedures for Opacity Monitors, which is incorporated by reference i n Regulation .038(2) of this chapter. Examples of detailed audit procedures are also found in that referenced document. C. A performance audit shall include checks for each procedure in a11 approved 

### QC program, including, at a minimum, the following checks: (I) Stack Exit Correlation Error. (a) The value of the pathlength correctionfactor used by the monitor is measured according to procedures specified by the manufacturer. (b) The correct value of the pathlength correction factor is computed from the monitorpathlength and stack exit diameter. (c) The stack exit correlation error is determined as the ratio of the measured value to the correct value and is expressed as a percent. 

### (2) Fault Indicators. Fault lamp indicators. data acquisition system error messages, and other system self-diagnostic indicators
are examin ed to det ermine 

### if the COM i s operatin g within prese t limits. (3) Zero and Upscale Res ponses
. (a) The COM responses to the simulat ed zero condition (or l ow-level) and upscale calibration value ar e determined from the permanent data recording device accordin g to the routine CD check procedure

. (b) The ze ro and upscale re sponse errors are determined from the permanent data re cording device to the routine CD check procedure

. ( c

) The z ero up s cale r es pons e err o rs are determined as the difference betw ee n the c orrec te d values and the observed re sponse for th e zero and upscal e calibra tion check. (4) Z ero Compensation. The value oft he =ero compensation applied at the time o f the audit is determined as equivalent percent opacity. T he value is corrected to stack e xit conditions

. according to th e procedures s pecifi e d by the manufacturer, where the applicable monitor includes an automati c corre c tion to compensate for drift in th e m onitor ' s resp onse to the s ( mulated z ero opa ci ty condition or dust accumulation on the optical surface s oft he transce iver. (5) Optical Ali g nment. Th e status of the optical alignment o f the transmis s om et er component s shall be determin e d using an ali

g nment s ight that indicates that th e monitor 

### is misali g ned wh en a m eas ur ement error of 2 per c ent opacity or g reater is caused by misalignment, in accordance with Performance Specification 

### 1 incorp o rated by refe rence under Regulati on .038(1) of th is chapter. (6) Optical Su rfa ce Dust Acc umulation. (a) An estimate of the amount of dust (or other particulate matt e r) deposited on the e xposed o pt1cal surfaces of th e transmissom eter IS obtained by record ( ng th e appar ent e j]1uent opacity before and after clean ing of each of the e x posed opllcal surfaces. (b) The t o tal o ptical s urface dust accumula tion is the sum of the appar e nt reduction in opac i ty for all o f the optical surfa ces that
are cleaned.



### MARYLAND REGISTER. VOLUME 38, ISSUE 2, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2011

# . f
PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS 114 (7) 

### Calibration Error. The COM responses are compared using one of the following methods to the known values of three reference neutral density filters corrected to slack exit conditions: (a) The preferred method requires the installation ofan audit device. adjusted to provide the same ::ero response as the monitor's simulated zero check, that simulates the clear path condition and allows insertion of the filters into the light path; or (b) In those cases where an audit device is not available, an alternate method may be used by conducting an incremental calibration (that is, superimposing the audit filters and effluent opacity) and comparing the monitor response to the expected value calculated from the filter and effluent opacity values. This method is sensitive to fluctuations in the effluent opacity during the test. 

### .10 Calibratio11 E"or Met/rods. A. Test Methods. (1) For both calibration error methods in Regulation .09C(7) of this chapter, threefilters shall each be placed in the light path five times and the monitor responses shall be determined from the permanent data recorder. (2) The low-, mid-, and high-range calibration error results are computed as the main difference and the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between the expected and actual responses of

the monitor difference as corrected to the stack exit conditions. (3) An owner or operator shall use neutral densityfilters with values that have been determined according to 7. 1.3 Attenuator Calibration of Performance Specification 1, 

### which is incorporated by reference under Regulation .038(/) of this chapter. B. Attenuator Values. (/) The stability ofthe attenuator values shall be checked at least once per year according to the procedure sp ecified in Performance Specification /, wh ic h is incorporated by reference under Regulation .038(1) of this chapter. (2) The altenuator shall be recali brated 

## ifthe stability checks indicate a change of 2 percent opacity or greater. (3) Calibration attenuators that produce si mulated opacitie s (as corrected to stack exit conditions) in the ranges listed in §C of this regulation shall be used. (4) Where the use of the specified audit filter values is not practical, alternate filter ranges may be us ed s ubject to the approval of

the Department. C. 

### Filter Ranges for Opacity Performance Audits

. (/) The filter ranges for opacity performance audits are as provided in §C(2) of this regulation or, as applicable, as provided in Performance Specification I (PSI) in Appendi:c 8 of 40 CFR Part 60. (2) Audit Points and Filter Range are as follows: Audit Points-Audit Filter Range ("A Opacity) (a) 8-15% Opacity (low) (b) 20--30% Opacity (mid) (c) 40--50% Opacity (high)

• I I 

### Zero Aligtrmenl Aut/it. A. General Requirements. (/) A zero alignm ent audit conducted in accordance with Regulation .088 of this chapter shall compare the monitor responses to the simulated zero check and th e aclllal clear path condition. Primary and alternate me thods for performing the zero ali gnme nt audit are described in §A(2) and (3) of this regulation. (2) Primary Zero Alignment Method. (a) The primary zero alignment method shall be performed under cle ar path conditions. This is accomplished for the install ed transmissometer where the process is not operating and the monitor pathlength is free ofparticulate matter or the monitor may be
re moved from its ins t allation a nd se t u p und er clear path cond itions

. (b) N o adjustme nt t o the m onitor sho uld be mad e other than th e establi shment of th e proper monitor pathl e ng th and cor rec t optical alignment of the transmissometer components

. For some monitors 

### it may also be necessary /o disable the zero compensation mechanism or to record the amount of correction applied to the simulated zero condition. (c) The monitor response to the clear path condition and to the simulated ::ero conditi on shall be recorded aspercenl opacity. (d) The response diff ere nce in percen t opacity to the clear path and simulated ::ero cond itions shall be recorded as the ::ero alignment error. The simulat e d zero dev ice shall then 

### be arijusted to provide the same respo11se as a clearpath condition. (e) The monitor shall then be re s tored to its operating mode all he

facility. (3) Altemate Zero Ali g nment Method. (a) An external. removable zero-j ig may be used tofacilitate periodic checks of the s i mulat ed zero condition as an allernate zero alignment audit method 

### if (i) 

### The zero-jig setl i ng i s es t ablished for the specific monitor by comparison of the monitor respons es to the zero-jig and to clear path condition· and (ii) 

### The zero-jig is capable of prod ucing a consistent zero response when it is repeate dly ins tall e d on the monitor. (b) The zero-; l g shall be protect ed when not in use to ensure that the setting equivalent to ::ero opac ity doe s not change. (c) Source owners who use a zero-jig sha ll perform a primary zero alignment audit and check of the zero-jig setting at/east
once every 3 years. B. Criteria for a Successful Audit. (I) 

### Performance Aud it

. Performance of the COM shall be considered acceptable 

## if it mee t s the follow i n g criteria: (a) Stack Exit Correlation Error: 

### < 2 percent opacity; (b) Fault Indica t ors : Inactiv e/ no error messages present; (c) Zero and Upsc ale R es ponses: 

### < 2 percent opacity; (d) Zero compensation : 

### < 4 per c ent opacity: (e) Optical Ali g nment: m isali gnment e rror 

### < 2 percent opacity;
and (f) 

### Optical Surface Dust Accumulation : 

### < 4 

### percent opacity ; (g) 

### Calibration Error: 

### < 3 percent opacity. (2) Zero Alignment

. (a) Calculalions for a zero alig nment audit shall be in accordance wifh the EPA docum e nt incorporated by reference 111 

### Regulati on .038(2) of th is chapt er. (b) The zero ali g nment is acceptable 

### if the error of the simulated ze ro check is less than 2 percent opacity before adjustment

. (c) The simulat ed zero check should be adjusled to provide the correct response eac h time the zero alignment audit is pe rf ormed

. (3) Out-of-Control Period s
. The begmnin g of the out·of-control period is the time corresponding to the complet i on of the performance a udit indicati ng unac ceptable performance. The end of the out-of-control period is the t i me corresponding to the completion of

the subsequent successfu l aud i t

.



### . I 

### 2 Corrective Actions.

A. U nac ceptable Audit R e sults

- Single Performance Audit

. 

### (/) Ifthe COM is out-of-control, the owner or operator shall take necessary corrective act ion to eliminate the problem. (2) Following correc t i ve action, the owner or opera/or , at a minimum, shall conduc t a COM performanc e audit on the portion of the criteria that failed to md ica

/e the COM is operatin g properly. (3) The COM oper a tor shall include both lhe aud i t results showing the COM to be out of control and the results following corrective action showin g**th ~**  

### COM to 

### be operating within specification in the quarter l y repor t.



### MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 38, ISSUE l, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2011PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

B

. Unacceptable Audit Results- Multiple Performance Audits. 

### (/) If 011 audit conducted in accordance wrth Regulation .09 of this chapter idemifles unacceptable performance (that rs, out-ofcontrol conditions)for two consecutive quarters. the source owner or operator shall rcv1se the current written QCprocedures or modify or replace the COM to correct the dejicie11cy causing the rmacceptab/e performance. (2) 

### Ifthe owner or operator chooses to revise the writ/en QC procedures ill accordance with §8(1) of this regulatwn and Regulation

.06 of thrs chapter, the revised procedures shall be submitted to the Departmentfor approval, along with 

### a copy of the current approved procedures

. C Unacceptable Zero Alignment. (I) Tire performance of the monitoring system is unacceptable 

### if

the error of the simulated zero check before ad;ustmem: (a) Exceeds 

### 5 percent opacity for any zero alignment audit; or (b) Exceeds tire 2 percent opacity acceptance crrterio11 for three coJISecutive zero alignment audits

. (2) 

### If the performance of the momtoring system is unacceptable, the owner or operator shall: (a) Take corrective action to resolve the problem and improve the stability of the simulated zero check method or device; or (b) Replace the COM (3) 

### If corrective action is taken under §C(2)(a) of th is regulation. the owner or operator shall conduct zero alignment audits at least twice each year during nonconsecutive calendar quarters

. (4) 

### If the results of the semi-annual zero allg11ment audits exceed the limils of §C(I) of this regulation, tire owner or operator shall replace the COM. ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. Acting Secretary of the Environment 

# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program Authonty : Environment Anicle, §§ 1-404, 2-102, 2-103, and 2-30 I, Annotated Code of Maryland; Ch

. lll and 112, Acts of2007 Notice of Proposed Action [11-032-P-1] The Secretary of the Environment proposes to amend Regulation .02 under COMAR 26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this action is to update Maryland's Clean Car regulations to reflect the changes made to the Cal ifornia Low Emissions Vehicle Program (i.e., CALEV or Clean Car Program) since the last Maryland update in 2009. These amendments will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan (SIP)

. Background The Maryland Clean Cars Act of2007 required the Department of the Environment (MDE) to adopt regulations implementing the CALEV Program in Maryland. MOE's implementing regulations adopted , through incorporation by reference , the applicable California regulations. The CALEY program is a dynamic, changing program in which many of the relevant California regulations are routinely reviewed and updated. To continue to implement California's standards. Maryland must remain consistent w ith their regulations ; hence when California updates its regulations. MDE 

### llS
must reflect these changes by amending COMAR 26

. 11.34.02. This action incorporates changes made by California to the applicable regulations incorporated by reference into the Maryland program. This proposed action also harmonizes the recently established national greenhouse gas and fuel economy program with Maryland's program. In 2009, President Obama called upon federal agencies (the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation) to work with California to develop a strong and coordinated national approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving fuel economy from new passenger cars and trucks. This cooperative effort led to the adoption of a joint federal rule establishing a national program consisting of both new greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles. These standards start with model year 2012 and are fully implemented in model year 2016. These new federal standards will now harmonize with the California standards creating one standard nationwide. As a result of the federal action, California amended its greenhouse gas regulations to allow compliance with the federal standards to satisfy compliance with California standards

. Due to this California action , Maryland and the other states that have adopted the California standards must change their regulations to allow the automobile manufacturers this compliance path

. This proposed action is the administrative action necessary to remain consistent with the California program. Requirements of the Regulations The individual regulatory changes can be grouped into the following major areas: (I) Improvement of OBD and Emission standards for testing vehicles This regulation establishes emission standards and other requirements for OBD 

### II systems installed on 2004 and subsequent model-year passenger cars, light-duty, and medium-duty vehicles and engines certified for sale in California

. The changes are focused on diesel vehicles , particularly on monitoring newer emissions control devices such 

### as urea-injection systems

. California has implemented new changes in the OBD systems to reflect this new technology. (2) Plug-In Hybrid Test Procedures This regulation sets standards for the certification of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) conversion systems and emission test procedures for converted PHEVs. Hybrid electric vehicles of 2000 and later model years classified as passenger car, light-duty truck, and medium-duty vehicles , which have been converted to use offvehicle charging capabilities, shall meet the California emission standards for the model year of original manufacture and certification. (3) Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Natural Gas Retrofit Systems Aftermarket fuel retrofit systems give drivers the option to convert their vehicles to gaseous fuels such as natural gas and propane. Because fuel conversions can adversely impact emissions and result in durability issues , California closely regulates these systems. This regulation requires all gaseous retrofit systems to meet California certification requirements. These requirements cover areas such as warranty coverage. emissions standards, and durability

. (4) National Greenhouse Gas Standards These amendments implement changes to the greenhouse gas reduction standards to reflect new national greenhouse gas standards recently adopted by the EPA. They make compliance with existing standards more easily attainable for manufacturers.
Affected Sources These amendments apply to automobile manufacturers that produce new motor vehicles for sale in Maryland. All vehicle types that have a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 14,000 pounds are affected.
MARYLAND REGISTER. VOLUME 38, ISSUE 2, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2011