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): This 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- 2-103, 2·301- 2-

JOJ, I 0-102, and I 0-1 03, Annotated Code of Maryland 

.04 Annual Report Requirement for Curtailment Service Providers 

(CSPs). 

A. A CSP that admimsttrs a demand response program for a 

participating facility in the State shall provide the following 

information to the Department in an annual report: 

(I)-(3) (proposed text unchanged) 

(4) II Theil As called for hv the CSP the dates on wlrich each 

engine was requested to operate during the year and the hours of 

operation on each date, including: 

(a) (proposed text unchanged) 

(b) The starting and ending times when eaclt engine was 

requested to operate lias called for by the CSPII: and 

(c) (proposed text unchanged) 

(5)- (7) (proposed text unchanged) 

B. - C. {proposed text unchanged) 

ROBERT M. SUMMERS, Ph.D. 

Acting Secretary of the Environment 

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, ISSUE 12, FRIDAY, 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 Article. §§/-101, 1-404. 2-101-2-103, 2-301-2-

303, 10-102, and 10-103, Annotated Code of 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 of this action is to: 

(I) Repeal the current regulations under CO MAR 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 

businesses. 

Impact on Individuals with Disabilities 

The proposed action hos no impact on individuals with disabilities. 

Opportunity for Public: Comment 

The Department 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 persons are invited to attend and express their views. 

Comments may be sent to Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, 

Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the 

Environment, 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 the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin 

at (410) 537-3240. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents are 

avoilable for review at the following locations: The Air and Radiation 

Management 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 

quality control offices. 

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 14,2011 
PROPOSED 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 Exposure 

Assessment Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711 has been declared a document generally available to the public 

and appropriate for incorporation by reference. For this reason. it will 

not be printed in the Maryland Register or the Code of Maryland 

Regulations (COMAR). Copies of this document are filed in special 

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.md.us. The document may also be 

mspected at the office of the Division of State Documents, 16 Francis 

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). The procedures are transferred into this chapter in 

regulatory format. In addition, the general provisions and quality 

control requirements found in COMAR 26.11.01./0 are a/so 

applicable to COMs. 

.02 Applicability. 

A. The procedures specified by this chapter shall be used to 

evaluate the effectiveness of a facility's quality assurance (QA) and 

quality control (QC) procedures for CO Ms. The procedures specify 

the minimum quality assurance requirements for the assessment and 

control of COM data. 

B. Source owners and operators using COMs shall meet these 

minimum requirements and are encouraged to develop and 

implement a more extensive QA and QC program or to continue the 

programs where they already exist. 

C. Data collected as a result ofQA and QC measures required in 

this chapter shall be submilled to the Department. These data shall 

be used by both the Department and the owner or operator in 

assessing the effectiveness of the procedures in maintaining 

acceptable operation and valid emission data. 

D. All sources using COMs shall develop and implement the 

required QC plan upon successjitl completion of the initial 

performance specification test and shall conduct the required QA 

procedures beginning with the first calendar quarter following the 

successful performance specification test. 

E. These procedures explicitly specify the 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 verification procedures which are addressed in 

Appendix B of .JO CFR Part 60. 

• 03 lncorporalion by Refertmce. 

A. In this chapter, the following documents are incorporated by 

reference. 

B. Documents Incorporated. 

(I) Performance Specification I (PSI) under 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendix B. 

(2) Performance Audit Procedures for Opacity Monitors. EPA 

45014-92-0/0 March 1992, Atmospheric Research and Exposure 

Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. 

.04 Definitions. 

A. In this chapter, the following terms have the meanings 

indicated. 

B. Terms Defined. 

(/) "Calibration drift (CD) "nrea11s the difference in the COM 

output reading from a reference value after a period of operation 

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) "Calibration error" mea11S the difference behveen the 

opacity values indicated by the COM and the known values of a 

series of calibration attenuators (neutral density filters). 

(3) "Simulated zero check " means the use of a method or 

device to provide a simulated =era-opacity (or /ow-level value 

behveen zero and 20 percent of span value) and thai provides a 

system check of the analyzer 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 display 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 receiver. 

.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} Control and improvement of data quality by implementing 

QC policies and corrective actions. 

B. When the assessment function indicates that data quality is 

inadequate, the control effort shall be increased 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 performed 

to assess the accuracy of the COM data. Calibrated audit materials 

shall be required for certai11 checks as specified by this chapter. 

(2) The opacity monitoring data shall be considered accurate if 

the required audits do not identify problems that detract from the 

accuracy of the COM data. 

D. Quality control and corrective actions encompass a variety of 

policies. specifications, standards, and corrective measures. To 

accommodate these site-specific variables, this chapter treats QC 

req11irements in general terms to allow each source owner or 

operator to develop a QC system thai is more effective and efficient 

for the circunJStances. However, the final data output device used to 

report emissions to the Department in the quarterly excess emissions 

report shall be used for all required QA and QC measurements. 

.06 Quality Co~rtrol Requirement~. 

A. Development and Implementation . 

(I) Each source owner or operator using 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 its QC 

program to make it more effective and efficient. Each revised QC 

program shall be resubmitted to the Department for approval, along 

with the prior approved program. 

(3) A source owner or operator shall implement an approved 

QC program as expeditiously as possible. 

(4) The owner or operator shall maintain a current copy of the 

approved QC program on site for inspection. 

B. Contents. At a minimum, each QC program shall include 

written procedures which describe in detail complete, step-by-step 

procedures and operations for each of the following activities: 

(/) Opacity calibration; 

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) Corrective 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 with 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 site for review by the Department 

f or a period of 2 years. 

C. Criter/Ofor Excessive Calibration Drift. 

(1) if either the zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result 

exceeds the applicable drift specification in Performance 

Specification I f or jive consecutive daily periods. the COM shall be 

considered out of control. 

(2) If either the zero (or low-level) or high-level CD result 

exceeds two times the applicable drift specification in Performance 

Specification I during any CD check. the COM shall be considered 

out of control. 

(3) If the COM is out of control, the source owner or operator 

shall take necessary corrective action to correct the dev10tion. 

(4) The owner or operator shall repeat the CD checks no later 

than 24 hours following corrective action to repair an out-of-control 

COM. 

D. Out-of-Control Period 

(I) The begmning of the out-of-control period is the time 

corresponding to the completion of the fifth consecutive daily CD 

check with a CD in excess of the allowable limit or the time 

corresponding to the completion of the da1ly CD check preceding the 

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

allowable limit. 

(2) The end of the out-of-control period is the t1me 

corresponding to the completion of the CD check following 

corrective action that result in the CD at both the zero (or /ow-level) 

and the high-level measurement pomts being within the 

corresponding allowable CD limit. 

.08 Audit Frequency. 

A. Each COM shall undergo a performance audit at least once 

each calendar quarter. Successive quarterly performance audits shall 

not occur within 2 months. 

B. A zero alignment audit shall be conducted at least annually. 

with each coming before a corresponding quarterly performance 

audit. Successive zero alignment audits shall not occur within 

consecutive quarters. 

123 

C. When conducting a performance or zero alignment audit. the 

owner or operator shall use the same output device as used to report 

emissions 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 and factors 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 in 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 correction factor 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 monitor pathlength 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 examined to determine if the COM is operating within preset 

limits. 

(3) Zero and Upscale Responses. 

(a) The COM responses to the simulated zero condition (or 

low-level) and upscale calibration value are determined from the 

permanent data recording device according to the routine CD check 

procedure. 

(b) The zero and upscale response errors are determined 

from the permanent data recording device to the routine CD check 

procedure. 

(c) The zero upscale response errors are determined as the 

difference between the corrected values and the observed response 

for the zero and upscale calibration check. 

(4) Zero Compensation. The value of the =ero compensation 

applied at the time of the audit is determined as equivalent percent 

opacity. The value is corrected to stack exit conditions. according to 

the procedures specified by the manufacturer, where the applicable 

monitor includes an automatic correction to compensate for drift in 

the monitor 's response to the s(mulated zero opacity condition or 

dust accumulation on the optical surfaces oft he transceiver. 

(5) Optical Alignment. The status of the optical alignment of 

the transmissometer components shall be determined using an 

alignment sight that indicates that the monitor is misaligned when a 

measurement error of 2 percent opacity or greater is caused by 

misalignment, in accordance with Performance Specification 1 

incorporated by reference under Regulation .038(1) of this chapter. 

(6) Optical Surface Dust Accumulation. 

(a) An estimate of the amount of dust (or other particulate 

matter) deposited on the exposed opt1cal surfaces of the 

transmissometer IS obtained by record(ng the apparent ej]1uent 

opacity before and after cleaning of each of the exposed opllcal 

surfaces. 

(b) The total optical surface dust accumulation is the sum of 

the apparent reduction in opacity for all of the optical surfaces 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 of an 

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, three filters 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 density filters 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 of the attenuator values shall be checked at 

least once per year according to the procedure specified in 

Performance Specification /, which is incorporated by reference 

under Regulation .038(1) of this chapter. 

(2) The altenuator shall be recalibrated if the stability checks 

indicate a change of 2 percent opacity or greater. 

(3) Calibration attenuators that produce simulated opacities 

(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 used subject 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 alignment audit conducted in accordance with 

Regulation .088 of this chapter shall compare the monitor responses 

to the simulated zero check and the aclllal clear path condition. 

Primary and alternate methods for performing the zero alignment 

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 clear path conditions. This is accomplished for the installed 

transmissometer where the process is not operating and the monitor 

pathlength is free of particulate matter or the monitor may be 

removed from its installation and set up under clear path conditions. 

(b) No adjustment to the monitor should be made other than 

the establishment of the proper monitor pathlength and correct 

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 condition shall be recorded as percenl opacity. 

(d) The response difference in percent opacity to the clear 

path and simulated ::ero conditions shall be recorded as the ::ero 

alignment error. The simulated zero device shall then be arijusted to 

provide the same respo11se as a clear path condition. 

(e) The monitor shall then be restored to its operating mode 

all he facility. 

(3) Altemate Zero Alignment Method. 

(a) An external. removable zero-jig may be used to facilitate 

periodic checks of the simulated zero condition as an allernate zero 

alignment audit method if 

(i) The zero-jig setling is established for the specific 

monitor by comparison of the monitor responses to the zero-jig and 

to clear path condition· and 

(ii) The zero-jig is capable of producing a consistent zero 

response when it is repeatedly installed on the monitor. 

(b) The zero-;lg shall be protected when not in use to ensure 

that the setting equivalent to ::ero opacity does not change. 

(c) Source owners who use a zero-jig shall 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 Audit. Performance of the COM shall be 

considered acceptable if it meets the following criteria: 

(a) Stack Exit Correlation Error: < 2 percent opacity; 

(b) Fault Indicators: Inactive/no error messages present; 

(c) Zero and Upscale Responses: < 2 percent opacity; 

(d) Zero compensation: < 4 percent opacity: 

(e) Optical Alignment: misalignment error < 2 percent 

opacity; 

and 

(f) Optical Surface Dust Accumulation: < 4 percent opacity; 

(g) Calibration Error: < 3 percent opacity. 

(2) Zero Alignment. 

(a) Calculalions f or a zero alignment audit shall be in 

accordance wifh the EPA document incorporated by reference 111 

Regulation .038(2) of this chapter. 

(b) The zero alignment is acceptable if the error of the 

simulated zero check is less than 2 percent opacity before adjustment. 

(c) The simulated zero check should be adjusled to provide 

the correct response each time the zero alignment audit is performed. 

(3) Out-of-Control Periods. The begmning of the out·of-control 

period is the time corresponding to the completion of the 

performance audit indicating unacceptable performance. The end of 

the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the completion 

of the subsequent successful audit . 

. I 2 Corrective Actions. 

A. Unacceptable Audit Results - Single Performance Audit. 

(/) If the COM is out-of-control, the owner or operator shall 

take necessary corrective action to eliminate the problem. 

(2) Following corrective action, the owner or opera/or, at a 

minimum, shall conduct a COM performance audit on the portion of 

the criteria that failed to mdica/e the COM is operating properly. 

(3) The COM operator shall include both lhe audit results 

showing the COM to be out of control and the results following 

corrective action showing th~ COM to be operating within 

specification in the quarterly report. 

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOLUME 38, ISSUE l, FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2011 
PROPOSED 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 QC procedures or modify or 

replace the COM to correct the dejicie11cy causing the rmacceptab/e 

performance. 

(2) If the 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 Department for 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 this 

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 of 2007 

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 California 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 with 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