SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Maryland

 Date Submitted: August 1, 2013

 Subject: Maryland Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) Program Amendments 

Completeness Review

 Completed by: Brian Rehn

 Date Completed: September 17, 2013

Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his 

designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision 

thereof.

1. Submittal letter (dated August 1, 2013) from Secretary 

Robert Summers of the Maryland Department of Environment

(MDE) to EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin.

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code 

or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, or consent 

agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date 

of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the 

plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2. MDE published a final action in the February 22, 2013 

edition of the Maryland Register adopting amendments to the 

LEV program Regulation .02 under COMAR 26.11.34. This 

action memorialized adoption of the LEV rule amendments by 

the Secretary of the Environment on February 6, 2013 (Volume 

40, Issue 4). The effective date of these amendments to 

Regulation .02 is March 4, 2013. The final form amendments 

to Regulation .02 were adopted as proposed in the Maryland 

Register on November 30, 2012.

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority 

under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3. The Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007 required the MDE to 

adopt regulations implementing the California LEV program in 

Maryland, and also compelled an annual review by MDE of 

changes in California's emission standards for the prior year. 

The Clean Cars Act of 2007 was signed into law by Governor 

O’Malley on April 24, 2007.
EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for 

approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including 

indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, 

where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the 

appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable 

by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document 

shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4. A copy of Maryland’s proposed regulation, as published in 

the November 30, 2012 edition of the Maryland Register, is 

included in the SIP. A copy of the final rule, as published in the 

February 22, 2013 Maryland Register was included in the SIP. 

The final form version of the rule was unchanged from the 

proposed rule. The proposed Regulation .02 notes all the 

California documents incorporated by reference by Maryland. 

The SIP also includes a copy of the regulations being IBR’d by 

Maryland, as published in the respective edition of Barclay’s 

California Code of Regulations.

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural 

requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting 

and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5. The state has followed its own procedural requirements, and 

has submitted as part of the SIP submittal: the formal submittal 

letter from MDE Secretary Summers dated August 1, 2013; a

copy of the final notice printed in the February 22, 2013 edition 

of the Maryland Register; and copies and certification of public 

hearing notices. 

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed 

change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including 

the date of publication of such notice.

6. Notice of public hearing and public comment period was 

posted on the MDE website between November 16, 2012 and

January 3, 2013. Public notice was also announced in the 

Maryland Register on November 30, 2012. Prominent 

announcement of public hearing was published in the 

Baltimore Sun on November 30, 2012; the Washington Post on 

November 29, 2012; Frederick News-Post on November 30, 

2012; Saint Mary’s Enterprise on November 30, 2012; 

Salisbury Daily Times on November 30, 2012; and Cecil Whig

on November 30, 2012. A transcript of the January 3, 2013 

public hearing is included in the SIP.

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance 

with the information provided in the public notice and the 

State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7. A transcript and public hearing statement made by MDE at 

the public hearing held on January 3, 2013 was submitted as 

part of the SIP submittal.
EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response 

thereto.

8. A “Response to Comments” document prepared by MDE in 

response to the public comments received during the state 

comment period was included as part of the SIP revision. 

Technical Support

EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The Maryland Low Emission Vehicle program revisions 

address emissions from highway motor vehicles of nitrogen 

oxides and volatile organic compounds (specifically non 

methane organic gases), both of which are precursors to 

ground-level ozone formation. The MD LEV program also 

addresses greenhouse gas emissions from new highway 

vehicles. The program also addresses air toxics from new 

motor vehicles (including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and 

acetaldehyde).

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including 

the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations 

and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2. The program is effective statewide in Maryland. The MD 

LEV program affects auto manufacturers that produce new 

vehicles for sale in Maryland, auto dealers in Maryland, and the 

car-buying public and businesses.

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions 

from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current 

actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, 

quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected 

sources through calculations of the differences between certain 

baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result 

of the revision.

3. Not applicable. The regulatory revisions of Regulation .02 

contained in the SIP set emission limits on new motor vehicles 

(less than 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating) offered for 

sale in Maryland, beginning in model year 2015.

Benefits of these program revisions are not calculated in this 

plan, but an analysis for future nonattainment area plans that 

rely upon these benefits of this program will be prepared by 

Maryland in support for each of those plans.
EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air 

quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration 

increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and 

visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved 

and implemented. 

4. Not Applicable. The regulatory revisions will regulate 

vehicle emissions for vehicles sold in MY 2015 and beyond, 

setting standards more stringent than those currently in place in 

Maryland. Future SIP plans that rely on the benefits of this 

program will analyze the benefits of the program, as they are 

phased in due to future fleet turnover. Maryland is adopting 

by reference California’s new stringent LEV III and GHG 

standards, which have been granted a preemption waiver for 

state standards by EPA, under authority of CAA section 209(b). 

These standards are deemed to be as stringent or more stringent 

that the comparable Federal Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards, 

from which the 209(b) waiver is granted.

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed 

revision, including input data, output data, models used, 

ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, 

justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of 

models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to 

the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5. Not applicable. No modeling demonstration was required to 

support the required revision. 

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are 

based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6. Not applicable. This SIP revision regulated new vehicle 

emissions limits, not emissions limits applicable to a stationary 

source where continuous emissions technology would be 

applicable.

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work 

practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, 

where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7. The California LEV rules being IBR’d by Maryland in their 

revised Regulation .02 under COMAR 26.11.34 contained in 

the SIP contain the necessary emission limits and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how 

compliance will be determined in practice.

8. Methods for determining compliance with the MD LEV 

program are included in the California CCR rules being IBR’d 

by Maryland in Regulation .02 under COMAR 26.11.34.
EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL (X)

9. Special economic and technological justifications required 

by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, 

explain why.)

9. No special justifications are required.

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a 

maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant 

NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request.