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 approv al 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 th e 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 differ ent 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 Regi ster 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 implem enting the California LEV program in Maryland, and also compelled an annual review by MDE of changes in California's emission standards for the p rior 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 i tself. 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: t he 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 c op ies 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 w a s

p osted on the MDE website between November 16, 2012 and January 3, 2013. Public notice was also announced in the Maryland Register on November 3 0, 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 T

imes 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 v ehicles 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 pr ogram 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,

q uantification 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 Re gulation .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 reg ulate 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

p hased 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, in cluding 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 tec hnology. 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 th e 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 compli ance 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 polic ies. (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 leas t 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request.