DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

 for the 

PUBLIC HEARING held on October 3, 2007 

in BALTIMORE, MD 

related to adoption of Maryland's Low Emissions Vehicle Program, 

new regulations under a new chapter COMAR 26.11.34 

Purpose of Hearing: The purpose of the public hearing was to allow for public comment on the 

Department's proposal to adopt the California Clean Car Program in Maryland as required by the 

Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007. These regulations require all new 2011 and subsequent model 

year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles having a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 14,000 pounds or less that are transferred in Maryland to meet the California 

emissions standards. 

Date and Location: The public hearing was held on October 3, 2007 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Auditorium, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. 

Hearing Officer: Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment. 

Attendance: Approximately 100 persons attended the hearing. The majority were sight-impaired 

citizens and members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. Twenty-six (26) 

attendees testified at the hearing. 

Statement: The Department's statement was submitted into the record by Mr. Tim Shepherd, 

Division Chief for the Engineering and Technology Assessment Division of the Mobile Sources 

Control Program, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment. 

Comments and Responses: The comments received by the Department at the hearing and during the 30-

day comment period have been summarized and the Department's responses are given below. 

COMMENT #1: The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland (NFB) expressed concern with 

regard to the ability of visually impaired individuals to identify the proximity or approach of certain 

“silent” vehicles and requests that the Department include specific (supplied) language in the 

California Clean Cars rulemaking to require vehicle manufacturers to maintain a minimum level of 

vehicle noise during all operating conditions. 

RESPONSE: The Department respects the concern expressed by the commenter but must point 

out that the concern is independent of the California Clean Cars Program and is a safety issue best 

addressed at the federal level. The NFB concern is based on the performance characteristics of 
vehicles currently on the road in Maryland and nationwide. These vehicles have been on the road 

prior to adoption of the Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007 and their numbers will continue to 

increase regardless of whether Maryland adopts the Clean Car Program. For example, Toyota is 

considering expanding hybrid electric vehicle production to all models. Hybrid vehicles have been, 

and will continue to be, an integral part of the current federal Tier 2 vehicle program. 

Vehicle noise profiles, especially at idle, have been decreasing due to manufacturer design 

improvements and advancing technology and this trend is expected to continue regardless of 

whether Maryland adopts the California Clean Cars Program. While hybrids are the vehicles of 

most concern to the commenter since they have the ability to drive in electric mode for short 

distances and are capable of essentially noiseless idling, it is important to recognize that technology 

to allow engine off at idle for even conventional vehicles is expected to be introduced in the near 

future. Such technology is designed to save fuel and will be introduced independent of the Clean 

Cars program. Noise minimization is an ongoing element of vehicle design and manufacturing, 

intended to maximize consumer satisfaction and comfort. A significant increase in quiet vehicles 

can be expected regardless of Maryland’s adoption of the Clean Car Program. 

Even if the issue of silent vehicles were related to the Clean Car Program, adoption of vehicle 

audibility requirements at the state level would not affect vehicles registered in another state. Given 

that 14 states have either adopted or are in the process of adopting California’s emission standards 

(with several others considering adoption), and the fact that a substantial number of interstate 

travelers use Maryland roadways, there would still be a significant number of audible vehicles 

confronting the visually impaired. This situation is only exacerbated when one recognizes that the 

issue is not tied to the Clean Car Program, but rather an increasing element of national vehicle 

design and functionality. Rather than vehicles from 13 other states posing a potential problem, it 

will be vehicles from 49 other states. Both situations clearly highlight the need for consistent, 

national standards. Maryland cannot independently regulate this issue away. 

Nevertheless, we are respectful of the commenter’s concerns and are assisting the commenter in 

elevating this to the national level through contacts with the vehicle manufacturers, discussions with 

other states and communication with the National Transportation Highway Traffic Administration, 

the federal agency charged with implementing motor vehicle safety requirements, requesting 

consideration of this concern and adoption of appropriate national safeguards. 

COMMENT #2: Members of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) 

actively support the federal efforts currently underway to improve fuel economy and lower 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

RESPONSE: The Department appreciates this position and encourages AIAM members to 

continue to pursue fuel economy improvements and greenhouse gas reductions at the federal level. 

The adoption of the California Clean Car Program in Maryland does not conflict with these efforts. 

COMMENT #3: AIAM opposed the “Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007” which adopted 

California emissions and greenhouse gas standards because they do not believe such actions will 

have any significant favorable impact on the local air quality in Maryland. 

2
RESPONSE: The Department understands the position of the AIAM but disagrees with their 

conclusions. Analyses conducted by the Department using methodologies developed and approved 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearly demonstrate the local criteria pollutant 

benefits of the California Clean Car Program. 

COMMENT #4: AIAM views a uniform federal greenhouse gas or fuel economy standard as a 

better way to obtain the intended environmental goals of the “Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007” 

without creating a patchwork of differing state-by-state requirements that will harm consumers, 

dealers, and automobile manufacturers. 

RESPONSE: The Department encourages the AIAM to advocate for stronger federal 

environmental regulation. There are currently no federal standards for greenhouse gases and, 

although not an element of the California Clean Cars Program, federal fuel economy standards for 

passenger cars have not increased since 1985 and light truck standards have increased by less than 

ten percent since 1987. The federal Clean Air Act specifically prohibits Maryland from

establishing or participating in a patchwork program of state-specific requirements by limiting state 

options to either the federal or California requirements. While discussions of regulating greenhouse 

gas emissions continue at the federal level, Maryland has elected to adopt the California 

requirements to obtain greenhouse gas reductions (as well as additional reductions in emissions of 

the criteria pollutants). Maryland has not adopted the Clean Car Program on its own. Every state to 

our north and east, with the exception of Delaware and New Hampshire, has also adopted the 

California requirements. The Department has worked directly with AIAM and other industry 

members to facilitate the smoothest possible transition from the federal to the California program. 

COMMENT #5: AIAM is concerned that differences in the implementation timing of the 

California Clean Cars Program in Maryland and California will cause problems with NMOG (nonmethane organic gases) averaging, ZEV (zero emission vehicle) credit averaging, and greenhouse 

gas fleet averaging and, to alleviate these problems, the Maryland regulations need to contain 

provisions to properly adjust the relevant credit averaging and banking provisions of the program. 

RESPONSE: The Department recognized this timing issue and convened a stakeholder process to 

address it. The automobile industry actively participated in the process to ensure that manufacturers 

are not placed at a disadvantage in Maryland when the Clean Cars Program takes effect in model 

year 2011. As a result, the regulations include provisions to establish both NMOG (COMAR 

26.11.34.07) and ZEV (COMAR 26.11.34.10) credits in Maryland that are equivalent to credits 

existing in California at the beginning of model year 2011, without requiring any corresponding 

establishment based on any existing California debits. In addition, the Department has extended the 

lifespan of NMOG credits earned in model years 2011 through 2013 (COMAR 26.11.34.06C) and 

the reconciliation period of NMOG debits earned in those same model years (COMAR 

26.11.34.06C). With regard to ZEVs, the Department has also extended the §177 state travel 

provision for fuel cell ZEVs through model year 2017 (COMAR 26.11.34.09C). Finally, with 

regard to California greenhouse gas standards, the Department has agreed to pursue the 

consideration of regional compliance mechanisms and has included provisions for an associated 

compliance path in the adopted regulations if such mechanisms have been established. Together, 

these provisions ensure that manufacturers are not placed at any disadvantage in Maryland when the 

Clean Cars Program takes effect in model year 2011. 

3
COMMENT #6: The Maryland Automobile Dealers Association (MADA) and the Washington 

Area New Auto Dealers Association (WANADA) request that the Department reconsider the 

impacts of the California Clean Cars Program in the context of the regional nature of the Maryland 

new vehicle market. 

RESPONSE: The Department understands the concerns of MADA and WANADA and has 

implemented the California Clean Cars Program in a manner that fully preserves the environmental 

benefits of the program while minimizing potentially adverse impacts on the new vehicle 

marketplace. The Department has included provisions in the Clean Car regulations that allow 

Maryland to determine compliance based on regional vehicle sales and is working with neighboring 

states on this approach. The Department is also considering the implementation of incentive 

programs to promote new vehicle sales within the state. 

COMMENT #7: MADA and WANADA assert that because of “legal challenges and concerns 

related to the interrelation between the greenhouse gas standards [of the California Clean Cars 

Program] and the federal government’s CAFE (MPG ratings), auto manufacturers have not yet had 

to comply [with the greenhouse gas standards].” 

RESPONSE: It is true that manufacturers have not yet had to comply with the greenhouse gas 

standards of the California program [in California], but that is due to the fact that they do not take 

effect until model year 2009 in that state. The legal challenges represent efforts by the automobile 

industry to permanently avoid compliance; they are not relevant in any way to the industry’s current 

compliance status. Moreover, a recent judicial ruling in Vermont found the automobile industry 

legal challenge to be without merit. The greenhouse gas standards are scheduled to take effect in 

California in model year 2009 as originally planned. 

COMMENT #8: MADA and WANADA are concerned that their member dealers have no input 

on the design and manufacture of motor vehicles and cannot determine the mix of vehicles they 

receive to sell. In effect, they attempt to sell whatever vehicles (makes and models) that are 

delivered to them for sale by their associated manufacturers. 

RESPONSE: The Department recognizes and appreciates the position in which MADA and 

WANADA members operate. We believe, however, that this same recognition and appreciation 

exists in the auto manufacturing community and that it is the goal of that community to deliver 

vehicles to Maryland dealers that will ultimately be sold to consumers. Delivering vehicles, that 

cannot be sold, just used to demonstrate regulatory compliance may be a viable theoretical strategy, 

but it is not a viable economic strategy. The Department believes that manufacturers and dealers 

will work together to maintain a successful and profitable vehicle market in Maryland just as they 

have in each of the northeastern states that have implemented the California Clean Cars Program to 

date. 

COMMENT #9: MADA and WANADA assert that “it is commonly recognized that California’s 

new greenhouse gas emissions standards are equivalent to the creation of a higher fleet average 

MPG rating for vehicles delivered for sale in California” and that states adopting the California 

program “will also be enforcing a higher fleet average MPG rating.” 

4
RESPONSE: The regulations implementing the California Clean Car Program in Maryland 

include no requirements imposing a higher fleet average fuel economy (or MPG rating) on vehicles 

delivered for sale in the state. The primary purpose of these regulations is to reduce greenhouse gas 

and criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. Moreover, the Department has no intention of 

enforcing any fuel economy standard (or MPG rating). While auto manufacturers may choose to 

reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by increasing vehicle fuel economy, the regulations 

impose no specific compliance path and treat vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions and 

unchanged fuel economy exactly the same as vehicles with similar greenhouse gas emissions and 

increased fuel economy. 

COMMENT #10: MADA and WANADA assert that manufacturers will attempt to circumvent the 

Clean Cars Program by delivering vehicles for sale in Maryland that are inconsistent with consumer 

demands and then overcome this market inconsistency by delivering the desirable vehicles to 

dealers in neighboring states who will then sell them to Maryland consumers unsatisfied with the 

vehicles available for sale in Maryland. In effect, an undesirable fleet (designed for regulatory 

compliance) is delivered to Maryland, supplemented by a non-complying fleet delivered to 

surrounding non-Clean Car states, to the detriment of Maryland new vehicle dealers. 

RESPONSE: The Department believes that the envisioned scenario, while theoretically possible, 

is highly impractical and economically disadvantageous to any vehicle manufacturer as it requires 

fundamentally irrational decision-making. Although most vehicles are currently 50 state certified, 

that may or may not be the case beginning in model year 2009 when the California certification 

requirements expand to include greenhouse gas certifications, which currently have no federal 

counterpart. For this scenario to even be possible, manufacturers must first decide to include 

greenhouse gas certifications on all vehicles, even those not intended for sale in California. 

Without such certifications, vehicles delivered for sale in states neighboring Maryland will not be 

saleable to Maryland residents even if they meet “50 state” criteria pollutant (i.e., NMOG, CO, 

NOx, and PM) standards. Second, the scenario further assumes that manufacturers will be content 

to either produce a large number of vehicles that will never be sold (these would be the vehicles 

delivered to Maryland for which there is no consumer demand), which would be economically 

unsound. Or, the manufacturers will somehow “under-deliver” these same vehicles to dealers in 

neighboring states with the expectation that this demand will be met by having neighboring state 

residents purchase these vehicles in Maryland. While the latter case would be practically difficult 

to implement, it is theoretically possible -- but it would not leave Maryland dealers with an 

unmarketable inventory. Only an economic decision to leave Maryland dealers with a fleet of 

vehicles that the industry actually does not expect to sell would place dealers in such a position, and 

the Department believes that the cost of program compliance is far less expensive than the cost of 

producing vehicles for scrap purposes. Instead, the Department believes that the auto industry will 

make the economically rational decision to produce a mix of complying vehicles consistent with 

consumer demand for delivery to all states implementing the California Clean Cars Program. 

COMMENT #11: MADA and WANADA assert that the Department’s failure to account for the 

availability of California-certified vehicles in neighboring states results in an overestimation of 

program benefits. 

5
RESPONSE: The Department believes that auto manufacturers will make an economically-based 

good faith effort to produce a full range of California-compliant vehicles for sale in Maryland. 

Nevertheless, even under a scenario in which manufacturers produced a fleet of vehicles for sale in 

Maryland that were ultimately sold to non-Maryland residents, counterbalanced by the sale to 

Maryland residents of California-certified vehicles delivered by manufacturers to non-Maryland 

dealers, the net greenhouse gas reductions would be the same as if no out-of-state sales occurred. 

While it is true that some of the vehicles might not be used primarily in Maryland, their primary use 

would accrue in the areas bordering Maryland and the net benefit to Maryland residents would be 

essentially unchanged. 

COMMENT #12: MADA and WANADA assert that the Department, in its willingness to 

consider regional compliance options, has acknowledged that greenhouse gas fleet averaging is a 

problem for dealers and recommends that the Department adopt the Pennsylvania approach of not 

requiring compliance based on a state-specific fleet average greenhouse gas standard. 

RESPONSE: The Department’s willingness to consider regional greenhouse gas compliance is 

premised not on any specific issue, but rather in recognition of: 1) the fact that the majority of 

northeast states have adopted the program, which makes a regional compliance mechanism more 

attractive, and 2) increased difficulty of having manufacturers demonstrate individual compliance in 

a number of states as opposed to composite compliance over a larger geographic area. Regional 

compliance is quite different from the Pennsylvania approach. Moreover, one could argue that the 

only possible reason for not adopting a Maryland-specific greenhouse gas standard would be to 

allow for reduced environmental benefits. If the benefits were achieved with or without the 

requirement, then there should be no objection to implementing the requirement itself as it would 

represent nothing but a pro forma backstop. The Department remains committed to investigating 

regional compliance options, but solely for the purpose of streamlining program implementation -- 

the Department is fully committed to putting a program in place that attains the full environmental 

benefits of the California program. 

COMMENT #13: MADA and WANADA take exception to the Department’s assertion (in the 

Maryland Register notice of proposed action) that Maryland dealers may recognize an increase in 

sales of vehicles due to interest from environmentally conscious consumers. 

RESPONSE: While the Department continues to believe that environmental interest from

out-of-state consumers may accrue as a benefit to Maryland dealers, we acknowledge that we have 

done no detailed analysis of the phenomena. However, the benefits (and cost) of the California 

Clean Cars Program are fully independent of whether the increased interest does or does not 

materialize. In short, the adoption of the program is unaffected. 

COMMENT #14: MADA and WANADA take exception to the Department’s assertion (in the 

Maryland Register notice of proposed action) that Maryland dealers can stock and sell 

non-California vehicles for sale to non-Maryland consumers, stating that manufacturers will not 

ship such vehicles to Maryland “for fear that it [such a practice] might affect their compliance with 

the fleet averaging requirements [of the California Clean Cars Program].” 

RESPONSE: While the Department cannot require vehicle manufacturers to provide 

6
federally-certified cars to Maryland dealers, there is nothing in the California Clean Cars Program

that prohibits such action. A vehicle that is clearly labeled as non-complying (via existing federal 

and California labeling requirements) and is sold to an out-of-state resident represents a perfectly 

viable and legal transaction and imposes no threat of non-compliance to manufacturers. 

COMMENT #15: MADA and WANADA take exception to the Department’s failure to discuss 

the potential effects of the vehicle price impacts of the California Clean Cars Program on vehicle 

sales. 

RESPONSE: The Department did not discuss the effect on sales associated with the vehicle price 

impacts of the California Clean Cars Program precisely because such effects were estimated to be 

minor through detailed economic analysis conducted by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) during that agency’s program adoption process in 2004. The Department did conduct an 

updated consumer payback analysis due to the fact that significant fuel price changes had occurred 

since the time of the CARB cost analyses. The Department’s analysis has shown that consumers 

who finance vehicles save money under the California Clean Cars Program immediately upon 

purchase. While non-finance consumers will find a 2-3 year period before payback, industry 

surveys have consistently found consumers willing to value fuel savings incurred during this period 

in their purchase decisions. In addition, it is estimated that the consumer will experience an overall 

net savings of $1,000 for trucks and $2,000 for cars by 150,000 miles due to lower operating costs. 

COMMENT #16: MADA and WANADA claim that the combined impact of a 20 percent increase 

in Maryland titling fees and the price increases associated with the California Clean Cars Program

may be substantial. 

RESPONSE: The price impacts of the California Clean Cars Program are discussed in the 

response to the previous comment. Any impacts associated with increases in the state’s titling fees 

(which are independent of this rulemaking) will be entertained during the adoption process for such 

increases (should they occur). 

COMMENT #17: MADA and WANADA request that the Department defer adoption of the 

greenhouse gas requirements of the California Clean Car Program until observing the effects of 

such implementation in other states, claiming that such deferral does not affect the Department’s 

ability to move forward with the program. 

RESPONSE: The Department is fully committed to obtaining the maximum environmental 

benefits of the California Clean Cars Program. This requires adoption of the greenhouse gas 

provisions of the program. Since the impacts of the program accrue gradually, and Maryland is 

already entering the program several years after its start in California, the Department must move 

forward with implementing the greenhouse gas provisions at this time, consistent with the statutory 

requirement to start the program in model year 2011. As suggested by MADA and WANADA, the 

Department will observe the implementation of the greenhouse gas provisions in other states 

beginning in 2009 and implement program changes as/if necessary to alleviate any observed 

deficiencies prior to the implementation of the California Clean Cars Program in Maryland in model 

year 2011. In fact, the legislation mandating adoption of the Clean Cars Program specifically 

establishes a task force charged with monitoring and reporting on issues related to the program, 

7
including issues associated with the implementation of the California greenhouse gas standards.

COMMENT #18: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) commented that they 

recognize that the Department is fulfilling a legislative mandate in adopting the California Clean 

Cars Program. Nevertheless, AAM submitted extensive comments and lengthy documents on the 

fundamental propriety of the adoption decision already made by the Maryland legislature. 

RESPONSE: The Department appreciates this recognition. A review of the various documents 

concluded that most, if not all, of the detailed comments submitted by AAM were previously 

presented by AAM and other opponents of the California Clean Cars Program during the legislative 

adoption process. The Department, in fulfilling its administrative responsibilities to adopt a 

legislatively mandated program, proposed regulations to implement the program and conducted a 

public hearing to obtain comments specific to the proposed implementing regulations. Since the 

majority of the submitted comments are not specific to the proposed regulations and it is not the 

purpose or intent of this rulemaking to determine whether to implement the program, or to revisit 

the fundamental program adoption decision, the Department does not believe it necessary to 

respond to them again through this rulemaking process. The full comments of the AIAM, even 

though received after the close of the comment period, have been entered into the public hearing 

record. 

COMMENT #19: AAM also requested that the Department modify the establishment procedures 

for Maryland ZEV credit accounts to include no proportionality adjustment for Type III ZEVs. 

RESPONSE: The Department agrees with AAM in that no adjustment of credits is appropriate in 

establishing a Type III ZEV credit account in Maryland. We believe that our intent in this regard 

was clear in the proposed rulemaking through our extension of Type III ZEV allowances through 

model year 2017 (COMAR 26.11.34.09C), but also agree that this intent could be made clearer by 

explicitly defining the credit account establishment procedures for Type III ZEVs. Therefore, we 

have modified the language in COMAR 26.11.34.10 to clarify this intention. 

8