DEPARTMENTOFTHEENVIRONMENTAIRANDRADIATIONMANAGEMENTADMINISTRATIONRESPONSETOCOMMENTSforthePublicHearingheldonSeptember2,1998inBaltimore,MDrelatedtoCOMAR26.11.26.02arid26.11.26.03TransportationConformityPurposeofHearing:ThepurposeofthispublichearingistoamendCOMAR26.11.26toprovidealegalplatformforthevariousconsultationproceduresthathavebeendevelopedbetweentheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MOE),MarylandDepartmentofTransportation(MOOT),MetpolitanWashingtonAirQualityCommittee(MWAQC),andMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations(MPOs).Somedefinitionshavealsobeenrevised.Ingeneral,thetransportationconformityruleensuresthattheContinuoustransportationplanningprocessandtheairqualityplanningprocessareconsistentwitheachothersothatfederalairqualitystandardscanbemetasquicklyaspossible.Recentrevisionstothefederalruletoreducetheadministrativecomplexityoftheruleallowmanydecisionstobemadethroughtheinteragencyconsultationprocess.TherevisionstoCOMPR26.11.26givestateandlocalgovernmentsincreasedflexibilitytosetperformancemeasuresusedtodetermineconformity,developtheStateImplementationPlan(SIP),andhandleuniqueplanningsituationsinamannerbeneficialtotheenvironmentandeconomicdevelopment.TheAirQualityControlAdvisoryCouncilrecommendedadoptionoftheseregulations.DateandLocation:ThepublichearingwasheldonSeptember2,1998at10:30a.m.,attheMarylandStateofficeBuilding,300W.PrestonSt.,lFloorAuditorium,Baltimore,MD21201.Attendance:JimWilkinson,Planner,AirandRadiationManagementAdministration,servedasHearingOfficer.J.NeilfromtheAmericanLungAssociationattendedthemeetingbutdidnotmakeanycomments.Statement:TheDepartment’sstatementwassubmittedintotherecordbyMs.DianeFranks,ChiefoftheAirQualityPlanningDivisionoftheAirandRadiationManagementAdministration.CommentsandResponses:Nocommentswerepresentedatthepublichearing.TheDepartmentreceivedwrittencommentsfromtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyduringthetimethehearingrecordwasheldopen.Thecommentsreceivedduringthistimerelatetotheproposednewamendmentsandhavebeensummarized.TheDepartmentsresponsesaregivenbelow.Comment:Thespecificconsultationprocess(notedasmemorandumsofagreementinCOMAR26.11.26.03)foreachofthemetropolitanplanningorganizations(MPOs),arenotpartoftherule.Theyneedtobespecificallyreferencedintherule.

# Response:

In their review

of earlier drafts,

EPA staff expressed
concern

about enforceability

in Maryland.

The Memoranda

of Understanding

are not legally

( enforceable

by the State

of Maryland. Therefore, Maryland developed

the consultation

process

into

a general regulatory

format

to provide

a legal platform

for the agreements.

The specific consultation processes

were

not specifically referenced

in the regulation
because

such references

and revisions

to them required regulation revision. Maryland believes

the regulation
fulfills

the requirements

of CFR 93.105.

The specific agreements describe

the process

down

to

a subcommittee.

This level

of detail

is not necessary

in the regulation. Comment:

The consultation

process

for the Washington Metropolitan

Area MPO, the Transportation

Planning

Board,

does

not have

a signature

page with

the signatures

of the principle agencies involved

in the specific consultation processes. Response:

The Washington consultation procedures

do not have

a signature

page on their procedures
because

the procedures

were

not adopted

as

a memorandum

of understanding

by the Transportation

Planning

Board. Comment:

There needs

to
be language

that prohibits

anyone

who
has not signed the memorandum

of agreement

with

the MPOs mentioned

in the rule from participating

in the consultation
processes required

by the Conformity

rule. Response: Although

it

is not clear

from

the comment,

the Department

assumes that

EPA wants

to prohibit independent

parties

from developing transportation planning processes.

The Intermodal

Surface Transportation
Efficiency

Act (ISTEA)

of 1991 provided

that

the transportation

process

and funding

shall take place through

the metropolitan

planning organizations
including

their memberships.

In Maryland,

these
MPOs

are established

through separate

MOUs. The Department believes

that federal

and state
laws

and regulations prescribe the transportation

planning process

in sufficient

detail

to prevent

the establishment

of secondary transportation

planning processes.