related to COMAR 26.11.26.02 arid 26.11.26.03

Transportation Conformity

Purpose of Hearing: The purpose of this public hearing is to amend COMAR

26.11.26 to provide a legal platform for the various consultation procedures

that have been developed between the Maryland Department of the Environment

(MOE), Maryland Department of Transportation (MOOT), Metpolitan Washington

Air Quality Committee (MWAQC), and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

Some definitions have also been revised. In general, the transportation

conformity rule ensures that the Continuous transportation planning process

and the air quality planning process are consistent with each other so that

federal air quality standards can be met as quickly as possible. Recent

revisions to the federal rule to reduce the administrative complexity of the

rule allow many decisions to be made through the interagency consultation

process. The revisions to COMPR 26.11.26 give state and local governments

increased flexibility to set performance measures used to determine

conformity, develop the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and handle unique

planning situations in a manner beneficial to the environment and economic

development.

The Air Quality Control Advisory Council recommended adoption of these

regulations.Date and Location: The public hearing was held on September 2, 1998 at 10:30

a.m., at the Maryland State office Building, 300 W. Preston St., l Floor

Auditorium, Baltimore, MD 21201.

Attendance: Jim Wilkinson, Planner, Air and Radiation ManagementAdministration, served as Hearing Officer. J. Neil from the American Lung

Association attended the meeting but did not make any comments.

Statement: The Department’s statement was submitted into the record by Ms.

Diane Franks, Chief of the Air Quality Planning Division of the Air and

Radiation Management Administration.

Comments and Responses: No comments were presented at the public hearing. The

Department received written comments from the Environmental Protection Agencyduring the time the hearing record was held open. The comments received

during this time relate to the proposed new amendments and have been

summarized. The Departments responses are given below.

Comment: The specific consultation process (noted as memorandums of agreement

in COMAR 26.11.26.03) for each of the metropolitan planning organizations

(MPOs), are not part of the rule. They need to be specifically referenced in

the rule.
p

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 fromparticipating 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 transportationplanning 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.