StatementoftheAirandRadiationManagarnent.Adminlsration(DepartmentoftheEnvironmentforthePublicHearingRelatingtoCOMAR26.11.26.02and26.11.26.03TRANSPORTATIONCONFORMITYheldonSeptember2,1998inBaltimore,MDMynameisDianeFranks.IamDivisionChiefoftheAirQualityPolicyandPlanningDivisionoftheAirandRadiationManagementAdministration,DepartmentoftheEnvironment.Thispublichearingisbeingheldpursuanttotherequirementsof40CFRParts51.102and251,andSections2-301et.seq.oftheEnvironmentArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland.ItisalsobiugheldinconformancewiththeStateAdministrativeProceduresActundertheStateGovernmentArticle,beginningatSection10-101.Noticeofthishearingappearedinthe:MarylandRegisteronJuly31,1998;AnnapolisCapitalonJuly31,19998;BaltimoreSunonJuly31,1998;BelAirAegisonJuly29,1998;FrederickNews-PostonJuly31,1998;QueenAnneCountyRecorderonJuly31,1998;CecilWhigonJuly31,1998;andtheMontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’sJournalsonJuly31,1998;Copiesofthesenoticesweresubmittedfortherecord.€opiesoftheproposedamendmentsandsupportingdocumentsweresubmittedforreviewtotheStateClearinghouseandarealsosubmittedatthistimeintothehearingrecord.Copiesoftheproposedamendmentsandsupportingdocumentsweremadeavailable-forpublicinspectionattheAirandRadiationManagementAdministrationofficesinBaltimore,Cumberland,andSalisbury,andatalllocalhealthdepartmentsorlocalairqualitycontroloffices.Thepurposeoftoday’shearingistogivethepublicanopportunitytocommentonproposedamendmentstoCOMAR26.11.26.02and26.11.26.03TransportationConformity.SummaryThepurposeofamendingCOM.AR26.11.26istoprovidealegalplatformforthevariousconsultationproceduresthathavebeendevelopedbetweentheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),MarylandDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT),MetropolitanWashingtonAirQualityCommittee(MWAQC),andMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations(MPOs).Somedefinitionshavealsobeenrevised.Ingeneral,thetransportationconformityruleCensuresthatthecontinuoustransportationpianningprocessandtheairqualityplanningprocessareconsistentwitheachothersothatfederalairqualitystandardscanbemetasquicklyaspossible.Recentrevisionstothefederalruletoreducetheadministrativecomplexityoftheruleallowmanydecisionstobemadethroughtheinteragencyconsultationprocess.TherevisionstoCOMAR26.11.26givestateandlocalgovernmentsincreasedflexibilitytosetperformancemeasuresusedtodetermineconformity,developtheStateImplementationPlan(SIP),andhandleuniqueplanningsituationsinamannerbeneficialtotheenvironmentandeconomicdevelopment.Thetransportationconformityrule,40CFRSection93.105,requiresthatthestateimplementationplanaddresshowtheprincipalagenciesinvolvedinthecontinuingtransportationplanningprocessandairqualityplanningprocesswillinvolveeachotherintheirrespectiveprocesssothatallgoalsaremet.OnApril20,1995,theMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentsubmittedMaryland’sTransportationConformityStateImplementationPlan(SIP)Revision.AtthattimeaseparateMemorandaofUnderstanding(MOU)foreachMPOwassubmittedfortheconsultationprocedures.TheSIPmustbesupportedthroughalegallyenforceableformat.Thisruleprovidesaregulatoryframeworkfortheconsultationprocedures,developedthroughtheMOUs.TheruleisverygeneraldefiningtherolesandresponsibilitiesoftheaffectedpartiesanddoesnotreplacetheMOUs.TheMOUsdescribetheprocessingreaterdetailandspecificallyapplytohowtheorganizationsconducttheirplanningprocess.Manyoftheinvolvedplanningorganizationsaremulti-jurisdictionalandmtlti-state.Agreaterdegreeofflexibilityisneededforasmoothplanningprocess.Theregulationprovidesthelegal(underpinningfortheprocess.ConsiderationofCommentsTheDepartmentwillconsiderallcommentsbeforemakingadecisiontoadopttheseamendments.4