..t.:~em~ot1ke~Am4lDdBadiaUon·.Management Administr,ation: . 

Department of the Environment
 

for the
 

Public Bearing Relating to
 

COMAR 26.11.2()
 

CONFORMITY
 

heldon March 4, 1998 in
 

Baltimore, MD
 

.. 

.~" My name-is Jessica Ritter. ··lam a Planner within the Air Quality Planning Division of the 

Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 51.102 

and 251, and Sections 2-301 et.seq. ofthe Environment Article, Annotated Code ofMaryland. It 

is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on January 30, 1998;
 

Baltimore Sun on January 30, 1998;
 

Cumberland Times-News on January 30, 1998;
 

Frederick News-Post on January 30, 1998;
 

Salisbury Daily Times on January 30, 1998;
 

Saint Mary's Enterprise on January 30, 1998; and the
 

Montgomery and Prince George's Journals on January 30, 1998.
 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed amendments and supporting documents were submitted for 

review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. 

Copies of the proposed amendments and supporting documents were made available for public 

inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, 

Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices. 

The purpose oftoday's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on 

proposed amendments to COMAR 26.11.26 Conformity. 

Summary 

The purpose of amending COMAR 26.11.26 is to incorporate the recent changes in the 

federal conformity rule into the state rule by reference. The primary purpose ofthe federal 

amendment, which was published in the Federal Register on August 15, 1997, was to streamline 

the administrative procedures and provide greater flexibility in the existing transportation 

conformity regulation. The final rule gives state and local governments increased authority to set 
performance measures used to determine conformity... In general, thetranspcrtationconformity 

rule ensures that the continuous transportation planning process and the air quality planning 

process are consistent. 

Under the federal conformity regulations, transportation system modifications in an 

ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment area must not impair progress made in air quality 

improvements. These regulations, published as EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule on 

November 24, 1993 in the Federal Register and amended in a final rule signed on July 31, 1997, 

require that transportation plans, programs and projects "conform" with air quality planning goals 

established in air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP) documents. The transportation 

conformity rule describes the criteria and procedures established to meet the Clean Air Act 

requirements for federally funded or approved transportation plans, programs, and projects to 

ensure that these projects do not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards, 

worsen existing violations, or delay attainment ofthe air quality standards. 

COMAR 26.11.26 adopted by reference the original federal transportation conformity 

rule published in November 1993 and is more prescriptive than the revised federal rule. The 

amendments to COMAR 26.11.26 incorporate by reference all revisions to the federal rule 

between November 1993 and August 15, 1997 and make the State rule consistent with the 

revised federal rule. The federal regulation allows one year to complete a SIP revision 

implementing the conformity requirements at the State level and establishing interagency 

consultation procedures. 

Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt these 

amendments. 

F:\RITIER\CONFORM\AMEND\HEARSTMT.CONF.OOC 
173 

I 

PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS 

Revenue ," .. ,'.	 (R+IR-) 

Expenditure 

(E+IE-) 

0. Types of

Domc Impacts. 

1) peryear

On issuing agency: (E-) 

(E-) 

) per employee 

B.	 n other State agencies: 

pe employee (E-) 

C. 0	 local governments: 

per mployee (E-) 

.trade groups 

peremp 

Benefit (+) 

Cost (-) 

D. On 

$94-$119 

E. On other'Suetries or trade 

groupe: 

per year (-) $450,000 

F. Direct and direct eff'ec:ts on (- ) Unable to 

public: \ estimate 

DL AuumpUoDll. (Identified by Imp Letter and Number 

from Section II.) \. 

AU) and (2). The Department eetima 

c:overap or 2,000 emp},)y.ra, that implem teuon of this Program 

would require sbt E~DlDenta1 Sped' II, one Supervisory 

Planner IV, two PIannen I and an Secretary ill (all contractual) at a total annual dl.t or $297 Additionally, the Department would haft spent $$4 - $1l9t'i ployee u a regulated em­ ployer. \ 

B, C, and D. The Department ted an average employer 

coat of $94 - Sl191employe6"year comply with thia program. 

E. This regulation requireli\, employer to designate a traMportetion coordinator. The De ent esr:mated that many employers would contraetwith p , te coneuItante or transportation 

management UIOciationa to . u the work site's traneportati.on 

coordinator.The Department ted the coneultants annual incomefromthis Propua would ~,ooo. 'nJ,e repeal ofthis resuIation will produce a revenue o~the sameamount. 

F. This action would haft Ipecll,Maryiand meet and maintain 

the NatioDal Ambient Air ty S~fOr ozone and carbon 

monOldde. The ~t woul haft bee~betterair quality and fewer 

adverse health eff'ectII on pneral :;fromair pollution. Th. 

Department estimated t the ECO p would aWeft eaU. 

sion reductions or 1.6 per clayorvola' organic compounds, 13 .tons per clay or ontr«jcle, aDd 3 per clay of nitrotrOlddecompounds. 

Economi
 

The proposed
 

• on small bww'~Ies. i 

Op rtuDity for PubUc CoDlJDent 

The Dep ent or the Enviromnent will hold a public 

hearing on repeal, of COMAR\26.11.25 Employee Co ute Optfoua on March 4, 1998, _t 10 a.m., al 

the Maryl State Omc.Building, 300 W. §i:St.. l.R 

Floor Au . rium, Baltimore, MD 21201. Intere d penoa. 

are invi to attend and express their views. ommenta 

may be nt to Deborah Rabin,Regulations Coo tor, Au 

and Ra tion Management Administration, Dep ent 01 

the E vironment, 2500 Broening Highway, B imore. 

Mary d 21224. Comments must be received not la 

Au

'

r thaa 

M 4, 1998, or be submitted at the hearing. 

pies of the proposed repeal and supporting d 

available for review at the following locations: 

Radiation Management Administration, 2500 Broe 

hway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224; regional offices of 

epartment in Cumberland and Salisbury; all local & 

• baaed on anticipated 

Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 

26.11.28 Conformity 

Authority: Eml'OllllleDt Artide, TItle 2,
 

AImotat.ed Cod. or MarylaDd
 

Notice ofProposed Action 

[98-042-P) 

The Secretary of the Enviromnent proposes to adopt new 

Regulation .01, ameild and r8codifyRegulations .01 and .02 

and recodify existing Regulation .08 aa Regulation .04 under COMAR 28.11.28 Conformity. 

Statement of Purpoee 

The primary purpose of this action is to incorporate the 

recent changes in the federal como:-mityrule into the State 

role by reference. The original federal transportation conformity role published in November 1993 was incorporated 

by reference under COMAR 28.11.26 but was more restrictive than the revised federal rule. The proposed amendments incorporate by reference aU revisions to the federal 

role between November 1993 and August 15, 1997, and 

make the State rule consistent with the revised federal role. 

The federal role allows 1 year to complete a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision implementing the comormity 

requirements at the State level. ' . . . 

The revised federal role permits the States to use an 

emissions budget test alone to conduct comormity assessment rather than in the more costly buildlno build test 

which waa formerly required. Additionally, removing the requirement to do the buildlno build test will allow the State 

more flexibility to select emission reduction strategies that 

produce the best long-term benefits and further air quality 10m rather thaD focus on short-term reduc:tiona needed to 

meet this test.	 ,,... 

Comparison to Federal Stanc:larda 

'MIen is a corresponding federal standard to this propoeecl regulation, but the proposed rel'$tion is not more 

rHtrictiveorstringent. 

Estimate ofEconomic Impact 

L Summary of EcoDOmiC Impact. If the buildlno build test is 

r-.ted ror the 1998 conformity cycle it is likely that the Stete will 

!\aft to spend wmec:eaeary dollars for transportation control mea­

.wwe .1'IIcb would not be needed ifthe requirement for the build/no 

:Jw.ld is removed. 

" 

MARYlAND REGISTER, VOL 2S. iUUI 1 , AlDAY, JANUARY 30, 1998 
174 PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS 

Do Type. of 

EccmolDic Impacta. 

A. On issuing agency: 

B. On other State agencies: $500,000­

$1,000,000 

C. On local governments: NONE 

Benefit(+) 

Cost(-) "'~gnitude

D. On regulated industries or 

trade groups:

E. On other iDduatries or,trade 

NONE 

groups: 

F. Direct and iDdirec:t effects on 

NONE 

public: NONE 

m. AuampdollL (Identified by Impact Letter and Number 

from Section n.)

B. Adoption of the amendments will eliminate the Su:.e requirement for the buildlno build test. M a result the Mary1aDd Department of Transportation will not have to pay for emission reduction 

strategies that have historically been necessary in corUunction with 

this test. In ~~years, ~,have ranged between $500,000 to 

$1,000,000 depending upon the amOUDt of emission reductions 

needed. The ad.m:i.nistrative ClllIt8 of doing the conformity analysis 

will be l.-ned. 

Economic Impact on Small BuaiDeuee 

The proposed IJ!Ction baa minjma] or no economic impact 

on small buainease8. 

Opportunity for Public Comment 

The Department of the Environment will bold a public 

hearing on the proposed amendments on March 4, 1998, at 

10 a.m., at the Maryland State Oftice Building, 300 W.Pre­

&ton St., 1st Floor Auditorium, Baltimore, NO 21201. Interested persons are invited to attend and upreu their views. 

Commenta may be sent to Deborah Rabin, Regulations C0­

ordinator, Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening lfighway, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21224. Comments must be received 

not later than March 4, 1998, or besubmitted at the bearing. 

Copies of the proposed amendments and supporting documents are available for review at the following locations: the 

Air:and Radiation ManalementAdmiDistra~'}2500

Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224; regional offices of the Department in Cumberland and Salisbury; all 

local air quality CODtrol offices; and local health departmenta in those counties DOthaving separate air quality control offices. 

A bearing impaired penon may request that an interpreter be present at the hearing by notifying the Department cf the Environment, 5 working days in advance of the 

-bearing date at (410) 631-3009. For more information call 

Deborah Rabin, Air and Radiation Management Administration, (410) 631·3240. 

.01 Purpo•. 

The purpose of this chapter is to allow the State of Maryland to implemen: §176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and the related require1Mnts of 23 U.S.C. 109(j), with respect to the confonnity of 

transportation plans, programs, and projects which are delJeloped, funded, or approued by the United States Depart1Mnt of Transportation (DOT), and by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) or other recipients of funds 

under TItle 23 U.S. C. or tlu Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S. C. 

JANE T. NISlfiDA 

Secretary of the Environment 

Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY 

Authority: EnYiroDm8llt Article. ntle 2­


AImocated Codeof MaryWld
 

Notice ofPropoeed Action 

198-040-P·I) 

The tary of the Environment proposes 

Regulatio .01 - .14 under a new chap ,COMAR 

28.11.27 Po BACT Requirements for 0. Sources 

(NO. Budge ProJr8.Dl) and new Regul 'ons .01-.13 

under a new ter, COMAK 28.11.28 P cies aDd Pr0­ cedure. Relat to Maryland's NO. udget Program. 

S tement ofPm"""", 

The purpose of thiS .on is to es 1isba nitrogen oxides 

(NO,,) cap and trade gram fo major NO. sources to 

achieve up to a 65 pe t redu 'on in NO. emissions by 

.~.~~ctpf 19.~~ Atl"ected .wee . tha~ opt!~t:ed 1990,will 

be allocated NO. 8llow ed on reducing their 1990 

baseline emissions. Two ted sources that received a 

permit to construct after 0'.receive NO" allowances 

based on their potential miss ns. Affected sources will 

have the option to acbi comp by controlling emissions or obtainjng all ances. distribution of allowances and the demo tration of co liance are baaed on 

emissions during summer mon (May through September). The use allowances, trades r purchases of allowances, and 0 er transactions will be d with the 

assistance of E ~s Acid Rain Program. 

Backgro nformation: The Department,' conjunction 

with atrec facilities, established baseline 1990) emissions for ch NO" installation and, from . data, prepared so e allowances to be met in 1999. The source 

allow es establishes the Maryland budget. 

Us' as a guide a model role that was develope y tJOzo e Transport Commission (OTC) workgroup, th D~

p ent established its regulation to reduce NO" from aj stationary sources which is an important part of M 

and's strategy to achieve the National Ambient Air Quali 

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL 25, ISSUE 3 FRIDAY, JANUARY 30,1998