### ..**t.:~em~ot1ke~Am4lDdBadiaUon·.Management** 

### Administr,ation:

. Department of the Environment for the Public BearingRelating to COMAR26.11.2() CONFORMITY heldon 

### March 4, 1998 

### in Baltimore, MD



## ..

.**~"** 

### My 

### name-is JessicaRitter. 

### ··lam a Planner within the Air Quality PlanningDivision ofthe 

### Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department ofthe Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of40 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 ofthis hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on January 30, 1998; Baltimore Sun on January 30, 1998; Cumberland Times-News on January 30, 1998; FrederickNews-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 ofthese notices were submitted for the record.

Copies ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofamending 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

... Ingeneral, 

### the

## transpcrtationconformity rule ensures that the continuous transportation planning process and the air quality planning process are consistent.

Under the federal conformityregulations, transportation system modifications in an

ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment area must not impairprogress 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 onJuly 31, 1997, requirethat transportation plans, programs and projects "conform" with airquality 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 ofair quality standards,

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

COMAR 26.11.26 adopted byreference the original federal transportation conformity rule published in November 1993 and is moreprescriptive than the revised federal rule. The amendments to COMAR 26.11.26 incorporatebyreference all revisions to the federal rule betweenNovember 1993 and August 15, 1997 and make the Staterule consistent withthe 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 ofComments

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

F:\RITIER\CONFORM\AMEND\HEARSTMT.CONF.OOC173

I PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

Revenue

," .. ,'. (R+IR-) Expenditure (E+IE-) 0. Types of

Domc Impacts.

1) peryear On issuing agency: (E-) (E-) ) peremployee 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'Suetriesor 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\, employerto 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 Propuawould**~,ooo.** 'nJ,e repeal ofthis

## resuIation will produce a revenue**o~** the sameamount.

F. This action wouldhaft Ipecll,Maryiand meet and maintain the NatioDal Ambient Air ty**S~** fOr ozone and carbon monOldde. The**~t** woul haft**bee~better** air quality and fewer adverse health eff'ectII on pneral :;from air pollution. Th. Departmentestimated t the ECO p would aWeft eaU. sion reductions

### or 1.6 perclay

### orvola' organic compounds, 13

.tons per clay 

### or ontr«jcle, aDd3 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 ManagementAdministration, Dep ent 01 the E vironment, 2500 Broening Highway, B imore. Mary d 21224. Comments mustbe 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 ManagementAdministration, 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

### COMAR28.11.28 

### Conformity.
Statement ofPurpoee 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 Staterule consistentwiththe 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 ofEcoDOmiC Impact. Ifthe 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 iftherequirement for the build/no :Jw.ld is removed. "

MARYlAND REGISTER, VOL 2S. iUUI 1 , AlDAY, JANUARY 30, 1998174 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 localgovernments: NONE Benefit(+)

Cost(-)**"'~gnitude** D. On regulated industries or trade groups:



## E. OnotheriDduatries 

## 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 ofthe amendmentswill 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 thathave historicallybeen 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 ofdoing the conformity analysis will be l.-ned.
Economic 

### Impact on Small BuaiDeuee The proposed IJ!Ction baaminjma] 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., 1stFloor Auditorium, Baltimore, NO 21201. Interested persons are invited to attend and upreu theirviews. 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 

### be submitted at the bearing.

Copies ofthe proposed amendments and supporting documents are availablefor review atthefollowing locations: the Air:and Radiation**ManalementAdmiDistra~'}2500** BroeningHighway, Baltimore, Maryland21224; regional offices of 

### the Department in 

### Cumberland and Salisbury; all local air quality CODtrol offices; and local health departmenta inthose counties DOthaving separate airquality 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 ofthe -bearing date at (410) 631-3009. For more information call Deborah Rabin, Air and Radiation Management Administration, (410) 631·3240. .01 

### Purpo•.

The purpose ofthis chapter is to allow the State ofMaryland to implemen: §176(c) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and the related require1Mnts of23 U.S.C. 109(j), with respect to the confonnity of transportation plans, programs, andprojects which are delJeloped, funded, or approued by the United States Depart1Mnt of Transportation (DOT), and by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) or other recipients offunds under TItle 23 U.S.C. or tlu Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S. C. JANE T.NISlfiDA Secretary ofthe Environment



### Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY

Authority: EnYiroDm8lltArticle. 

### ntle 2­ AImocated Codeof MaryWld
Notice ofPropoeedAction 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 

### toMaryland's NO. udgetProgram.


### S 

### tement ofPm"""", The purpose ofthiS .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 ertransactions will be d with the assistance of E**~s** AcidRain 

### 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 AmbientAir Quali

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