### DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSE TOCOMMENTS

for the

Public Hearing held on September 2, 1998 in Baltimore,Me relatedto COMAR 26.11.26.02 and 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 consultationprocedures that have been developed between the Maryland Department of the Environment (MOE), Maryland Department of Transportation (MOOT),**Met~politan** 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 witheach other so that federal air quality standards can bemet as quickly as possible. Recent revisions tothe federal rule to reduce the administrative complexity of the rule allow many decisions to be made through the interagency consultation process. The revisions to COMAR 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 andeconomic development.

The Air Quality Control Advisory Council recommended adoption of these regulations.

Date and Location: The public hearingwas held on September 2, 1998 at 10:30 a.m., at theMaryland State office Building, 300 W. Preston St., 

### ISt Floor Auditorium, Baltimore, MO 21201.

Attendance: JimWilkinson, Planner, Air and RadiationManagement Administration, served as Hearing Officer. J. Neil from the American Lung Association attended the meeting but did not make any comments.

Statement: The Department's statementwas submitted into the record byMs. Diane Franks, Chief of the Air Quality Planning Divisionof the Air and RadiationManagement Administration.

Comments and Responses: No comments were presented at the public hearing. The Department received written comments from the Environmental Protection Agency during 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 Department's 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.

### Resoonse: Intheir review of earlier drafts, EPA staff expressed concern about enforceability inMaryland. The Memoranda of Understanding are not legally enforceable bythe State of Maryland. Therefore, Maryland developed the consultationprocess into a general regulatory format to provide a legal platform for the agreements. The specific consultationprocesses were not specifically referenced inthe regulationbecause such references and revisions to themrequired regulationrevision. Maryland believes the**regula~ion** 

### 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 theWashington MetropolitanAreaMPO, the Transportation Planning Board, does not have a signaturepage with the signatures of theprinciple agencies involved inthe specific consultation processes.



### Resoonse: TheWashington consultationprocedures do not have a signature page
on their procedures becausethe procedureswere not adopted as a memorandum of understandingby the Transportation Planning Board.



### Comment: There needs to be language that prohibits anyonewho has not signed the memorandum of agreement with theMPOsmentioned inthe rule from participating inthe consultationprocesses required by the Conformity rule.


### Response: Although it is not clear from the comment, the Department assumes that EPAwants toprohibit independent parties from developing transportation planning processes. The Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 provided that thetransportationprocess and funding shall take place through the metropolitanplanning organizations including their memberships. InMaryland, these MPOs are established through separateMOUs. The Department believes that federal and state laws and regulations prescribe the transportation planning process in sufficient detail to prevent the establishment of secondarytransportationplanningprocesses.