DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
 

AIR AND RADIATION
 

MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

for the 

Public Hearing held on
 

September 2, 1998 in Baltimore,Me
 

related to 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 consultation procedures 

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 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 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 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., IS t Floor
 

Auditorium, Baltimore, MO 21201.
 

Attendance: Jim Wilkinson, Planner, Air and Radiation Management 

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 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 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: In their review of earlier drafts, EPA staff expressed concern about 

enforceability in Maryland. The Memoranda of Understanding are not legally 

enforceable by the State of Maryland. Therefore, Maryland developed the 

consultation process into a general regulatory format to provide a legal 

platform for the agreements. The specific consultation processes were not 

specifically referenced in the regulation because such references and 

revisions to them required regulation revision. 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 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. 

Resoonse: 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 from 

participating 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 transportation 

planning 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.