Memorandum — Environmental Protection Agency v. Maryland
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Qe
Supreme Court, U. S
- FILED.
MAY 14 1976
In THE
hee
> r/
’
MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK |
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1975
No. 75-960
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, Et AL.,
Respondents.
On PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED States Court OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT,
STATE OF MARYLAND
FRANCIS B. BURCH,
Attorney General,
State of Maryland,
HENRY R. Lorp,
Deputy Attorney General,
1 South Calvert Building,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202,
Attorneys for Respondent,
State of Maryland.
The Daily Record Co., Baltimore, Md. 21202 Be «
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OcTOBER TERM, 1975
No. 75-960
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Petitioner,
Vv.
STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL.,
Respondents.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED States Court OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT,
STATE OF MARYLAND
On January 7, 1976, the Solicitor General, on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency, filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in the above-referenced cause.
OPINION BELOW
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at 530
F.2d 215, and is printed in full at Appendix A, pp. la-
37a, of the petition.
2
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES,
AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED
The constitutional and statutory provisions involved
are set forth in petitioner’s Appeudix C, pp. 41a-65a. In
an Appendix to this response, Maryland presents the
following Federal regulations: 40 C.F.R. §§52.1095;
52.1096; 52.1098; 52.1100; 52.1106, which were invali-
dated by the Fourth Circuit’s decision.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The pertinent statutory and regulatory programs are
summarized at pp. 2-5 of the government’s petition. The
State of Maryland brought suit in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to invalidate
certain orders promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Transportation
Plan for the Baltimore Air Quality Control Region.
Maryland objected that in seeking to compel the State
to enact and administer Federal air pollution control
programs, EPA exceeded the permissible exercise of the
Federal commerce power and violated the principles of
federalism inherent in the United States Constitution.
Maryland also suggested that such regulations were
beyond EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, and
that in certain respects the adoption of the regulations
was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals
held that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act
to compel Maryland to implement, through legislation
and regulations, Federal air pollution control programs.
This construction of the Clean Air Act was buttressed
by the Court’s doubts relative to the constitutionality of
the Act, assuming that Congress had intended EPA to
adopt such measures.
The Federal government has sought review of the
lower court’s decision, asserting that a conflict exists
3
between the holding of the Fourth Circuit and decisions
by the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 500 F.2d 243 (1974), and by the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in District
of Columbia v. Train, 521 F.2d 971 (1975) (petitions for
cert. pending sub. nom. Train v. District of Columbia,
No. 75-1055; Commonwealth of Virginia v. Train, No.
75-1050).
RESPONSE
This case raises an important question of interpreta-
tion regarding the Clean Air Act of 1970: did Congress,
and if so could Congress constitutionally, intend to
authorize EPA to mandate legislation from a state in
the area of air pollution control? The Court of Appeals
accepted Maryland’s argument that Congress neither
could nor did intend such a Federal usurpation of a
state’s sovereign functions.
Maryland noted before the lower court that the
commerce power may encompass a federal ability to
regulate state activities in the broad spectrum of
interstate commerce, such as employing workers in
schools and hospitals, Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183,
88 S. Ct. 2017, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (1968); as running a
state-owned railroad, Parden v. Terminal Railway, 377
U.S. 184, 84S. Ct. 1207, 12 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1964). The Fed-
eral government, however, acting under the commerce
power, cannot mandate that a state must exercise
regulatory control over certain aspects of interstate
commerce. The Tenth Amendment, guaranteeing that
powers never surrendered to the national government
remain with the states, limits the Federal exercise of the
commerce power.
The Court further adopted Maryland’s reasoning in
holding that such an ambiguous indication of Congres-
4
sional intent as is evidenced in the Clean Air Act will
not be construed to mean that Congress intended to
broaden the scope of the government’s power to
regulate interstate commerce.
The bases of decision in Maryland v. Environmental
Protection Agency have been touched as well by both
the Ninth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Brown v. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1975) (petition for
cert. pending sub. nom. Environmental Protection
Agency vu. Brown, No. 75-909), involved EPA’s ordering
California to implement federal clean air programs. The
Court believed “that Congress would not have intended
in this obscure manner to take such a step in the light
of the delicacy with which federal-state relations
always have been treated by all branches of. the Federal
government” Id. at 834. Leaving no doubt as to its
opinion on the constitutionality of EPA’s action, the
Court observed:
To treat the governance of commerce by the states
as within the plenary reach of the Commerce
Power would in our opinion represent such an
abrupt departure from previous constitutional
practices as to make us reluctant to adopt an
interpretation of the Clean Air Act which would
force us to confront the issue. * * * To make
governance indistinguishable from commerce for
the purposes of the Commerce Power cannot be
equated to the “unintrusive” regulation of eco-
nomic activities of the states upheld by the
Supreme Court in Maryland v. Wirtz, [supra] and
Fry v. United States [421 U.S. 542, 95 S. Ct. 792, 44
L. Ed. 2d 363 (1975)] Id. at 839.
In District of Columbia v. Train, supra, the Court held
that much of EPA’s program for mandatory state
implementation of clean air controls was not only
outside the scope of Congressional intent, but unconsti-
tutional as well.
5
In direct conflict with the aforementioned decisions,
however, is Pennsylvania v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 500 F.2d 240 (8rd Cir. 1974), where the Court
held that Congress intended EPA to compel states’
participation in the clean air effort, and that so
construed the Clean Air Act was a legitimate exercise of
the commerce power. We should note that Pennsylvania
v. Environmental Protection Agency, supra, has been
criticized or given scant credence by tne decisions in the
other circuits noted above. The Ninth Circuit suggests
“that the Third Circuit failed to recognize the difference
between a state engaging in commerce, as all states
must under the Commerce Power, and a state’s
regulation of the commerce of others.” Brown uv.
Environmental Protection Agency, supra, at 383 n. 45.
District of Columbia v. Train, supra, also conflicts
with the decision of the Fourth Circuit in one respect.
Identical air pollution regulations pertaining to the
Virginia, District of Columbia, and Maryland sections
of the Washington metropolitan area were considered
by the Court in District of Columbia v. Train. As noted
above, the Court generally paralleled the Fourth Circuit
in finding that EPA lacks authority to compel state
implementation of air pollution control programs.
However, the Court excepted those provisions requiring
states to refuse registration to vehicles not meeting
federal standards, holding such requirements within
the ambit of Congressional authority under the com-
merce clause. The regulations struck down entirely by
the Fourth Circuit in Maryland v. Environmental
Protection Agency also contain provisions concerning
registration of vehicles. Maryland supports the petition
of Virginia, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Train, No.
75-1050, to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, inasmuch as that decision
does not support entirely the broad protection of State
6
sovereignty afforded by the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in
Maryland v. Environmental Protection Agency.
While Maryland urges the correctness of the Fourth
Circuit’s decision, it also recognizes that policy consid-
erations expressed in Rule 19(1) (b) of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, concerning the resolution of decisional
conflicts among the courts of appeal, weigh heavily in
favor of this Court’s granting the federal government’s
petition for certiorari.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reason, Maryland does not formally
oppose the issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the matter of
Maryland v. Environmental Protection Agency.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANCIS B. BURCH,
Attorney General,
State of Maryland,
HENRY R. Lorp,
Deputy Attorney General,
1 South Calvert Building,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202,
Attorneys for Respondent,
State of Maryland.
la
APPENDIX
The Following sections of 40 CFR Part 52 have been
invalidated by the decision of the Fourth Circuit:
§ 52.1095 Inspection and maintenance program.
(a) Definitions:
(1) “Inspection and. maintenance program” means a
program for reducing emissions from in-use vehicles
through identifying vehicles that need emission control-
related maintenance and requiring that such mainte-
nance be performed.
(2) “Light-duty vehicle’ means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at 6,000 lb. gross vehicle weight
(GVW) or less.
(3) “Medium-duty vehicle” means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at more than 6,000 lb. GVW and
less than 10,000 lb GVW.
(4) “Heavy-duty vehicle” means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at 10,000 GVW or more.
(5) All other terms used in this section that are
defined in Part 51, Appendix N, of this chapter are used
herein with the meanings so defined.
(b) This section is applicable within the Metropolitan
Baltimore Intrastate AQCR.
(c) The State of Maryland shall establish an inspec-
tion and maintenance program applicable to all light-
duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles registered
in the area specified in paragraph (b) of this section
that operate on public streets or highways over which it
has ownership or control. The State may exempt any
class or category of vehicles that the State finds is
rarely used on public streets or highways (such as
classic or antique vehicles). No later than April 1, 1974,
the State shall submit legally adopted regulations to the
Administrator establishing such a program. The
regulations shall include:
(1) Provisions for inspection of all light-duty, medium-
duty, and heavy-duty motor vehicles at periodic
intervals no more than 1 year apart by means of a
loaded emission test.
2a
(2) Provisions for inspection failure criteria consistent
with the failure of 30 percent of the vehicles in the first
inspection cycle.
(3) Provisions to ensure that failed vehicles receive
within two weeks, the maintenance necessary to
achieve compliance with the inspection standards.
These shall include sanctions against individual
owners and repair facilities, retest of failed vehicles
following maintenance, use of a certification program
to ensure that repair facilities performing the required
maintenance have the necessary equipment, parts, and
knowledgeable operators to perform the tasks satisfac-
torily, and use of such other measures as may be
necessary or appropriate.
(4) A program of enforcement to ensure that vehicles
are not intentionally readjusted or modified subsequent
to the inspection and/or maintenance in such a way as
would cause them to no longer comply with the
inspection standards. This enforcement program might
include spot checks of idle adjustments and/or a
suitable type of physical tagging. This program shall
include appropriate penalties for violation.
(5) Provisions for beginning the first inspection cycle
by August 1, 1975, and completing it by July 31, 1976.
(6) Designation of an agency or agencies responsible
for conducting, overseeing, and enforcing the inspection
and maintenance program.
(d) After July 31, 1976, the State shall not register or
allow to operate on public streets or highways any
light-duty, medium-duty, or heavy-duty vehicle that
does not comply with the applicable standards and
procedures adopted pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section. This shall not apply to the initial registration
ot a new motor vehicle.
(e) After July 31, 1976, no owner of a light-duty,
medium-duty, or heavy-duty vehicle shall operate or
allow the operation of such vehicle that does not comply
with the applicable standards and procedures adopted
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. This shall not
apply to the initial registration of a new motor vehicle.
3a
(f) The State of Maryland shall submit, no later than
February 1, 1974, a detailed compliance schedule
showing the steps it will take to establish and enforce
an inspection and maintenance program pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, including:
(1) The text of needed statutory proposals and
regulations that it will propose for adoption.
(2) The date by which the State will recommend
needed legislation to the State legislature.
(3) The date by which necessary equipment will be
ordered.
(4) A signed statement from the Governor or his
designee identifying the sources and amounts of funds
for the program. If funds cannot legally be obligated
under existing statutory authority, the text of needed
legislation shall be submitted.
[38 FR 34249, Dec. 12, 1973]
§ 52.1096 Vacuum spark advance disconnect ret-
rofit.
(a) Definitions:
(1) “Vacuum spark advance disconnect. retrofit”
means a device or system installed on a motor vehicle
that prevents the ignition vacuum advance from
operating either when the vehicle’s transmission is in
the lower gears, or when the vehicle is traveling below a
predetermined speed, so as to achieve reduction in
exhaust emissions of hydrocarbon and carbon monox-
ide of at least 25 and 9 percent, respectively, from 1967
and earlier light-duty vehicles.
(2) “Light-duty vehicle” means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at 6,000 lb. gross vehicle weight
(GVW) or less.
(3) All other terms used in this section that are
defined in Part 51, Appendix N, of this chapter are used
herein with meanings so defined.
(b) This section is applicable within the Metropoli-
tan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR.
4a
(c) The State of Maryland shall establish a retrofit
program to ensure that on or before January 1, 1976, all
light-duty vehicles of model years prior to 1968
registered in the area specified in paragraph (b) of this
section are equipped with an appropriate vacuum spark
advance disconnect retrofit device or other device, as
approved by the Administrator, that will reduce
exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monox-
ide at least to the same extent as a vacuum spark
advance disconnect retrofit. No later than February 1,
1974, the State of Maryland shall submit to the
Administrator a detailed compliance schedule showing
the steps it will take to establish and enforce a retrofit
program pursuant to this section, including the text of
statutory proposals, regulations, and enforcement
procedures that the State proposed for adoption. The
compliance schedule shall also include a date by which
the State shall evaluate and approve devices for use in
this program. Such date shall be no later than
September 30, 1974.
(d) No later than April—1—1974, the State shall
submit legally adopted regulations to the Administrator
0 gi such a program. The regulations shall
include:
(1) Designation of an agency responsible for eval-
uating and approving devices for use on vehicles
subject to this section.
(2) Designation of an agency responsible for ensur-
ing that the provisions of subparagraph (3) of this
paragraph are enforced.
(3) Provisions for beginning the installation of the
retrofit devices by January 1, 1975, and completing the
installation of the devices on all vehicles subject to this
section no later than January 1, 1976.
(4) A provision that starting no later than January
1, 1976, no vehicle for which retrofit is required under
this section shall pass the annual emission tests
provided for by § 52.1095 unless it has been first
equipped with an approved vacuum spark advance
disconnect retrofit device, or other device approved
[=
5a
pursuant to this section, which the test has shown to be
installed and operating correctly. The regulations shall
include test procedures and failure criteria for imple-
menting this provision.
(5) Methods and procedures for ensuring that those
installing the retrofit devices have the training and
ability to perform the needed tasks satisfactorily and
have an adequate supply of retrofit components.
(6) Provision (apart from the requirements of any
general program for periodic inspection and mainte-
nance of vehicles) for emissions testing at the time of
device installation or some other positive assurance
that the device is installed and operating correctly.
(e) After January 1, 1976, the State shall not register
or allow to operate on its streets or highways any light-
duty vehicle that does not comply with the applicable
standards and procedures adopted pursuant to para-
graph (d) of this section.
(f) After January 1, 1976, no owner of a vehicle
subject to this section shall operate or allow the
operation of any such vehicle that does not comply with
the applicable standards and procedures implementing
this section.
(g) The State may exempt any class or category of
vehicles from this section which the State finds is
rarely used on public streets and highways (such as
classic or antique vehicles) or for which the State
demonstrates to the Administrator that vacuum spark
advance disconnect devices or other devices approved
pursuant to this section are not commercially available.
[38 FR 34249, Dec. 12, 1973]
+ * * om * *~
§ 52.1098 Light-duty air/fuel control retrofit.
(a) Definitions:
(1) “Air-Fuel contro! retrofit” means a system or
device (such as modification to the engine’s carburetor
or positive crankcase ventilation system) that results in
engine operation at an increased air-fuel ratio so as to
achieve reduction in exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons
6a
and carbon monoxide of at least 25 and 40 percent,
respectively, from 1968 through 1971 model year light-
duty vehicles.
(2) “Light-duty vehicle” means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at 6,000 lb gross vehicle weight
(GVW) or less.
(3) All other terms used in this section that are
defined in Part 51, Appendix N, of this chapter are used
herein with meanings so defined.
(b) This section is applicable within the Metropoli-
tan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR.
(c) The State of Maryland shall establis.. _ retrofit
program to ensure that on or before August 1, 1976,
all light-duty vehicles of 1968-1971 model years which
are not required to be retrofitted with an oxidizing
catalyst or other approved device pursuant to § 52.1097,
which are registered in the area specified in paragraph
(b) of this section are equipped with an appropriated
air/fuel control device or other device as approved by
the Administrator that will reduce exhaust emissions of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide at least to the same
extent as an air/fuel control device. No later than
February 1, 1974, the State of Maryland shall submit to
the Administrator a detailed compliance schedule
showing the steps it will take to establish and enforce a
retrofit program pursuant to this section, including the
text of statutory proposals, regulations, and enforce-
ment procedures that the State proposes for adoption.
The compliance schedule shall also include a date by
which the State shall evaluate and approve devices for
use in this program. Such date shall be no later than
September 30, 1974.
(d) No later than April 1, 1974, the State shall
submit legally adopted regulations to the Administrator
ee such a program. The regulations shall
include:
(1) Designation of an agency responsible for eval-
uating and approving devices for use on vehicles
subject to this section.
7a
(2) Designation of an agency responsible for ensuring
that the provisions of subparagraph (3) of this para-
graph are enforced.
(3) Provisions for beginning the installation of the
retrofit devices by August 1, 1975, and completing the
installation of the devices on all vehicles subject to this
section no later than August 1, 1976.
(4) A provision that starting no later than August 1,
1976, no vehicle for which retrofit is required under this
section shall pass the annual emission tests provided
for by § 52.1095 unless it has been first equipped with
an approved air/fuel control retrofit, or other device
approved pursuant to this section, which the test has
shown tc be installed and operating correctly. The
regulations shall include test procedures and failure
criteria for implementing this provision.
(5) Methods and procedures for ensuring that those
installing the retrofit devices have the training and
ability to perform the needed tasks satisfactorily and
have an adequate supply of retrofit components.
(6) Provision (apart from the requirements of any
general program for periodic inspection and mainte-
nance of vehicles) for emissions testing at the time of
device installation or some other positive assurance
that the device is installed and operating correctly.
(e) After August 1, 1976, the State shall not register or
allow to operate on its streets or highways any vehicle
that does not comply with the applicable standards and
ae sata adopted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
ion.
(f) After August 1, 1976, no owmer of a vehicle
subject to this section shall operate or allow the
operation of any such vehicle that does not comply with
the applicable standards and procedures implementing
this section.
(g) The State may exempt any class or category of
vehicles from this section which the State finds is
rarely used on public streets and highways (such as
classic or antique vehicles) or for which the State
demonstrates to the Administrator that air/fuel control
8a
devices or other devices approved pursuant to this
section are not commercially available.
[38 FR 34250, Dec. 12, 1973]
* * * * * *
§52.1100 Heavy-duty air/fuel control retrofit.
(a) Definitions:
(1) “Air/fuel control retrofit” means a system or
device (such as modification to the engine’s carburetor
or positive crankcase ventilation system) that results in
engine operation at an increased air-fuel ratio so as to
achieve reduction in exhaust emissions of hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide from heavy-duty vehicles of at
least 30 and 40 percent, respectively.
(2) “Heavy-duty vehicles” means a gasoline-powered
motor vehicle rated at 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight
(GVW) or more.
(3) All other terms used in this section that are
defined in Part 51, Appendix N, of this chapter are used
herein with meanings so defined.
(b) This section is applicable within the Metropoli-
tan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR.
(c) The State of Maryland shall establish a retrofit
program to ensure that on or before May 31, 1977, all
heavy-duty vehicles registered in the area specified in
paragraph (b) of this section are equipped with an
appropriate air/fuel control retrofit or other device as
approved by the Administrator that will reduce exhaust
emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide at
least to the same extent as an air/fuel control retrofit.
No later than April 1, 1974, the State of Maryland shall
submit to the Administrator a detailed compliance
schedule showing the steps it will take to establish and
enforce a retrofit program pursuant to this section,
including the text of statutory proposals, regulations,
and enforcement procedures that the State proposes for
adoption. The compliance schedule shall also include a
date by which the State shall evaluate and approve
devices for use in this program. Such date shall be no
later than January 1, 1975.
ee -
9a
(d) No later than September 1, 1974, the State shall
submit legally adopted regulations to the Administrator
= such a program. The regulations shall
include: —
_(1) Designation of an agency responsible for evalua-
tion and approving devices for use on vehicles subject
to this section.
_ (2) Designation of an agency responsible for ensur-
ing that the provisions of subparagraph (3) of this
paragraph are enforced.
(3) Provisions for beginning the installation of the
retrofit devices by January 1, 1976, and completing the
installation of the device on all vehicles subject to this
section no later than May 31, 1977.
(4) A provision that starting no later than May 31,
1977, no vehicle for which retrofit is required under this
section shall pass the annual emission tests provided
for by § 52.1095 unless it has been first equipped with
an approved air/fuel control retrofit, or other device
approved pursuant to this section, which the test has
shown to be installed and operating correctly. The
regulations shall include test procedures and failure
criteria for implementing this provision.
_ (5) Methods and procedures for ensuring that those
installing the retrofit devices have the training and
ability to perform the needed tasks satisfactorily and
have an adequate supply of retrofit components.
(6) Provision pert from the requirements of any
general program for periodic inspection and mainte-
nance of vehicles) for emissions testing at the time of
device installation or some other positive assurance
that the device is installed and operating correctly.
(e) After May 31, 1977, the State shall not register or
allow to operate on its streets or highways any vehicle
that does not comply with the applicable standards and
procedures adopted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.
(f) After May 31, 1977, no owner of a vehicle subject
to this section shall operate or allow the operation of
10a
any such vehicle that does not comply with the
applicable standards and procedures implementing this
section.
(g) The State may exempt any class or category of
vehicles from this section which the State finds is
rarely used on public streets and highways (such as
classic or antique vehicles) or for which the State
demonstrates to the Administrator that air/fuel control
retrofits or other devices approved pursuant to this
section are not commercially available.
[38 FR 34251, Dec. 12, 1973]
* * * * * *
§ 52.1106 Study and establishment of bikeways
in the Baltimore area.
(a) Definitions:
(1) “Baltimore CBD” is defined as the area in the
City of Baltimore, Maryland, enclosed by, but not
including, Centre Street, Fallsway, Falls Avenue, Pratt
— Greene Street, Franklin Street, and Eutaw
treet.
(b) This regulation is applicable in the Metropolitan
Baltimore Intrastate AQCR.
(c) The State of Maryland shall, according to the
schedule set forth in paragraph (d) of this section,
conduct a study of, and shall in that study recommend
locations for exclusive bicycle lanes and bicycle parking
facilities in the area described in paragraph (b) of this
section. The study shall be made with a view toward
maximum safety and security. The study shall include
consideration of the physical designs for such lanes and
parking facilities, and of rules of the road for bicyclists
and, to the extent that present rules must be modified
because of bicycle lanes, new rules of the road for
motorists. In conducting the study, opportunity shall be
given for public comments and suggestions. The study
shall recommend as large a network of new CBD (and
return) oriented commuter bicycle lanes and bicycle
parking facilities as is practicable within the area
described in paragraph (b) of this section and shall
lla
recommend physical designs for said lanes and facili-
ties. The network shall contain at least 15 miles of
exclusive bicycle lanes in each direction.
(d) The State of Maryland shall submit to the
Administrator no later than March 1, 1974, a detailed
compliance schedule showing the steps that will be
taken to carry out the study required by paragraph (c)
of this section. The compliance schedule shall at a
minimum include:
(1) Designation of the agency responsible for con-
ducting the study.
(2) A date for initiation of the study, which date
shall be no later than May 1, 1974. ‘ .
(3) A date for completion of the study, and submittal
thereof to the Administrator, which date shall be no
later than March 1, 1975.
(4) A detailed timetable describing the steps that
must be taken and when these steps will be taken to
ensure the timely submittal of any legislation needed to
generally authorize establishment of bikeways and
parking facilities in Maryland to the State legislature.
(e) On or before April 1, 1975, the Administrator
shall submit to the State of Maryland his response to
the study required by paragraph (c) of this section, and
shall, in that response, either approve the route and
parking facility location and designs recommended in
the study, or shall designate alternative and/or
oe route and parking facility locations and
esigns.
_ ff) The State of Maryland and such county and local
jurisdictions as the State shall request to participate in
the establishment of the networks (the State must
request the participation of a county or local jurisdic-
tion if the participation of that jurisdiction is necessary
to the establishment of the lanes and other facilities
required by this section) shall establish, according to
the schedule set forth in the compliance schedule
required by paragraph (g) of this section, bike lanes and
parking facilities along the routes and in the locations
12a
approved or designated by the Administrator pursuant
to paragraph (e) of this section.
(g) On or before June 1, 1975, the State of Maryland,
and such county and local jurisdictions as the State has
requested to participate (and are, therefore, required to
participate by paragraph (f) of this section) shall
submit to the Administrator compliance schedules
which shall show in detail the steps which each
governmental entity will take to establish the bike
lanes and parking facilities required by this section.
The schedule must include as a minimum the following:
(1) Each lane and parking facility must be identified
with a date set for its establishment.
(2) The design, security and safety features of each
lane and parking facility must be precisely described
and shown to be in accord with the designs approved or
designated by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph
(e) of this section.
(3) A date must be set for the initiation of lane and
parking construction, which date shall be no later than
September 1, 1975. .
(4) A date must be set for completion of 50 percent of
lane and parking construction, which date shall be no
later than February 1, 1976.
(5) A date must be set for completion of 100 percent
of lane and parking construction, which date shall be
no later than May 31, 1976.
(6) Designations must be made of the agencies
responsible for guaranteeing the establishment of the
lanes and facilities in accordance with the Administra-
tor’s response to the State study.
(7) Signed statements of the chief executives of all
jurisdictions involved in the establishment of the lanes
and parking facilities required by this section, or their
designees, must be submitted identifying the sources
and amounts of funding for the programs required by
this section, along with a timetable to ensure that
proper funds will be available.
l3a
(h) No later than August 1, 1975, each governmental
entity required by this section to establish bicycle lanes
and/or parking facilities, shall submit to the Adminis-
trator legally adopted regulations sufficient to imple-
ment and enforce all of the requirements of this section.
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, if
prior to the completion and submittal of the study
required by paragraph (c) of this section, the State of
Maryland has good and reasonable cause, through
public comment or otherwise, to believe that the
maximum practicable network of bicycle lanes will be
less than 15 miles, in each direction, the State shall so
notify the Administrator and shall obtain his concur-
rence or nonconcurrence, and shall conduct the re-
mainder of the study to assure that the network of lanes
shall be that mileage specified by the Administrator.
Notice pursuant to this paragraph (i) shall be given no
— than the beginning of the ninth month of the
study.
[38 FR 34254, Dec. 12, 1973]
* * * * * *
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.