[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36786-36790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17204]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM-37-1-7392a; FRL-6372-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for New Mexico--
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County: Transportation Conformity Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the EPA, are approving a revision to the New Mexico State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains the transportation conformity 
rule for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. The conformity rules assure 
that in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, projected 
emissions from transportation plans and projects stay within the motor 
vehicle emissions ceiling in the SIP. The transportation conformity SIP 
revision enables the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control 
Board (AQCB) to implement and enforce the Federal transportation 
conformity requirements in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area level 
per 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A--Conformity 
to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, 
Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws. Our approval action streamlines the 
conformity process and allows direct consultation among agencies at the 
local levels. Our final approval action is limited to 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A (Transportation Conformity). We 
approved the SIP revision sent under 40 CFR part 51, subpart W 
(conformity of general Federal actions) on September 13, 1996 (61 FR 
48407).
    We approve this SIP revision under sections 110(k) and 176 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act). We have given our rationale for approving this SIP 
revision in this action.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 7, 1999 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 9, 1999. If we 
receive adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: You should send your written comments to Mr. Thomas H. 
Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PDL) at the address given below. 
You may inspect copies of the State's SIP revision and other relevant 
information during normal business hours at the following locations. If 
you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment 
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    Air Planning Section (6PDL), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202, Telephone: (214) 665-7214.
    Air Pollution Control Division, Albuquerque Environmental Health 
Department, City of Albuquerque, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico 87102, Telephone: (505) 768-2600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Behnam, P. E.; Air Planning 
Section (6PDL), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202, Telephone (214) 665-7247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have outlined the contents of this notice 
below for your reading convenience:

I. Background

A. What is a SIP?
B. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
C. What is transportation conformity?
D. Why must the State send a transportation conformity SIP?
E. How does transportation conformity work?

II. Approval of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Transportation 
Conformity Rule

A. What did the State send?
B. What is EPA approving today and why?
C. How did the AQCB satisfy the interagency consultation process (40 
CFR 93.105)?
D. Why did the AQCB exclude the grace period for new nonattainment 
areas (40 CFR 93.102(d))?
E. What parts of the rule are excluded?

III. Opportunity for Public Comments

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What is a SIP?

    The states under section 110 of the Act must develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality 
meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by 
the EPA. The Act under section 109 established these ambient standards 
which currently includes six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: 
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and 
sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must send these regulations and control strategies to 
us, the EPA, for approval and incorporation into the federally 
enforceable SIP.
    Currently, each state has a federally approved SIP which protects 
air quality and has emission control plans for nonattainment areas. 
These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other 
enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission 
inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

B. What is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    The states must formally adopt the regulations and control 
strategies consistent with state and Federal laws for incorporating the 
state regulations into the federally enforceable SIP. This process 
generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment 
period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state will send these provisions to us for inclusion in the federally 
enforceable SIP. We must then decide on an appropriate Federal action, 
provide public notice,

[[Page 36787]]

and request additional public comment on the action. If anyone sends 
adverse comments, we must consider the comments before a final action.
    We incorporate all state regulations and supporting information 
(sent under section 110 of the Act) into the federally approved SIP 
after our approval action. We maintain records of such SIP actions in 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled 
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans. The Government 
does not reproduce the text of the federally approved state regulations 
in the CFR. They are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that 
the specific state regulation is cited in the CFR and is considered a 
part of the CFR the same as if the text were fully printed in the CFR.

C. What is Transportation Conformity?

    Conformity first appeared in the Act's 1977 amendments (Public Law 
95-95). Although the Act did not define conformity, it stated that no 
Federal department could engage in, support in any way or provide 
financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity 
which did not conform to a SIP which has been approved or promulgated.
    The Act's 1990 Amendments expanded the scope and content of the 
conformity concept by defining conformity to an implementation plan. 
Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as conformity to the SIP's 
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such 
standards. Also, the Act states that no Federal activity will: (1) 
Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, 
(2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any 
standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or 
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any 
area.

D. Why Must the State Send a Transportation Conformity SIP?

    We were required to issue criteria and procedures for determining 
conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects to a SIP by 
section 176(c) of the Act. The Act also required the procedure to 
include a requirement that each State submit a revision to its SIP 
including conformity criteria and procedures. We published the first 
transportation conformity rule in the November 24, 1993, Federal 
Register, and it was codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR 
part 93, subpart A. We required the States and local agencies to adopt 
and submit a transportation conformity SIP revision to us by November 
25, 1994. The State Governor sent a transportation conformity SIP on 
December 19, 1994, in behalf of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air 
Quality Control Board (AQCB). We approved this SIP on November 8, 1995 
(60 FR 56241). We revised the transportation conformity rule on August 
7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), and August 15, 
1997 (62 FR 43780), and it was codified under 40 CFR part 51, subpart T 
and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A--Conformity to State or Federal 
Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects 
Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 
Transit Laws (62 FR 43780). Our action of August 15, 1997, required the 
States to change their rules and send a SIP revision by August 15, 
1998.

E. How Does Transportation Conformity Work?

    The Federal or State transportation conformity rule applies to all 
nonattainment and maintenance areas in the State. The Metropolitan 
Planning organizations (MPO), the State Departments of Transportation 
(in absence of a MPO), and U.S. Department of Transportation make 
conformity determinations. These agencies make conformity 
determinations on programs and plans such as transportation improvement 
programs, transportation plans, and projects. The MPOs calculate the 
projected emissions for the transportation plans and programs and 
compare those calculated emissions to the motor vehicle emissions 
ceiling established in the SIP. The calculated emissions must be 
smaller than the motor vehicle emissions ceiling for showing a positive 
conformity with the SIP.

II. Approval of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Transportation 
Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Send?

    On December 9, 1998, the Governor of New Mexico in behalf of AQCB 
sent a SIP revision that includes the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 
transportation conformity and consultation rule. The AQCB adopted this 
SIP revision on May 13, 1998, after appropriate public participation 
and interagency consultation.

B. What is EPA Approving Today and Why?

    We are approving the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County transportation 
conformity rule that the Governor of New Mexico sent us on December 9, 
1998, except for New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20, 
Chapter 11, Part 03, sections I.2.3, II.2.4, II.7.3--7.6, II.16.5, 
II.18.1.B, II.19.1.A, and II.22.2. The rationale for exclusion of these 
sections are discussed in section II-E of this action. The AQCB has 
adopted the Federal rules in verbatim form except for the interagency 
consultation section (40 CFR 93.105) and the grace period for new 
nonattainment areas (40 CFR 93.102(d)). We will discuss the reasons for 
exclusion of these two sections later in this document.
    The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule required the states to 
adopt a majority of the Federal rules in verbatim form with a few 
exceptions. The States can not make their rules more stringent than the 
Federal rules unless the state's rules apply equally to nonfederal as 
well as Federal entities. The AQCB's transportation conformity rule is 
the same as the Federal rule and the State has made no additional 
changes or modifications, with the exception of those sections 
mentioned above.
    We have evaluated this SIP revision and have determined that the 
AQCB has fully adopted the Federal Transportation Conformity Rules as 
described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 
Also, the AQCB has completed and satisfied the public participation and 
comprehensive interagency consultations during development and adoption 
of these rules at the local level. Therefore, we are approving this SIP 
revision.
    Our approval action does not include general conformity (40 CFR 
part 51, subpart W). We approved the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 
general conformity SIP on September 13, 1996 (61 FR 48407).

C. How Did the AQCB Satisfy the Interagency Consultation Process (40 
CFR 93.105)?

    Our rule requires the states to develop their own processes and 
procedures for interagency consultation among the Federal, State, and 
local agencies and resolution of conflicts by meeting the criteria in 
40 CFR 93.105. The SIP revisions must include processes and procedures 
to be followed by the MPO, State Department of Transportation (DOT), 
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in consulting with 
the State and local air quality agencies and EPA before making 
conformity determinations. Also, the transportation conformity SIP 
revision must have processes and procedures for

[[Page 36788]]

the State and local air quality agencies and EPA in coordinating 
development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, State DOT, and USDOT.
    The AQCB developed its own consultation rule based on the elements 
in 40 CFR 93.105, and excluded this section from its rule. As a first 
step, the AQCB established an ad hoc multi-agency committee that 
included representatives from the State air quality agency, State DOT, 
USDOT, MPOs, EPA, the local air quality agency, local transportation 
agencies, and local transit operators. The AQCB served as the lead 
agency in coordinating the multi-agency efforts for developing the 
consultation rule. The committee met approximately biweekly and drafted 
consultation rules by considering the elements in 40 CFR 93.105 and 23 
CFR part 450, and by integrating the local procedures and processes 
into the final consultation rule. The consultation rule developed 
through this process is unique to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and 
is codified under 20 NMAC 11.03.II.3. We have determined that the AQCB 
adequately included all elements of 40 CFR 93.105 in their rule and it 
meets the EPA SIP requirements.

D. Why Did the AQCB Exclude the Grace Period for New Nonattainment 
Areas (40 CFR 93.102(d))?

    The AQCB excluded 40 CFR 93.102(d) from its rule. This section 
allows up to 12 months for newly designated nonattainment areas to 
complete their conformity determination. However, Sierra Club 
challenged this section of the rule arguing that allowing a 12 month 
grace period was unlawful under the Act. On November 4, 1997, the 
United Sates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held 
in Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 96.1007, cited 
EPA's grace period violates the plain terms of the Act and, therefore, 
is unlawful. Based on this court action, the AQCB has excluded this 
section from its rule. We agree with the AQCB's action, and exclusion 
of 40 CFR 93.102(d) will not prevent us from approving the State 
transportation conformity SIP.

E. What Parts of the Rule Are Excluded?

    We promulgated the transportation conformity rule on August 15, 
1997. On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in Environmental 
Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637. The Court 
granted the environmental group's petition for review and ruled that 40 
CFR 93.102(c)(1), 40 CFR 93.121(a)(1), and 40 CFR 93.124(b) are 
unlawful and remanded 40 CFR 93.118(e) and 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2) to EPA 
for revision to harmonize these provisions with the requirements of the 
Act for an affirmative determination the federal actions will not cause 
or increase violations or delay attainment. The sections that were 
included in this decision were:

    (a) 40 CFR 93.102(c)(1) which allowed certain projects for which 
the NEPA process has been completed by the DOT to proceed toward 
implementation without further conformity determinations during a 
conformity lapse,
    (b) 40 CFR 93.118(e) which allowed use of motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEB) in the submitted SIPs after 45 days if EPA 
had not declared them inadequate,
    (c) 40 CFR 93.120(a)(2) which allowed use of the MVEB in a 
disapproved SIP for 120 days after disapproval,
    (d) 40 CFR 93.121(a)(1) which allowed the nonfederally funded 
projects to be approved if included in the first three years of the 
most recently conforming transportation plan and transportation 
improvement programs, even if conformity status is currently lapsed, 
and
    (e) 40 CFR 93.124(b) which allowed areas to use a submitted SIP 
that allocated portions of a safety margin to transportation 
activities for conformity purposes before EPA approval.

    Since the States were required to submit transportation conformity 
SIPs not later than August 15, 1998, and include those provisions in 
verbatim form, the State's (Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's) SIP 
revision includes all those sections which the Court ruled unlawful or 
remanded for consistency with the Act. The EPA can not approve these 
sections.
    We believe that the AQCB has complied with the SIP requirements and 
has adopted the Federal rules which were in effect at the time that the 
transportation conformity SIP was due to the EPA. If the court had 
issued its ruling before adoption and SIP submittal by the AQCB, we 
believe the AQCB would have removed these unlawful sections from its 
SIP. The AQCB has expended its resources and time in preparing this SIP 
and meeting the Act's statutory deadline, and EPA acknowledges the 
agency's good faith effort in submitting the transportation conformity 
SIP on time and disapprove the entire transportation conformity SIP.
    The AQCB will be required to submit a SIP revision in the future 
when EPA revises its rule to comply with the court decision. Because 
the court decision has invalidated these provisions, we believe that it 
would be reasonable to exclude the corresponding sections of the AQCB 
rules from this SIP approval action. As a result, we are not taking any 
action on 20 NMAC 11.03, sections I.2.3, II.2.4, II.7.3-7.6, II.16.5, 
II.18.1.B, II.19.1.A, and II.22.2 of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 
transportation rules. The conformity determinations affected by these 
sections must comply with the relevant requirements of the statutory 
provisions of the Clear Air Act underlying the court's decision on 
these issues. EPA will be issuing guidance on how to implement these 
provisions in the interim prior to EPA amendment of the Federal 
transportation conformity rules. Once these Federal rules have been 
revised, conformity determinations in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County 
area should comply with the requirements of the revised Federal rule 
until corresponding provisions of the State's conformity SIP have been 
approved by EPA.

III. Opportunity for Public Comments

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve this SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective on September 7, 1999 without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by August 9, 1999. If 
EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in 
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a description 
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of 
affected State, local

[[Page 36789]]

and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any 
written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting 
the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA 
to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 
because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to 
the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally 
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any 
new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of 
$100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 7, 1999. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Transportation conformity, Transportation--air 
quality planning, Volatile organic compounds.


[[Page 36790]]


    Dated: June 9, 1999.
W.B. Hathaway,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

Subpart GG--New Mexico

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 52.1620(c) is amended by adding the following citation 
and part 3 entry to the end of the first table to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1620  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             State
                                           approval/
   State citation       Title/subject      effective   EPA approval date                 Comments
                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 2--Air Quality
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 11--Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
 Air Quality Control Board (AQCB)
Part 03.............  Transportation         07/01/98  July 8, 1999. 64   (1) No action is taken on sections
                       Conformity.                      FR 36790.          I.2.3., II.2.4, II.7.3-7.6, II.16.5,
                                                                           II.18.1.B, II.19.1.A, and II.22.2.
                                                                           and (2) this rule supersedes
                                                                           Regulation 42 codified under
                                                                           Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, Air
                                                                           Quality Control Regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-17204 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P