[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72934-72938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33448]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA-26-1-6965a; FRL-6514-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for Louisiana: 
Transportation Conformity Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Louisiana State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains the transportation conformity 
rule. 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 State to 
implement and enforce the Federal transportation conformity 
requirements at the State level. The EPA's approval action streamlines 
the conformity process and allows direct consultation among agencies at 
the local levels. The final approval action is limited to 
Transportation Conformity. The EPA approved the SIP revision sent under 
conformity of general Federal actions on September 13, 1996 (61 FR 
48409).
    The EPA approves 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 February 28, 2000 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 28, 2000. 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.
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality, 7290 
Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810, Telephone: (225) 
765-0178.

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 document 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 State Transportation Conformity Rule
    A. What did the State send?
    B. What is EPA approving today and why?
    C. How did the State satisfy the interagency consultation 
process (40 CFR 93.105)?
    D. Why did the State 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

[[Page 72935]]

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, 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 (FR), 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 of Louisiana sent a transportation 
conformity SIP on November 23, 1994, but we could not approve this SIP 
revision. We revised the transportation conformity rule on August 7, 
1995 (60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), 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 transportation plans, programs, 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 State Transportation Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Send?

    On October 21, 1998, the Governor of Louisiana sent a SIP revision 
that includes the State's transportation conformity and consultation 
rule. At the same time, the Governor withdrew his November 23, 1994, 
submission. Also, the State submitted additional information on 
November 19, 1998, and June 29, 1999. The Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) published its final transportation 
conformity rule on September 20, 1998, in Louisiana Register after 
appropriate public participation and interagency consultation.

B. What is EPA Approving Today and Why?

    We are approving the Louisiana transportation conformity rule that 
the Governor of Louisiana sent us on October 21, 1998, information 
submitted on November 19, 1998, and June 29, 1999, except for the 
incorporation by reference of sections 93.102(c), 93.104(d), 93.109(c)-
(f), 93.118(e), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1), and 93.124(b) of 40 CFR 
into Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.1432. The rationale for 
exclusion of these sections is discussed in section II.E of this 
action. The LDEQ has adopted the Federal rules by ``incorporation by 
reference'' 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 notice.
    ``Incorporation by Reference'' (IBR) means that the State adopted 
the Federal rules without rewriting the text of the Federal rules but 
by referring to them for inclusion as if they were printed in the state 
regulation. 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 
entities as well as Federal entities. The LDEQ 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 
State has fully adopted the Federal transportation conformity rules as 
described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part 93, subpart A. Also, 
the LDEQ 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.

[[Page 72936]]

    Our approval action does not include general conformity (40 CFR 
part 51, subpart W). We approved the Louisiana general conformity SIP 
on September 13, 1996 (61 FR 48409).

C. How Did the State Satisfy the Interagency Consultation Process?

    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 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 the State and local air quality 
agencies and EPA in coordinating development of applicable SIPs with 
MPOs, State DOT, and USDOT.
    The State developed its own consultation rule based on the elements 
in 40 CFR 93.105, and excluded this section from IBR. As a first step, 
the State established an ad hoc multiagency 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 State air quality agency served as the 
lead agency in coordinating the multiagency efforts for developing the 
consultation rule. The committee met periodically 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 State of Louisiana and is 
codified under section LAC 33:III.1434 of the State rule. We have 
determined that the State adequately included all elements of 40 CFR 
93.105 and meets the EPA SIP requirements.

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

    The State excluded 40 CFR 93.102(d) from its IBR. Section 93.102(d) 
of 40 CFR allows up to 12 months for newly designated nonattainment 
areas to complete their conformity determination. The 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 States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
held in Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, 129 F.3d 137 
(D.C.Cir.1997), that EPA's grace period violates the plain terms of the 
Act and, therefore, is unlawful. Based on this court action, the State 
has excluded this section from its rule. We agree with the State'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, 167 F.3d 641 
(D.C.Cir.1999). The Court granted the environmental group's petition 
for review and ruled that 40 CFR 93.102(c)(1), 93.121(a)(1), and 
93.124(b) are unlawful and remanded 40 CFR 93.118(e) and 93.120(a)(2) 
to EPA for revision to harmonize these provisions with the requirements 
of the Act for an affirmative determination that 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 National Environmental Policy Act (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 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 LDEQ 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 LDEQ, we 
believe the LDEQ would have removed these sections from its IBR. The 
LDEQ 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.
    The LDEQ 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 state 
rules from this SIP approval action. As a result, we are not taking any 
action on the IBR of sections 93.102(c), 93.104(d), 93.109(c)-(f), 
93.118(e), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1), and 93.124(b) of 40 CFR at LAC 
33:III.1432 under the State conformity rule. The conformity 
determinations affected by these sections should comply with the 
relevant requirements of the statutory provisions of the Act underlying 
the court's decision on these issues. The EPA has already issued 
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 
Louisiana should comply with the requirements of the revised Federal 
rule until corresponding provisions of the Louisiana 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 February 28, 2000 without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 28, 2000. 
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

[[Page 72937]]

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 12866

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

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local 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, Executive Order 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 Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new Executive Order 
on federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current 
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), on federalism 
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612. 
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.

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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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

[[Page 72938]]

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 February 28, 2000. 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.

    Dated: November 22, 1999.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

SUBPART T--LOUISIANA

    2. Sec. 52.970 is amended in paragraph (c), under Chapter 14--
Conformity, by adding Subchapter B, Sections 1431, 1432, and 1434, 
after Subchapter A, Section 1415, to read as follows:


Sec. 52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                             EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State approval
         State citation              Title/subject           date          EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Chapter 14--
Conformity
 
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Subchapter B....................   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 Act
Section 1431....................  Purpose...........  September 1998,     [December 29, 1999
                                                       LR24:1684.          FR volume and
                                                                           page number].
Section 1432....................  Incorporation by    July 1998,          [December 29, 1999  No action is taken
                                   Reference.          LR24:1280.          FR volume and       on the portions
                                                                           page number].       of LAC
                                                                                               33:III.1432 that
                                                                                               contain 40 CFR
                                                                                               93.102(c),
                                                                                               93.104(d),
                                                                                               93.109(c)-(f),
                                                                                               93.118(e),
                                                                                               93.120(a)(2),
                                                                                               93.121(a)(1), and
                                                                                               93.124(b).
Section 1434....................  Consultation......  November 1994,      [December 29, 1999
                                                       LR20:1278; July     FR volume and
                                                       1998, LR24:1280;    page number].
                                                       September 1998,
                                                       LR24:1684;
                                                       October 1998,
                                                       LR24:1925.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-33448 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P