[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 54 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14873-14878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6563]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM-26-1-6944a; FRL-6561-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for New Mexico: 
Transportation Conformity Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the New Mexico 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 in regulations on 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. 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 regulations on 
Transportation Conformity. We approved the SIP revision on conformity 
of general Federal actions on September 9, 1998 (61 FR 48407).
    The EPA approves this SIP revision under sections 110(k) and 176 of 
the Federal Clean Air Act (Act). We have given our rationale for 
approving this SIP revision in this action.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 19, 2000 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 19, 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

[[Page 14874]]

Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202.
    New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Harold Runnels Building, 
1190 St. Francis Drive, P.O. Drawer 226110, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-
0110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Behnam, P. E. or Mr. Ken Boyce; 
Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202, telephone (214) 665-7247 or (214) 665-7259, 
[email protected] or [email protected].

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 NMED satisfy the interagency consultation 
process?
    D. Why did the NMED exclude the grace period for new 
nonattainment areas (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 
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, 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, 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 in relation 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. However, this SIP was not approvable. 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.

[[Page 14875]]

II. Approval of the Transportation Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Send?

    The State of New Mexico initially submitted a SIP revision on 
November 17, 1994, however, this SIP was not approvable. On November 
20, 1998, the Governor of New Mexico sent a SIP revision that includes 
the transportation conformity and consultation rule. The NMED adopted 
this SIP revision on November 9, 1998, after appropriate public 
participation and interagency consultation. In addition, this SIP was 
revised to correct a typographical error in section 124. The Governor 
submitted this revision on August 27, 1999. Today's approval action is 
solely based on the November 20, 1998, and August 27, 1999, 
submissions.

B. What is EPA Approving Today and Why?

    We are approving the transportation conformity rule that the 
Governor of New Mexico sent us on November 20, 1998, and August 27, 
1999, except for New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20, 
Chapter 2, Part 99, sections 109. C.1, 114, 128.C-F, 137.E, 139.A.2, 
140.A.1, and 147.B. The rationale for exclusion of these sections is 
discussed in section II-E of this action. The NMED 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 NMED'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 
NMED 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 NMED 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 general conformity SIP on 
September 9, 1998 (63 FR 48106).

C. How Did the NMED 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 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 the State and local air 
quality agencies and EPA in coordinating development of applicable SIPs 
with MPOs, State DOT, and USDOT.
    The NMED developed its own consultation rule based on the elements 
in 40 CFR 93.105. As a first step, the NMED 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 
NMED served as the lead agency in coordinating the multi-agency 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 codified under 20 NMAC 2.99.119 and 
2.99.120. We have determined that the NMED adequately included all 
elements of 40 CFR 93.105 in their rule and it meets the EPA SIP 
requirements.

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

    The NMED 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, 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 NMED has 
excluded this section from its rule. We agree with the NMED'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), 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 SIP revision includes all those sections 
which the Court ruled unlawful or remanded for consistency

[[Page 14876]]

with the Act. The EPA cannot approve these sections.
    We believe that the NMED 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 EPA. If the court had issued 
its ruling before adoption and SIP submittal by the NMED, we believe 
the NMED would have removed these unlawful sections from its SIP. The 
NMED 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 NMED 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 NMED 
rules from this SIP approval action. As a result, we are not taking any 
action on 20 NMAC, Chapter 2, Part 99, sections 109. C.1, 114, 128.C-F, 
137.E, 139.A.2, 140.A.1, and 147.B under the State Transportation 
Conformity 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. The EPA has already issued guidance on how to implement 
these provisions in the interim prior to EPA's amendment of the Federal 
transportation conformity rules. Once these Federal rules have been 
revised, conformity determinations 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 May 19, 2000 without further 
notice unless we receive adverse comment by April 19, 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 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 Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. This final rule will not have 
substantial direct effects on the 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 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 
of the Executive Order 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 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

[[Page 14877]]

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. A major rule can 
not take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective May 19, 2000.

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 May 19, 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: March 6, 2000.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended 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 GG--New Mexico

    2. Section 52.1620(c) is amended by adding to the end of the first 
table to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                State approval/
   State citation         Title/subject          effective date       EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 2--Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        *                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                         *
Part 98 * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 99............  Transportation          11/23/98 and 09/08/99  3/20/00 [FR volume     (1) No action is
                      Conformity.                                    and page number].      taken on sections
                                                                                            109. C.1, 114, 128.C-
                                                                                            F, 137.E, 139.A.2,
                                                                                            140.A.1, and 147.B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14878]]

[FR Doc. 00-6563 Filed 3-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P