[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18245-18249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8530]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA-48-200010(a); FRL-6573-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: 
Approval of Revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan: 
Transportation Conformity Interagency Memorandum of Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Georgia State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains the transportation conformity 
rule pursuant to sections 110(k) and 176 of the Clean Act as amended in 
1990 (Act) . The transportation conformity rule assures that projected 
emissions from transportation plans and projects in air quality 
nonattainment or maintenance areas stay within the motor vehicle 
emissions ceiling contained in the SIP. The transportation conformity 
SIP revision enables the State to implement and enforce the Federal 
transportation conformity requirements at the State level per EPA 
regulation--Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of 
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or 
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Laws. This EPA 
approval action streamlines the conformity process and allows direct 
consultation among agencies at the local level. This final approval 
action is limited to Transportation Conformity. Rationale for approving 
this SIP revision is provided in the ``Supplementary Information'' 
Section of this action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 6, 2000, without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 8, 2000. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Kelly Sheckler at the 
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the state submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 
4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
3104. Attn: Kelly Sheckler, (404) 562-9042.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection 
Division, Air Protection Division, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 
136, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, at 404/562-9042, E-
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outlined below are the contents of this 
document:

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 Submit a Transportation Conformity SIP?
    E. How Does Transportation Conformity Work?
II. Approval of the State Transportation Conformity Rule
    A. What Did the State Submit?
    B. What is EPA Approving Today and Why?
    C. How Did the State Satisfy the Interagency Consultation 
Process (40 CFR 93.105)?
    D. How the State's Submittal Address the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ruling Overturning the 
Grace Period for New Nonattainment Areas (40 CFR 93.102(d)) in the 
Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency Lawsuit
    E. What Other Parts of the Rule Are Excluded?
III. Opportunity for Public Comments
IV. Administrative Requirements

[[Page 18246]]

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 NAAQS 
which currently address 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 
EPA for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP, 
which protects air quality and contains emission control plans for 
NAAQS 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 comment period, public 
hearing, 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 EPA for inclusion in the Federally 
enforceable SIP. EPA must then determine the appropriate Federal 
action, provide public notice, and request additional public comment on 
the action. The possible Federal actions include: approval, 
disapproval, conditional approval and limited approval/disapproval. If 
adverse comments are received, EPA must consider and address the 
comments before taking final action.
    EPA incorporates state regulations and supporting information (sent 
under section 110 of the Act) into the Federally approved SIP through 
the approval action. EPA maintains records of all such SIP actions in 
the CFR at Title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of 
Implementation Plans.'' The EPA 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 as a requirement 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 1990 Amendments to the Act expanded the scope and content of 
the conformity concept by defining conformity to a SIP. 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. The 
requirements of section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act apply to all 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal government. 
Transportation conformity refers only to the conformity of 
transportation plans, programs and projects that are funded or approved 
under title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act.

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

    A transportation conformity SIP is a plan which contains criteria 
and procedures for the Department of Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations (MPOs), and other state or local agencies to 
assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects to 
ensure that they do not cause or contribute to new violations of a 
NAAQS in the area substantially affected by the project, increase the 
frequency or severity of existing violations of a standard in such area 
or delay timely attainment. 40 CFR 51.390, subpart T requires states to 
submit a SIP that establishes criteria for conformity to EPA. 40 CFR 
part 93, subpart A, provides the criteria the SIP must meet to satisfy 
40 CFR 51.390.
    EPA was 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. EPA 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. EPA required the states to adopt and submit a 
transportation conformity SIP revision to the appropriate EPA Regional 
Office by November 25, 1994. The State of Georgia submitted a 
transportation conformity SIP to the EPA Region 4 on November 15, 1994. 
EPA did not take action on this SIP because the Agency was in the 
process of revising the transportation conformity requirements. EPA 
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 codified the revisions 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. of the Federal 
Transit Laws (62 FR 43780). EPA's action of August 15, 1997, required 
the states to change their rules and submit a SIP revision to EPA by 
August 15, 1998. States may choose to develop in place of regulations, 
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) which establishes the roles and 
procedures for transportation conformity. The MOA includes the detailed 
consultation procedures developed for that particular area. The MOA's 
are enforceable through the signature of all the transportation and air 
quality agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

E. How Does Transportation Conformity Work?

    The Federal or state transportation conformity rule applies to all 
NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas in the state. The 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), the State Department of 
Transportation (DOT) (in absence of a MPO), and U.S. Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) make conformity determinations. These agencies 
make conformity determinations on programs and plans such as 
transportation improvement programs (TIP), transportation plans, and 
projects. The MPOs calculate the projected emissions that will result 
from implementation of the transportation plans and programs and 
compare those

[[Page 18247]]

calculated emissions to the motor vehicle emissions ceiling established 
in the SIP. The calculated emissions must be smaller than the Federally 
approved motor vehicle emissions ceiling in order for USDOT to make a 
positive conformity determination with respect to the SIP.

II. Approval of the State Transportation Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Submit?

    The State of Georgia chose to address the transportation conformity 
SIP requirement through the development of an MOA. On February 16, 
1999, the State of Georgia, through the Department of Natural Resources 
(DNR), submitted the State's transportation conformity and consultation 
interagency MOA to EPA as a revision to the SIP. The Georgia Air 
Quality Act, Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-1, et seq.), 
approved by the Georgia General Assembly in 1992, contains the 
necessary authority for the revision to the SIP. DNR held a public 
hearing on August 13, 1998 and no comments from the general public were 
received. The MOA was developed with appropriate interagency 
consultation.

B. What is EPA Approving Today and Why?

    EPA is approving the Georgia transportation conformity MOA that the 
Director of the Georgia DNR submitted to the Region 4 office of the EPA 
on February 16, 1999, except for the following sections: section 110 
(c)(1)(ii); section 110 (c)(2)(ii); section 110 (d)(2)(i); section 110 
(d)(3)(i); section 110 (e)(2)(i); section 110 (e)(3)(i); section 119 
(e)(1); section 119b(a)(2); section 133; section 103(4)(d); section 106 
(c) and, section 130 (1). The rationale for exclusion of these sections 
is discussed in section II.E of this action. The Georgia DNR 
Transportation Conformity MOA is the same as the Federal rule, with the 
exception of the specific interagency consultation procedures and the 
definition of ``regionally significant''.
    EPA has evaluated this SIP revision and has determined that the 
State has met the requirements of Federal transportation conformity 
rule as described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, 
subpart A. The Georgia DNR has satisfied the public participation and 
comprehensive interagency consultation requirement during development 
and adoption of the MOA at the local level. Therefore, EPA is approving 
the MOA as a revision to the Georgia SIP.

C. How did the State Satisfy the Interagency Consultation Process (40 
CFR 93.105)?

    EPA's 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 revision must include processes and procedures to 
be followed by the MPO, state DOT, and USDOT in consulting with the 
state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making conformity 
determinations. The transportation conformity SIP revision must also 
include processes and procedures for the state and local air quality 
agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with 
MPOs, state DOTs, and USDOT.
    The State of Georgia developed its consultation rule based on the 
elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, and included it in the MOA, 
Exhibit 1, section 106. As a first step, the State worked with the 
existing transportation planning organization's interagency committee 
that included representatives from the State air quality agency, State 
Department of Transportation, the Atlanta Regional Commission (the 
MPO), Federal Highway Administration--Georgia Division, Federal Transit 
Administration, Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Authority, Cobb County 
Transit Authority, Douglas County Transit Authority, Gwinnett County 
Transit Authority and EPA. The interagency committee met regularly and 
drafted the consultation rules considering elements in 40 CFR 93.105 
and 23 CFR part 450, and integrated the local procedures and processes 
into the consultation MOA. The consultation process developed in this 
MOA is unique to the State of Georgia. The MOA is enforceable against 
the parties by their consent in the MOA to allow the Attorney General 
for the State of Georgia to sue any or all of the agencies for specific 
performance or other relief on behalf of the citizens of Georgia in 
paren. patrial. We have determined that the State adequately included 
all elements of 40 CFR 93.105 and that the MOA meets the EPA SIP 
requirements.

D. How the State's Submittal Addresses the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ruling Overturning the 
Grace Period for New Nonattainment Areas (40 CFR 93.102(d)) in Sierra 
Club v. Environmental Protection Agency Lawsuit

    The Sierra Club challenged this section of the second set of 
amendments to the transportation conformity rule arguing that allowing 
a 120 day 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, No. 96-1007, 
determined 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. EPA agrees with the State's action 
as it is consistent with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit ruling. Further, the exclusion of 40 CFR 
93.102(d) will not prevent EPA from approving the State transportation 
conformity SIP.

E. What Other Parts of the Rule Are Excluded?

    EPA promulgated the third set amendments to 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 sections 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 
Federal actions will not cause or increase violations or delay 
attainment. The sections of the rule that were impacted by 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''. A lapse is a situation in 
which the conformity determination for the transportation plan or TIP 
has expired, and there is no currently conforming transportation plan 
and TIP. As such, there are restrictions on proceeding with federally 
funded and regionally significant projects;

[[Page 18248]]

    (b) 40 CFR 93.118(e) which allowed use of motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (budgets) 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 budgets in a 
disapproved SIP for 120 days after disapproval;
    (d) 40 CFR 93.121(a)(1) which allowed the nonfederally funded, 
regionally significant projects to proceed if included in the first 
three years of the most recent conforming transportation plan and 
transportation improvement program, 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.
    States were required to submit transportation conformity SIPs to 
satisfy the requirements for the third set of amendments to the 
transportation conformity rule by August 15, 1998. Many of these SIP 
submittals, developed prior to the March 2, 1999 Court ruling, included 
provisions from the transportation conformity rule verbatim. As such, 
the State of Georgia's SIP revision included sections which the Court 
ruled unlawful or remanded for consistency with the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with the Court's ruling, EPA can not approve the following 
sections of the Georgia MOA which relate to the above reference 
sections of the Federal conformity rule: Section 110 (c)(1)(ii); 
section 110 (c)(2)(ii); section 110 (d)(2)(i); section 110 (d)(3)(i); 
section 110 (e)(2)(i); section 110 (e)(3)(i); section 119 (e)(1); 
section 119b(a)(2); section 133; section 103 (4)(d); section 106 (c) 
and section 130 (1).
    The State of Georgia submitted additional information which has 
complied with the EPA requirements for a transportation conformity SIP 
and has adopted the Federal rules in an MOA 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 
Georgia DNR, EPA believes the Georgia DNR would have removed these 
sections from its MOA The Georgia DNR has expended its resources and 
time to prepare this SIP and meet the statutory deadline, and EPA 
acknowledges the agency's good faith effort in submitting the 
transportation conformity SIP in a timely manner.
    The Georgia DNR 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 the aforementioned affected 
provisions, EPA believes that it is reasonable to exclude the 
corresponding sections of the State rules from this SIP approval 
action. As a result, EPA is not taking any SIP action on the following 
Sections of the Georgia MOA : 110 (c)(1)(ii); 110 (c)(2)(ii);110 
(d)(2)(i);110 (d)(3)(i);110 (e)(2)(i); 110 (e)(3)(i); 119 (e)(1); 
119b(a)(2); 133; 103 (4)(d); 106 (c) and, 130 (1) which relate to the 
Federal rule 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). 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. EPA will be issuing guidance on 
how to implement these provisions in the interim prior to EPA's 
amendment of the Federal transportation conformity rule. Once this 
Federal rule has been revised, conformity determinations in Georgia 
should comply with the requirements of the revised Federal rule until 
corresponding provisions of the Georgia conformity SIP have been 
approved by EPA.

III. Opportunity for Public Comments

    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register publication, EPA is 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 June 6, 2000, 
without further notice unless EPA receive adverse comment by May 8, 
2000. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, 
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the

[[Page 18249]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. 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 cannot 
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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 23, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

    2. Section 52.570 paragragh (e) is amended by adding a new entry at 
the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec. 52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) EPA approved non-regulatory provisions.

                                 EPA Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or      State submittal date/effective date   EPA approval date
             revision               nonattainment area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Georgia Interagency            Atlanta              Februrary 16, 1999...................      April 7, 2000
 Transportation Conformity          Metropolitan Area.
 Memorandum of Agreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-8530 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P