[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28757-28761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13382]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[KS 072-1072; FRL-6350-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is conditionally approving the 1998 revisions to the
Kansas City ozone maintenance plan as a revision to the Kansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Full approval is contingent upon Kansas'
submission of additional, enforceable control measures.
The Kansas City ozone maintenance area experienced a violation of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in 1995. In
response to this violation, Kansas submitted revisions to its ozone
maintenance plan. These revisions pertain to the implementation of
control strategies to achieve reductions in volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions within the Kansas portion of the Kansas City ozone
maintenance area. A major purpose of these revisions is to provide a
more flexible approach to maintenance of acceptable air quality levels
in Kansas City, while achieving emission reductions equivalent to those
required by the previously approved plan.
In a separate Federal Register document published today, EPA is
also conditionally approving a similar plan submitted by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to address the Missouri portions
of the ozone maintenance area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective June 28, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the
following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Air
Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan W. Teter, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
(913) 551-7609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Kansas City metropolitan area (KCMA), consisting of Clay,
Platte, and Jackson Counties in Missouri, and Johnson and Wyandotte
Counties in Kansas, was designated nonattainment for ozone in 1978. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) provides for areas with a prescribed amount of air
quality data showing attainment of the standard to be redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment, if the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) are met. One of these requirements is for the area to
adopt a maintenance plan consistent with the requirements of section
175A. This plan must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS with a margin
of safety sufficient to remain in attainment for ten years. Also, the
plan must contain a contingency plan to be implemented if the area once
again violates the standard.
Ozone monitoring data from 1987 through 1991 demonstrated that the
Kansas City nonattainment area had attained the ozone NAAQS. In
accordance with the CAA, the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) revised the ozone SIP for the Kansas portion of the
Kansas City area to recognize the area's attainment status. EPA
published final approval of the Kansas SIP on June 23, 1992. The SIP
became effective on July 23, 1992 (57 FR 27939). This action effected
the redesignation of the area to attainment.
The contingency plan approved as part of the 1992 SIP identified
four measures which were to be implemented upon subsequent violation of
the standard in the Kansas City area. These contingency measures
required: (1) certain new or expanding sources of ozone precursors to
acquire emissions offsets; (2) the installation of Stage II vapor
recovery systems at retail gasoline stations or the implementation of
an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for motor
vehicles; (3) the implementation of transportation control measures
achieving a 0.5 percent reduction in areawide VOC emissions; and (4)
the completion of a comprehensive emissions inventory.
In a letter from Dennis Grams, EPA Region VII Administrator, to
James J. O'Connell, KDHE Secretary, on January 31, 1996, EPA informed
the KDHE of a violation of the ozone NAAQS. Quality-assured air quality
monitoring data indicated measured exceedances of the ozone standard on
July 11, 12, and 13, 1995, at the Liberty monitoring site in Kansas
City. The highest recorded value for each day was 0.128 ppm, 0.161 ppm,
and 0.131 ppm, respectively. These exceedances, in combination with the
measured exceedance of 0.128 ppm recorded on July 29, 1993, constitute
a violation of the standard.
As a result of this violation, Kansas was required to implement the
contingency measures identified in the approved SIP. However, in
response to a request by Roger Randolph (Missouri Air Pollution Control
Program Director) to William Spratlin (Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division
Director), EPA stated in an August 17, 1995, letter that Missouri and
Kansas could substitute other
[[Page 28758]]
contingency measures for those in the approved SIP, provided that the
substitute measures were submitted through the SIP revision process,
were designed to achieve substantially equivalent emission reductions,
and were implemented expeditiously to address the violation. It must be
emphasized that this flexibility was extended to both Kansas and
Missouri.
To address the short-term need to control emissions, Kansas
promulgated a rule to limit the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the
gasoline sold during the summer months in the KCMA to 7.2 pounds per
square inch (psi) (K.A.R. 28-19-79). This regulation became effective
May 2, 1997. EPA published final approval of Kansas' RVP rule on July
7, 1997 (62 FR 36212). The approval became effective on August 6, 1997.
To address the longer-term need to reduce VOC and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions, the Mid-America Regional Council's Air
Quality Forum (AQF), comprised of representatives from local
governments, business, health, and environmental organizations, agreed
to examine various alternative control strategies and recommend a suite
of viable measures to Missouri and Kansas. The AQF recommended: (1)
expanding public education efforts; (2) low RVP gasoline; (3) motor
vehicle I/M, (4) seasonal no-fare public transit; (5) a voluntary clean
fuel fleets program; and (6) additional transportation control
measures. The AQF also recommended a group of supplemental measures
aimed at reducing ozone levels. The emissions reductions associated
with the voluntary measures, specifically clean fuel fleets and
transportation control, cannot be quantified due to their voluntary
nature.
While Kansas was developing its plan revisions, the MDNR presented
a maintenance SIP, with the AQF recommendations, to the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission (MACC) on June 24, 1997. At that time, the MACC
recommended inclusion of a more timely and less politically sensitive
control measure in place of the I/M provision. As a result, on October
7, 1997, the AQF recommended the implementation of a reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program in the KCMA. In response, Kansas intends to
include RFG as a control measure option, which, if selected, would be
in place prior to the beginning of the 2001 ozone season. Kansas
reserves the option to use gasoline blends other than the Federal RFG
blend or other equivalent measures, provided their use achieves similar
VOC and NOX emission reductions.
The final state submittal includes an emissions inventory; the two
creditable control strategies--7.2 RVP gasoline, RFG; additional
unquantifiable measures including voluntary clean fuel fleets and
seasonal low-fare transit; continued monitoring; verification of
continued attainment; and a contingency plan.
According to state estimates, limiting the summertime RVP of
gasoline to 7.2 psi achieves VOC emissions reductions of only 4.0 tons
per day. As such, additional reductions are necessary to provide for
reductions substantially equivalent to those (8.4 tons per day)
obtainable by implementing the contingency measures approved in the
1992 maintenance plan SIP. The implementation of an RFG or equivalent
emission reduction program is therefore critical to meeting Missouri's
obligation to achieve the reductions called for in the maintenance
plan.
II. Evaluation Criteria
To evaluate the maintenance plan revision, EPA referred to
requirements of section 175A of the Act. EPA also reviewed guidance
issued specifically to address applicable procedures for handling
redesignation requests, including maintenance plan provisions entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
to EPA Regional Division Directors, dated September 4, 1992. In
addition, EPA reviewed the revised maintenance plan for evidence that
the substitute control measures provide for emissions reductions which
are substantially equivalent to those approved in the 1992 SIP,
pursuant to guidance given in the August 17, 1995, letter, from William
Spratlin to Roger Randolph. Finally, EPA evaluated the revised
maintenance plan with respect to the ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-
Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' from Richard D.
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators.
III. Review of Submittal
According to the September 4, 1992, memo from John Calcagni
regarding ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' a maintenance plan must provide for maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS for at least ten years after redesignation. Section 175A of
the CAA defines the general framework of a maintenance plan. The
Calcagni memo identifies the following list of core provisions
necessary to ensure maintenance of the ozone NAAQS: emissions
inventory, maintenance demonstration (including control measures), air
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. Kansas' revised maintenance plan adequately addresses
each of the required core measures as detailed in EPA's January 26,
1999, proposed rule (64 FR 3896).
IV. Response to Comments
The KDHE and the American Petroleum Institute (API) submitted
written comments regarding the Agency's January 26, 1999, notice of
proposed rulemaking (64 FR 3896). These comments and EPA's responses
are discussed below.
KDHE
Comment: In section VI, Proposed Action, of the Federal Register
document, EPA proposes to establish a deadline of one year from the
effective date of the final conditional rule within which Kansas is to
submit one of the options upon which final approval is conditioned. EPA
stated it was seeking comment on whether a shorter deadline should be
established. Due to the length of time required to fully evaluate the
listed alternatives, develop draft regulations, ensure effective public
participation, provide the required public notice, hold public hearings
and respond to public comments, adopt the necessary rules, and develop
and submit the SIP revision to EPA, the state of Kansas submits that a
shorter time period would be inappropriate. Any lesser period would
have the primary impact of limiting public involvement to the legal
minimum. For the reasons specified and to ensure a SIP revision which
accomplishes its intended purpose with the thorough involvement of all
stakeholders, Kansas requests that EPA not shorten the deadline in its
final rulemaking.
Response: Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the
Administrator may approve a SIP revision based on a commitment of the
state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not
later than one year after the approval of the revised SIP. In
consideration of the state's concerns and having received no comments
requesting that the statutory time frame be shortened, EPA has
determined that a one-year deadline for meeting the condition is
appropriate. Kansas must meet the conditions set forth in this rule
within one year of its effective date.
Comment: Kansas wishes to point out that much of the planning
referred to in section I, Background, of the Federal Register document
(64 FR 3896) was
[[Page 28759]]
conducted prior to the Western portion of Missouri being included in
the NOX SIP call. The ramifications of this unexpected turn
of events relating to control strategies and timing need to be fully
explored to ensure effective control strategies are developed to
address ozone in Kansas City.
Response: EPA agrees that much of the planning occurred prior to
promulgation of the NOX SIP call which requires substantial
NOX reductions in the western portion of Missouri; however,
these reductions will not be fully realized until mid 2002. As such,
the control measures in the amended plan will provide for critical air
quality improvements during the interim. In addition, these control
measures, as explained previously, are a substitute for control
measures previously required to be implemented, and they are needed
regardless of the outcome of future planning activities. EPA's review
of the measures is limited to a determination that they will achieve
emission reductions and equivalent to those from the preexisting
measures, and that they will be implemented expeditiously.
Comment: Finally, even though EPA states that the 1996 through 1998
data demonstrating attainment with the 1-hour standard do not relieve
Kansas of the need to implement RFG or one of the other conditional
contingency measures, Kansas would remind EPA that 7.2 RVP gasoline has
been required in the Kansas City area in response to the 1995 1-hour
violation, that the Kansas City area has demonstrated compliance with
the 1-hour standard as of 1998, that the 1-hour standard has been
revoked in other areas which have demonstrated compliance with the 1-
hour standard during that same period, and those areas are free to
concentrate on attaining the new 8-hour standard. The Kansas City area
now needs to close the books on the 1-hour standard and, with the rest
of the country, move forward and concentrate on meeting the new 8-hour
standard.
Response: The issue of the potential for revocation of the 1-hour
standard in the KCMA is not the subject of this action. In 1992, Kansas
submitted and EPA approved a maintenance plan pursuant to section
175A(a) of the CAA. This plan was to provide for maintenance of the 1-
hour NAAQS for ozone for ten years following the redesignation of the
KCMA from nonattainment to attainment. As required by section 175A(d)of
the Act, the approved plan provided for the implementation of specific
contingency measures to promptly correct any violation that occurred
after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. These
measures were designed to achieve a minimum VOC reduction of 8.4 tons
per day. A violation of the standard was recorded in 1995, triggering
the implementation of these measures. A second violation was recorded
in 1997, the first year that 7.2 RVP gasoline was required in the
Kansas City area. This action conditionally approves amendments to the
plan to ensure that the required reductions are achieved. As explained
previously, Kansas is obligated to address implementation of
contingency measures which have previously been triggered with respect
to the 1-hour standard.
API
API stated that despite EPA's September 29, 1998, rule which allows
former nonattainment areas to opt in to the Federal RFG program, EPA
does not have the authority to allow Kansas to opt in for the Kansas
City area. API contends that section 211(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes
opt-ins for currently classified nonattainment areas, and does not
allow attainment areas to opt in. API also submitted its comments on
the proposal for the September 1998 rule. API stated that the rule is
contrary to the plain language of the Act, and is currently being
challenged in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Finally, API stated that Kansas and EPA ``should wait until the court
rules on EPA's rule before moving forward with an effort to opt the
Kansas City area into the RFG program.''
Response: EPA's authority to promulgate the underlying opt-in rule
is not at issue in this action. EPA fully responded to comments
regarding the agency's authority to promulgate the revisions to the
opt-in rule in the September 29, 1998, rulemaking, and the issues
raised in that rulemaking are not raised in today's action on the KCMA
maintenance plan revisions. The rule is in effect, notwithstanding the
pending petition for review. In addition, this conditional approval of
the revised maintenance plan will not necessarily result in Kansas
opting into the RFG program. Kansas could fulfill the condition by
adopting and submitting appropriate alternative regulations which
ensure that VOC emissions are reduced by an amount that is
substantially equivalent to that required under the 1992 SIP.
When Kansas submits a SIP revision to comply with the condition of
this approval, EPA will act on that submission through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. At that time, EPA will consider comments on what
action it should take on the specific alternative selected by Kansas.
V. Conclusion
In today's document, EPA conditionally approves Kansas' 1998
revisions to the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance Plan. This includes the
VOC control measures described above, the associated emissions
reductions, and the commitment to implement the additional reductions
as expeditiously as practicable. Full approval of the SIP is
conditioned upon receipt of one of the following within one year of
final conditional approval: (1) a request from the Governor of Kansas
to require the sale of Federal RFG within the Kansas portion of the
KCMA; (2) adopted regulations implementing the contingency measures
identified in the 1992 maintenance plan, i.e., Stage II Vapor Recovery
or an Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program; or (3) any
combination of adopted regulations that will achieve the minimum VOC
reductions (8.4 tons per day) required by the contingency measures
identified in the 1992 SIP. In the case of options 2 or 3, upon receipt
of regulations implementing these provisions and a request to amend the
maintenance plan accordingly, EPA will initiate a rulemaking on this
subsequent revision. If the state fails to submit one of the above, the
conditional approval converts to a disapproval one year from the
effective date of the final rule conditionally approving the state's
1998 submittal.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
B. E.O. 12875
Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, 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
[[Page 28760]]
EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to the
OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments; a
summary of the nature of their concerns; copies of any written
communications from the governments; and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments. This rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. The rule merely approves submissions made by the state, and
establishes a schedule for submitting additional measures. However, the
schedule is not judicially enforceable. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. E.O. 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that
would have a disproportionate effect on children.
D. E.O. 13084
Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal Government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue
the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA 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
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the state is already imposing. Also, EPA will evaluate the RFA
implications of any requirements which may be established by subsequent
state submissions in response to the conditional approval, when EPA
takes rulemaking action on those submissions. 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 CAA, preparation of
flexibility analyses would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect
the applicability of state requirements. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of
the submittal would not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, I
certify that this conditional approval will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new
Federal requirement.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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 the 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.
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. The schedule established by the conditional approval is
not judicially enforceable, and any subsequent state submissions to
meet the conditions will be analyzed at that time to determine
applicability of the Unfunded Mandates Act. Accordingly, no additional
costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action. In addition, Section 203 does not apply to
this action because it affects only the state of Kansas, which is not a
small government.
[[Page 28761]]
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the United States Senate, the United States
House of Representatives, and the United States Comptroller General
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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 26, 1999. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 20, 1999.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
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 R--Kansas
2. Section 52.869 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.869 Identification of plan--Conditional approval.
Elements of the maintenance plan revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor's designee on May
21, 1998, which address contingency measures for the Kansas City Ozone
Maintenance Area are conditionally approved. This includes a commitment
to implement the additional reductions as expeditiously as practicable.
Full approval of the SIP is conditioned upon receipt of one of the
following by June 28, 1999: a request from the Governor of Kansas to
require the sale of Federal reformulated gasoline within the Kansas
portion of the Kansas City Maintenance Area; adopted regulations
implementing the contingency measures identified in the 1992
maintenance plan, i.e., Stage II Vapor Recovery or an Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance Program; or any combination of adopted
regulations that will achieve the minimum volatile organic compound
reductions (8.4 tons per day) required by the contingency measures
identified in the 1992 SIP. In the case of options 2 or 3, upon receipt
of regulations implementing these provisions and a request to amend the
maintenance plan accordingly, EPA will initiate a rulemaking on this
subsequent revision. If the state fails to submit one of the above
requirements within the time specified, the conditional approval
automatically converts to a disapproval without further regulatory
action.
[FR Doc. 99-13382 Filed 5-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
