[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