Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas

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