[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3855-3861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1332]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[MO 043-1043(a); FRL-6220-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is promulgating a redesignation
request and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
state of Missouri on June 13, 1997. Additional material was sent on
June 15, 1998. The request is to redesignate the portion of the St.
Louis metropolitan area, currently a carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment
area, to a CO attainment area. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended
in 1990, a redesignation to attainment may be promulgated if the state
demonstrates full compliance with the redesignation requirements set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). In this action, the EPA is also
approving Missouri's SIP revision regarding the state's CO maintenance
plan.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 29, 1999 without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by February 25,
1999. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Stanley Walker, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the: Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Walker at (913) 551-7494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. The Redesignation Request
The CAA provides a process whereby a state may request the EPA to
redesignate a nonattainment area to an attainment area for CO. As set
forth in the CAA, an area must meet the requirements outlined in
section 107(d)(3)(E). These requirements and the EPA's analysis of
Missouri's submission as it relates to the requirements, are detailed
in section II, below.
Missouri has submitted a redesignation based on ambient monitoring
data showing no violation of the standard since 1987.
B. Summary of the SIP Revision
On June 13, 1997, the state submitted a maintenance plan and
requested that the EPA redesignate the St. Louis metropolitan area from
nonattainment to attainment for CO in accordance with the requirements
of the CAA. On June 15, 1998, the state submitted additional material
to further support Missouri's redesignation request. The St. Louis CO
nonattainment area includes the city of St. Louis and the portion of
St. Louis County encompassed by Interstate 270 and the Mississippi
River.
II. Analysis of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
A. Attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
EPA Analysis
In accord with section 107(d)(3)(i) of the CAA, the state of
Missouri showed that the area has attained, and continues to attain,
the applicable NAAQS. Missouri used CO air quality data for the years
1994-1995 to form the basis of Missouri's request to redesignate St.
Louis to attainment. Data collected in subsequent years confirm that no
violations of the CO standard occurred and St. Louis continues to show
attainment through 1998. The ambient air quality data are collected at
ambient monitoring stations that are located in areas which are
predicted to have high concentrations. These data are collected and
quality assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System.
Criterion No. 1 has been met.
B. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA (Section
107(d)(e)(ii))
The SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k)
and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area.
EPA Analysis
As required, a CO SIP was submitted by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) prior to the 1990 CAA. This SIP was approved
under the pre-1990 CAA Amendments. The St. Louis area was designated as
an unclassified nonattainment area under the 1990 CAA Amendments. Since
1990, several revisions to Missouri's SIP which target CO emissions
have been fully approved by the EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA.
Please see the Technical Support Document for a listing of these
additional regulations. Further discussion of how the Missouri SIP for
St. Louis meets the requirements of section 110 and Part D can be found
in Section II(D).
Criterion No. 2 has been met.
C. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality
As required, the State of Missouri attributes the improvement in
air quality to regulations which are permanent and enforceable.
EPA Analysis
Missouri estimated that reductions have occurred from the year that
the design value was determined for designation and classification.
Most of
[[Page 3856]]
these reductions were achieved from Federal national programs and SIP
measures. Specifically, reductions occurred due to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program and National Emission Standards for nonroad
engines. In addition, the permanence of the reductions is evidenced by
the fact that no violations have occurred since 1988.
The EPA finds that the measures have resulted in permanent and
enforceable CO emission reductions that have allowed St. Louis to
attain the NAAQS.
Criterion No. 3 has been met.
D. Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
Section 110(a)(2) and Part D requirements must be met prior to
approval of the redesignation request. In general, the EPA evaluates
the state's compliance with requirements that come due under the Act
prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. Areas, such
as St. Louis, that are unclassified, are subject to the provisions of
subpart 1 of Part D. The EPA has reviewed the SIP to ensure that it
contains all requirements of section 110(a)(2) and subpart 1 of Part D.
Section 110 Requirements
The EPA has analyzed the SIP and determined that it is consistent
with the requirements as amended in section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The
SIP revisions relevant to CO were adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission after reasonable notice and public hearing. The
SIP contains enforceable emission limitations adequate to produce
attainment, and requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient
air quality data. The SIP also provides for adequate funding, staff,
and associated resources necessary to implement SIP requirements and
has provisions for review of new sources, and requires stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting.
Part D Requirements
Under Part D, an area's classification determines the requirements
to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of Part D sets forth the basic
requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. The requirements
for CO areas in Subpart 3 are applicable to CO areas in the moderate
and serious classifications. The St. Louis area is an unclassified
nonattainment area, and the applicable Part D requirements are in
subpart 1 of Part D.
Subpart 1 of Part D--Section 172(c) Plan Provisions
The most relevant subpart 1 requirements are in section 172(c).
These requirements include reasonably available control technology for
existing sources, a new source review (NSR) program meeting the
requirements of section 173, reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment of the applicable standard, an emission inventory of sources
of the relevant pollutant, other measures as necessary for attainment,
and a demonstration of attainment by the applicable attainment date. In
the case of St. Louis, the state has satisfied all of the section
172(c) requirements necessary for redesignation.
Since St. Louis was subject to nonattainment plan requirements
prior to the 1990 Amendments, many of the subpart 1 requirements had
already been met. The requirements for RFP, identification of certain
emission increases, and other measures needed for attainment have
already been met, and there have been no violations of the NAAQS since
1987. In addition, the state already had reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for major sources, and no new RACT requirements were
triggered for unclassified areas. With respect to the section 172(c)(2)
RFP requirements, since St. Louis has attained the CO NAAQS, no new RFP
requirements apply.
The section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirements have been
met by the inventory included in the maintenance plan. See discussion
in section E of this document.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the state to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that emissions quantified for the
purpose of growth factors will be consistent with the achievement of
RFP, and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS by
the attainment date. In the maintenance plan, the state demonstrates
continued attainment through the year 2008. Growth factors were
included in the state's analysis.
As for the section 172(c)(5) new source permitting requirements,
the state revised its rule to meet the requirements of section 173 of
the Act, and the EPA approved the revisions. (See 40 CFR section
52.1320(86).)
The state will maintain an ambient monitoring network to ensure
that the NAAQS continues to be met.
As discussed in section 172(c), the state provides a discussion of
its contingency measures in section E.5 pertaining to maintenance
plans. The area has met its RFP requirements and attained the standard
before the attainment date. In accord with the EPA's ``Technical
Support Document to Aid States with the Development of Carbon Monoxide
State Implementation Plan,'' nonclassified CO areas such as St. Louis
are not required to have contingency measures as defined under 172(c).
The EPA believes it is appropriate not to apply the requirement for
contingency measures for areas under the de minimis approach.
Criterion No. 4 has been met.
E. Approved Limited Maintenance Plan
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) states that an area must have a
maintenance plan meeting the requirements of section 175A.
1. Limited Maintenance Plan Option
The EPA provided national guidance regarding the Limited
Maintenance Plan option in an October 6, 1995, memorandum from Joseph
W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chief, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.'' In accord with the
aforementioned memorandum, the CO design value for the area, based on
eight consecutive quarters (two years of data) used to demonstrate
attainment, must be at or below 7.65 parts per million (ppm) (85
percent of the exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS). In addition, the
design value for the area must continue to be at or below 7.65 ppm
until the time of final EPA action on the redesignation. To assess
whether an unclassified area meets the applicability cutoff for the
limited maintenance plan, a separate design value must be developed for
every monitoring site. If the area design value is at or below 7.65
ppm, the state may select the limited maintenance plan option for the
first ten-year maintenance period under section 175A. As discussed
below, the design value for the St. Louis CO nonattainment area is
below 7.65 ppm, qualifying it for the limited maintenance plan option.
2. Attainment Inventory
The maintenance plan contains a comprehensive emissions inventory
of CO emissions for the years 1994 to 1995 which establishes the amount
of emission reductions that were necessary to reach attainment with the
CO NAAQS.
The state developed an attainment emissions inventory to identify a
level of emissions in the area which are sufficient to attain the
NAAQS. This inventory is consistent with the EPA's most recent guidance
on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas and represents
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring
[[Page 3857]]
data showing attainment. The inventory is based on actual ``typical
winter day'' (tpwd) emissions of CO.
A baseline inventory for the year 1993 was used versus 1990
baseline because the state believed the 1993 base year was a better
approximation of actual emissions. The emission inventory contains
attainment year inventories for 1993 through April 1998 and projected
inventories for 1998 through 2008 for the maintenance period. The
inventories include point, area, on-road mobile, and nonroad mobile
source categories; growth projections; action line determination;
emission projection methodologies; and sample calculations for point
and area sources. The highway mobile source inventory information
includes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth projections, and Mobile
5.0 model inputs and outputs.
The state has met the required inventory criterion.
3. Demonstration of Maintenance of the CO NAAQS
The Maintenance Demonstration. The maintenance demonstration
requirement is considered to be satisfied for nonclassifiable areas if
the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality
criteria for limited maintenance areas (7.65 ppm or 85 percent of the
CO NAAQS). There is no requirement to project emissions over the
maintenance period. The EPA believes if the area begins the maintenance
period at or below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the air quality
along with the continued applicability of prevention of significant
deterioration or NSR requirements, any control measures already in the
SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance over the initial ten-year maintenance period.
EPA Evaluation. Total CO emissions were projected from 1993 through
the year 2008. Using the 1994 and 1995 monitoring, the state calculated
a design value of 5.7 ppm which is well below the design value for
attainment. All emissions are reported in tpwd.
Missouri demonstrated that emissions for CO through the year 2008
will remain below the 1993 base year levels because of permanent and
enforceable measures, while allowing for growth in population and VMT.
a. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment. As
required under the limited maintenance plan option, Missouri verified
the attainment status of the area over the maintenance period; the
maintenance plan contains provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate EPA approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58.
b. Contingency Plan. Section 175A of the Act requires that a
maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. The contingency plan is considered to be an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures
are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specific event.
The contingency plan should identify the measures to be promptly
adopted and provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the measures. The state should also identify specific
indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be implemented.
Missouri meets the above requirement by committing to expeditiously
implement contingency provisions in response to future emission
increases in CO emissions or violation of the CO emission standards.
Missouri has identified an action line which would trigger contingency
controls for the scenario with no recorded violations of the CO NAAQS.
Also, the state requires additional CO controls for future year
emissions that exceed the contingency action line.
c. Conformity Determination Under Limited Maintenance Plans. The
transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188; November 24, 1993) and the
general conformity rule (58 FR 63214; November 30, 1993) apply to
nonattainment areas and maintenance areas operating under maintenance
plans. Under either rule, one means of demonstrating conformity of
Federal actions is to indicate that expected emissions from planned
actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
Emissions budgets in limited maintenance plan areas may be treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the initial maintenance
period, because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO
NAAQS would result. Therefore, in areas with approved limited
maintenance plans, Federal actions requiring conformity determinations
under the transportation conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the necessary requirements. Similarly, in these areas, Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the requirements specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule.
As required by section by 176 of the CAAA, MDNR has developed
transportation/air quality conformity procedures (10 CSR 10-5.480) and
general conformity procedures (10 CSR 10-6.300) that are consistent
with Federal conformity regulations. The state demonstrates conformity
of Federal actions by indicating that expected emissions from the
planned actions are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
As discussed above, the state meets the emissions budget criteria as
required.
III. Final Action
The EPA is taking action to approve the St. Louis area maintenance
plan because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175(A) in
the CAA and in the aforementioned memorandum entitled ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas.''
In addition, the Agency is approving the state of Missouri's request to
redesignate the St. Louis CO area to attainment, because Missouri has
demonstrated compliance with section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March
29, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by February 25, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then the EPA will publish a
document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Only
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on March 29, 1999 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.
IV. 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, the
EPA
[[Page 3858]]
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 the EPA consults
with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875
requires the EPA to provide to OMB a description of the extent of the
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local,
and tribal governments, 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 the
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. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. 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 the
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 does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. E.O. 13084
Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, the 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 the EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires the
EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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 the 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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.
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 analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the
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).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the
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 the EPA to establish
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action
approves preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the U.S. 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 March 29, 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
[[Page 3859]]
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
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, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: January 7, 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 AA--Missouri
2. Subpart AA is amended by adding Sec. 52.1340 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1340 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
Approval--A maintenance plan and redesignation request for the St.
Louis, Missouri, area was submitted by the Director of the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources on June 13, 1997. Additional
information was received on June 15, 1998. The maintenance plan and
redesignation request satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart AA--Missouri
2. In Sec. 81.326 the table for Missouri carbon monoxide is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 81.326 Missouri.
* * * * *
Missouri--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Area:
St. Louis City........................ ........... Attainment...................
St. Louis County (part):
The area encompassed by the I-270 and ........... Attainment...................
the, Mississippi River..
AQCR 137 Northern Missouri Intrastate:
Pike County........................... ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment....
Ralls County.......................... ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment....
AQCR 137 Northern Missouri Intrastate ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment....
(Remainder of).
Adair County
Andrew County
Atchison County
Audrain County
Boone County
Caldwell County
Callaway County
Carroll County
Chariton County
Clark County
Clinton County
Cole County
Cooper County
Daviess County
De Kalb County
Gentry County
Grundy County
Harrison County
Holt County
Howard County
Knox County
Lewis County
Lincoln County
Linn County
Livingston County
Macon County
Marion County
Mercer County
Moniteau County
Monroe County
Montgomery County
Nodaway County
Osage County
Putnam County
Randolph County
Saline County
[[Page 3860]]
Schuyler County
Scotland County
Shelby County
Sullivan County
Warren County
Worth County
Rest of State ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment....
Barry County
Barton County
Bates County
Benton County
Bollinger County
Buchanan County
Butler County
Camden County
Cape Girardeau County
Carter County
Cass County
Cedar County
Christina County
Clay County
Crawford County
Dade County
Dallas County
Dent County
Douglas County
Dunklin County
Franklin County
Gasconade County
Greene County
Henry County
Hickory County
Howell County
Iron County
Jackson County
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Johnson County
Laclede County
Lafayette County
Lawrence County
Madison County
Maries County
McDonald County
Miller County
Mississippi County
Morgan County
New Madrid County
Newton County
Oregon County
Ozark County
Pemiscot County
Perry County
Pettis County
Phelps County
Platte County
Polk County
Pulaski County
Ray County
Reynolds County
Ripley County
Scott County
Shannon County
St. Charles County
St. Clair County
St. Francis County
St. Louis County (part) Remainder of
County
Ste. Geevieve County
Stoddard County
Stone County
[[Page 3861]]
Taney County
Texas County
Vernon County
Washington County
Wayne County
Webster County
Wright County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
[FR Doc. 99-1332 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
