Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Missouri

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