[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