Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN29-1-6203a; FRL-5174-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a revision to the Minnesota State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate new permitting regulations.

This revision consists of the State Rules in Chapter 7007, entitled

``Air Emission Permits,'' in conjunction with other rule changes

relating to the repeal of prior air permitting rules. Although these

rules have been submitted previously to satisfy the requirements of

Title V of the Clean Air Act, the purpose of this submittal is (1) to

support federally enforceable permit conditions for limiting sources'

potential to emit, (2) to allow the use of permits as vehicles for

future SIP revisions, and (3) to update the procedural rules governing

the issuance of air permits in Minnesota. USEPA concludes that all

three purposes are satisfied.

DATES: This action will be effective July 3, 1995 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by June 1, 1995. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to:

William L. MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are available

for inspection at the following addresses: (It is recommended that you

telephone John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region

5 Office.)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago,

Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102), Room M1500, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.,

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation

Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

On November 23, 1993, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted revised air permitting rules for approval as part of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules represent Minnesota's

consolidated permitting regulations, which include provisions for

operating permits for major sources pursuant to Title V of the Clean

Air Act, construction permits for major new sources and major source

modifications pursuant to Parts C and D of Title I, and operating and

construction permits for minor sources and minor modifications pursuant

to State law. Thus, this submittal complements Minnesota's submittal

dated November 15, 1993, seeking USEPA approval of the same regulations

as satisfying Title V requirements. Separate rulemaking is being

conducted with respect to whether these regulations satisfy Title V

requirements. (See the Federal Register of September 13, 1994, at 59 FR

46948.)

Minnesota's submittal of November 23, 1993, does not seek to

satisfy any specific mandate under the Clean Air Act. As noted above, a

separate submittal seeks to satisfy the requirements of Title V. A pair

of submittals dated August 5, 1992, and August 26, 1993, have been

found to satisfy nonattainment area major new source review

requirements (see 59 FR 8578, dated February 23, 1994). The State has

not sought to provide State regulations to supersede Federal

regulations on attainment area new source review (prevention of

significant deterioration).

Instead, the State's submittal of November 23, 1993, seeks approval

of updated State permitting regulations which have superseded

previously approved regulations, including several provisions to help

the State implement its Title V and Title I programs. Minnesota

intended with this submittal: (1) to provide a mechanism for

intermediate size sources to obtain federally enforceable limitations

to become ``minor sources,'' (2) to facilitate future SIP revisions,

and (3) to update the federally approved regulations to reflect the

updated State permitting regulations. Each of these purposes requires

evaluation under different criteria. These purposes and the associated

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) criteria for

approval are discussed individually in subsequent sections.

A. Federally Enforceable Limitations on Potential To Emit

The first purpose of Minnesota's submittal was to provide a

mechanism for intermediate size sources to obtain federally enforceable

limitations such that the sources' potential to emit would be below the

size thresholds at which major source permits are required. This

mechanism involves federally enforceable State operating permits

(FESOPs) incorporating the relevant limitations. The State intends to

write such permits both in the context of new source review and in the

context of Title V permitting. As clarified in a letter from Charles

Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated November 21, 1994, the State is

requesting this authority with respect to hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs) as well as for pollutants with air quality standards (``criteria

pollutants'').

Criteria for USEPA approval of FESOP programs are given in the

Federal [[Page 21448]] Register of June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274). FESOP

programs must satisfy five principal requirements: (1) the regulations

must be approved into the SIP, (2) sources must have a legal obligation

to comply with permit terms and USEPA must be authorized to deem as

``not federally enforceable'' those permits which it finds fail to

satisfy applicable requirements, (3) the program must require all

limits to be at least as stringent as other applicable requirements,

(4) the permit provisions must be permanent, quantifiable, and

otherwise enforceable as a practical matter, and (5) the permits must

have been subject to public notice and review. Use of FESOPs for

limiting hazardous air pollutants is further subject to requirements in

section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, which is also discussed below.

Also discussed below is a policy memorandum entitled ``Guidance on

Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting,'' dated June 13,

1989, and a policy memorandum entitled ``Options for Limiting the

Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and

Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act),'' dated January 25, 1995.

The first requirement for approval of Minnesota's FESOP program is

satisfied by virtue of today's approval of Minnesota's regulations into

the SIP.

The second requirement contains two parts. With respect to sources'

legal obligations, Minnesota's rules satisfy the requirement by

requiring each permit to state that ``Any [noncompliance with permit

conditions] constitutes a violation of the state law and, if the

provision is federally enforceable, of the [Clean Air Act, and] is

grounds for enforcement action.''

With respect to the authority granted to USEPA to deem permits

``not federally enforceable,'' the technical support document provides

a detailed interpretation of Minnesota's rules on this issue both for

the time period during permit review and for the time period subsequent

to permit issuance. For the permit review period, the State rules

specify that Minnesota ``shall not issue [such a permit] if the

administrator objects to its issuance in writing [during the specified

review period].'' For the period after the permit has been issued,

USEPA interprets Minnesota's rules to allow avoidance of otherwise

applicable permitting requirements only if a permit condition provides

a federally enforceable limit on a source's potential to emit, which

USEPA would be authorized to determine. Thus, in summary, USEPA is

authorized to deem permits not federally enforceable both during and

after the permit review period.

With respect to the third requirement, Rule 7007.0800 (``Permit

Content'') explicitly requires that permits ``shall include emissions

limitations, operational requirements, and other provisions needed to

ensure compliance with all applicable requirements * * *.'' No

provision in the State rules authorizes any relaxation from any

applicable requirement.

With respect to the fourth requirement, enforceability is mostly to

be provided on a permit-by-permit basis, particularly by writing

practical and quantitative enforcement procedures into each permit.

USEPA will review enforceability of permits using the above cited

memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New

Source Permitting,'' which describes the types of limitations that

reduce potential to emit in a federally enforceable manner.

Nevertheless, enforceability also requires proper permit program

design. Minnesota's regulations (for example Rule 7007.0800 quoted

above) provide for fully enforceable limitations. Concerning

permanence, Rule 7007.0450 (2) expressly provides for permanence of

``title I conditions,'' thereby assuring permanence of conditions

relating to new source review. Pursuant to Rule 7007.0800 (15), Title I

conditions in each permit will be identified as such. Other conditions

have the duration provided for under Title V, i.e., they expire with

permit expiration but are typically renewed with permit reissuance.

Consequently, Minnesota's rules provide for the degree of permanence

necessary for enforcement of the applicable provisions, and more

generally provide for permit limitations to be fully enforceable.

With respect to the fifth requirement, Minnesota's rules have

explicit requirements for public notice and review of proposed

permitting actions. Of particular concern here are provisions that

apply to permitting actions that establish limits to avoid major source

permitting requirements (``synthetic minor permits''), both with

respect to new source and to existing source permitting requirements.

In both cases, Rule 7007.0850 provides for a 30-day public comment

period. For most minor source permits, including existing source

``synthetic minor permits,'' Rule 7007.0850 (2) allows the State to

publish notice in the State Register rather than in a local newspaper.

This approach is provided for in USEPA regulations for major existing

source permits under Title V (i.e., the regulations published at 40 CFR

70), and so this approach is also considered acceptable for synthetic

minor existing source permits. For minor source permitting that

involves ``title I conditions,'' defined in Rule 7007.0100 (25) to

include major new source permit conditions, permit conditions

established to help meet air quality standards, and synthetic minor

permit conditions, further requirements apply. Specifically, Rule

7007.0850 (4) requires that such permit actions ``comply with all other

federal requirements for public participation.'' The Federal

requirements for new source permitting include prominent advertisement

of the proposed permit, i.e., newspaper publication, which would thus

also be a requirement of Rule 7007.0850. Rule 7007.0850 (2)(B) also

stipulates that major amendments to State permits (including ``major

modifications'' as defined in USEPA's new source review regulations as

well as ``synthetic minor modifications''), have the same notice and

comment requirements as State permit issuance, ``if authorized or

required by the administrator.'' USEPA clearly authorizes and requires

full notice and opportunity for public comment in cases of major and

synthetic minor modifications. In summary, newspaper notice is a

requirement for major and synthetic minor new source permitting under

Federal regulations and therefore also under Minnesota Rule

7007.0850(4). In addition, USEPA ``authorizes and requires'' full

notice and opportunity for public comment for major and synthetic minor

modifications, which is therefore also required in these cases under

Minnesota Rule 7007.0850 (2)(B). Given these interpretations,

Minnesota's rules require full satisfaction of relevant notice and

comment requirements.

In addition to meeting the criteria in the June 28, 1989, notice, a

FESOP program for HAPs must meet the statutory criteria for approval

under section 112(l)(5). This section allows USEPA to approve a program

only if it (1) contains adequate authority to assure compliance with

any section 112 standard or requirement, (2) provides for adequate

resources, (3) provides for an expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112 requirements, and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the Act. The memorandum cited above dated

January 25, 1995, provides further discussion of these criteria and of

the extent to which limits on criteria pollutants such as volatile

organic compounds and [[Page 21449]] particulate matter may be

considered to limit sources' potential to emit HAPs.

Minnesota satisfies these additional requirements for HAPs. (1) The

State has adequate authority to assure compliance with section 112

requirements since the third criterion of the June 28, 1989, notice is

met, that is, the program does not allow waiving any section 112

requirement. Nonmajor sources would still be required to meet

applicable section 112 requirements. (2) Minnesota has committed to

provide adequate resources to implement and enforce the program, which

it will obtain from fees collected under Title V. USEPA believes that

this mechanism will provide sufficient resources to implement this

program. USEPA will monitor the State's implementation of the program

to assure that adequate resources continue to be available. (3)

Minnesota's permitting program also meets the requirement for an

expeditious schedule for assuring compliance. A source seeking a

voluntary limit on potential to emit is probably doing so to avoid a

Federal requirement applicable on a particular date. Nothing in this

program would allow a source to avoid or delay compliance with the

Federal requirement if it fails to obtain the appropriate federally

enforceable limit by the relevant deadline. (4) Finally, Minnesota's

permitting rules are consistent with the objectives of the section 112

program since its purpose is to enable sources to obtain federally

enforceable limits on potential to emit to avoid major source

classification under section 112. USEPA believes that this purpose is

consistent with the overall intent of section 112. Accordingly, USEPA

finds that Minnesota's program satisfies applicable criteria for

establishing federally enforceable limitations on potential to emit

both criteria and hazardous air pollutants.

Minnesota has requested that eligibility for Federal enforceability

extend not only to permits issued after the effective date of this rule

but also extend to permits issued under the State's current rule prior

to the effective date of today's rulemaking. If the State followed its

own procedures, each permit issued under this regulation to establish a

Title I condition (e.g. for a source to have minor source potential to

emit) was subject to public notice and prior USEPA review. Therefore,

USEPA will consider all such operating permits issued which were

processed in a manner consistent with both the State regulations and

the five criteria to be federally enforceable with the promulgation of

this rule provided that any permits that the State wishes to make

federally enforceable are submitted to USEPA and accompanied by

documentation that the procedures approved today have been followed.

USEPA will expeditiously review any individual permits so submitted to

ensure their conformity to the program requirements.

B. Use of State Permits as SIP Revisions

The second purpose of Minnesota's submittal was to facilitate

future SIP revisions. For cases when a single source or a small number

of sources require limitations to bring about attainment or to meet

other Title I requirements, Minnesota intends that such limitations

could be incorporated into the source's permit. Minnesota would then

submit the permit as a SIP revision in lieu of the current practice of

developing and submitting an administrative order. Minnesota's

submittal does not include any such permits for USEPA rulemaking. Thus,

the following discussion expresses the approach and criteria that USEPA

anticipates using in the future if and when Minnesota does provide such

submittals.

The first criterion for USEPA approval of this approach is that the

relevant permit conditions be nonexpiring and enforceable. Minnesota's

rules address this criterion by defining such permit conditions as

``Title I conditions.'' Minnesota's Rule 7007.0100 (25) defines this

term to mean (1) any conditions in a permit which are based on new

source review, (2) any conditions imposed to assure attainment, or (3)

any conditions established to avoid being subject to new source review

(i.e., limitations on potential to emit to become ``synthetic minor

sources''). Rule 7007.0450 declares that title I conditions are

permanent ``without regard to permit expiration or reissuance * * *.''

USEPA will review practical enforceability of permit-based SIP

submittals on a permit by permit basis. Assuming that other relevant

requirements are met (e.g., any attainment demonstration requirements),

USEPA anticipates that well written permits would satisfy the

substantive requirements for SIP revisions.

The second criterion for USEPA approval of permits as SIP revisions

is that administrative requirements for the adoption of SIP revisions

be met. These requirements are specified in 40 CFR 51, particularly

Subpart F (Procedural Requirements) and Appendix V (Completeness

Criteria). Most notably, any SIP revision must have been subject to

proper public notice and opportunity for comment. In particular, the

State must have published a newspaper notice of the intended SIP

revisions and have provided a 30-day opportunity for comments and

opportunity for a public hearing.

Minnesota's rules have different public notice provisions depending

on applicability of Title V permitting requirements, i.e., for major

versus minor sources. For sources obtaining or amending a Title V

permit, Rule 7007.0850 (Public Notice and Comment) subpart 2 dictates

satisfaction of the SIP notice and comment requirements discussed

previously. It is less clear whether Minnesota's rules mandate

satisfaction of these requirements in the case of minor sources. Rule

7007.0850 subpart 4 states that Minnesota ``shall also comply with all

other federal requirements for public participation applicable to

permits and permit amendments which include Title I conditions

[including establishment of attainment-based limitations], including

requirements in [40 CFR 51.102, 51.161, and 51.166(Q)].'' On the other

hand, Rule 7007.1500 subpart 3 indicates (seemingly inadvertently) that

such amendments need not be subject to notice and comment. However, it

is not necessary to determine here exactly what Minnesota's rules

require. Instead, the real issue is whether each permit submitted for

SIP revision purposes has been issued in accordance with the notice and

comment requirements applicable to SIP revisions (as described above),

irrespective of what notice and comment provisions are mandated by

Minnesota rules. USEPA will conduct a submittal-by-submittal review of

whether the notice and comment requirements for SIP revisions have been

satisfied at the time it rulemakes on each submittal.

The above discussion addresses Minnesota's request that USEPA

accept permits as the enforceable elements of future SIP revisions.

Minnesota's submittal also requested that administrative orders

currently in the SIP be replaced with permits. USEPA cannot grant this

request now; no Title V permits have yet been issued and so none are

available to replace the existing administrative orders. When such

permits do become available, the substitution of a permit for an

administrative order will not occur on an automatic basis, but rather

will be reviewed as a SIP revision following the normal SIP review

process.

C. Review of Updated New Source Review Requirements

A third purpose of Minnesota's submittal was to update the

federally approved regulations to reflect the [[Page 21450]] updated

State permitting regulations. In adopting a single set of air

permitting regulations incorporating both construction permits and

operating permits, the State updated numerous new source review

provisions in conjunction with its adoption of the regulations required

under Title V. These rules specify criteria for what sources must have

Title V permits (namely, major sources), what sources must have State

permits, and what sources do not need a permit. Further rules specify

application requirements, permit content, and procedures for permit

processing. Criteria are given for treating modifications as

insignificant and for treating activities as insignificant. Separate

requirements are established for administrative amendments, minor

amendments, moderate amendments, and major amendments. Criteria for

reopening of permits, criteria for Federal enforceability, criteria for

coverage by a permit shield, and exemptions for emergency circumstances

are defined. Additional revisions include modified permit processing

provisions (e.g. specific public comment provisions), provisions which

exempt certain defined modifications and activities from permitting due

to insignificance, provision of raised size thresholds for State

permits, and provision for trading of emissions increases and decreases

at ``minor'' sources.

The technical support document provides a rule-by-rule review of

the updated Minnesota regulations. A few rules present ambiguities

requiring further interpretation. Previous discussion has described

USEPA's interpretation of Minnesota's rules concerning notice and

comment, concluding that USEPA authorizes and requires and therefore

Rule 7007.0850 requires full opportunity for public comment and

newspaper notice for synthetic minor and major new source and

modification permits. Rule 7007.0750 allows construction prior to

permit issuance in some cases for minor sources (provided State

authorization is granted), but prohibits preissuance construction for

major sources; USEPA interprets this rule to prohibit preissuance

construction for prospective synthetic minor sources since such sources

are major sources until the permit is issued. Rule 7007.1750 provides

that conditions required under Chapter 7007 rules are federally

enforceable, but is ambiguous as to whether permit conditions adopted

to avoid ``major source'' size thresholds qualify as federally

enforceable. Since such conditions may be considered a means of

satisfying Title I permitting requirements, and since Federal

enforceability is a prerequisite for such limits to be effective in

avoiding categorization as a major source, USEPA interprets such permit

conditions as federally enforceable.

Numerous provisions governing new source review in Minnesota are

unaffected by the State's submittal. Minnesota's offset rules,

recodified as Rules 7007.4000 through 7007.4030, continue to provide

substantive requirements for major new sources and major modifications

in nonattainment areas. The State has not sought approval of State

regulations for prevention of significant deterioration (i.e. new

source review in attainment areas) to replace the Federal regulations

at 40 CFR 52.21, so the Federal regulations remain applicable.

In its action on previous Minnesota permitting regulations,

published at 53 FR 17033 (May 13, 1988), USEPA disapproved the rules

with respect to sources with new source performance standards but

exempted by the State as being below permitting size thresholds. The

rules providing these exemptions have been repealed and replaced with

regulations that require a permit for any source to which new source

performance standards apply. Thus the prior partial disapproval may be

rescinded. USEPA further concludes that these rules satisfy applicable

new source permitting requirements.

II. Rulemaking Action

Today's rulemaking addresses Minnesota's air permitting regulations

as submitted November 23, 1993. USEPA approves these regulations.

Furthermore, USEPA concludes that Minnesota's three purposes in

submitting these regulations have been fulfilled. First, USEPA

concludes that Minnesota has satisfied the criteria for issuing

federally enforceable state operating permits. Second, USEPA finds that

Minnesota has established a suitable mechanism for use of permits as

the basis of SIP submittals. Although no such permits have yet been

issued or submitted, USEPA anticipates being able to approve future

permit-based SIP submittals provided that SIP-related public notice

requirements and other relevant SIP requirements (e.g. any attainment

demonstration criteria) have been satisfied. Third, USEPA concludes

that these new permitting regulations continue to satisfy relevant new

source review requirements. Finally, USEPA is rescinding the partial

disapproval applicable to Minnesota's previous permitting regulations.

Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,

we are approving it without prior proposal. The action will become

effective on July 3, 1995, unless adverse or critical comments are

received by June 1, 1995. This action will authorize Minnesota to issue

federally enforceable state operating permits limiting the potential to

emit criteria and/or hazardous air pollutant emissions. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

Most of the rules approved by this rulemaking are in Chapter 7007

of Minnesota's rules. Specifically, USEPA is approving Rules 7007.0050

through 7007.1850, including Rules 7007.0050, .0100, .0150, .0200,

.0250, .0300, .0350, .0400, .0450, .0500, .0550, .0600, .0650, .0700,

.0750, .0800, .0850, .0900, .0950, .1000, .1050, .1100, .1150, .1200,

.1250, .1300, .1350, .1400, .1450, .1500, .1600, .1650, .1700, .1750,

.1800, and .1850. In addition, USEPA is approving the repeal of

previous Rules 7001.1200, 7001.1205, 7001.1210, 7001.1215, and

7001.1220, amendments to Rules 7001.0020, 7001.0050, 7001.0140,

7001.0180, 7001.0550, 7001.3050, 7002.0005, and 7002.0015 that

accompany this repeal, and new definitions in Rule 7005.0100. USEPA

will address Rule 7019.3000 (a portion of the State's emissions

inventory rules) in separate rulemaking.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this rule from the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000. [[Page 21451]]

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the Act

do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 3, 1995. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52 is

amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart Y--[Amended]

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(37) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(37) On November 23, 1993, the State of Minnesota submitted updated

air permitting rules.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rules 7007.0050 through 7007.1850, effective August 10, 1993.

(B) Rules 7001.0020, 7001.0050, 7001.0140, 7001.0180, 7001.0550,

7001.3050, 7002.0005, 7002.0015, and 7005.0100, effective August 10,

1993.

Sec. 52.1225 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1225 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs

(c) and (d).

Sec. 52.1233 [Added]

4. Section 52.1233 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1233 Operating permits. Emission limitations and related

provisions which are established in Minnesota permits as federally

enforceable conditions in accordance with Chapter 7007 rules shall be

enforceable by USEPA. USEPA reserves the right to deem permit

conditions not federally enforceable. Such a determination will be made

according to appropriate procedures, and be based upon the permit,

permit approval procedures or permit requirements which do not conform

with the permit program requirements or the requirements of USEPA's

underlying regulations.

[FR Doc. 95-10702 Filed 5-1-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P