Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5221-9]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits

Program; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) for purpose of complying with Federal requirements for an

approvable State program to issue operating permits to all major

stationary sources, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final interim approval are available

for inspection during normal business hours at the following location:

EPA Region 5, Air and Radiation Division (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Permits and Grants

Section (AE-17J), EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886-7017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of

the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 require that States develop

and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and

that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 year after

receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to

section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together

outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA

may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.

If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2 years after the November

15, 1993 date, or by

[[Page 31638]]

the end of an interim program, the Agency must establish and implement

a Federal program.

On September 13, 1994, EPA proposed interim approval of the

operating permits program for the MPCA. See 59 FR 46948. The EPA

received public comment on the proposal and compiled a Technical

Support Document (TSD) which describes the operating permits program in

greater detail. In this notice EPA is taking final action to promulgate

interim approval of the operating permits program for the MPCA.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission and Response to Public Comments

The EPA received comments on a total of 9 topics from 9

organizations. The EPA's response to these comments is summarized in

this section. Comments supporting EPA's proposal are not addressed in

this notice; however, EPA's TSD responding to all comments is available

in the docket at the address noted in the ADDRESSES section above.

1. Criminal Enforcement Authority

EPA proposed as a condition for full approval of the Minnesota

permit program the removal of Subdivision 14 of Section 609.671 of the

Minnesota Criminal Code (Subdivision 14). Subdivision 14 provides that

``except for intentional violations, a person is not guilty of a crime

* * * if the person notified the pollution control agency of the

violation as soon as the person discovered the violation and took steps

to promptly remedy the violation.'' (Emphasis added.) EPA has

subsequently determined that the definition of ``intentional'' used by

the State of Minnesota in the context of this defense is equivalent to

the definition of ``knowledge.'' Therefore, EPA no longer requires that

Minnesota remove Subdivision 14 for full approval of the Minnesota

permit program.

Specifically, a letter dated April 21, 1995, from Hubert H.

Humphrey III, Attorney General for the State of Minnesota, to Valdas

Adamkus, Regional Administrator of Region 5, EPA, clarifies the

definition of ``intentional'' as follows:

``Intentional violations'' do not mean the state must show a

violation was committed with specific intent. See State v. Orsello,

1995 WL 141748 (Minn. Ct. App.) * * *. ``Intentional violations''

require only the same type of intent as is required for a general

intent crime in Minnesota; namely, an intent to do the act

prohibited by the statute. The phrase ``intentional violations'' in

this context is thus used to distinguish criminal conduct from the

accidental. See State v. Lindahl, 309 N.W.2d 763, 767 (Minn. 1981) *

* *.

EPA had proposed the removal of Subdivision 14 as a condition for

full approval of the Minnesota permit program because 40 CFR

70.11(a)(ii) requires that a state have the authority to seek criminal

remedies, including, among other things, fines against ``any person who

knowingly violates any applicable requirement * * *.'' With the

clarification of the definition of ``intentional'' by Minnesota, it is

clear that Minnesota does have the authority to seek criminal remedies

for knowing violations. Further, this clarification of the definition

of ``intentional'' also satisfies EPA's other concern that Subdivision

14 required the State to meet a higher degree of proof than that

required by the Clean Air Act. 40 CFR 70.11(b).

2. Monitoring Reports

EPA received one comment from the MPCA on its proposal to require

Minnesota to revise Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 6, to require

submittal of semi-annual monitoring reports from all part 70 sources.

EPA based its proposal on 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), which requires the

``submittal of reports of required monitoring at least every 6

months.'' MPCA believes that it is reasonable to interpret this

provision to only require a report if there is required monitoring

during the 6 month period. Furthermore, MPCA asserts that ``it would be

pointless and wasteful for a part 70 source to be required to submit a

semi-annual report when there is nothing to report.''

While EPA agrees with this comment, a revision to this rule is

still necessary for full program approval. Minnesota Rules 7007.0800,

subpart 6(B), requires submittal of reports at least every six months

for ``any stationary source that is required to monitor * * * more

frequently than every six months.'' (Emphasis added.) Part 70 requires

semi-annual reports from sources required to monitor every 6 months. In

addition, it is not clear from this provision that a source required to

monitor less frequently than every six months is ever required to

submit a monitoring report. Therefore, to receive full program

approval, MPCA must revise Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 6 to

require at least a semi-annual monitoring report from sources required

to monitor at least every 6 months, and to require annual reports from

sources required to monitor less frequently than every 6 months.

3. Administrative Permit Amendment Procedures

EPA received 2 adverse comments regarding EPA's proposal to require

MPCA to revise Minnesota Rules 7007.1400. This rule allows the use of

the administrative amendment procedures to ``clarify'' a permit term.

In the proposal, EPA states this ambiguous provision may result in the

implementation of permit modifications through the administrative

amendment procedures, rather than through the permit modification

procedures, in contravention of 40 CFR 70.7 (d) and (e). Because this

provision is inconsistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(d),

Minnesota must revise this rule for full program approval.

The American Forest & Paper Association (American Forest) and the

National Environmental Development Association (NEDA) are concerned

that the ``removal'' of this provision will require MPCA, as a

condition for full approval, ``to disapprove environmentally

insignificant permitting modifications that otherwise should be

approvable through the administrative amendments.'' These commenters

also feel that EPA's concerns are ``unwarranted, since EPA would

retain, under its proposed rule changes, an adequate opportunity to

object to administrative amendments.'' According to 40 CFR 70.1(c), EPA

will approve State programs ``to the extent that they are not

inconsistent with the Act and these regulations.'' Section 70.7(d) sets

forth those matters that may be corrected through administrative permit

amendments. Section 70.7(e) sets forth the criteria for permit

modifications. Because a broad interpretation of Minnesota Rules

7007.1400 would allow permit modifications to be implemented as

administrative permit amendments, the rule expands the scope of those

matters which may be corrected pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(d), in

contravention of the Act and part 70 regulations. Therefore, the

ambiguity in the rule must be clarified. With respect to EPA's ability

to object to administrative amendments, the current part 70 regulations

do not provide for EPA review and objection.

4. Incorporation by Reference

EPA proposed as a condition for full approval of MPCA's program

that Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 16 be revised to require that

all conditions required by section 70.6(a) contained in that subpart be

expressly stated in the part 70 permits. EPA received one comment from

MPCA opposing this change. MPCA argues that the inclusion

[[Page 31639]]

of this language is not necessary and would draw attention away from

the specific requirements that the source must comply with on a day-to-

day basis. MPCA feels that inclusion of this language could lead to

``confusion'' at the source as to what conditions actually apply.

Finally, MPCA is concerned that EPA intends to require the State to

include provisions of 70.6(a) that would not apply to all part 70

sources, such as the provisions at 70.6(a)(4) which would apply only to

acid rain sources, in all part 70 permits.

EPA's September 13, 1994, proposal only requires the State to

expressly state in every permit those provisions of section 70.6(a)

which are found in Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 16. Specifically,

these are the provisions of sections 70.6(a) (5) and (6), which are

found in 7007.0800, subpart 16 (A)-(F) of Minnesota's rules. These

general provisions apply to all part 70 sources. Therefore, the State's

concern that it would be required to include permit terms that do not

apply to certain sources in the sources' part 70 permit is unwarranted.

Further, EPA fails to see how the express statement of general

requirements applicable to all permittees will result in confusion. In

fact, it is EPA's position that the express statement of all applicable

permit conditions in the permit assists the source in understanding all

permit requirements, assures the enforceability of the permit, and is

not burdensome.

The State's plan to incorporate by reference general permit

conditions may actually hamper the enforceability of those conditions.

Because EPA will not incorporate Minnesota's rules by reference for

part 70 program approvals, only the part 70 permit, and not the actual

rules, would be federally enforceable. Therefore, EPA would only be

able to enforce those conditions that are expressly stated in the

permit. Further, EPA is concerned that the failure to clearly state

permit conditions precludes ``fair warning'' of the permit

requirements, and could be the basis for a dismissal.

5. Fees

In the September 13, 1994, notice, EPA proposed to require the

State of Minnesota to ``revise the definition of regulated pollutant at

Minnesota Rules 7002.0035 to include `any regulated pollutant for

presumptive fee calculation' as defined at 40 CFR 70.2, or submit a

detailed fee demonstration.'' One comment was received from the MPCA.

MPCA agrees that the fee rule does not collect the presumptive minimum;

however, MPCA pointed out that the presumptive minimum can be met

without charging for all ``regulated pollutants'' under the Federal

definition. EPA agrees with MPCA. 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2) only requires the

collection of an amount equivalent to $25 + consumer price index per

ton of ``regulated pollutant for presumptive fee calculation,'' to meet

the presumptive minimum. Therefore, this requirement will be revised to

reflect this comment.

6. Timelines for Permit Issuance

EPA received one comment from MPCA on the proposal to require MPCA

to change its deadline for permit issuance on minor and moderate permit

amendments from 180 days to 90 days after receipt of an application. In

the proposal EPA stated that both types of permit amendments seemed to

fall under the minor modification procedures of part 70, which requires

final action within 90 days after receipt of an application. MPCA

argues that 40 CFR 70.7(e)(1) allows States to ``develop different

procedures for different types of modifications depending on the

significance and complexity of the requested modification'' provided

that the procedures do not provide for less permitting authority or

review by EPA and affected States, and that this is what it has done by

creating minor and moderate permit amendment categories. In addition,

MPCA argues that by increasing the review time from 90 days to 180

days, the State has increased the likelihood of meaningful State and

Federal review of permit applications.

According to 40 CFR 70.7(e)(1), a State must ``provide adequate,

streamlined, and reasonable procedures for expeditiously processing

permit modifications.'' The State may meet this requirement by adopting

the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 70.7(e), or procedures that are

``substantially equivalent.'' EPA does not consider the State's minor

permit amendments to be substantially equivalent to the minor

modification procedures of part 70 because of the timeline for acting

on minor permit amendment applications. Although additional time might

allow the State to have a more meaningful review, it would also allow a

source that had applied for a minor permit amendment, but did not

qualify for a minor permit amendment, an extra 90 days of operation

before submitting the proper application. For this reason, EPA is

requiring MPCA to take action on minor permit amendments within 90 days

of receipt of a complete application.

Part 70 does allow a State to develop additional procedures for

different types of modifications as long as the procedures do not

provide for less permitting authority, EPA or affected State review, or

public participation, than is provided for in part 70. Minnesota has

done this with its moderate permit amendment procedures. MPCA has

allowed 180 days to take final action on moderate permit amendment

applications; however, the source is not allowed to operate under that

change until the State has approved the change. Therefore, EPA has

decided that this type of change does meet all requirements of part 70,

and EPA will not require a change with respect to moderate permit

amendments as proposed in the September 13, 1994 notice.

7. Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act

In its proposed approval of Minnesota's part 70 program, EPA also

proposed to approve Minnesota's preconstruction review program for the

purpose of implementing section 112(g) during the transition period

before a Federal rule had been promulgated implementing that section

112(g). This proposal was based in part on an interpretation of the Act

that would require sources to comply with section 112(g) beginning on

the date of approval of the title V program, regardless of whether EPA

had completed its section 112(g) rulemaking. The EPA has since revised

this interpretation of the Act in a Federal Register notice published

on February 14, 1995. 60 FR 8333. The revised interpretation postpones

the effective date of section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a

rule addressing that provision. The revised notice sets forth in detail

the rationale for the revised interpretation.

The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still

considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be

delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule so as to

allow States time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and

that EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final

section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an

additional postponement of section 112(g), Minnesota must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State

regulations.

For this reason, EPA is finalizing its approval of Minnesota's

preconstruction review program. This approval clarifies that the

preconstruction review program is available as a mechanism to implement

section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the

section 112(g) rule and adoption

[[Page 31640]]

by Minnesota of rules established to implement section 112(g). However,

since the approval is for the single purpose of providing a mechanism

to implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the approval

itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final section

112(g) rule that sources are not subject to the requirements of the

rule until State regulations are adopted. The EPA is limiting the

duration of this proposal to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of

the section 112(g) rule.

The EPA believes that, although Minnesota currently lacks a program

designed specifically to implement section 112(g), Minnesota's

preconstruction review program will serve as an adequate implementation

vehicle during a transition period because it will allow Minnesota to

select control measures that would meet MACT, as defined in section

112, and incorporate these measures into a federally enforceable

preconstruction permit. Minnesota should be able to impose federally

enforceable measures reflecting MACT for most if not all changes

qualifying as a modification, construction, or reconstruction under

section 112(g). This is because most section 112(b) HAPs are also

criteria pollutants, and moreover because measures designed to limit

criteria pollutant emissions will often have the incidental effect of

limiting non-criteria pollutant HAPs.

Another consequence of the fact that Minnesota lacks a program

designed specifically to implement section 112(g) is that the

applicability criteria found in its preconstruction review program may

differ from those in the section 112(g) rule. However, whether a

particular source change qualifies as a modification, construction, or

reconstruction for section 112(g) purposes during any transition period

will be determined according to the final section 112(g) rule. The EPA

would expect Minnesota to be able to issue a preconstruction permit

containing a case-by-case determination of MACT where necessary for

purposes of section 112(g) even if review under its own preconstruction

review program would not be triggered.

8. Title I Modifications

For the reasons set forth in EPA's proposed rulemaking to revise

the interim approval criteria of 40 CFR part 70 (59 FR 44572, August

29, 1994), the EPA believes the phrase ``modification under any

provisions of title I of the Act'' in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5) is

best interpreted to mean literally any change at a source that would

trigger permitting authority review under regulations approved or

promulgated under title I of the Act. This would include State

preconstruction review programs approved by EPA as part of the State

Implementation Plan under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The

definition of ``title I modification'' at Minnesota Rules 7007.0100,

subpart 26, includes ``any change that constitutes a modification under

any provision of title I of the act * * '' In addition, Commissioner

Charles Williams states in a letter dated April 19, 1994, that MPCA

does consider ``modifications of limits promulgated in the SIP and SIP

required permit amendments'' to be title I modifications. Therefore, in

the September 13, 1994, proposal, EPA states that in light of the

clarification in the April 19, 1994, letter, Minnesota's definition

would be consistent with any definition of title I modification that

EPA may adopt.

EPA received 3 comments on the definition of title I modifications.

American Forest and NEDA asserted that neither MPCA nor EPA has the

authority to include changes made pursuant to a preconstruction

permitting program approved into the SIP as title I modifications.

American Forest also asserted that Minnesota has no legal authority to

fund its preconstruction permitting program from title V fees. MPCA

commented that it does not consider SIP required permit amendments to

be title I modifications, as was stated in the April 19, 1994, letter.

Although MPCA's interpretation of title I modification does not

conform with EPA's current interpretation, EPA will take no action on

Minnesota's program at this time with respect to the definition of

title I modification. EPA is not taking action at this time because the

definition of title I modification and the criterion for approving part

70 programs with respect to this issue are still being debated. For

further explanation, please refer to the TSD or to the Final Interim

Approval of the Operating Permit Program for the State of Washington

(59 FR 55813).

9. Section 112(l)

In the September 13, 1994 notice, EPA proposed to grant approval

under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of Minnesota's program for

receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from

the Federal standards as promulgated. In addition, EPA noted that

Minnesota intended to accept delegation of section 112 standards

through automatic delegation. However, in its comments on the September

13, 1994 notice, MPCA stated that it has not requested delegation to

implement section 112 standards, and that it does not intend to request

delegation at this time. Therefore, EPA is not approving a mechanism

for delegation of section 112 standards at this time. If MPCA does

request delegation of section 112 standards in the future, EPA will

approve a mechanism for delegation of the 112 standards in a separate

rulemaking.

The fact that EPA is not approving a mechanism for delegation of

section 112 standards does not affect the approvability of Minnesota's

Operating Permits Program. Title V requires a State to be able to

incorporate these terms into a permit and to be able to enforce the

terms of that permit. Minnesota's program does meet those requirements.

B. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits

program submitted by MPCA on November 15, 1993. The State must make the

following changes to receive full approval:

1. Revise Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 6(B) to require at

least semi-annual monitoring reports from any source required to

monitor at least every six months, and to require any source required

to monitor less frequently than every six months to submit at least an

annual monitoring report.

2. Revise Minnesota Rules 7007.1400 to be consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(d). Minnesota Rules 7007.1400 provides that

the administrative amendment procedure may be used to ``clarify a

permit term.'' This ambiguous provision is not consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(d) and could be interpreted broadly enough

to allow changes to a permit which should be handled through the permit

modification procedures.

3. Revise Minnesota Rules 7007.0800, subpart 16, to require that

the permit terms included in 40 CFR 70.6(a) that are included in this

subpart be expressly stated in part 70 permits. Minnesota Rules

7007.0800, subpart 16, allows permit terms which are required by 40 CFR

70.6(a) to be include in the permit by reference to the State

regulation. Failure to have these provisions expressly stated in the

permit may create difficulties in enforcing those terms and may make it

difficult for citizens to understand what provisions apply to a source.

4. Revise Minnesota Rules 7002 in such a way that the State will

collect an amount equivalent to the presumptive minimum, or submit a

detailed fee

[[Page 31641]]

demonstration containing all required elements under 40 CFR 70.9.

5. Revise Minnesota Rules 7007.0750, subpart 2.C, to require the

permitting authority to take action on minor permit amendments within

90 days of receipt of a complete application.

This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until July

16, 1997. During this interim approval period, the State is protected

from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal operating permits program in the State. Permits

issued under a program with interim approval have full standing with

respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for submittal of permit

applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date of this

interim approval, as does the 3-year time period for processing the

initial permit applications.

EPA is granting Source Category-Limited (SCL) interim approval to

Minnesota's program. Although the State is required to issue permits

within 3 years to all sources subject to the program that obtains

interim approval, some sources will not be subject to the requirement

to obtain a permit until full approval is granted. Part 70 sources

which are not addressed until full approval are also subject to the 3-

year time period for processing initial permit applications. The 3-year

period for these sources will begin on the date full approval of the

State's program is granted. Therefore, initial permitting of all part

70 sources might not be completed until 5 years after interim approval

is granted.

If the State fails to submit a complete corrective program for full

approval by January 16, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the State then fails to submit a corrective

program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month

period, EPA will be required to apply one of the sanctions in section

179(b) of the Act, which will remain in effect until EPA determines

that the State has corrected the deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good

faith on the part of the State, both sanctions under section 179(b)

will apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the

Administrator determined that the State had come into compliance. In

any case, if, six months after application of the first sanction, the

State still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has found

complete, a second sanction will be required.

If EPA disapproves the State's complete corrective program, EPA

will be required to apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the

date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless

prior to that date the State has submitted a revised program and EPA

has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the

disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith

on the part of the State, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall

apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the

Administrator determines that the State has come into compliance. In

all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the

State has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined

corrects the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the

State has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to the State program by the expiration of this

interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15, 1995,

EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program

for the State upon interim approval expiration.

The EPA is also promulgating approval of Minnesota's

preconstruction permitting program found in Minnesota Rules Chapter

7007, under the authority of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose

of implementing section 112(g) regulations. The EPA believes this

approval is necessary so that Minnesota has a mechanism in place to

establish federally enforceable restrictions for section 112(g)

purposes during the period between promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State regulations. Although

section 112(l) generally provides authority for approval of State air

programs to implement section 112(g), title V and section 112(g)

provide authority for this limited approval because of the direct

linkage between the implementation of section 112(g) and title V. The

scope of this approval is narrowly limited to section 112(g) and does

not confer or imply approval for purposes of any other provision under

the Act, for example, section 110. The duration of this approval is

limited to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of section 112(g)

regulations, to provide Minnesota adequate time for the State to adopt

regulations consistent with the Federal requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon

for the final interim approval, including 9 public comments received

and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in the docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development of this final interim approval.

The docket is available for public inspection at the location listed

under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any

new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs

submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this

action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 1, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 70 is amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding the entry for

Minnesota in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Minnesota

(a) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; submitted on November

15, 1993; effective July 17, 1995; interim approval expires July 16,

1997.

[FR Doc. 95-14684 Filed 6-15-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P