[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31637-31641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14684]



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


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