[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21447-21451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10702]



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


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