February 16, 1988, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company(“3M”) filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss,asserting that the Board had determined 3M’s petition to beadequate, that no rulemaking is requested, and that the petitiondoes not involve the two additional lines.
Further, counsel for both the Agency and 3M are well aware of the
requirements that must be met for a grant of variance relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Ill...
Allowed
Administrator
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
