[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19097-19106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9723]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-6324-5]


Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Andersen Corporation's 
Facility in Bayport, Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments on draft final project 
agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is proposing to 
implement a project under the Project XL program for the Andersen 
Corporation (``Andersen'') facility located in Bayport, Minnesota. The 
terms of the project are defined in a draft Final Project Agreement 
(``FPA'') which is being made available for public review and comment 
by this document. In addition, EPA is proposing a site-specific rule, 
applicable only to the Andersen Bayport facility, to facilitate 
implementation of the project. By this document, EPA solicits comment 
on the proposed rule, the draft FPA, and the project generally.
    This proposed site-specific rule is intended to provide regulatory 
changes under the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or the ``Act'') to implement 
Andersen's XL project, which will result in superior environmental 
performance and, at the same time, provide Andersen with greater 
operational flexibility. The proposed site-specific rule would change 
some of the CAA requirements which apply to the Andersen Bayport 
facility for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (``PSD'') 
program, in particular existing synthetic minor limits that apply to 
some VOC sources in the Bayport facility. ``Synthetic minor'' limits 
are operational and control limitations which serve to limit the net 
emissions increase associated with proposed new or modified units or 
systems to less than the applicable significance level and thereby keep 
them out of PSD review.

DATES: Comments. All public comments must be received on or before May 
19, 1999. If a public hearing is held, the public comment period would 
remain open until June 3, 1999
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to 
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of 
data, views, or arguments concerning this proposed rule to implement 
Andersen's XL project. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak 
at a public hearing by April 29, 1999, a public hearing will be held on 
May 3, 1999. Additional information is provided in the section entitled 
ADDRESSES.
    Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral 
testimony must contact Ms. Rachel Rineheart at the EPA by April 29, 
1999. Additional information is provided in the section entitled 
ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted in duplicate 
to: Ms. Rachel Rineheart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

[[Page 19098]]

West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, IL, 60604-3590.
    Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in 
developing this proposed rulemaking is available for public inspection 
and copying at U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604-3590, (312) 886-7017, 8:30 am-4:30 pm business days, and 
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room 3802, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 
260-2601, during normal business hours, and at the Bayport Public 
Library, 582 North Fourth Street, Bayport, Minnesota 55003, (651) 439-
7454. A reasonable fee may by charged for copying.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held in 
Bayport, Minnesota. Persons interested in attending the hearing should 
contact Ms. Rachel Rineheart at (312) 886-7017 to verify that a hearing 
will be held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rachel Rineheart, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-
7017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This Document

I. Authority
II. Background
    A. Overview of Project XL
    B. Overview of the Andersen XL Project
    1. Introduction
    2. Andersen XL Project Description
    a. Background
    b. Project Details
    3. Environmental Benefits
    4. Stakeholder Involvement
III. Clean Air Act Requirements
    A. Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Andersen XL 
Project
    B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
    C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
    1. Synthetic Minor Limits
    2. Duration
    3. Duration of Flexibility
    4. Summary
IV. Additional Information
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Regulatory Flexibility
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental 
Partnerships
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Authority

    This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections 
101(b)(1), 110, 111, 161-169, and 301(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA has 
determined that this rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 
307(d) of the CAA.

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

    This proposed site-specific regulation will implement a project 
developed under Project XL, an EPA initiative to allow regulated 
entities to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project 
XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 16, 1995, as 
a central part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort 
to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). 
Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated 
entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot projects to provide 
regulatory flexibility that will result in environmental protection 
that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with 
current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. These efforts 
are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies 
that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while 
achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency 
intends to evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects 
to determine which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should 
be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of 
both the economy and the environment.
    Under Project XL, participants in four categories--facilities, 
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered 
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that 
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the 
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental 
performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop 
alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: 
superior environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork 
reduction; local stakeholder involvement and support; test of an 
innovative strategy; transferability; feasibility; identification of 
monitoring, reporting and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting 
risk burden. They must have full support of affected Federal, state and 
tribal agencies to be selected. For more information about the XL 
criteria, readers should refer to the two descriptive documents 
published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 
19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 ``Principles for 
Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements'' document.
    The XL program is intended to allow the EPA to experiment with 
untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess 
whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and 
whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot 
projects allow the EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible 
when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this 
experimentation, the EPA may try out approaches or legal 
interpretations that depart from or are even inconsistent with 
longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are 
within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in 
interpreting statutes that it implements. The EPA may also modify 
rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible 
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as 
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
    Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the 
context of a given XL project does not, however, signal the EPA's 
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even 
in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the 
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative 
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining 
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful in the 
particular projects that embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in 
announcing the XL program, the Agency expects to adopt only a limited 
number of carefully selected projects. These pilot projects are not 
intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. 
Depending on the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be 
willing to consider adopting the alternative interpretation again, 
either generally or for other specific facilities.
    The EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and 
interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection 
with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the 
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the 
environmental statutes (so long as the Agency acts within the 
discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is 
a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-
evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of 
statutory

[[Page 19099]]

provisions, such as sections 101(b) and 103 of the CAA.

B. Overview of the Andersen XL Project

1. Introduction
    This proposed site-specific rule will facilitate issuance of a 
consolidated permit which will contain Federal and State permits as 
outlined in the Andersen Windows Project XL draft FPA. The draft FPA 
was developed by the Andersen Community Advisory Committee (``CAC''), 
Andersen, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (``MPCA''), Washington 
County, and the EPA. The draft FPA is available for review in the 
docket for today's action and also is available on the world wide web 
at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl. The draft FPA outlines how the project 
addresses the eight Project XL criteria, in particular how the project 
will produce, measure, monitor, report, and demonstrate superior 
environmental benefits. In today's action, the Agency is soliciting 
comment on proposed site-specific regulatory changes to implement the 
project.
    The draft FPA contemplates issuance of a consolidated permit which 
will contain Federal and State permits for Andersen's Bayport facility, 
which MPCA would issue subsequent to the promulgation of a final rule. 
The Andersen XL consolidated permit would be composed of a minor new 
source review permit under the Minnesota State Implementation Plan 
(``SIP''), a Title V permit under the Minnesota Title V program 
approved under 40 CFR part 70, and a PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21, as 
proposed to be modified and made applicable to Andersen at 40 CFR 
52.1246. Any such consolidated permit would be issued in accordance 
with applicable public notice and comment, and administrative appeal 
and petition provisions. In issuing a PSD permit, MPCA will be acting 
as EPA's delegatee in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21(u) and 40 CFR part 
124. EPA will send direct and timely notification of the public comment 
period for the Andersen XL permit to any person who either comments on 
this proposed rule, the draft FPA, or otherwise requests such notice.
    EPA also seeks comment on the draft FPA (which is available on the 
world wide web, in the docket file for today's action, and upon 
request) in light of the criteria outlined in the Agency's May 23, 
1995, Federal Register document (60 FR 27282) regarding Regulatory 
Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects. Those criteria are: (1) environmental 
performance superior to what would be achieved through compliance with 
current and reasonably anticipated future regulations; (2) cost savings 
or economic opportunity, and/or decreased paperwork burden; (3) 
stakeholder support; (4) test of innovative strategies for achieving 
environmental results; (5) approaches that could be evaluated for 
future broader application; (6) technical and administrative 
feasibility; (7) mechanisms for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation; 
and (8) consistency with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice 
(avoidance of shifting of risk burden).
2. Andersen XL Project Description
    a. Background. The Andersen Corporation is a leading manufacturer 
of durable, energy efficient, high performance clad wood windows and 
patio doors. Andersen's main manufacturing plant is at 100 Fourth 
Avenue North in Bayport, Minnesota (Fourth Avenue Site), along the St. 
Croix River, a federally designated ``Wild and Scenic River,'' which 
forms the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
    Operating in the St. Croix Valley since 1903, Andersen has 
demonstrated a long-term ethic of stewardship. This ethic is reinforced 
by the high level of environmental performance of the current Andersen 
operations. Andersen employs approximately 3,000 people at its Fourth 
Avenue Site. Existing Fourth Avenue Site manufacturing facilities are 
located on 110 acres, consisting of 78 buildings, most of which are 
interconnected. Manufacturing and related processes at Andersen include 
wood cutting and milling, wood preservative application, painting, 
vinyl processing, adhesive operations, by-product transfer, wood-fired 
boilers, assembly operations, technology development, production 
support and maintenance functions.
    The Andersen West Site is located at 4001 Stagecoach Road North, on 
the western boundary of Bayport. The Andersen West Site is located 
approximately one mile West of the Fourth Avenue Site and is intended, 
in part, to be a support operation for the Fourth Avenue Site. The 
property was purchased by Andersen in 1994 to provide expansion space 
for its various operations. The site is 245 acres in total size. Of 
that acreage, approximately 150 acres are suitable for development. The 
remaining acreage not able to be developed includes a wetland, a 
bluffland tract that the Company has placed in a conservation easement, 
and 3 probable Native American Burial sites. A site suitability study 
is currently underway to identify the best possible use(s) for the 
site.
    Except as specifically described in this proposed rule and the 
draft FPA, nothing in this proposed rule, draft FPA, or the Andersen XL 
permits will waive, modify, or otherwise affect any obligations 
Andersen may have under local, State, and Federal law with respect to 
development of the Andersen West property.
    b. Project Details. Andersen plans to expand its production 
capacity for window components made using its special 
FibrexTM technology, which is a combination of reclaimed 
sawdust and vinyl that can be extruded into a variety of shapes without 
the need for extensive milling or preservation treatment. In addition, 
Andersen plans to expand the use of its waterborne treatment processes. 
Both of these processes result in substantially fewer VOC emissions per 
unit than traditional solvent-based wood treatment. To expedite this 
expansion, Minnesota and EPA plan to allow Andersen to modify and add 
VOC and milling and non-milling PM/PM10 sources without 
additional PSD approvals and eliminate certain existing VOC synthetic 
minor limits. Today's proposed rule would authorize, only within the 
context of the Andersen XL project, the elimination of certain VOC 
synthetic minor limits and establish a ten year contemporaneous period 
for VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 emissions for the purpose of 
determining net emission increases under the PSD program. All other 
elements of the project will be incorporated in Andersen's XL permit 
without the need for any change in applicable requirements.
    The cornerstone of this project is the creation of a novel 
performance ratio approach to the regulation of VOCs which limits VOC 
emissions per unit of production. This approach, which could not be 
imposed under existing law, is intended to ``lock-in'' existing 
efficient manufacturing methods and processes while encouraging 
continued improvement.
    On a per period basis (13 periods per year) Andersen will calculate 
the ratio of pounds VOC emitted per cubic foot of product shipped 
(performance ratio) for the preceding 13 periods. That calculation will 
be compared to the following series of tiered limits established as 
part of this project:
    CAC Limit--The CAC limit shall serve as the main limit for 
evaluating Andersen's ongoing environmental performance. The CAC limit 
is the average of the prior five years' performance ratios. The CAC 
limit will be recalculated once every three years, will decline if 
appropriate, but will increase only if the CAC approves the

[[Page 19100]]

change, with the concurrence of EPA and MPCA. If Andersen's annual 
performance ratio exceeds the CAC limit, Andersen will be required to 
provide a specific explanation of the exceedance to the CAC as well as 
establish a CAC--approved corrective action plan to bring the 
performance ratio back below the limit.
    Enforcement Limit--A static enforcement limit for the ten-year 
duration of the project will be established utilizing the initial CAC 
limit plus two standard deviations. If the facility's annual 
performance ratio exceeds the enforcement limit the company would 
potentially be subject to the enforcement actions that are available 
under current law.
    Project Limit--The adjusting project limit will be set at two 
standard deviations above the CAC limit. It will be the same as the 
enforcement limit for the initial three-year period, but will be 
adjusted at the same time as the CAC limit. The project limit will 
never exceed the enforcement limit. If Andersen's performance ratio 
exceeds the project limit (but is below the enforcement limit) the 
project will end unless Andersen demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
the CAC, EPA, and MPCA, each acting in its independent capacity, why 
the project should continue.
    Reward Limit--The reward limit will be set at two standard 
deviations below the CAC limit. The reward limit will not increase and 
will only decline if Andersen remains below it for three consecutive 
years. The CAC limit could never go below the reward limit. If the 
facility operates below the reward limit, it will potentially receive 
rewards, depending upon the duration of reward performance, such as 
formal recognition by U.S. EPA and MPCA, addition of Mini-Projects (to 
be accomplished in accordance with the Section VI amendment provision 
of the FPA, including any applicable public notice and comment 
requirements), and extension of the Project duration which would be 
treated as a modification of Andersen's XL Permit and be subject to 
applicable rulemaking and permitting requirements.
    Beyond the performance ratio, Andersen will accept enforceable caps 
on VOC emissions at its Bayport facility and an enforceable cap on non-
milling PM/PM10 emissions. In exchange for accepting these caps, as 
well as making the other project commitments discussed in this section, 
Andersen will gain greater flexibility to make facility modifications . 
This is especially important to a company such as Andersen that is 
subject to fast-changing market conditions. Through greater 
flexibility, Andersen will be able to quickly change its processes 
based on changes in demand for its products.
    Andersen's Title V permit, which will be included in the Minnesota 
XL permit, will contain provisions approving in advance some changes 
anticipated at the facility. An example of possible permit provision 
for a pre-approved change is included in Attachment D to the FPA. Any 
such provision will include sufficiently detailed descriptions of the 
preauthorized changes for compliance purposes and to give the public 
sufficient notice of the types of changes that will be authorized. The 
descriptions will also identify all applicable requirements that would 
apply to the proposed change, including requirements for periodic 
monitoring and recordkeeping. Pre-approving changes will provide 
Andersen with the advantage of being able to make modifications without 
delay and respond to the fast-paced market conditions in the 
construction industry. This privilege is subject to conditions that 
will ensure that Andersen's facility modifications are documented for 
purposes of Agency oversight and public accountability, and will result 
in superior environmental performance.
    In addition, Andersen will control all wood milling operations with 
BACT baghouse units and monitor HAPs to ensure that they remain below 
risk-based levels. Andersen will commit that new paint and preservative 
processes will be at least as clean as their best performing existing 
processes. If sufficient Fibrex and waterborne capacity exists, 
Andersen will remove one of its two dip tanks within five years of the 
project start.
    Andersen is making a voluntary commitment to reduce its generation 
of solid and hazardous waste. Minnesota plans to provide Andersen with 
flexibility from State requirements relating to decommissioning and 
disposal of certain process units. Andersen is committing to enhance 
its existing groundwater remediation system.
3. Environmental Benefits
    One of the primary purposes of this project is to allow Andersen to 
continue to convert production of window and door components to more 
environmentally efficient processes, such as extrusion of Fibrex 
composite window components (versus milled and preservative treated 
wood components), waterborne preservative treatment (versus solvent 
based preservative treatment), and higher solids paint coatings. These 
types of processes result in fewer VOC emissions per unit of production 
than traditional solvent-based processes.
    The Fibrex process, as compared to conventional wood milling and 
preservation treatment processes, is environmentally beneficial for 
several reasons. First, it reduces dependence on virgin wood materials 
because it allows for the use of wood byproduct materials, rather than 
the use of virgin wood. Second, the Fibrex process requires no wood 
preservation treatment. Wood preservation treatment accounts for a 
substantial amount of VOC air emissions from the Andersen facility. 
Thus, expansion of the Fibrex process within Andersen's Bayport 
facility will result in substantial reductions in the emissions of 
Volatile Organic Compounds (``VOCs'') per unit of production. Refer to 
Table 1 for a comparison of air emissions for the traditional vinyl 
clad wood parts versus Fibrex composite produced parts.

 Table 1.--Air Emissions Comparison: Vinyl Clad Wood to Fibrex Composite
            [Based on 1,000,000 standard size window pieces]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Vinyl-clad     Fibrex
                                                profile air  profile air
               Type of emission                  emissions    emissions
                                                   (tons)       (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...........................................         96.2          5.6
PM/PM10.......................................         0.69         1.88
HAP...........................................         0.19         0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to move away from solvent based wood preservation 
treatment processes, Andersen worked with suppliers to develop water-
borne wood preservative formulations that provide the same product 
performance as their solvent-based predecessors. The VOC content of 
water-borne formulations is typically 10-30% that of the traditional 
solvent based formulations. Since 1990, Andersen has converted or 
installed 12 waterborne preservative wood treatment systems to replace 
older solvent-based preservative processes. Greater than 50% of the 
wood window and door frame components are now preserved with a 
waterborne wood preservative formulation, which has reduced VOC 
emissions by over 350 tons annually. This agreement will facilitate 
increased use of existing waterborne wood treatment systems by removing 
certain synthetic minor limits which restrict use of those systems and 
the installation of additional waterborne wood treatment systems, as 
well as the

[[Page 19101]]

possible phase-out of one of two of the company's remaining solvent 
based wood preservation diptanks. Refer to Table 2 for a comparison of 
air emissions per unit of production from traditional solvent based 
wood preservation processes versus waterborne processes.

  Table 2.--Air Emissions Comparison: Solvent-based to Waterborne Wood
                                Treatment
            [(Based on 1,000,000 standard size window pieces]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Solvent-    Waterborne
                                                 based wood      wood
                                                 treatment    treatment
               Type of emission                     air          air
                                                 emissions    emissions
                                                   (tons)       (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...........................................         87.0         13.3
HAP...........................................         0.16            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Andersen window components manufactured from Fibrex composite offer 
performance characteristics similar to the existing vinyl-clad wood 
components. Currently, Andersen is using Fibrex composite technology in 
their RenewalTM replacement window product line and has 
introduced Fibrex composite components into some core product lines. 
This Project XL agreement facilitates further expansion of Fibrex 
composite production.
    Fibrex composite creates a high value usage of certain Andersen 
byproduct materials, and is itself completely recyclable into new 
Fibrex composite components, thus completing a product stewardship 
circle of Fibrex composite to Fibrex composite.
    Andersen's conversion from VOC based processes to Fibrex and 
waterborne preservation processes is, in part, limited by market 
acceptance of Fibrex. The flexibility provided in this Project XL pilot 
will allow Andersen to quickly react to increases in market demand or 
to install additional waterborne preservation processes, whichever may 
be most appropriate. In addition, removing the VOC synthetic minor 
limits on the existing waterborne preservation processes will allow 
Andersen to maximize use of those environmentally superior processes 
while limiting the use of existing VOC-based preservation processes.
4. Stakeholder Involvement
    Stakeholder involvement and participation is vital to the success 
of the Andersen Project XL program. Andersen will continue to work with 
the CAC which was established in December 1997. The CAC serves as the 
primary contact with the community and other stakeholder groups, 
conveying concerns to the community and forging an accountability link 
between the community and the company.
    In addition, the CAC will serve in an oversight role. For example, 
if Andersen's annual performance ratio exceeds the CAC limit, Andersen 
will be required to provide a specific explanation of the exceedance to 
the CAC as well as establish a CAC--approved corrective action plan to 
bring the performance ratio back below the limit.
    The work of the CAC is based on the Stakeholder Involvement Plan, 
which is included as an attachment to the draft FPA. Andersen will 
continue outreach work with all Stakeholders using the strategies and 
tactics contained in the plan. Andersen will also continue to be 
responsive to community inquiries on operational matters including 
traffic, noise and odor.

III. Clean Air Act Requirements

A. Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Andersen XL Project

    Implementation of the Andersen Project XL pilot requires only 
limited regulatory changes. Specifically, Andersen's use of its 
waterborne inline wood treatment systems is currently restricted by 
certain VOC ``synthetic minor'' limits. The PSD program for the State 
of Minnesota would prohibit relaxation of permit operating restrictions 
which were established for the purpose of limiting potential to emit 
without first meeting the requirements of the PSD program, which 
includes the installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 
and an air quality impacts analysis. For the reasons discussed in this 
preamble, EPA proposes to allow relaxation of certain VOC ``synthetic 
minor'' limits as a part of the Andersen Project XL pilot.
    In addition, the PSD program for the State of Minnesota would limit 
the effectiveness of a plantwide applicability limit (PAL), referred to 
as an emissions cap in the FPA, to 5 years. As described in the FPA, 
the expected duration of the Andersen XL project, including the VOC and 
non-milling PM/PM10 PALs, is 10 years. As explained below 
(Section III.B.), EPA proposes to allow establishment of VOC and non-
milling PM/PM10 PALs for Andersen, which would be effective 
in avoiding PSD for a 10 year period.
    All other elements of the Andersen Project XL pilot, including the 
ability to add or modify sources so long as emissions remain below the 
VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 PALs which will be set at levels 
to assure that no significant net emission increase will occur, would 
not require regulatory amendments. The regulatory changes under this 
proposed site-specific rule address only VOC and PM/PM10 
emissions including the length of the contemporaneous period used to 
determine the VOC and PM/PM10 PALs. Andersen will fully 
comply with normally applicable regulations for all other pollutants. 
In addition, Andersen will fully comply with provisions of any New 
Source Performance Standards, the State Implementation Plan, including 
minor New Source Review (``NSR''), and the Title V operating permit 
program, that apply to its operations, and with all requirements for 
the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including any Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology standards that would apply to the 
facility. Andersen will also comply with all existing and future 
environmental requirements not specifically amended pursuant to EPA's 
site-specific rulemaking for this project or pursuant to the permits 
expected to be issued by the MPCA.
    While the draft FPA outlines the requirements that will be included 
in the State of Minnesota XL permit (which will include the PSD 
permit), a draft of that permit and the accompanying modeling and 
analysis required by section 165 of the CAA have not been completed. 
Therefore, a determination of whether the draft permit satisfies the 
statutory PSD permitting criteria in section 165(a) of the Act will be 
deferred until such time as the draft permit is made available for 
public notice and comment. Because many of the details of the Andersen 
Project XL pilot will necessarily be deferred until issuance of the 
draft permit and in order to enhance participation in the Project XL 
process, EPA will compile a list of persons wishing to receive direct 
notice of the availability of the draft permit for review. Persons 
desiring such notice may now submit a written request to EPA at the 
address in the section entitled ADDRESSES.
    Once the public comment period on this proposed rule has closed, 
EPA will review any comments received and determine in consultation 
with Andersen, MPCA, and stakeholders whether to proceed to development 
of the draft permit and whether any changes are necessary to the draft 
FPA. In any event, EPA does not intend to take final action on this 
proposed rule until such time as the draft permit has been public 
noticed and any comments are available for consideration in this 
rulemaking.

[[Page 19102]]

B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration

    As explained above, a determination of whether the draft Andersen 
PSD permit meets the PSD requirements of the Act will be deferred to 
such time as the draft permit is available for public review and 
comment. However, for the purposes of this proposed rule which would 
modify certain requirements of the PSD program, a brief description of 
the PSD requirements may be useful to reviewers.
    The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program 
applicable to new or modified major stationary sources of air 
pollutants regulated under the Act. In attainment areas (i.e., areas 
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'')) and 
unclassifable areas, the requirements for the PSD program found in part 
C of title I of the Act apply. The PSD provisions are a combination of 
air quality planning and air pollution control technology program 
requirements. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review 
program for the construction and modification of any major stationary 
source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and 
maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect Air Quality 
Related Values (``AQRVs'') (including visibility) in national parks and 
other natural areas of concern; to assure appropriate emission controls 
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development 
consistent with the preservation of clean air resource; and to ensure 
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full 
public consideration of all the consequences of such a decision. See 
sections 101(b)(1), 110(a)(2)(C) and 160 of the Act. The Andersen 
Bayport facility is located in an area that meets the NAAQS for all 
criteria air pollutants except carbon monoxide (CO). The PSD program 
under part C of title I of the Act applies to those criteria air 
pollutants other than carbon monoxide (attainment area) while the major 
non-attainment NSR program under part D of title I of the Act applies 
to carbon monoxide.
    Because the SIP for the State of Minnesota did not meet the PSD 
requirements of section 160-165 of the Act, EPA promulgated a PSD 
program for the State by incorporating by reference the provisions of 
40 CFR 52.21(b) through (w) into the applicable state plan for the 
State of Minnesota (see 40 CFR 52.1234). In addition, EPA delegated 
authority to the MPCA as the PSD permitting agency in Minnesota. 
Therefore, MPCA will, with EPA oversight, draft, accept public comment 
on, and issue any Andersen PSD permit, subject to procedural 
requirements in 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR part 124.

C. Proposed Regulatory Changes

1. Synthetic Minor Limits
    During the period from 1990 to 1995, Andersen developed and 
installed 12 waterborne inline wood treatment systems and, within the 
door subplant, three solventborne paint systems. In order to avoid PSD 
review, Andersen obtained two minor new source review permits from MPCA 
containing operational and control limitations on each of these 
systems. These limitations are sometimes called ``synthetic minor'' 
limits because they serve to limit the net emissions increase 
associated with the proposed new units or systems to less than the 
applicable significance level and thereby keep them out of PSD review. 
As part of the Andersen Project XL pilot, Andersen seeks to replace 
certain synthetic minor VOC limits with the tiered per unit of 
production limits and the VOC PAL, as well as all the other aspects of 
the project described in the draft FPA.
    In order to meet the goals embodied in the tiered per unit of 
production limits, Andersen needs to utilize its waterborne inline wood 
treatment systems at a capacity level higher than presently allowed 
under the synthetic minor limits. Accordingly, Andersen seeks relief 
from the synthetic VOC operational limits on its waterborne inline wood 
treatment systems. Andersen's existing waterborne systems are superior 
in terms of VOC emissions per unit of production as compared to the 
solvent-based systems (see Table 2).
    Andersen also needs to fully utilize the three solventborne paint 
systems within the door subplant, which are subject to both operational 
and control limits (a catalytic oxidizer). According to information 
provided by Andersen, assuming the catalytic oxidizer is in use, the 
door plant paint lines emit approximately 1.6 pounds of VOCs for each 
gallon of combined coatings applied. Other paint lines, which are not 
subject to synthetic minor limits, emit approximately 4.5 pounds of 
VOCs for each gallon of combined coatings applied. So, with respect to 
use limits, the door subplant paint lines are lower emitting than 
Andersen's other paint lines.
    Under its existing permits, Andersen is required to control VOC 
emissions from the door subplant paint lines by operating a catalytic 
oxidizer. Andersen requests that it be allowed to shut the catalytic 
oxidizer off so long as it is able to maintain compliance with the VOC 
PAL and per unit of production limits. Andersen believes that beyond 
any cost savings, this would give them the flexibility to use the 
catalytic oxidizer to more effectively control VOCs elsewhere in the 
facility or to address community concerns about odors, which may or may 
not be associated with use of the catalytic oxidizer.
    Andersen has explained that in order to maintain compliance with 
the per unit of production limit it will need to reduce VOC emissions 
on a per unit basis prior to shutting down the catalytic oxidizer. For 
example, Andersen intends to convert the solvent based preservative 
application systems, which account for approximately sixty percent of 
VOC emissions from the door plant paint lines, to in-line waterborne 
treatment systems. Still, Andersen believes that it will have to 
further reduce VOC emissions from other sources within the facility 
prior to shutting down the catalytic oxidizer.
    EPA believes that under the following permit and FPA conditions, 
Andersen may be allowed to shut down the catalytic oxidizer:
    (1) Andersen must obtain MPCA's approval prior to shutting down the 
catalytic oxidizer by demonstrating that:

    (a) in accordance with the MPCA Health Risk Assessment described 
in section II.D.1.e. of the FPA, shut down of the catalytic oxydizer 
will not present an unacceptable risk to public health;
    (b) Andersen's overall reduction of VOC emissions on a per unit 
basis is sufficient to ensure continued compliance with the per unit 
of production limit and the VOC cap; and
    (c) the CAC has agreed to the shut down of the oxidizer.

    (2) Once the oxidizer is shut down, Andersen may use it to control 
VOC emissions elsewhere at the facility, leave it in place and 
available for use on door plant paint line emissions, or, with MPCA 
approval, dismantle it. If Andersen elects to dismantle the oxidizer, 
it does so with the express understanding that it may be required to 
reinstall the oxidizer or other appropriate control equipment if 
necessary to comply with project emission limits during the project 
term or applicable emission limits at the end of the project term. In 
addition, costs associated with retrofitting or installing an oxidizer, 
if necessary, will not be factors in determining whether an oxidizer is 
appropriate or required.
    (3) Cost savings associated with shutting down the oxidizer must be 
shown to be reinvested in VOC emission reduction projects.
    The applicable PSD regulations would not allow Andersen to relax 
the

[[Page 19103]]

synthetic minor limits, unless Andersen subjected the systems to PSD 
review. (See 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4), which has been incorporated into the 
Minnesota SIP at 40 CFR 52.1234(b)). When a source or modification that 
is minor because of enforceable operating limits later applies for a 
relaxation of those limits, 52.21(r)(4) requires that PSD apply to the 
source or modification as if the source or modification had not yet 
been constructed.
    The primary purpose of 52.21(r)(4) is to prevent a source from 
circumventing PSD and NSR permitting requirements by obtaining a 
synthetic minor limit for a new or modified emission unit and 
thereafter seeking to relax the limit, without undergoing PSD review. 
See 45 FR 52676, 52689 (Aug. 7, 1980). The provision is a broadly 
designed safeguard to prevent sources from improperly disaggregating a 
major modification into two separate parts--an initial synthetic minor 
modification and a subsequent relaxation of the synthetic minor limit--
neither of which would be subject to PSD.
    EPA believes it has broad discretion to tailor the safeguard 
embodied in section 52.21(r)(4) based on relevant factors. 
Specifically, the Andersen XL project will contain several distinctive 
features which assure EPA that Andersen is not circumventing the PSD 
requirements. In this context, EPA believes it may eliminate the 
section 52.21(r)(4) safeguard, as it applies to certain synthetic minor 
VOC limits at the Andersen facility. First, Andersen is voluntarily 
adopting a plantwide cap of 2397 tpy of VOC emissions, which is based 
on lower than actual emissions levels from a period representative of 
normal source operation. The plantwide cap eliminates the historic 
problem in the PSD program that sources sometimes are able to increase 
emissions above representative actual emissions levels without 
undergoing PSD review by adding small projects which by themselves do 
not trigger PSD and are not subject to any cumulative plantwide limit 
on emissions. The fact that Andersen's VOC cap is based on actual 
emissions places it on an even footing with respect to sources which do 
not take a PAL and ensures that Andersen does not gain emissions 
credits merely for reducing allowable emissions. Second, Andersen's 
annual VOC emissions have declined steadily and significantly over time 
since 1990, so EPA believes it is important to recognize that Andersen 
likely could have adopted a plantwide, actual emissions-based VOC PAL 
immediately prior to the 1990 synthetic minor permits (when its actual 
VOC emissions level was 3,753 tpy) and thereby avoided the need to 
obtain and accept synthetic minor limits for each new waterborne system 
and the door plant paint lines in 1990 and 1995. Although determining 
what could have happened or would have happened if different choices 
were made is always difficult, EPA believes with reasonable certainty 
that the 2397 tpy VOC PAL is at least equivalent to what Andersen could 
have done outside of Project XL and is overall better for the 
environment. Third, the tiered performance ratio approach will serve to 
provide incentives for Andersen to reduce emissions further. Finally, 
EPA reserves the right to terminate the project if there is no 
environmental improvement.
    This limited replacement of the section 52.21(r)(4) safeguard is an 
approach to preventing circumvention of the PSD program that, while not 
the one generally adopted by the Agency, merits consideration on a 
pilot project basis. If the project demonstrates that such an approach 
leads to superior environmental and economic results and if EPA 
determines that such an approach is transferable to other situations, 
it could be considered for broader application. EPA emphasizes that 
this innovative approach is not being adopted at this time for any 
source other than the Andersen Bayport facility and indeed is being 
adopted for Andersen only as to certain identified synthetic VOC 
limits.
2. Duration of PALs
    The expected duration of the Andersen Project XL pilot is 10 years. 
Therefore, Andersen's XL project contemplates an effective period of 10 
years for the PALs under the project. However, as discussed in further 
detail below, applicable PSD requirements would limit the effectiveness 
of Andersen's PAL to 5 years. Therefore, in order to implement the 
Andersen Project XL pilot the PSD requirements must be modified to 
allow the PAL to remain effective for 10 years.
    In addition, the Minnesota XL permit will include Andersen's Title 
V permit. The Title V permit term may not exceed 5 years. As a result, 
EPA anticipates that the Title V permit will be renewed after the 
initial five-year term. EPA also anticipates that the VOC and PM/
PM10 PALs will continue unchanged in the new permit.
    Under present regulations, a source that adds or modifies a unit 
that would result in a significant emissions increase may ``net'' that 
particular change out of review if the new emission increase plus the 
sum of all other contemporaneous credible increases and decreases at 
the source is less than significant. Under current requirements, PALs 
are considered a form of netting whereby a range of future changes at a 
source is determined beforehand not to result in a net emissions 
increase, such that these changes may occur without triggering PSD 
requirements. The Federal PSD requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii)(a) 
limit the period within which changes may be considered contemporaneous 
to 5 years and, therefore, limit the effectiveness of a PAL to 5 years. 
States implementing a PSD or nonattainment NSR program under an EPA-
approved SIP may define a different reasonable contemporaneous period.
    The current regulatory requirement regarding contemporaneity 
derives from the interpretation of the Act's provisions governing 
modifications set forth in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 
(D.C. Cir. 1979). Among other things, the court interpreted the statute 
as providing for plantwide netting limited, however, to substantially 
contemporaneous changes. The court explained that EPA retains 
discretion to define ``substantially contemporaneous.'' Id. at 402. 
Thereafter, EPA codified contemporaneity as a regulatory requirement. 
See 45 FR 52676, 52700-52702 (August 7, 1980).
    In the specific context of the Andersen Project XL pilot, EPA is 
proposing a 10 year contemporaneous period to facilitate the 10 year 
duration of the Andersen Project XL pilot. When issuing permits to 
implement the VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 caps, MPCA will 
set the cap limits so that any changes during the project term do not 
result in a significant net emissions increase. Consequently, complying 
with the cap would demonstrate that no significant net emissions 
increase is occurring at the facility. In addition, EPA recognizes that 
Andersen is voluntarily making several important commitments which will 
result in superior environmental performance: (1) the VOC and non-
milling PM/PM10 caps, (2) the VOC performance ratio, (3) 
control of all existing and future milling operations with baghouse 
filters, (4) emission limits for new or reconstructed paintline or 
preservative application equipment based on the current best performing 
processes at Andersen, and (5) the health risk analysis for toxic air 
emissions. Under these circumstances, EPA believes that a 10 year 
contemporaneous period for the VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 
PALs is appropriate.

[[Page 19104]]

3. Duration of Flexibility
    This site specific rule will expire 10 years from the date it is 
promulgated. The parties have described in the FPA a process for 
winding down the Andersen Project XL pilot. At least two years prior to 
the project's expected conclusion, Andersen, MPCA, and EPA will 
initiate a process to evaluate the project. The goal of the evaluation 
will be to establish a process to evaluate the project and to determine 
the terms of the final permit for the facility at the end of the 10-
year project term. This evaluation shall conclude by no later than 18 
months prior to the project's expected conclusion. The evaluation will 
review the project's environmental results and impact, Andersen's 
performance, and other relevant factors, as determined by all parties. 
If the evaluation proves the project a success, Andersen may propose to 
MPCA, EPA and the CAC to extend the project term and the XL permit 
conditions described in this FPA through issuance of a final permit. 
The final permit may incorporate limits similar to the limits 
applicable during the project. If the parties do not agree to extend 
the project, Andersen will submit an implementation schedule (as 
discussed below) to achieve compliance with all requirements applicable 
at the end of the 10-year project term.
    If, based on the evaluation, the project should not be extended, 
Andersen will submit to EPA and MPCA an implementation schedule 
specifying how Andersen will transition into compliance with all then 
applicable requirements at the end of the 10-year project term. No 
later than 12-months prior to the expiration of the project term, the 
parties will agree to a 12-month implementation schedule. The 
implementation schedule is intended to reflect Andersen's best efforts 
to transition into compliance with all then applicable requirements as 
quickly as practicable within the 12-month transitional period. In no 
event will the implementation schedule extend beyond the end of the 10-
year project term. The implementation schedule submitted by Andersen 
must contain interim calendar, or milestone, dates for the purchase and 
installation of any necessary equipment, performance testing, and other 
necessary measures.
    The enforceable limits established as part of the project (i.e., 
the VOC and PM/PM10 emissions caps, as well as the per unit 
of production limit) will continue to be enforceable during the project 
evaluation process and any transitional period as described above. In 
any event, a final permit will be issued to either (1) extend the 
project through the issuance of a final permit, or (2) transition 
Andersen to compliance with all requirements applicable at the end of 
the 10-year project term. The final permit will be based on the 
permitting requirements, which are applicable at the conclusion of the 
project. The applicable requirements that will govern the facility at 
the end of the project's 10-year term will be included in the final 
permit.
    In addition, the Parties have agreed to include rewards as 
incentives for Andersen to achieve superior environmental performance. 
For performance below the reward limit for 13 tracking periods or more, 
Andersen may request an extension of the duration of the current 
project. If Andersen chooses this reward, Andersen would have to 
demonstrate to U.S. EPA and MPCA that extension is not only consistent 
with the goals of the current project, but also that the extension is 
consistent with EPA rules and policy concerning the duration of plant-
wide applicability limit permits. Any such extension would be treated 
as a modification of Andersen's Minnesota XL Permit which would be 
accompanied by any necessary rulemaking by EPA. Both the modification 
and rulemaking would be subject to applicable public notice and comment 
requirements.
4. Summary
    Therefore, under the specific circumstances at Andersen, within the 
limited context of Project XL, and in advancement of the overall 
purpose of the PSD program of the CAA, EPA proposes to modify the 
applicable federally promulgated state plan for Minnesota so that MPCA 
may issue Andersen a PSD (as EPA's delegatee), minor NSR, and Title V 
permit: (1) relaxing certain existing synthetic minor VOC limits 
without requiring PSD review, within the context of the Andersen XL 
project, and (2) imposing VOC and PM/PM10 PALs based on 10 
year contemporaneous periods.

IV. Additional Information

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity 
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the 
proposed regulation in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean 
Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the draft FPA or 
proposed rule to implement the Andersen XL project should contact the 
EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any 
member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or 
within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be sent to 
EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. 
If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of the hearing and 
written statements will be available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours at the EPA addresses given in the ADDRESSES 
section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of 
general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review and 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site 
specific rules under Project XL is not necessary.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects one 
source, the Andersen Bayport facility, which is not a small entity. 
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no 
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be 
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local,

[[Page 19105]]

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    As noted above, this rule is limited to Andersen's facility in 
Bayport, Minnesota. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain 
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in 
developing this rule, EPA worked closely with MPCA and received 
meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule. EPA also 
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to E.O. 
13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 
12866, and it is based on technology performance and implements 
previously promulgated health or safety-based ozone and particulate 
matter Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 
effects of ozone and particulate matter on children's health was 
addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish these NAAQS, and 
EPA is not revisiting those issues here.

G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this 
rule, EPA worked closely with MPCA and received meaningful and timely 
input in the development of this rule.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly 
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There 
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity 
of the Andersen facility. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) 
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'')

    Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

[[Page 19106]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
Relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds

    Dated: April 8, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

    2. Subpart Y is amended by adding a new Sec. 52.1246 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1246  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality 
for Andersen Corporation's facility in Bayport, Minnesota.

    (a) Applicability. (1) This section applies only to the window and 
patio door manufacturing facility, commonly referred to as Andersen 
Windows, located at 4001 Stagecoach Trail and 100 Fourth Avenue, North, 
Bayport, Minnesota.
    (2) This section sets forth the prevention of significant 
deterioration of air quality preconstruction review requirements for 
volatile organic compound (``VOC'') and non-milling PM/PM10 
emissions.
    (3) For all other units and pollutants not specifically identified 
in this section which are subject to regulation under the Act, the 
preconstruction review requirements of Sec. 52.1234 still apply.
    (b) Regulations for Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air 
Quality.
    (1) The provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(b) through (w) are applicable 
and made a part of the state plan for the State of Minnesota, with the 
exceptions and additions set forth in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and 
(b)(4) of this section.
    (2) For the purposes of this Section, and in addition to paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section:
    (i) ``Existing waterborne inline treatment units'' shall mean the 
following specific units at the Andersen facility:
    (A) Five waterborne inline wood treatment systems in the main 
facility, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
    (B) Five waterborne inline wood treatment systems in the door 
subplant, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
    (C) Two waterborne inline wood treatment systems, permit number 
16300001-017.
    (ii) ``Existing door subplant paint lines'' shall mean the three 
solventborne paint and pretreatment systems located in the Andersen 
facility door subplant, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
    (iii) ``Milling operations'' shall be all those activities which 
involve the cutting and shaping of wood or Fibrex except that shaping 
by extrusion shall not be considered milling.
    (iv) ``Non-milling operations'' shall be all those activities that 
generate PM/PM10 emissions and which are not milling 
operations.
    (3) With respect to existing inline waterborne treatment units and 
existing door subplant paint lines only:
    (i) ``An increase in the hours of operation or in the production 
rate.'' applies instead of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f).
    (ii) The requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4) shall not apply.
    (4) With respect to VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 
emissions, ``The date 10 years before construction on the particular 
change commences; and'' applies instead of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii)(a).
    (c) This rule expires [date 10 years from effective date of the 
final rule].

[FR Doc. 99-9723 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P