conclude that changes to the fermenter emission limits are not
warranted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on our
proposed decision.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    We are proposing revisions to the malfunction provisions of the
MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which
vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). We are
proposing revisions to the form of the VOC emission limits for
fermenters to address this issue. We also are proposing various other
changes to testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues
are presented below.
1. Fermenter VOC Emission Limits
    The Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast NESHAP currently requires
that 98 percent of all batches meet the fermenter batch average VOC
emission limits, on a 12-month rolling basis. However, this requirement
allows 2 percent of the batches to exceed the standard. This
formulation of the standard is in direct conflict with the statutory
requirement that emission standards apply at all times, as discussed in
Sierra Club v. EPA. 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As a result, the
EPA reviewed the current fermenter VOC emission limits and is proposing
revisions to the form of the standard. We are proposing to revise the
form of the standard in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC such
that each batch must meet the existing VOC concentration limits (300
ppmv for stock fermentation, 200 ppmv for first generation
fermentation, and 100 ppmv for trade fermentation), which is referred
to as the ``Batch Option'' in the proposed revisions.
    In recognition that the yeast manufacturing process is biological
and does not produce the exact same level of emissions from every
batch, the proposed amendments also include an alternative compliance
method in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC that allows
facilities to average the VOC concentration data from all batches
within each fermentation stage over a rolling 12-month period. When
manufacturing yeast, increased acetaldehyde levels indicate
inefficiencies in the manufacturing process; consequently, facilities
have a financial incentive to reduce emissions as much as possible
through process controls. However, to ensure that the averaging method
will be at least as stringent as the emission standards without
averaging, we are proposing a 5-percent discount factor in the VOC
emission limit for each stage, i.e., 285 ppmv for stock fermentation,
190 ppmv for first generation fermentation, and 95 ppmv for trade
fermentation. For example, if this alternative option is selected, all
batch average VOC concentration data for the trade fermentation stage
in a 12-month period must be averaged together and this average must
not exceed 95 ppmv VOC instead of the limit of 100 ppmv VOC for
individual batches. This option is referred to as the ``Average
Option'' in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC.
This alternative provides sources with flexibility on ways to comply
with the standard, while maintaining the sources' accountability for
meeting health and environmental goals and maintaining the
enforceability of the emission limits by regulatory authorities. We
expect that allowing facilities to average emissions over the period of
1 year will provide flexibility for changes in production over time
without allowing for wide-ranging fluctuations in HAP emissions. The
use of a rolling annual calculation period with semiannual compliance
reports, including monthly updates of the annual average emission
calculations, protects against emission peaks so health and welfare
effects are avoided. This proposed alternative method of demonstrating
compliance also minimizes the recordkeeping and reporting impacts of
the changes for facilities and regulatory authorities, since the
current rule requires the same compliance periods. The EPA requests

comment on the proposed revisions to the form of the fermenter VOC
emission limits. Additionally, we request comment on whether it is
appropriate to use a discount factor and what value between 0 and 10
percent should be selected for the discount factor.
    We are also proposing changes to 40 CFR 63.2171 and Table 4 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart CCCC that specify the procedures facilities must
use to demonstrate continuous compliance with either of the two
proposed forms of the emission limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCC. The proposed changes require facilities to immediately
begin demonstrating continuous compliance with one of the two proposed
forms of the emission limits (i.e., the Average Option or the Batch
Option) upon the effective date of the final rule.
    For the proposed Average Option, the changes to 40 CFR 63.2171 and
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC require facilities to calculate
compliance on a monthly basis using data from every batch produced
during the previous 12 months. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR
63.2150 remove the exemption that allows facilities to exceed emissions
during periods of malfunction. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR
63.2170 retain the provision that data recorded during monitoring
malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or
quality control activities must not be used to report emissions.
Therefore, data from batches that were produced during periods of
malfunctions over the past 12 months, other than those related to the
monitoring system, must now be included in the calculations used to
determine compliance. Additionally, instead of calculating a single
determination of compliance based on the emissions from all batches
regardless of fermentation stage, facilities must now determine
compliance for batches within each of the three fermentation stages
that have specific emission limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCC. Based on information collected during the site visits,
the EPA expects that facilities have the necessary data available to
make these changes to the methods used to determine compliance upon
promulgation of the final rule.
    For the proposed Batch Option, the changes to 40 CFR 63.2171 and
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC require facilities to
demonstrate that the average VOC concentration for each individual
batch produced during a semiannual compliance period did not exceed the
applicable emission limits. As noted above, this now includes data from
batches that were produced during periods of malfunctions, other than
malfunctions related to the monitoring system. Based on information
collected during the site visits, the EPA expects that facilities have
the necessary data available to make these changes to the methods used
to determine compliance upon promulgation of the final rule.
    The EPA requests comment on the proposed timeframe to demonstrate
compliance using the revised form of the emission limits upon
promulgation of the final rule and the availability of data necessary
to comply within this timeframe.

2. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    We propose to revise the rule's testing, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in five ways: (1) Owners or operators must
demonstrate compliance by using a VOC continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) to determine the VOC concentration in the fermenter
exhaust (i.e., we are removing the option to monitor brew ethanol and
calculate VOC concentration using a correlation); (2) owners or
operators may not use a gas chromatographic (GC) CEMS to monitor VOC
concentration; (3) owners or operators must have valid CEMS data from
each hour of the entire batch monitoring period and report periods of
missing data as deviations; (4) owners or operators of VOC CEMS must
conduct annual performance tests (relative accuracy test audits
(RATAs)) using Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 to evaluate the
performance of the installed VOC CEMS over an extended period of time;
and (5) owners or operators must provide compliance reports
electronically.
a. Proposed Removal of the Option to Monitor Brew Ethanol
    Subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 63 currently allows owners or operators
to monitor brew ethanol in the fermenter liquid and determine an annual
correlation to VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust in order to
demonstrate compliance with fermenter VOC emission limits. We are
proposing to revise the requirements of 40 CFR 63.2166 and 63.2171 and
Table 3 and Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC to remove the
option to monitor brew ethanol.
    Currently, one facility demonstrates compliance by monitoring brew
ethanol and submits annual reports showing the results of performance
testing and development of the correlation equation for each
fermentation stage.\23\ We reviewed reports for the past 5 years (2012-
2016) and found that individual equations showed strong correlations
with the data obtained during the applicable performance tests.
However, the reports also showed a high level of variability between
the equations for each fermentation stage across the 5-year period. A
fermentation stage characterized by a correlation equation with a
higher slope results in higher VOC emissions estimates per percent
ethanol measured in the brew, while a correlation equation with a lower
slope results in lower VOC emissions estimates per percent ethanol in
the brew. Therefore, applying equations with different slopes to the
same brew ethanol concentration yields different estimates of VOC
emissions. A review of reports from the previous 5 years shows a high
level of inconsistency in the amount of VOC emissions estimated for a
particular brew ethanol percentage each year. The practical effect of
these variations is that estimates of VOC concentrations from a given
fermentation stage can almost double for a single brew ethanol
concentration, depending on the correlation equation used. This has the
greatest effect on concentrations at the higher end of the normal range
for each stage of fermentation. To illustrate the effect, we selected a
brew ethanol concentration at the higher end of the range of brew
ethanol concentration data for each of the fermentation stages and
determined the corresponding range of VOC concentrations, based on the
most recent 5 years of correlation data. The results showed that for
each fermentation stage, a given brew ethanol concentration would meet
the compliance emission limit in some years, but greatly exceed it in
other years; see Table 3 of this preamble. The 5 years of correlation
data are presented in the memorandum, ``Brew Ethanol Correlation Review
for the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Source Category,'' which is
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The correlation equation is used to estimate the
concentration of VOC in the fermenter exhaust for a given percentage
of ethanol (measured in the fermenter brew).

     Table 3--Range of VOC Concentration for Each Fermentation Stage, Based on Brew Ethanol Correlation Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC emission
                                                Brew ethanol    VOC concentration range, ppmv as    limitation,
              Fermentation stage               concentration,               propane                   ppmv as
                                                      %                                             propane\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-to-last................................            0.25  188 to 372.......................             300
Second-to-last...............................            0.20  109 to 227.......................             200
Last.........................................           0.125  73 to 170........................             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As specified in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC.

    As mentioned above, individual equations typically exhibited strong
statistical correlations for the data used to develop them, which
indicates that there is a relationship between VOC emissions and brew
ethanol concentration for a given batch. However, the observed
variability between equations indicates the correlation between VOC
emissions and brew ethanol concentration is different for each batch.
This means that the correlation developed for one batch may not be
representative of the correlation between VOC emissions and brew
ethanol concentration for any other batch. Given that estimates of VOC
concentrations from a given fermentation stage can almost double for a
single brew ethanol concentration, depending on the correlation
equation used, a batch that appears to be in compliance could, in fact,
be out of compliance.
    The manufacturing of yeast is a biological process and some degree
of variation is expected. However, emissions are also determined by a
few key process parameters, including the amount of available oxygen
and the composition and amount of the sugar and nutrient mixture fed to
the yeast in each batch. As noted on the site visits, the amount of
oxygen does not vary significantly between batches. Fermenters are
equipped with aeration systems, which operate at full capacity for
every batch. In contrast, the composition of the sugar source can vary
greatly from one batch to the next. Market factors (e.g., price,
availability, competition) drive the purchase of sugar sources, such as
molasses, throughout the year. Purchases are made frequently and there
is some on-site storage, allowing operators of nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities to blend different materials together at
times. While the composition of the mixture is optimized for yeast
growth given the materials on hand at any given time, the specific
composition fluctuates throughout the year. It is likely that the
differences in composition of the sugar source for each batch explains
much of the variance observed in the correlation equations analyzed
above.
    In order to establish a reliable correlation between VOC emissions
and brew ethanol for each batch, a new performance test would need to
be conducted every time the sugar source changes. At facilities where
the sugar source changes frequently, this requirement would pose a
significant financial and logistic burden with results that were of
limited applicability. In addition, it would create significant
challenges for the regulatory authority responsible for enforcing the
frequency and validity of the performance tests.
    Reliable emissions data are critical to ensuring compliance with
the established emission limits, which is necessary to reduce the
emissions of HAP and protect public health and the environment.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove the option to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits by monitoring brew ethanol, and to
require all facilities to monitor fermenter exhaust using CEMS.
    We are proposing to allow facilities to continue to monitor brew
ethanol for up to 1 year after the promulgation of any such proposed
rule revisions. This transition period would help ensure continuous
compliance with the emission limits while allowing time to install CEMS
(see proposed 40 CFR 63.2171). Additionally, because no new facilities
are currently under construction, we are proposing to remove
requirements in 40 CFR 63.2160, 63.2166, 63.2180, and Table 3 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCC related to the demonstration of initial
compliance by monitoring brew ethanol. New affected sources would not
be able to demonstrate initial compliance by monitoring brew ethanol.
    We are proposing to revise language in 40 CFR 63.2164 to reference
a ``brew ethanol monitor'' and not a ``CEMS'' to monitor brew ethanol.
CEMS is not the correct term to describe the monitoring device for brew
ethanol. The term ``brew ethanol monitor'' is already defined in the
current rule, and the proposed revisions correctly incorporate its use
into the rule language.
    The EPA specifically requests comments on whether the option to
demonstrate compliance by monitoring brew ethanol and developing a
correlation to VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust should be
retained if performance tests to determine the correlation are
conducted more frequently. Commenters should address the frequency of
the correlation recalculation (using performance testing) needed to
provide reliable emissions data that will consistently reflect accurate
emissions for each batch and explain the basis for their conclusions.
b. Proposed Removal of GC CEMS
    The current rule allows the use of CEMS that generate a single
combined response value for VOC (VOC CEMS) or that rely upon GC CEMS,
if they are constructed and operated according to the applicable
Performance Specification (PS) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to
monitor VOC emissions (40 CFR 63.2163). However, nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities emit a mixture of VOCs and the emission limits
for these facilities are stated for total VOC (as opposed to specific
VOC species). While VOC CEMS constructed and operated according to PS 8
can measure total VOCs, GC CEMS constructed and operated according to
PS 9 are suitable for measuring a few specific VOC species. Based on
information collected during the site visits, we are not aware of any
facilities currently using GC CEMS. Therefore, we propose to revise 40
CFR 63.2163 to remove the option to use GC CEMS to monitor VOC
concentration. The EPA requests comment on this proposed revision.
c. Proposed Collection of All Valid CEMS Data From the Entire Batch
Monitoring Period.
    The current rule requires owners or operators who monitor fermenter
exhaust to have valid CEMS data from at least 75 percent of the full
hours over

the entire batch, and that a valid hour of data must have one data
point for each 30-minute period. In the 15 years since the rule was
promulgated, there have been continued improvements in CEMS reliability
as well as a change in the data collection approach. In many NESHAP,
CEMS are required to collect, process, and report results of the
sampling at least once every 15 minutes. Some CEMS are able to complete
the process cycle more often than every 15 minutes. Moreover, many
regulatory authorities no longer have minimum valid data requirements
for emissions data. Rather, each source owner or operator is expected
to collect as much data as possible and to report periods of missing
data, along with the reason for such periods, to the regulatory
authority who determines what, if any, follow-up action would be
required.\24\ Such an approach is included in our recently promulgated
Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS). MATS requires owners or operators
to collect data at all times the electric generation unit (EGU)
operates; failure to collect the required data is a deviation from
monitoring requirements. EGU owners or operators are to describe,
explain, and report deviations in ongoing compliance reports and to
keep records of deviations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Indiana's Compliance Branch CEMS Guidance Manual,
section 4.5 on page 19 of chapter 2, available at http://www.in.gov/idem/files/aircom_cems_chapter_2.pdf.
    \25\ See 40 CFR 63.10020(b), 10020(d), 10021(g), 10031(c)(9),
and 10032(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to revise 40 CFR 63.2163, 63.2170, 63.2181(c)(7), and
63.2182(b)(9) to require owners or operators of nutritional yeast
sources to follow this model. Owners or operators would be required to
collect VOC concentration data at all times of batch operation. Failure
to collect VOC concentration data would be a deviation of monitoring
requirements and would trigger generation of a report identifying the
periods during which data were not collected, a description of the
deviation event, and an explanation as to why the deviation occurred.
The owner or operator would also be required to maintain records of
each deviation. In addition, owners or operators would report the hours
of deviation, along with the hours of batch operation. Relying on
reported information, regulatory authorities would determine what, if
any, follow-up correction or enforcement action should occur. The EPA
requests comment on this proposed revision and its incorporation into
the rule.
d. Proposed Use of Procedure 1 of Appendix F to Part 60 for VOC CEMS
    The current rule requires owners or operators of nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities to monitor compliance using either VOC or GC
CEMS. Additionally, the rule exempts owners or operators that use a VOC
CEMS with a flame ionization analyzer from conducting the RATAs
required by PS 8. As discussed in section IV.D.2.b of this preamble, we
are proposing to remove the option to monitor compliance using a GC
CEMS and the related installation requirements. The current rule
requires owners or operators to install and certify VOC CEMS according
to PS 8. Use of PS 8 ensures that the VOC CEMS has been installed
properly, but it lacks ongoing quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures to ensure that a properly installed VOC CEMS
continues to operate appropriately. Such procedures are included in
Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60. In order to clarify the minimum
requirements for owners or operators to ensure their VOC CEMS continue
to produce valid data, we propose to revise 40 CFR 63.2163 to include
the requirements of Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60, where propane
would be used for the calibration gas and Method 25A would be used as
the Reference Method (RM). In doing so, we are also removing the
exemption for owners and operators of nutritional yeast manufacturing
facilities that monitor VOC emissions using a flame ionization analyzer
from conducting the relative-accuracy test PS 8 requires. Incorporation
of a consistent set of ongoing QA/QC requirements will not only provide
assurance that the ongoing collected data are valid, but also ensure a
consistent basis for collecting those data.
    Moreover, we propose to replace the outdated reference 2 of PS 8,
``A Procedure for Establishing Traceability of Gas Mixtures to Certain
National Bureau of Standards Standard Reference Materials,'' with the
current version of our traceability protocol. In the revised regulatory
text of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference EPA/600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol
for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, May 2012,
at 40 CFR 63.2163(b)(2), in accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5.
The protocol is used to certify calibration gases for continuous
emission monitors and specifies methods for assaying gases and
establishing traceability to National Institute of Standards and
Technology reference standards.\26\ The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, documents that are incorporated by reference generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble for more information). The EPA requests comment on the
proposed QA/QC procedures and CEMS RATA revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Additional information about the traceability protocol is
available at https://www.epa.gov/air-research/epa-traceability-protocol-assay-and-certification-gaseous-calibration-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Electronic Reporting
    Through this action, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR
63.2181(a) to require that owners or operators of nutritional yeast
manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of compliance
reports, which include performance test and performance evaluation
results, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA
believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained
in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated community. Under current requirements, paper reports are
often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more
difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic
storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review,
analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors,
and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities,
air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a
plan \27\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in an effort to
make regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government

Strategy,\28\ in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the
maximum extent possible. By requiring electronic submission of
specified reports in this proposed rule, the EPA is taking steps to
implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/eparetroreviewplan-aug2011_0.pdf.
    \28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government-strategy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data,
WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will provide a user-
friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. By making data
readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data
that can be used for many purposes. One example is the development of
emissions factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that
attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the
atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that
pollutant (e.g., kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of coal
burned). Such factors facilitate the estimation of emissions from
various sources of air pollution and are an important tool in
developing emissions inventories, which in turn are the basis for
numerous efforts, including trends analysis, regional and local scale
air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure
modeling. Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory
applicability determinations and in permitting decisions.
    The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically.
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions
factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
    Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in
this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated
community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having
performance test reports and air emission reports readily accessible,
our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and
achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide
useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and
maintained in practice within a source category and across source
categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also
be used to inform the technology-review process by providing
information on improvements to add-on control technology and new
control technology.
    Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and
performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these
data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated air agencies or
industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the
EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial
information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective
CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect
this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to
data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less
extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test
data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost
savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these
required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the
ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports
from the EPA Regional Offices. While the regulated community may
benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from
the Agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly,
resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
    Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air
agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to
submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of
electronically submitted data and reports.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated
review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the
performance test data would be readily-available in a standard
electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and
data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the
reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in
electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software
``search'' options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the
reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic
reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as
long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access and
review air emission report information electronically will assist air
agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the
applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to
violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits
both air agencies and the general public.
    The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to
electronic reporting.
3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
    In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.

2008). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    While the current rule does not exempt periods of startup and
shutdown from emissions standards, we are proposing several changes to
eliminate the malfunction exemption that is contained in this rule.
While, for simplicity, we refer throughout this section to the SSM
exemption and the associated SSM plan requirements, only the
malfunction exemption and its removal are relevant to this action
because periods of startup and shutdown were never exempt from
emissions standards in this subpart. As discussed earlier in this
preamble (section IV.D.1), we are proposing standards in this rule that
apply at all times (i.e., to all batches), consistent with Sierra Club
v. EPA. We are also proposing revisions to several provisions of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CCCC and to Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC
(the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more
detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source
develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully identified all such provisions and
whether any of the identified provisions retain utility even in the
absence of the SSM exemption.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. In this
NESHAP, owners and operators of nutritional yeast manufacturing
facilities employ process controls to limit emissions. These process
controls are employed from the time a fermenter starts production of a
batch of yeast and continue until the fermenter is emptied of yeast.
Additionally, emissions are averaged over the entire duration of each
batch in order to meet emission limits, so there was no need to set
separate limits for periods of startup and shutdown in this rule.
    Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine.
Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring
equipment. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets
CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, the
phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the
type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations
of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels EPA to
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining
the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources to conduct
the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit,
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in
advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a malfunction
event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of
source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with
99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In this instance, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in
a violation of the standards for fermenters. For fermenters, the rule
provides an option for owners and operators to determine the average
VOC concentration for all batches within each fermentation stage using
data from 12-month periods. This option minimizes the effect of
malfunctions on the ability of a facility to meet the emission limits
because the averaging effectively minimizes ``spikes'' in emissions.
Additionally, many of the common malfunctions described by owners and
operators of nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities during the site
visits were malfunctions of the emissions

monitoring equipment. While the equipment was unable to record accurate
data during periods of malfunction, it did not impact actual emissions
because process controls could still be used to limit emissions.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not
instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the Federal District Court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, No. 11-1108, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS
13783, at *41-49 (D.C. Cir. July 29, 2016) (upholding EPA's approach
to addressing periods of malfunction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. 40 CFR 63.2150 General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2150(c) that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.2150(c) does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the
elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty
requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2150.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Generally, these paragraphs
require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. The current language of 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent
with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule that
apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.2161 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2161(b). The performance
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The
proposed regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative''
for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing
provisions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' upon request, but does not
specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.8 (c)(1)(i) and
(iii) do not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. The cross-
references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. The final sentence in 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement,
which is no longer

applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR
63.2182(b)(7) and 63.2183(d) text that contains the same requirements
as 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), except that the final sentence is replaced with
the following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.2182 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)
does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown.
These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal
operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of
special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii)
does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA
is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2182(a)(2). The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.''
    The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2182(a)(2) a
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)
does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2182(a)(2).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v)
does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. When applicable, the
provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM
plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the
SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate
this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and,
therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for
affected units.
g. 40 CFR 63.2181 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) does
not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement,
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.2181(c)(5) and (6). The replacement language differs from the
General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM
reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because malfunction plans would no longer be required. The proposed
amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 6 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC) to specify that 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii)
does not apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii)
describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report
when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.

4. Rule Language Clarifications
    We are proposing other miscellaneous revisions that add clarity to
rule language. For example, we are using active, second-person voice
throughout the rule by incorporating ``you must . . .'' into the
language. This is consistent with the EPA's current rule-writing
practices and creates uniformity within 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCC.
We are also proposing the removal of ``but is not limited to'' in 40
CFR 63.2132, because this language is not necessary. The 40 CFR part
63, subpart CCCC requirements are limited to fermenters at this time,
and the removal of this language clarifies this distinction. The EPA
requests comment on each of these proposed revisions.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that currently operating facilities must
immediately comply with the revised form of the fermenter VOC emission
limits and general compliance requirements upon the effective date of
the final rule. As discussed in section IV.D.2.a of this preamble,
facilities that currently demonstrate compliance by monitoring brew
ethanol in the fermenter have up to 1 year to install CEMS. During this
time, emissions data must be collected for each batch using the
existing compliance method (monitoring brew ethanol) for use in the
semiannual compliance reports with the revised emission limits. Sources
that are constructed or reconstructed after promulgation of the rule
revisions must comply with the emission limits and compliance
requirements upon startup of the affected source. We request comment on
each of these timeframes.
    We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2133 to specify that an area
source that becomes a major source of HAP, and that is an existing
affected source, must be in compliance with the subpart by not later
than 1 year after it becomes a major source, instead of by not later
than 3 years. This revision is consistent with the proposed requirement
that facilities have 1 year to install CEMS if they currently monitor
brew ethanol in the fermenter to determine compliance. The EPA requests
comment on this timeframe.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that four nutritional yeast facilities currently
operating in the United States will be affected by these proposed
amendments.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposed amendments to this subpart will have a positive impact
on air quality. While facilities will not need to install additional
controls to comply with the proposed fermenter emission limits, the
revisions will remove the exemption that allowed up to 2 percent of the
total number of batches to exceed emission limits, as well as the
exemption that allowed emissions from batches produced during periods
of malfunction to not be used in determining compliance with emission
limits. While these changes cannot easily be quantified due to a lack
of data on the current number of exempted batches, the practical effect
is that production of all batches of nutritional yeast at affected
sources will be required to meet emission limits. The other proposed
revisions, which affect testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, will ensure that emissions monitoring equipment
continues to perform as expected and provides reliable data from each
facility to be reported for compliance. For reference, the baseline
emissions for each facility are documented in the memorandum,
``Emissions Data and Acute Risk Factor Used in Residual Risk Modeling:
Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Source Category,'' which is
available in the docket for this action.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing sources to
install the necessary monitoring equipment (i.e., VOC CEMS) and perform
annual RATAs for VOC CEMS. We estimated a total capital investment of
$511,000 and an annualized cost of approximately $172,000. The details
of the cost estimates are documented in the memorandum, ``Costs for the
Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Source Category,'' which is
available in the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Total annualized costs for this proposal are estimated to be
$172,000. Estimated annualized compliance costs range from $16,000 to
$109,000 per facility. The EPA conducted economic impact screening
analyses for this proposal, as detailed in the memorandum, ``Economic
Impact Analysis for the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Risk and
Technology Review (RTR),'' which is available in the docket for this
action. Screening analyses suggest that the impacts of this action will
be minimal, with all entities subject to this action estimated to have
cost-to-sales ratios of less than 0.1 percent. We do not expect any
adverse economic impacts to result from this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    As discussed above, the proposed amendments to this subpart will
have positive impacts on air quality by removing the exemption for a
portion of batches to meet emission limits. The proposed changes to
monitoring methods will increase the reliability of emissions data
collected by facilities by requiring continued maintenance of emission
monitoring systems and monitoring of actual emission measurements at
all times instead of allowing emission estimates based on brew ethanol
correlations, which will allow regulators to clearly assess whether the
standards for the protection of public health and the environment are
being met. In particular, the demographics analysis shows that
increased risk levels are concentrated around the facility that is not
currently using CEMS. The proposed amendment will directly benefit this
population by increasing the accuracy of the emissions data that is
monitored and reported. Utilization of CEMS is also expected to
facilitate more effective use of current process controls for
acetaldehyde emissions versus use of the brew ethanol correlation
approach. Other proposed amendments will result in additional benefits,
such as streamlined reporting through electronic methods for owners/
operators of nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities and increased
access to emissions data by stakeholders, as described in previous
sections.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action,
including those aspects specifically called out elsewhere in this
preamble. As noted previously, we are not seeking comment on the source
category definition in this action. In addition to general comments on
this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that
may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR Web site, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility.
We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1886.03. A copy of the ICR can be found in the docket for
this rule, and it is summarized here.
    We are proposing new reporting and recordkeeping requirements to
the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast source category as a result of
additional requirements related to the use of CEMS.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of nutritional yeast.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: Four facilities.
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,340 hours (per year) for the responding
facilities and 117 hours (per year) for the Agency. Of these, 43 hours
(per year) for the responding facilities and 4 hours (per year) for the
Agency is the incremental burden to comply with the proposed rule
amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $939,000 (per year), which includes $832,000
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs, for the
responding facilities and $5,400 (per year) for the Agency to comply
with all of the requirements in this NESHAP. Of the total, $175,000
(per year), including $172,000 in annualized capital and operation and
maintenance costs, for the responding facilities and $180 (per year)
for the Agency, is the incremental cost to comply with the proposed
amendments to this rule.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than January 27,
2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. One
entity subject to the requirements of this action is assumed to be a
small business for the purposes of this analysis, as the complex
ownership structure makes it difficult to clearly determine the
entity's size. The Agency has determined that this entity may
experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of revenues. Details of
this analysis are presented in the memorandum, ``Economic Impact
Analysis for the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Risk and Technology
Review (RTR),'' which is available in the docket for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this
action for affected industrial sources is estimated to be $172,000 per
year.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the nutritional yeast manufacturing industry that would be affected by
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. This
action's

health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and B and
sections IV.A and B of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to use EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are
included in the memorandum titled, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for the Risk and Technology Review of the Manufacturing of
Nutritional Yeast NESHAP,'' which is available in the docket for this
action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and the technical report, ``Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Facilities,'' which is available in the
docket for this action.
    As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups, of the population close to the facilities (within
50 km and within 5 km). In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from the nutritional
yeast manufacturing facilities across different social, demographic,
and economic groups within the populations living near facilities
identified as having the highest risks.
    The analysis indicates that the minority population living within
50 km (1,700,000 people, of which 41 percent are minority) and within 5
km (131,567 people, of which 68 percent are minority) of the four
nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities is greater than the minority
population found nationwide (28 percent). The specific demographics of
the population within 5 and 50 km of the facilities indicate potential
disparities in certain demographic groups, including the ``African
American,'' ``Below the Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and without high
school diploma'' groups.
    When examining the risk levels of those exposed to emissions from
the four nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities we find
approximately 750 persons around one facility (AB Mauri--Fleischmann's
Yeast in Memphis, Tennessee) are exposed to a cancer risk greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million with the highest exposure to these
individuals of less than 2-in-1 million. Of these 750 persons, 100
percent of them are defined as minority. When examining the noncancer
risks surrounding these facilities, no one is predicted to have a
chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1. This facility is also the only
one that is not currently using CEMS. The proposed amendments will
directly benefit this population by increasing the accuracy of the
emissions data that is monitored and reported. Utilization of CEMS is
also expected to facilitate more effective use of process controls for
acetaldehyde emissions versus use of the brew ethanol correlation
approach.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples because the health risks based on actual emissions
are low (below 2-in-1 million), the population exposed to risks greater
than 1-in-1 million is relatively small (750 persons), and the rule
maintains or increases the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. Further,
the EPA believes that implementation of this rule will provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health of all demographic groups.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 13, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  63.14  [Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (m)(24) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (24) EPA/600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, May 2012, IBR approved
for Sec.  63.2163(b)(2).
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart CCCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

Contents

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.2130 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2131 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.2132 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.2133 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.2140 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.2150 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.2160 By what date must I conduct an initial compliance
demonstration?
63.2161 What performance tests and other procedures must I use if I
monitor brew ethanol?
63.2162 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.2163 If I monitor fermenter exhaust, what are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?
63.2164 If I monitor brew ethanol, what are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

63.2165 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations if I monitor fermenter exhaust?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.2170 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.2171 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations?

Notification, Reports, and Records

63.2180 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2181 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2182 What records must I keep?
63.2183 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.2190 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.2191 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.2192 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables for Subpart CCCC

Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests If You Monitor Brew Ethanol
Table 3 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 6 to Subpart CCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart CCCC

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.  63.2130  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants emitted from manufacturers of nutritional
yeast. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations.

Sec.  63.2131  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
nutritional yeast manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is
part of a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions.
    (1) A manufacturer of nutritional yeast is a facility that makes
yeast for the purpose of becoming an ingredient in dough for bread or
any other yeast-raised baked product, or for becoming a nutritional
food additive intended for consumption by humans. A manufacturer of
nutritional yeast does not include production of yeast intended for
consumption by animals, such as an additive for livestock feed.
    (2) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering
controls, any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more
per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25
tons) or more per year.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  63.2132  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
``affected source'' that produces Saccharomyces cerevisiae at a
nutritional yeast manufacturing facility.
    (b) The affected source is the collection of equipment used in the
manufacture of the nutritional yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
This collection of equipment includes fermentation vessels
(fermenters), as described in paragraph (c) of this section. The
collection of equipment used in the manufacture of the nutritional
yeast species Candida utilis (torula yeast) is not part of the affected
source.
    (c) The emission limitations in this subpart apply to fermenters in
the affected source that meet all of the criteria listed in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The fermenters are ``fed-batch'' as defined in Sec.  63.2192.
    (2) The fermenters are used to support one of the last three
fermentation stages in a production run (i.e., third-to-last stage,
second-to-last stage, and last stage), which may be referred to as
``stock, first generation, and trade,'' ``seed, semi-seed, and
commercial,'' or ``CB4, CB5, and CB6'' stages.
    (d) The emission limitations in this subpart do not apply to flask,
pure-culture, yeasting-tank, or any other set-batch (defined in Sec.
63.2192) fermentation, and they do not apply to any operations after
the last dewatering operation, such as filtration.
    (e) The emission limitations in Table 1 to this subpart do not
apply to fermenters during the production of specialty yeast (defined
in Sec.  63.2192).
    (f) An affected source is a ``new affected source'' if you
commenced construction of the affected source after October 19, 1998,
and you met the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2131 at the time you
commenced construction.
    (g) An affected source is ``reconstructed'' if it meets the
criteria for reconstruction as defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (h) An affected source is ``existing'' if it is not new or
reconstructed.

Sec.  63.2133   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, then you
must comply with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you start up your affected source before May 21, 2001, then
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations in Table 1 to
this subpart no later than May 21, 2001.
    (2) If you start up your affected source on or after May 21, 2001,
then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations in Table
1 to this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, then you must comply
with the applicable emission limitations in Table 1 to this subpart no
later than May 21, 2004.
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions, or its
potential to emit, so that it becomes a major source of HAP, then
paragraphs (c)(1) through (2) of this section apply.
    (1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this
subpart upon startup.
    (2) All other parts of the affected source must be in compliance
with this subpart by not later than 1 year after it becomes a major
source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.2180
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.2180 and in subpart A of this
part.

Emission Limitations

Sec.  63.2140  What emission limitations must I meet?

    You must meet the applicable emission limitations in Table 1 to
this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.2150  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
Table 1 to this subpart at all times.
    (b) If the date upon which you must demonstrate initial compliance
as specified in Sec.  63.2160 falls after the compliance date specified
for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133, then you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the continuous emission
monitoring systems and the process and emissions control equipment
during the period between those dates.
    (c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The
general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether an
affected source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the affected
source.
    (d) To determine compliance before [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], you must monitor the volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentration or brew ethanol continuously for
each batch and demonstrate that the VOC concentration for at least 98
percent of the batches for each fermentation stage in each 12-month
calculation period does not exceed the applicable emission limitations
in Table 1 to this subpart. You must monitor VOC concentration either
by installing and operating a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) to monitor VOC in the fermenter exhaust continuously or by
monitoring the concentration of ethanol in the fermenter liquid
continuously for each batch (i.e., brew ethanol monitoring) and
determining VOC concentration in the exhaust using the correlation
equation developed according to Sec.  63.2161.
    (e) To determine compliance on or after [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], you must monitor VOC concentration
continuously for each batch and demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitations of either the Average Option or the
Batch Option in Table 1 to this subpart. You must monitor VOC
concentration by installing and operating a CEMS to monitor the VOC
concentration in the fermenter exhaust continuously.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.2160  By what date must I conduct an initial compliance
demonstration?

    (a) For each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart for
which you demonstrate compliance using the Average Option, you must
demonstrate initial compliance for the period ending on the last day of
the month that is 12 calendar months (or 11 calendar months, if the
compliance date for your affected source is the first day of the month)
after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec.  63.2133. (For example, if the compliance date is October 15,
2017, then the first 12-month period for which you must demonstrate
compliance would be October 15, 2017 through October 31, 2018.)
    (b) For each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart for
which you demonstrate compliance using the Batch Option, you must
demonstrate initial compliance for the period ending June 30 or
December 31 (use whichever date is the first date following the
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.2133).

Sec.  63.2161  What performance tests and other procedures must I use
if I monitor brew ethanol?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 2 to this
subpart that applies to you, as specified in paragraphs (b) through (f)
of this section.
    (b) You must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies, based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested, and under the specific
conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 2 to this subpart and
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (1) You must conduct each performance test simultaneously with brew
ethanol monitoring to establish a brew-to-exhaust correlation as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) For each fermentation stage, you must conduct one run of the
EPA Test Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, over the entire
length of a batch. The three fermentation stages do not have to be from
the same production run.
    (3) You must obtain your test sample at a point in the exhaust-gas
stream before you inject any dilution air. For fermenters, dilution air
is any air not needed to control fermentation.
    (4) You must record the results of the test for each fermentation
stage.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction.
    (d) You must collect data to correlate the brew ethanol
concentration to the VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust
according to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must collect a separate set of brew ethanol concentration
data for each fed-batch fermentation stage while manufacturing the
product that constitutes the largest percentage (by mass) of average
annual production.
    (2) You must measure brew ethanol as specified in Sec.  63.2164
concurrently with conducting a performance test for VOC in fermenter
exhaust as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. You must measure
brew ethanol at least once during each successive 30-minute period over
the entire period of the performance test for VOC in fermenter exhaust.
    (3) You must keep a record of the brew ethanol concentration data
for each fermentation stage over the period of EPA Test Method 25A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, performance test.
    (e) For each set of data that you collected under paragraphs (b)
and (d) of this section, you must perform a linear regression of brew
ethanol concentration (percent) on VOC fermenter exhaust concentration
(parts per million by volume (ppmv) measured as propane). You must
ensure the correlation between the brew ethanol concentration, as
measured by the brew ethanol monitor, and the VOC fermenter exhaust
concentration, as measured by EPA Test Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, is linear with a correlation coefficient of at least
0.90.
    (f) You must calculate the VOC concentration in the fermenter
exhaust using the brew ethanol concentration data according to Equation
1 of this section.

BAVOC = BAE * CF + y (Eq. 1)

Where:

BAVOC = Batch-average concentration of VOC in fermenter exhaust
(ppmv measured as propane), calculated for compliance demonstration
BAE = Batch-average concentration of brew ethanol in fermenter
liquid (percent), measured by the brew ethanol monitor
CF = Constant established at performance test and representing the
slope of the regression line
Y = Constant established at performance test and representing the y-
intercept of the regression line

Sec.  63.2162   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) For each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart for
which compliance is demonstrated by monitoring brew ethanol
concentration and calculating VOC concentration in the fermenter
exhaust according to the

procedures in Sec.  63.2161, you must conduct an EPA Test Method 25A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, performance test and establish a brew-to-
exhaust correlation according to the procedures in Table 2 to this
subpart and in Sec.  63.2161, at least once every year.
    (b) The first subsequent performance test must be conducted no
later than 365 calendar days after the initial performance test
conducted according to Sec.  63.2160. Each subsequent performance test
must be conducted no later than 365 calendar days after the previous
performance test. You must conduct a performance test for each 365
calendar day period during which you demonstrate compliance using the
brew ethanol correlation developed according to Sec.  63.2161.

Sec.  63.2163  If I monitor fermenter exhaust, what are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must install and certify a CEMS that generates a single
combined response value for VOC concentration (VOC CEMS) according to
the procedures and requirements in Performance Specification 8--
Performance Specifications for Volatile Organic Compound Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources in appendix B to part
60 of this chapter.
    (b) You must operate and maintain your VOC CEMS according to the
procedures and requirements in Procedure 1--Quality Assurance
Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for
Compliance Determination in appendix F to part 60 of this chapter.
    (1) You must conduct a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) at least
annually, in accordance with sections 8 and 11, as applicable, of
Performance Specification 8.
    (2) As necessary, rather than relying on reference 2 of Performance
Specification 8 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, you must rely on EPA/
600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of
Gaseous Calibration Standards, May 2012 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  63.14).
    (3) Your affected source must meet the criteria of Performance
Specification 8, section 13.2.
    (c) You must use Method 25A in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this
chapter as the Reference Method (RM).
    (d) You must calibrate your VOC CEMS with propane.
    (e) You must set your VOC CEMS span at less than 5 times the
relevant VOC emission limitation given in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart.
Note that the EPA considers 1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant VOC emission
limitation to be the optimum range, in general.
    (f) You must complete the performance evaluation and submit the
performance evaluation report before the compliance date that is
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133.
    (g) You must monitor VOC concentration in fermenter exhaust at any
point prior to dilution of the exhaust stream.
    (h) You must collect data using the VOC CEMS at all times during
each batch monitoring period, except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, required monitoring system quality assurance or quality
control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and
required zero and span adjustments), and any scheduled maintenance.
    (i) For each CEMS, you must record the results of each inspection,
calibration, and validation check.
    (j) You must check the zero (low-level) and high-level calibration
drifts for each CEMS in accordance with the applicable Performance
Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You must adjust the zero
(low-level) and high-level calibration drifts, at a minimum, whenever
the zero (low-level) drift exceeds 2 times the limits of the applicable
Performance Specification. You must perform the calibration drift
checks at least once daily except under the conditions of paragraphs
(j)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If a 24-hour calibration drift check for your CEMS is performed
immediately prior to, or at the start of, a batch monitoring period of
a duration exceeding 24 hours, you are not required to perform 24-hour-
interval calibration drift checks during that batch monitoring period.
    (2) If the 24-hour calibration drift exceeds 2.5 percent of the
span value in fewer than 5 percent of the checks over a 1-month period,
and the 24-hour calibration drift never exceeds 7.5 percent of the span
value, you may reduce the frequency of calibration drift checks to at
least weekly (once every 7 days).
    (3) If, during two consecutive weekly checks, the weekly
calibration drift exceeds 5 percent of the span value, then you must
resume a frequency of at least 24-hour interval calibration checks
until the 24-hour calibration checks meet the test of paragraph (j)(2)
of this section.
    (k) If your CEMS is out of control, you must take corrective action
according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Your CEMS is out of control if the zero (low-level) or high-
level calibration drift exceeds 2 times the limits of the applicable
Performance Specification.
    (2) When the CEMS is out of control, you must take the necessary
corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the
system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct
retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable
limits.
    (3) You must not use data recorded during batch monitoring periods
in which the CEMS is out of control in averages and calculations used
to demonstrate compliance, or to meet any data availability requirement
established under this subpart. The beginning of the out-of-control
period is the beginning of the first batch monitoring period that
follows the most recent calibration drift check during which the system
was within allowable performance limits. The end of the out-of-control
period is the end of the last batch monitoring period before you have
completed corrective action and successfully demonstrated that the
system is within the allowable limits. If your successful demonstration
that the system is within the allowable limits occurs during a batch
monitoring period, then the out-of-control period ends at the end of
that batch monitoring period. If the CEMS is out of control for any
part of a particular batch monitoring period, it is out of control for
the whole batch monitoring period.

Sec.  63.2164  If I monitor brew ethanol, what are my monitoring
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each brew ethanol
monitor according to the manufacturer's specifications and in
accordance with Sec.  63.2150(c).
    (b) Each of your brew ethanol monitors must complete a minimum of
one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for
each successive 30-minute period within each batch monitoring period.
Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must have a
minimum of two cycles of operation in a 1-hour period to have a valid
hour of data.
    (c) You must reduce the brew ethanol monitor data to arithmetic
batch averages computed from two or more data points over each 1-hour
period, except during periods when calibration, quality assurance, or
maintenance activities pursuant to provisions of this part are being
performed. During these periods, a valid hour of data must consist of
at least one data point representing a 30-minute period.

    (d) You must have valid brew ethanol monitor data from all
operating hours over the entire batch monitoring period.
    (e) You must set the brew ethanol monitor span to correspond to not
greater than 5 times the relevant emission limit; note that we consider
1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant emission limit to be the optimum range,
in general. You must use the brew-to-exhaust correlation equation
established under Sec.  63.2161(f) to determine the span value for your
brew ethanol monitor that corresponds to the relevant emission limit.
    (f) For each brew ethanol monitor, you must record the results of
each inspection, calibration, and validation check.
    (g) The gas chromatographic (GC) that you use to calibrate your
brew ethanol monitor must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You must calibrate the GC at least daily, by analyzing standard
solutions of ethanol in water (0.05 percent, 0.15 percent, and 0.3
percent).
    (2) For use in calibrating the GC, you must prepare the standard
solutions of ethanol using the procedures listed in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Starting with 100-percent ethanol, you must dry the ethanol by
adding a small amount of anhydrous magnesium sulfate (granular) to 15-
20 milliliters (ml) of ethanol.
    (ii) You must place approximately 50 ml of water into a 100-ml
volumetric flask and place the flask on a balance. You must tare the
balance. You must weigh 2.3670 grams of the dry (anhydrous) ethanol
into the volumetric flask.
    (iii) Add the 100-ml volumetric flask contents to a 1000-ml
volumetric flask. You must rinse the 100-ml volumetric flask with water
into the 1000-ml flask. You must bring the volume to 1000 ml with
water.
    (iv) You must place an aliquot into a sample bottle labeled ``0.3%
Ethanol.''
    (v) You must fill a 50-ml volumetric flask from the contents of the
1000-ml flask. You must add the contents of the 50-ml volumetric flask
to a 100-ml volumetric flask and rinse the 50-ml flask into the 100-ml
flask with water. You must bring the volume to 100 ml with water. You
must place the contents into a sample bottle labeled ``0.15% Ethanol.''
    (vi) With a 10-ml volumetric pipette, you must add two 10.0-ml
volumes of water to a sample bottle labeled ``0.05% Ethanol.'' With a
10.0-ml volumetric pipette, you must pipette 10.0 ml of the 0.15
percent ethanol solution into the sample bottle labeled ``0.05%
Ethanol.''
    (3) For use in calibrating the GC, you must dispense samples of the
standard solutions of ethanol in water in aliquots to appropriately
labeled and dated glass sample bottles fitted with caps having a
Teflon[supreg] seal. You may keep refrigerated samples unopened for 1
month. You must prepare new calibration standards of ethanol in water
at least monthly.
    (h) You must calibrate the CEMS according to paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) To calibrate the brew ethanol monitor, you must inject a brew
sample into a calibrated GC and compare the simultaneous ethanol value
given by the brew ethanol monitor to that given by the GC. You must use
either the Porapak[supreg] Q, 80-100 mesh, 6' x \1\8',
stainless steel packed column or the DB Wax, 0.53 millimeter x 30 meter
capillary column.
    (2) If a brew ethanol monitor value for ethanol differs by 20
percent or more from the corresponding GC ethanol value, you must
determine the brew ethanol values throughout the rest of the batch
monitoring period by injecting brew samples into the GC not less
frequently than once every 30 minutes. From the time at which you
detect a difference of 20 percent or more until the batch monitoring
period ends, the GC data will serve as the brew ethanol monitor data.
    (3) You must perform a calibration of the brew ethanol monitor at
least four times per batch.

Sec.  63.2165  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations if I monitor fermenter exhaust?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.2180(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec.  63.2170  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities (including,
as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span
adjustments), and any scheduled maintenance, you must collect data
using the CEMS at all times during each batch monitoring period.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, or to fulfill a data collection requirement. You must
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control system.
    (d) Any hour during the batch monitoring period for which quality-
assured VOC data are not obtained is a deviation from monitoring
requirements and is counted as an hour of monitoring system downtime.

Sec.  63.2171  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you according to
methods specified in Table 4 to this subpart and the applicable
procedures of this section.
    (1) To demonstrate compliance prior to [date one year after the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you
must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS in accordance with Sec.
63.2163 to monitor VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust or
install, operate, and maintain a brew ethanol monitor in accordance
with Sec.  63.2164 to monitor the brew ethanol concentration in the
fermenter liquid.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance on and after [date 1 year after the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you
must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS in accordance with Sec.
63.2163 to monitor VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust.
    (b) To demonstrate compliance with emission limitations prior to
[date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you
must calculate the percentage of within-concentration batches (defined
in Sec.  63.2192) for each 12-month calculation period by following the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must determine the percentage of batches over a 12-month
calculation period that were in compliance with the applicable maximum
concentration. The total number of batches in the calculation period is
the sum of the numbers of batches of each fermentation stage for which
emission limits apply. To determine which batches are in the 12-month
calculation period, you must

include those batches for which the batch monitoring period ended on or
after midnight on the first day of the period and exclude those batches
for which the batch monitoring period did not end before midnight on
the last day of the period.
    (2) You must determine the percentage of batches in compliance with
the applicable emission limitations for each 12-month calculation
period at the end of each calendar month.
    (3) The first 12-month calculation period begins on the compliance
date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133 and
ends on the last day of the month that includes the date 1 year after
your compliance date, unless the compliance date for your affected
source is the first day of the month, in which case the first 12-month
calculation period ends on the last day of the month that is 11
calendar months after the compliance date. (For example, if the
compliance date for your affected source is October 15, 2017, the first
12-month calculation period would begin on October 15, 2017, and end on
October 31, 2018. If the compliance date for your affected source is
October 1, 2017, the first 12-month calculation period would begin on
October 1, 2017, and end on September 30, 2018.)
    (4) The second 12-month calculation period and each subsequent 12-
month calculation period begins on the first day of the month following
the first full month of the previous 12-month averaging period and ends
on the last day of the month 11 calendar months later. (For example, if
the compliance date for your affected source is October 15, 2017, the
second calculation period would begin on December 1, 2017, and end on
November 30, 2018.)
    (c) To demonstrate compliance with emission limitations on and
after [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]
by using the Average Option, you must follow the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) At the end of each calendar month, you must determine the
average VOC concentration from all batches in each fermentation stage
in a 12-month calculation period. To determine which batches are in a
12-month calculation period, you must include those batches for which
the batch monitoring period ended on or after midnight on the first day
of the period and exclude those batches for which the batch monitoring
period did not end before midnight on the last day of the period.
    (2) The first 12-month calculation period begins on the compliance
date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133 and
ends on the last day of the month that includes the date 1 year after
your compliance date, unless the compliance date for your affected
source is the first day of the month, in which case the first 12-month
calculation period ends on the last day of the month that is 11
calendar months after the compliance date. (For example, if the
compliance date for your affected source is October 15, 2017, the first
12-month calculation period would begin on October 15, 2017, and end on
October 31, 2018. If the compliance date for your affected source is
October 1, 2017, the first 12-month calculation period would begin on
October 1, 2017, and end on September 30, 2018.)
    (3) The second 12-month calculation period and each subsequent 12-
month calculation period begins on the first day of the month following
the first full month of the previous 12-month averaging period and ends
on the last day of the month 11 calendar months later. (For example, if
the compliance date for your affected source is October 15, 2017, the
second calculation period would begin on December 1, 2017, and end on
November 30, 2018.)
    (d) To demonstrate compliance with emission limitations on and
after [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]
by using the Batch Option, you must determine the average VOC
concentration in the fermenter exhaust for each batch of each
fermentation stage in a semiannual reporting period (i.e., January 1
through June 30 or July 1 through December 31). To determine which
batches are in the semiannual reporting period, you must include those
batches for which the batch monitoring period ended on or after
midnight on the first day of the period and exclude those batches for
which the batch monitoring period did not end before midnight on the
last day of the period.

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec.  63.2180   What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to
you by the dates specified.
    (b) If you start up your affected source before May 21, 2001, you
are not subject to the initial notification requirements of Sec.
63.9(b)(2).
    (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test as specified
in Table 2 to this subpart, you must submit a notification of intent to
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance evaluation as
specified in Sec.  63.2163, you must submit a notification of the date
of the performance evaluation at least 60 days prior to the date the
performance evaluation is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.
63.8(e)(2).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test as specified
in Table 2 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (f) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3
to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the date
that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2160(a) or (b).
The first compliance report, described in Sec.  63.2181(b)(1), serves
as the Notification of Compliance Status.

Sec.  63.2181  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 5 to this subpart that
applies to you.
    (1) On and after [date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], you must also comply with electronic reporting for
compliance tests as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test as required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.html) at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA
via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
(CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), then you must submit a complete file
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic
file consistent with the XML schema listed

on the EPA's ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on
a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the
results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified
in either paragraph (ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For performance evaluations of CEMS measuring RATA pollutants
that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
at the time of the evaluation, you must submit the results of the
performance evaluation to the EPA via the CEDRI. Performance evaluation
data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of
the EPA's ERT or an alternate file format consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some of the
performance evaluation information being submitted is CBI, then you
must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA's ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on
a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic storage media must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in
this paragraph.
    (B) For any performance evaluations of continuous emission
monitoring systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the
evaluation, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 5 to this subpart and according to paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must include the information
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. If you are demonstrating
compliance with an emission limitation using a 12-month calculation
period (e.g., the Average Option), then the first compliance report
must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133 and ending on
either June 30 or December 31 (use whichever date is the first date
following the end of the first 12 calendar months after the compliance
date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.2133). (For
example, if the compliance date for your affected source is October 15,
2017, then the first compliance report would cover the period from
October 15, 2017 to December 31, 2018.) If you are demonstrating
compliance with an emission limitation using the Batch Option, then the
first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.2133 and ending on either June 30 or December 31 (use whichever date
is the first date following the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec.  63.2133).
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first compliance reporting period specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31. Each subsequent
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraph
(c) of this section.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(a)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(a)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent
compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has
established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
    (4) For reporting periods ending before [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], the percentage of batches that are
within-concentration batches for each 12-month period ending on a
calendar month that falls within the reporting period.
    (5) For reporting periods ending before [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], if an affected source fails to
meet an applicable standard, the information for each batch for which
the batch-average VOC concentration exceeded the applicable maximum VOC
concentration in Table 1 to this subpart and whether the batch was in
production during a period of malfunction or during another period.
    (6) For reporting periods ending on or after [date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register], if an affected source meets
an applicable standard, the information in paragraph (c)(6)(i) or (ii)
of this section, depending on the compliance option selected from Table
1 to this subpart.
    (i) If using the Average Option in Table 1 to this subpart, the
average VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust from all batches in
each fermentation stage for each 12-month period ending on a calendar
month that falls within the reporting period that did not exceed the
applicable emission limitation.
    (ii) If using the Batch Option in Table 1 to this subpart, a
certification that the average VOC concentration in the fermenter
exhaust for each batch did not exceed applicable emission limitations.
    (7) For reporting periods ending on and after [date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register], if an affected source fails
to meet an applicable standard, the information in paragraph (c)(7)(i)
or (ii) of this section, depending on the compliance option selected
from Table 1 to this subpart.
    (i) If using the Average Option in Table 1 to this subpart, the
average VOC concentration in the fermenter exhaust from all batches in
each fermentation

stage for each 12-month period that failed to meet the applicable
standard, the fermenters that operated in each fermentation stage that
failed to meet the applicable standard, the duration of each failure,
an estimate of the quantity of VOC emitted over the emission
limitation, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions,
and the actions taken to minimize emissions and correct the failure.
    (ii) If using the Batch Option in Table 1 to this subpart, the
fermenters and batches that failed to meet the applicable standard; the
date, time, and duration of each failure; an estimate of the quantity
of VOC emitted over the emission limitation; a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions; and the actions taken to
minimize emissions and correct the failure.
    (8) The total operating hours and hours of monitoring system
downtime for each fermenter.

Sec.  63.2182   What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Notification of Compliance Status and compliance report that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of failures to meet a standard, specified in Sec.
63.2181(c)(5) and (7).
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (4) Records of results of brew-to-exhaust correlation tests
specified in Sec.  63.2161.
    (b) For each CEMS, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (9) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi).
    (2) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with
a relevant standard (including, but not limited to, CEMS data, raw
performance testing measurements, and raw performance evaluation
measurements that support data that you are required to report).
    (3) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii) through (xi). The
CEMS system must allow the amount of excess zero (low-level) and high-
level calibration drift measured at the interval checks to be
quantified and recorded.
    (4) All required CEMS measurements (including monitoring data
recorded during CEMS breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
    (5) Identification of each time period during which the CEMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (6) Identification of each time period during which the CEMS was
out of control, as defined in Sec.  63.2163(k).
    (7) Current version of the performance evaluation test plan, as
specified in Sec.  63.8(d)(2), including the program of corrective
action for a malfunctioning CEMS, and previous (i.e., superseded)
versions of the performance evaluation test plan for a period of 5
years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action
should be included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (8) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy test audits for
CEMS as required in Sec.  63.8(f)(6)(i).
    (9) Records of each deviation from monitoring system requirements,
including a description and explanation of each deviation.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Table 4 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that
applies to you.
    (d) You must also keep the records listed in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section for each batch in your affected source.
    (1) Unique batch identification number.
    (2) Fermentation stage for which you are using the fermenter.
    (3) Unique CEMS equipment identification number.

Sec.  63.2183  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may keep
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
    (d) You must keep written procedures documenting the CEMS quality
control program on record for the life of the affected source or until
the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this
part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.2190  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 6 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.

Sec.  63.2191  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) We, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your state,
local, or tribal agency, can implement and enforce this subpart. If our
Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact the U.S. EPA Regional Office that
serves you to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state,
local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by our Administrator and are not transferred to the state,
local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.