National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6176-5]

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules; notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing

standards to limit emissions from facilities that manufacture

nutritional yeast and are major sources of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) emissions, particularly acetaldehyde. The proposed standards

would carry out section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended November

15, 1990 (the Act), to protect the public health by

[[Page 55813]]

reducing these emissions from new and existing facilities. The Act

requires these sources to achieve an emissions level consistent with

installing and operating maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

The proposed standards would eliminate approximately 43 percent of

nationwide HAP emissions from these sources.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 18,

1998.

Public Hearing. Contact us by November 2, 1998 to request to speak

at a public hearing. If we receive one or more requests, we will hold

the hearing at 10:00 a.m. on November 16, 1998. If you wish to speak or

to ask if a hearing will be held, contact the person named under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested it will be

held at our Office of Administration's Auditorium in Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina.

Comments. Send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number

A-97-13, Room M-1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. You may also send comments and data

by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. (See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below, for more on file formats and so on.)

Be sure to include the docket number, A-97-13, on your comment.

Docket. Docket No. A-97-13 contains information relevant to the

proposed rule. You can read and copy it between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday (except for Federal holidays), at our Air

and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. Go to Room M-1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor). The docket office may charge a

reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Aston, Policy Planning and

Standards Group, Emission Standards Division, (MD-13), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone number (919) 541-2363; facsimile number (919) 541-

0942; electronic mail address ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

If your facility manufactures nutritional yeast, which we consider

to be varieties of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it may be a ``regulated

entity.'' In addition, the proposed rule would apply to your facility

only if the yeast is made 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. Regulated categories and entities

include sources listed in the main Standard Industrial Classification

code for them (2099, Food Preparations Not Elsewhere Classified.)

This description is just a guide to entities likely to be regulated

by final action on this proposal. It lists the types of entities we

think may be regulated, but you should examine the applicability

criteria in section II of this preamble and in Sec. 63.2131 of the

proposed rule to determine whether your facility is likely to be

regulated by final action on this proposal. If you have any questions

about whether your facility may need to meet the standards, call the

person named under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

You can get this notice, the proposed regulatory texts, and other

background information in Docket No. A-97-13 by contacting our Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES). Or go to our

web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html'' for electronic

versions of the proposal preamble and regulation, as well as other

information. For assistance in downloading files, call the TTN HELP

line at (919) 541-5384.

If you send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to ``a-and-r-

[email protected],'' be sure they're in an ASCII file and don't

use special characters or encryption. We will also accept comments and

data on diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 or ASCII file format. You

may file comments on the proposed rule online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Identify all comments and data in electronic form

by the docket number (A-97-13). Don't send any confidential business

information through electronic mail.

Outline

The information presented in this preamble is organized as

follows:

I. What is the subject and purpose of this rule?

II. Does this rule apply to me?

III. What procedures did we follow to develop the proposed rule?

IV. What are the proposed emission standards?

V. How do I show initial compliance with the standard?

VI. What monitoring must I do to show ongoing compliance?

VII. What if I use an add-on control technology to comply with

the standard?

VIII. What notification, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements must I follow?

IX. What is the basis for selecting the level of the proposed

standards?

X. What is the basis for selecting the format of the proposed

standards?

XI. Why did we select the proposed monitoring requirements?

XII. Why did we select the proposed test methods?

XIII. Why did we select the proposed notification, reporting,

and recordkeeping requirements?

XIV. How can I comment on this proposed rule?

XV. What are the administrative requirements for this proposed

rule?

XVI. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?

I. What Is the Subject and Purpose of This Rule?

The Act requires EPA to establish standards to control HAP

emissions from source categories selected under section 112(c) of the

Act. An initial source category list was published in the Federal

Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The ``baker's yeast

manufacturing'' source category is under the ``Food and Agriculture''

industry group. To clarify the scope of the rule and distinguish it

from regulation of bakeries, we changed the name of the source category

to ``manufacturing of nutritional yeast.'' Whenever we use ``you'' or

``your'' in this preamble or proposed rule, we mean the owner or

operator of a facility that manufactures nutritional yeast. We have

identified 10 existing facilities in the source category.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from

major sources that manufacture nutritional yeast. Under the Act, a

major source is one with the potential to emit at least 9.1 megagrams

per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year [tpy]) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr

(25 tpy) of combined HAPs. We estimate at least 9 of these facilities

may be major sources and that annual baseline emissions of acetaldehyde

from this source category are 254 tpy. The proposed rule would

eliminate approximately 43 percent of these emissions.

The HAP emitted from the nutritional yeast manufacturing process is

acetaldehyde. The primary acute (short-term) effect of inhalation

exposure to acetaldehyde is irritation of the eyes, skin, and

respiratory tract and, at extremely high concentrations, respiratory

paralysis and death. Data from animal studies suggest that acetaldehyde

may be a potential developmental toxin, and an increased incidence of

nasal tumors in rats and

[[Page 55814]]

laryngeal tumors in hamsters has been observed following inhalation

exposure to acetaldehyde. Human health effects data do not currently

exist, but we have classified acetaldehyde as a probable human

carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard.

On September 14, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a

notice of draft integrated urban air toxics strategy to comply with

section 112(k), 112(c)(3) and section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act. In

that Federal Register document, acetaldehyde is included among the

draft list of HAP that we believe pose the greatest threat to public

health in urban areas, and manufacturing of nutritional yeast is

included on the draft list of source categories for regulation under

section 112(k). See 63 FR 49239, September 14, 1998.

We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to human health

from exposure to acetaldehyde can range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced is

dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as

influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain),

(2) the frequency of and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of

exposed individuals (genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and

lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population, and (4)

pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the

environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence.)

Acetaldehyde comprises approximately 18 percent of the total

volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from nutritional yeast

manufacturing. We estimate the current nationwide emissions from

nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities to be 1,400 tons per year of

VOC. The proposed emission controls for HAP will reduce non-HAP VOC

emissions as well. The proposed rule would reduce nationwide VOC

emissions by approximately 43 percent, to estimated nationwide

emissions of 800 tons per year VOC. Emissions of VOC have been

associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts.

Volatile organic compound emissions, together with nitrogen oxides,

are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone, or smog.

Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health

impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat

irritation; nausea; and aggravation of existing respiratory disease.

Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.

We do not expect any significant other environmental or energy

impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Actual compliance costs will

depend on each source's existing equipment and the modifications they

make to comply with the standard. According to one estimate, up to half

of existing facilities may face average capital costs of $385,000 and

annual operating costs of $74,000. However, a source's capital costs

could exceed $1.5 million if it has to replace a fermentation vessel to

comply with the proposed standard. The remaining facilities would not

require significant capital expenses, but they would face similar

annual operating costs.

II. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any

nutritional yeast manufacturing facility that is located at a facility

that is a major source of HAP emissions. You would also have to follow

the proposed rule if your facility is a non-major (area) source but

later increases its potential to emit HAP to major source levels.

If your facility is a major source under this regulation, each

fermentation production line dedicated to production of Saccharomyces

cerevisiae (nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast) would be

required to meet the proposed emission limits. A ``fermentation

production line'' means all fermenters exceeding 7,000 gallons capacity

and used in sequence to produce a discrete amount of yeast. We chose

7,000 gallons as the defining capacity cutoff based on industry

information indicating that the larger vessels are used exclusively for

the fermentation stages we propose to regulate. This regulation limits

the definition of ``fermentation production line'' to the collection of

fermenters used in the last three fermentation stages, including the

final batch. Other terms for fermentations include ``stock, first

generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A fermentation

production line does not include flask, pure-culture, or yeasting-tank

fermentation. A fermentation production line excludes all operations

after the last dewatering operation, such as filtration.

The proposed regulation applies to you only if the yeast produced

at your facility is made 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. The proposed rule does not apply

to the production of:

(1) Specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne, whiskey,

and beer.

(2) Torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic fermentation.

Section IV.B of this preamble discusses why we propose exempting

specialty yeasts and Torula yeast.

III. What Procedures Did We Follow To Develop the Proposed Rule?

A. Source of Authority for Standards Development

Section 112(c) of the Act directs us to develop a list of all

categories of major sources, plus appropriate area sources, that emit

one or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b). Nutritional

yeast manufacturing (formerly baker's yeast manufacturing) is a listed

source category because of its acetaldehyde emissions. Section 112

further directs us to impose technology-based standards on sources

emitting HAP and allows us to revise these technology-based standards

later to address risk remaining even with these emission limits.

B. Criteria for Developing Standards

We develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) to control HAP emissions from new and existing sources

according to section 112 of the Act. Section 112(d) of the Act requires

the standards to reduce as much HAP emissions as achievable,

considering the cost of achieving these reductions, effects on health

or environment (other than air), and energy requirements.

A NESHAP may be based on measures, which: (1) reduce the volume or

eliminate emissions of such pollutants by changing processes,

substituting materials, or other modifications, (2) enclose systems or

processes to eliminate emissions, (3) collect, capture, or treat such

pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point, (4) are design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standards (including requirements for training or

certifying operators) as provided in section 112(h), or (5) combine

these approaches (section 112(d)(2) of the Act).

To develop a NESHAP, we collect information about the industry,

including characteristics of emission sources, control technologies,

data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled facilities, and

emissions control costs and effects on energy use and the environment.

Our information is provided by the sources, their State or local

agencies, or it may be collected by us directly. We use this

information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP typically contain numerical limits on emissions, we

may need to use other approaches. For example, technological and

economic limits may make measuring emissions

[[Page 55815]]

from a source impossible, or at least impracticable. Section 112(h) of

the Act authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standard--or a combination of these--

whenever we can't prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After we identify the specific categories of major sources to

regulate under section 112, we must set MACT standards for each of

them. Section 112 requires us to use a minimum statutory baseline (

``floor'') for standards. For new sources, the MACT standards for a

source category or subcategory must be at least as stringent as the

emission control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar

source, as determined by the EPA Administrator (see section 112(d)(3)

of the Act). The standards for existing sources can be less stringent

than standards for new sources. But, for categories with fewer than 30

sources, the MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the

average emission limit achieved by the best performing 5 sources

(section 112(d)(3) of the Act).

D. Selecting MACT

Section 112(d)(2) says we must establish standards that require the

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP ``that the

Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable.'' These

standards must be no less stringent than the new and existing source

MACT floors. We may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of

sources within a category or subcategory (section 112(d)(1)). For

example, we could establish two classes of sources within a category or

subcategory based on size, and set a different emissions standard for

each class, provided both standards are at least as stringent as the

MACT floor for that class of sources.

Using the MACT floor as a starting point, we analyze information

about the industry to develop model plant populations and project

national effects, including HAP emissions reduction levels and

compliance costs, as well as secondary energy effects. Then we evaluate

various alternatives to select the most appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor,

but if so, it must be technically and economically achievable. We try

to reduce emissions as much as possible without unreasonable economic,

environmental, or energy impacts (section 112(d)(2)). Regulatory

alternatives and decisions may differ for new and existing sources

because of different MACT floors and the range of beyond-the-floor

control options.

Having selected a regulatory alternative, we translate it into a

proposed regulation, which typically includes sections on

applicability, standards, testing, showing compliance, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation

explains our proposed decision. We invite the public to comment on the

proposed regulation during the public comment period, evaluate public

comments and other information received after proposal, reach a final

decision, and then publish the final standard.

E. History of the NESHAP for Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing

We developed the proposed rule in cooperation with Wisconsin's

Department of Natural Resources and Maryland's Department of

Environment. When we started gathering information, these two States

had recently developed federally enforceable rules for controlling VOC

emissions from this source category. The VOC rules were based on

reasonably available control technology (RACT), and we believe they

represent the most stringent control of VOC (and HAP) in the U.S. for

this industry.

Our working relationship, called MACT Partnerships, involves

States, industry, and environmental organizations and depends on the

mutual interests of all major stakeholders in the air toxics program.

We asked for public comments on these partnerships by notice in the

Federal Register on March 29, 1995 (60 FR 16088).

Through MACT partnerships, each MACT standard involves two phases.

In the first phase, we develop a ``presumptive MACT,'' which isn't an

emission standard. Instead, it states what is known about potential

MACT and provides information on how to develop the emission standard.

During the second phase, we develop a formal MACT standard for the

source category, propose it, and promulgate it.

To develop the ``presumptive MACT,'' we first met with State and

local agencies, (the presumptive MACT meeting), and then consulted with

industry. In the presumptive MACT meeting, we reviewed available

information with the States to estimate presumptive MACT. This meeting

took place on July 20, 1994 at Research Triangle Park, NC (RTP), and we

extended it by conference call with other affected agencies on August

23, 1994. We based the presumptive MACT largely on three sources: (1)

information Wisconsin and Maryland State environmental agencies

collected as they developed VOC RACT standards, (2) our Control

Technology Center's guidance document, ``Assessment of VOC Emissions

and their Control from Baker's Yeast Manufacturing Facilities,'' and

(3) information we collected from State and local agencies and

manufacturers. The summary of the July 20, 1994 meeting, which is

available in the project docket, explains how we developed the

presumptive MACT.

This draft presumptive MACT and summary were then presented at a

meeting in RTP on September 22, 1994. The meeting's purpose was to get

stakeholders' comments on the selected presumptive MACT. The summary of

the September 22, 1994 meeting, which is available in the project

docket, outlines the reactions and concerns stakeholders expressed at

the meeting. Our presumptive MACT partner, Wisconsin, prepared a

technical support document (also available in the project docket) for

presumptive MACT.

The presumptive MACT presented in 1994 contained the following

major elements: (1) suggested MACT floor for existing sources set as an

acetaldehyde emission limit of 0.7 pounds per ton of liquid yeast

produced (lb/ton LY); (2) suggested MACT floor for new sources set as

an acetaldehyde emission limit of 0.2 lb/ton LY; (3) anticipated

control of area and major sources; and (4) anticipated control of

wastewater emissions resulting from the addition of add-on control

technologies at some sources.

Following is a summary of the major comments made at the

stakeholder meeting: (1) Some companies wanted to monitor their

acetaldehyde emissions to verify the assumptions about their ability to

comply with the standard and to verify that emissions from dry yeasts

are comparable to cream yeast emissions; (2) Stakeholders asked for

clarification that the new source standard would apply to complete new

production lines, and that the existing source standard would apply to

new units added to existing lines; (3) Stakeholders wanted to be kept

informed about further development on how MACT would apply to

wastewater emissions; (4) Stakeholders wanted exemptions for small area

sources based on site-specific risk evaluations; (5) Stakeholders

wanted an exemption for small quantity production of specialty yeasts;

and (6) Stakeholders wanted flexibility in monitoring requirements

[[Page 55816]]

and greater certainty over what is required to establish site specific

operating parameters.

After we developed the presumptive MACT, we consulted with the

stakeholders, several of whom provided more data and analysis to help

evaluate the standard's effects and ensure our requirements for

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping are practical. We also did

tests at two facilities to validate test methods considered for the

MACT standard and to get more emissions data. Beginning in June of

1998, we held additional stakeholder meetings in RTP, NC and by

teleconference, to which we invited representatives from the industry,

States, and other stakeholders. During these meetings, we reviewed the

findings from the presumptive MACT process, summarized our more recent

testing results, described our intentions for proposing the MACT

standard, and solicited input from the stakeholders. During the course

of these meetings and teleconferences, representatives from the States

and industry were given the opportunity to provide a great deal of

input, and to submit supporting technical information, to assist us in

the development of this proposed rulemaking. The rulemaking docket

includes minutes from the stakeholder meetings and copies of written

information that was provided by the States and industry

representatives. Based on our review of the information used to develop

the presumptive MACT and the additional information we collected since

then, we've determined the MACT floor and selected MACT as described in

this preamble. As discussed in the following section, we are co-

proposing two MACT standards.

IV. What Are the Proposed Emission Standards?

With this notice, we are co-proposing two sets of emission limits

and associated requirements. One set, which we will refer to within

this preamble as the ``RACT standard,'' relies on the concentration-

based model used in Wisconsin's and Maryland's RACT rules; this is

designated as ``Option 1'' in the proposed regulatory text. The second

set, which we will refer to in this preamble as the ``PMACT standard,''

relies on a production-based format, which is the same format

considered in the 1994 presumptive MACT described in section III.E of

this preamble; this is designated as ``Option 2'' in the proposed

regulatory text. Both of the co-proposed regulatory options are printed

as proposed standard following this preamble, and both are designated

as subpart CCCC, Secs. 63.2130 through 63.2229. In submitting comments,

please specify whether the comment pertains to one or both options for

the co-proposed standards. We will further evaluate these co-proposed

standards based on our review of public comments and other information

we may receive. The final rule will reflect either one of the co-

proposed standards, a combination of the co-proposed standards, or a

different approach altogether. We are accepting public comments on the

co-proposed alternatives as well as on any other alternatives.

In addition to the standards that are specific to subpart CCCC, the

40 CFR part 63 General Provisions also would apply to you as outlined

in Table 3 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify

procedures and criteria we use to implement all NESHAP promulgated

under the amended Act. The General Provisions contain administrative

procedures, preconstruction review procedures, and procedures for

conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications,

recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The

subpart CCCC proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General

Provisions to highlight key sections that we believe will be of

particular interest to you. However, unless specifically overridden in

Table 3 of the rule, which establishes the applicability of the General

Provisions to the subpart, you should assume that all of the applicable

General Provisions requirements would apply to you.

A. What Are the Emission Limits?

RACT Standard. The proposed RACT standard would limit the allowable

VOC concentration per fermentation stage during a single fermentation

batch from exceeding the following levels: (1) the last fermentation

stage (trade) must have emissions of VOC less than or equal to 150

parts per million (ppm), (2) the second-to-last stage (first

generation) must have emissions of VOC less than or equal to 225 ppm,

and (3) the third-to-last stage (stock) must have emissions of VOC less

than or equal to 450 ppm. These limits would apply to new and existing

sources and are equal to the existing RACT limits, where VOC is

expressed as ethanol. (The State-implemented RACT standards are

expressed as propane.)

Our proposed RACT standard includes alternate emission limits for

each fermentation stage based on an equivalent concentration of

acetaldehyde. You can comply with either the emission limit for VOC or

the emission limit for acetaldehyde. Prior to your initial compliance

demonstration, you would choose one of these two emission limit

options. In your initial compliance certification, you would notify the

Administrator of your choice, and thereafter you would monitor and

report compliance results accordingly. The acetaldehyde monitoring

limits are 18 percent of the VOC limits. We chose 18 percent because it

is the average percentage of acetaldehyde in total VOC emissions at

existing facilities in our MACT floor data base. For the last

fermentation stage, the maximum allowable acetaldehyde concentration is

27 ppm. For the second-to-last fermentation stage, the maximum

allowable acetaldehyde concentration is 41 ppm. For the third-to-last

fermentation stage, the maximum allowable acetaldehyde concentration is

81 ppm.

The format of the State-implemented RACT rules is that the emission

limits are never to be exceeded. Sources subject to rules of this

format must design their control systems to achieve the emissions

standard at all times, considering there are fluctuations in

manufacturing processes. If the system is always in compliance, over

time, the control system results in emission reductions greater than

the standard requires. We are taking comment on whether the proposed

emission limits should be more stringent, so that they more closely

reflect the actual performance of facilities complying with State-

implemented RACT standards.

Besides establishing concentration-based limits on emissions, the

proposed RACT standard would require you to cap the flow rate for every

fermenter subject to the standard. This air flow limit is based on the

fermenter exhaust's average flow rate for the last 12 months. For

fermenters built after October 19, 1998, you must cap the flow rate at

the maximum flow rate per fermenter volume that our written guidance

specifies. We plan to develop this guidance before publishing the final

standard based on our survey of fermenter-to-air flow volumes. See

section X.B for discussion on the need for a flow rate cap.

PMACT Standard. The proposed PMACT standard would limit VOC

emissions from each existing fermentation production line to 9.4

lb/ton LY each calendar month. The proposed PMACT standard would limit

VOC emissions from each new fermentation production line to 7.2

lb/ton LY each calendar month. Existing lines are those operating on

the date this preamble is published. New fermentation production lines

are those

[[Page 55817]]

you begin constructing or reconstructing after this date.

As with the RACT standard, you may choose to monitor acetaldehyde

directly and show compliance with an equivalent limit. The acetaldehyde

emission limits are 18 percent of the VOC limits. For existing sources,

the equivalent acetaldehyde limit is 1.7

lb/ton LY. For new and reconstructed sources, the equivalent limit is

1.3

lb/ton LY.

Use of Add-on Control Technology. To comply with the proposed

rules, you may decide to limit VOC emissions by using add-on control

technologies such as incineration or biofiltration. More likely, you

may decide to limit emissions by monitoring process conditions to

reduce the formation of VOC while producing yeast. Process-control

steps include timing when you add raw materials and optimizing the

oxygen supply in the fermenter at critical stages.

Interaction with Other Regulations. Whatever the final format, you

may have to follow both the NESHAP and other existing rules, such as

RACT limits on VOC emissions. If an existing rule and the proposed rule

don't conflict, you must comply with both rules. Conflicts would be

resolved through your Title V permit, and the most stringent

requirements would govern.

B. Does the Proposed Rule Have Exemptions?

The proposed rule has exemptions for specialty yeasts and Torula

yeast produced using aerobic fermentation.

Specialty yeasts. This industry mainly produces varieties of

nutritional yeast from different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

However, this industry also can produce types of yeast commonly known

as ``specialty yeasts.'' Specialty yeasts include those for wine,

champagne, whiskey, and beer. Most of these yeasts are varieties of

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but they're genetically diverse, so certain

strains do certain things better than others. For example, a whiskey

strain may be able to metabolize carbohydrates in an ethanol-rich

environment, whereas others can't. But, their uniqueness also means

they have narrow uses, so their production is limited compared to that

of nutritional yeast.

Of all the specialty yeasts, wine yeast is most plentiful, and

champagne and whiskey yeasts also make up a large part of the total.

Only small amounts of beer yeast are produced. Overall, specialty

yeasts usually account for less than 1 percent of a facility's total

yeast production.

We propose exempting specialty yeast production from the RACT and

PMACT standards because it is a small fraction of the total production.

It can also be difficult to estimate emissions from this process.

Specialty yeasts aren't often produced, so we have no process-control

parameters and relevant data to correlate emissions and production.

Thus, calculating emissions would be difficult and expensive.

Torula yeast. For the following reasons, we've decided not to

propose regulating Torula yeast produced using aerobic fermentation.

Torula yeast (Candida utilis) is a nutritional yeast, typically

produced as an additional product at paper mills. The high sugar

concentration of the spent sulfite liquor from the pulping process is

an ideal carbon source for Torula yeast. The only possible source of

acetaldehyde is the fermentation tank in which the Torula yeast grows.

The rest of the processes are either washing, drying, or yeast-

conditioning stages. Usually, the paper mill needs only one

fermentation tank to produce Torula yeast. The tank typically holds

80,000 gallons, and it is aerated, well agitated, and open to the

atmosphere. Because of these well aerated conditions, producing

acetaldehyde anaerobically is unlikely. Also, Candida utilis can

consume acetaldehyde and ethanol. We conclude that Torula yeast

production, as described above, should not be in the national emission

standards for nutritional yeast manufacturers because the anaerobic

conditions for acetaldehyde production never occur in the fermentation

tank.

There may be Torula yeast production at nutritional yeast

manufacturing facilities. However, we don't have sufficient information

on the potential for emitting acetaldehyde or other HAPs to justify

exempting all production of Torula yeast. Therefore, we intend our

exemption to apply to paper mill-type operations, which use aerobic

fermentation. We request comment on whether this exclusion should apply

to other sources that produce Torula yeast, if any such operations

exist.

C. What Pollutants Are Proposed To Be Limited?

In both the RACT and the PMACT standards, we propose to limit VOC

emissions from fermentation production lines. As discussed in section

X.C of this preamble, we believe it is reasonable to use VOC as a

surrogate for acetaldehyde, which is the HAP of concern in this source

category. However, since some facilities may currently monitor

acetaldehyde emissions from their fermenters, the proposed rules also

allow you to meet equivalent acetaldehyde emission limits. See sections

VI and XI of this preamble for more discussion of monitoring

requirements and issues.

V. How Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Standard?

Under the proposed RACT and PMACT standards, existing sources would

have to comply with the final standards within 3 years of publication

in the Federal Register. New or reconstructed sources would have to

comply upon startup of the affected fermentation production line.

RACT Standard. You would show compliance with the RACT emission

limit if the average VOC (or equivalent acetaldehyde) concentration for

the batch is no more than the concentration in the proposed emission

limit for each fermenter and each stage. You must continuously monitor

emissions and demonstrate that your monitoring system is operating

properly.

You must also show that the average flow rate from each fermenter

used in a batch is no more than the cap on flow rate established for

it. You would monitor flow rate with a calibrated annubar or other

approved alternative to determine the air flow in the fermenter's

exhaust stack.

PMACT Standard. You would show compliance with the PMACT emission

limit for each fermentation production line if, for a given calendar

month, the average of total batch emissions per ton of liquid yeast

produced divided by the number of batch operations is no more than the

VOC or equivalent acetaldehyde standard. You must continuously monitor

emissions and demonstrate that your monitoring system is operating

properly. You must also continuously monitor the exhaust air flow from

each fermenter to be able to calculate mass emissions. Finally, you

must record the production data needed to determine the tons of liquid

yeast produced per batch. Production, or batch yield, means the

discrete amount of yeast produced from the last fermentation stage of a

batch operation. It is expressed as tons of liquid yeast, based on 30

percent solids.

Add-on Control Technology. If you choose to limit emissions by

using an add-on control technology, such as incineration or

biofiltration, you must also meet the requirements described in section

VII of this preamble.

VI. What Monitoring Must I Do To Show Ongoing Compliance?

You must meet the relevant requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 of the

General Provisions, such as those

[[Page 55818]]

governing how to do monitoring, especially continuous emission

monitoring, and how to request alternative monitoring methods. You also

must continuously monitor the emissions concentration in every affected

fermenter's exhaust stack. If you choose to monitor VOC, you would use

Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to

show your system for continuous monitoring of emissions is operating

properly. You would also use EPA Method 25A to do the relative accuracy

test PS 8 requires. Or, if you choose to monitor acetaldehyde, you

would use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show your monitoring

system is operating properly. You'd record all data as 15-minute block

values.

Both proposed rule formats would require you to continuously

monitor the rate of air flow or a parameter of the blower that is

correlated with the rate of air flow from each fermenter's exhaust

stack. In the case of the RACT rule, this information itself directly

measures compliance with the standard's required cap on flow rate. For

the PMACT rule, you would combine data on flow rate with concentration

data to calculate mass emissions from the stack. You would monitor flow

rate with a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to

determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. You'd record

all data as 15-minute block values.

If you choose to limit emissions by using an add-on control

technology, such as incineration or biofiltration, you must meet the

added monitoring requirements described in section VII of this

preamble.

VII. What if I Use an Add-On Control Technology To Comply With the

Standards?

While we do not know of any facilities that intend to use add-on

control technologies to meet the proposed emission limits, their use is

technologically feasible. Therefore, we are proposing requirements for

any facilities which choose this compliance option. Sections 63.2150

through 63.2151 of the proposed rule cover your use of incineration.

Sections 63.2155 through 63.2156 of the proposed rule cover

biofiltration. In both cases, you would have to test initial

performance and show compliance with the limits on VOC emissions. These

performance tests would establish monitoring values for the control

device's ongoing performance, and you would need to meet this

performance parameter. For an incinerator, the temperature in each

combustion chamber must stay at or above the minimum temperature

established during the performance test, based on 15-minute block

values. For a biofiltration system, you must keep the pressure drop

across the system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of

the complying pressure drop, or within the range of the complying

values for pressure drop established during your initial test of

performance.

VIII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

Must I Follow?

Initial Notice. If the standards apply to you, you would need to

send a notice to the Administrator within 120 days after the effective

date of these standards for existing sources and within 120 days after

the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources. As

outlined in the General Provisions under 40 CFR 63.9, this report

notifies the Administrator (or delegated agency under section 112(l) of

the Act) that an existing facility must meet the proposed standards or

that you've constructed a new facility. Thus it allows you and the

Administrator to plan for compliance activities.

Notice of Performance Tests and Periods for Evaluating Continuous

Emission Monitors. The General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7 and 40 CFR

63.9(g), require you to notify the Administrator (or delegated agency

under section 112(l) of the Act) before testing the performance of

control devices and evaluating continuous emissions monitors.

Notice of Compliance Status. The General Provisions, 40 CFR

63.9(h), require you to send a notice of compliance status within 60

days after the final compliance date. This report must include your

compliance certification, the results of performance tests and

monitoring, and a description of how you'll determine continuing

compliance as outlined under 40 CFR 63.9. Your notice must include the

range of each monitored parameter for each affected source, information

verifying this range shows compliance with the emission standard, and

information indicating that each source has operated within its

designated operating parameters. To comply with the proposed VOC or

acetaldehyde emission limits, your compliance report must contain at

least three months worth of complying data.

Periodic Reports. The following periodic reports are required under

this proposal. You would have to send us reports every six months if

any of the following were true:

Your operation doesn't comply with the emission limits.

A monitored value is exceeds its benchmark.

A change occurs at your facility or within your process

that might affect its compliance status.

A change occurs at your facility or within your process

that you must normally report in the initial notice.

See Sec. 63.2165 of the proposed rules for more information.

Other Reports. The General Provisions, particularly sections 40 CFR

63.9 and 63.10, require certain other reports, including those you must

do for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. For example, you

must develop a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have

to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests

to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected

source or until the source no longer must meet the standards in the

proposed rule. If your procedures are consistent with your plan, you

must say so in writing and deliver or postmark your report to us by

July 30 and January 30. If your procedures are inconsistent with your

plan, you must report what you're doing within two working days after

starting these inconsistent actions, then send us a letter within seven

working days after the event ends.

IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed

Standards?

A. What Is the Affected Source?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of

stationary sources, or part of a stationary source regulated by the

NESHAP. Within a source category, we select the emission sources

(emission points or groupings of emission points) that will make up the

affected source. To select these emission sources, we mainly consider

the constituent HAP and quantity emitted from individual, or groups, of

emission points.

In selecting the affected source for the NESHAP on nutritional

yeast manufacturing, we identified the HAP-emitting operations at

existing facilities. Manufacturers produce yeast in the following

steps.

Grow the yeast from the pure yeast culture in a series of

fermentation vessels. Molasses, nutrients and vitamins are added along

with oxygen to ensure optimal feed rates and aerobic conditions for

maximizing yield of the final product.

Recover the yeast from the final fermenter using

centrifugal action to concentrate the yeast solids.

Filter the yeast solids using a filter press or a rotary

vacuum filter to concentrate the yeast further.

[[Page 55819]]

Blend the yeast filter cake in mixers with small amounts

of water, emulsifiers, and cutting oils.

Extrude the mixed press cake and cut it.

Wrap the cakes for shipment or dry them to form dry yeast.

Acetaldehyde, along with ethanol and other non-HAP VOC, form when

conditions in the fermentation tank become anaerobic. The rate of VOC

formation is higher in the earlier stages, but results in far less mass

than in later stages because the earlier stages occur in smaller

fermenters and the overall production rate is lower. One company

recently showed that more than 99 percent of emissions from nutritional

yeast manufacturing occur during the last three fermentation stages.

Therefore, we decided to limit the NESHAP to these last three stages.

We also considered whether to treat the affected source as each

piece of equipment (fermenter) or as a collection of equipment.

Individual facilities differ in the structure of their fermentation

lines. Also, even at the same facility, production processes can vary

between products and batches. Because of the variability in the number,

type, and use of individual fermenters, we're proposing to treat the

affected source as the fermentation production line. We've defined the

``fermentation production line'' as the collection of fermenters used

in the last three fermentation stages. This collection of fermenters

would be required to meet the proposed rules for existing and new

sources (i.e., under the proposed RACT approach, each of the fermenters

in the last three stages would be required to comply with the

applicable VOC/acetaldehyde emission limit, and under the proposed

production-based approach, the total mass of VOC/acetaldehyde emissions

from the fermenters in the last three stages of each batch must be

below the applicable limit per ton LY produced in the batch).

Wastewater is another potential source of VOC/acetaldehyde

emissions in the nutritional yeast manufacturing process. Wastewater

comes from washing and drying the final yeast product. It may also come

from using of an add-on control technology that reduces emissions from

fermentation. For example, one facility, which is no longer operating,

used biofiltration to remove VOC from the stack gas. It also installed

a wet scrubber upstream of the biofilter to remove potassium and

ammonia from the exhaust gas because these chemicals slow the growth of

microorganisms used to remove the VOC. Although scrubbers can remove

VOC/acetaldehyde from gas streams, they also produce wastewater that

contains VOC and acetaldehyde. Our PMACT partner, Wisconsin, studied

the wastewater emissions at two facilities, and determined that

acetaldehyde concentration in wastewater was very low (less than 10

ppm). Though the concentration may be low, acetaldehyde emissions from

wastewater could total more than 1 ton per year at a large facility.

Therefore, we considered acetaldehyde emissions from wastewater as

potentially being part of the affected source at facilities

manufacturing nutritional yeast.

In addition to the operations whose primary purpose is the

commercial production of nutritional yeast, large nutritional yeast

facilities usually have research and laboratory areas for research and

development. These areas may or may not be at the production site. They

test new manufacturing protocols or develop new and improved yeast

strains.

These areas normally have pilot plant sized fermenters to do lab-

scale fermentations. The size of the fermenters can be as small as 5

gallons. Although the installations are used regularly, each

fermentation batch may have different products and processes because it

is experimental research. These types of facilities have no methodical

or systematic production process, and the activity varies from day to

day.

Based on this description of research and development facilities,

we believe they should be excluded from the definition of the

nutritional yeast manufacturing source category. If we later decide to

regulate research and development facilities under a separately defined

source category under section 112(c)(7) of the Act, the scope of these

later rules might include research and development operations at

nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities.

B. How Was PMACT Determined?

We developed the presumptive MACT (PMACT) for nutritional yeast

manufacturing in 1994 with input from Federal, State, and local

environmental agencies and industry representatives. The PMACT

Technical Support Document, published in September 1994, summarizes

emission data and analyzes the MACT floor. In 1994, our findings

suggested that PMACT was 0.7 lb of acetaldehyde/ton LY for existing

fermentation production lines and 0.21 lb of acetaldehyde/ton LY for

new lines.

C. What Is the MACT Floor That Is the Basis for the Proposed Standard?

After developing the PMACT, we reviewed it, considering

deficiencies identified later in certain tests and data analyses as

well as test data gathered since that time. As a result, we determined

that it may be appropriate to consider the MACT floor from two

perspectives. One perspective is that available test data represent the

floor--a refined PMACT approach. In considering this approach to

setting the floor, we reviewed all available yeast production and

emissions data for nutritional yeast manufacturers in the U.S. Because

this source category has fewer than 30 sources, we tried to identify

the five best-performing sources to establish the MACT floor. We

discarded some data because of questionable test methods, particularly

in applying Method TO-5. We discarded some data because key variables,

such as the fraction of acetaldehyde in the VOC, were not documented.

We haven't included one recent test yet because we disagree with the

facility on how to measure or estimate flow rates of the emission

streams. Finally, we discarded one test because it represented only

partial emissions from a facility equipped with an add-on control

technology, and it is no longer operating. (See docket number A-97-13

for more information on emission test data and our analysis of the MACT

floor.)

After deciding which data represented the five best-performing

facilities, we revised the draft MACT floor determination for existing

fermentation production lines to 1.7 lb acetaldehyde/ton LY. The best

performing source can achieve an emissions rate of 1.3 lb acetaldehyde/

ton LY, which represents the MACT floor for new fermentation production

lines. This MACT floor is the basis for the emission limits proposed in

the PMACT rule. As discussed in section IV.A of this preamble, we've

proposed this level of performance both in terms of VOC and as an

equivalent acetaldehyde limit.

We also considered basing the MACT floor on existing emissions

standards, particularly RACT or limits derived from RACT. Of the 10

facilities we confirmed as operating, 5 are subject to RACT or RACT-

derived limits. This approach has several advantages compared to the

PMACT approach, in both the format of the final standards and the body

of data available to support a MACT determination. Therefore, we are

proposing that the MACT floor equals RACT.

[[Page 55820]]

As described in section II of this preamble, we are proposing that

a ``fermentation production line'' means all fermenters exceeding 7,000

gallons capacity and used in sequence to produce a discrete amount of

yeast. We chose the capacity cutoff of 7,000 gallons to define the

fermentation production line, based on industry information that

fermentation vessels larger than 7,000 gallons are used exclusively in

the last three stages of yeast manufacturing. Essentially, we are using

the capacity cutoff of 7,000 gallons to clearly define what we mean by

the last three fermentation stages of yeast manufacturing. We are

requesting comment on whether there are fermenters smaller than 7,000

gallons capacity that are used in the last three stages of yeast

manufacturing. If your comments indicate that smaller fermentation

vessels are used in the last three stages of yeast manufacturing, we

may promulgate a capacity cutoff value that is smaller than 7,000 so

that the capacity cutoff accurately defines the fermentation operations

we intend to regulate under this MACT.

Wastewater at a nutritional yeast manufacturing facility is a

potential source of VOC/HAP emissions. We tried to develop a MACT floor

for wastewater emissions. Unconfirmed information gathered during

development of the 1994 PMACT document suggests that all facilities

send their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works and that there

may be one facility that pretreats its wastewater. Because of the

extremely limited nature of this information, we haven't been able to

set a MACT floor for wastewater at this time. We're requesting comments

on MACT floor for wastewater.

We will further consider setting a MACT floor for wastewater, based

on your comments and data, and any other information that becomes

available to us. Upon further consideration, we may set a MACT floor

for wastewater based on pretreatment, air emission controls on

wastewater units, treatment of wastewater off-site at a POTW, other

technologies, or some combination of these options.

D. What Is Proposed MACT?

As described in our January 1992 document, ``Assessment of VOC

Emissions and Their Control from Baker's Yeast Manufacturing'' (EPA-

450/3-91-027), process control on the fermentation production line

should be able to reduce 75 to 95 percent of emissions. Vessel design

may also reduce emissions, but we can't determine at this point which

designs may be most effective for the entire industry. Although using

add-on control devices theoretically could reduce emissions 95 to 98

percent, the industry doesn't use them now. One facility that formerly

used add-on control technology had enough problems to dissuade us from

requiring it, even at new facilities, in the proposed standards. We

believe no workable control options exist for the fermentation

production line beyond the floor, which is represented by process

control at facilities subject to RACT or RACT-like limits. Therefore,

we are proposing that MACT equals the MACT floor for the fermentation

production line.

As discussed in the PMACT approach to the MACT floor, we have

identified the top five performing sources in the industry using

available data. For this PMACT approach, we selected the average

emissions level of these sources as the proposed emission limit for

existing sources. We selected the performance of the best-performing

source as the proposed emission limit for new sources.

The RACT approach is based on at least five existing sources

already having to meet RACT or RACT-like limits. We believe these

facilities are producing fewer emissions than RACT requires, based on

rough analysis of production data and information from these

facilities. Thus, although we are proposing the RACT limits as the MACT

limits, we will consider comments and data that support a potentially

lower MACT emission limit. This information should also allow us to

determine if new sources can achieve an even more stringent MACT, based

on the best-performing source.

For the same reasons we were unable to identify a MACT floor for

wastewater emissions, we are not proposing a MACT standard for

wastewater emissions at this time. We're requesting comments on

regulating wastewater at manufacturers of nutritional yeast, and on

appropriate MACT standards for wastewater. We will further consider

setting a MACT requirements for wastewater, based on your comments and

data, and any other information that becomes available to us. Upon

further consideration, we may promulgate MACT requirements for

nutritional yeast manufacturing wastewater that include pretreatment,

air emission controls on wastewater units, treatment of wastewater off-

site at a POTW, other technologies, or some combination of these

options.

X. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed

Standards?

As discussed above, we are co-proposing two standards with

different formats. The proposed PMACT standard would be expressed as a

limit on the amount of VOC emitted in fermenter offgas for a given

amount of yeast produced, in units of weight of VOC per weight of yeast

produced. (We standardize yeast production as 30 percent solids.) The

proposed RACT standard would be based on the concentration of VOC in

fermenter offgas coupled with a limit on air flow from each fermenter.

In this section, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of

each format and request comment on the best format for the promulgated

standards.

Section 112 of the Act requires us to prescribe emission standards

for HAP control unless, in the Administrator's judgment, it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce them according to section 112(h) of

the Act: (1) if the HAP can't be emitted through a conveyance designed

and built to emit or capture the HAP, or (2) if measurement methodology

isn't practicable because of technological or economic limitations. If

we can't prescribe or enforce emission standards, we may establish an

equipment, work practice, design, or operational standard, or a

combination of these approaches.

In this case, we know an emission standard is workable for the

fermentation production line because several of you are already

complying with emission standards on the line, and test methods and

monitoring methods are available to measure emissions. We then

considered whether the limit should be based on production or on outlet

concentration. Both formats have advantages and disadvantages, which we

have summarized below.

A. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Production-Based Format

A production-based format, such as the proposed PMACT regulation,

ensures that all regulated sources, even those with variable processes,

must meet uniform standards. We do not know of any way that a source

could meet a production-based standard by diluting emission streams

with increased air flow; however, such dilution is a potential problem

under a concentration-based format, such as the proposed RACT-like

regulation.

A potential problem for the production-based format is that

measuring production out of the fermenter is difficult and inexact.

Several days' or even weeks' worth of

[[Page 55821]]

data may be needed to measure production accurately. Also, yields vary

significantly, which would make it difficult to correlate the

fermenter's yield with the final product delivered. Measuring inputs,

such as the amount of sweetener added, is even more complex.

A significant concern commenters raised in stakeholder meetings was

that a production-based format would require you to submit production

information to show compliance, which could damage your competitiveness

if the information became available to the public. A related concern is

that you would be unable to review the data we used to develop the

standard because it must remain confidential. Also, you have raised

concerns about the cost and burden of monitoring and recordkeeping,

which depend on the sum of emissions from each batch based on the ratio

of fermentation stages, plus determining the yield from each batch of

trade yeast. One company estimated initial investments of $500,000 to

$1,000,000 per facility, and annual expenses of $50,000 to $100,000 per

facility.

B. Advantages and Disadvantages of a Concentration-Based Format

A concentration-based limit, similar to the existing RACT format

for VOC, avoids several problems of a production-based limit, such as

the need for you to openly report production. This format could allow

you and others to more thoroughly review data we use to set the MACT

floor. Testing and monitoring costs are likely to be lower, especially

if the standard allows you to comply with a VOC standard. Finally, this

format allows a shorter averaging time, such as a batch cycle, to

measure emissions.

One potential disadvantage of a concentration-based format is that

sources could meet the standard by increasing air flow, and thus

diluting the emission stream, rather than reducing acetaldehyde

emissions. Some of you have suggested that this disadvantage should not

be a regulatory concern, because the relative expense of air flow

handling systems precludes you from installing systems that have excess

air flow capacity. Essentially, you have indicated that most fermenter

blowers are already operating at their full capacity, and this is not a

practical concern for existing sources. However, we continue to

consider the potential for dilution of emission streams to be a

regulatory concern, particularly for new and modified sources, and are

proposing to include a cap on air flow rate.

Depending on how we cap the flow rate, some of you expressed

concern that you would lose the flexibility to vary the overall balance

of flow rate and concentration. Setting a cap also could be difficult

given that air flow varies by fermentation stage, product, and other

variables. You would also need to show that the cap itself doesn't

allow excessive air flow. Some of you also were concerned that

reporting flow-rate data would harm confidentiality and

competitiveness.

C. Why Does the Standard Allow Using VOC as a Surrogate for

Acetaldehyde?

We propose to regulate VOC emissions as a surrogate for

acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde and ethanol are both undesirable by-products

from the fermentation process, and controlling one controls the other.

Using a VOC standard will reduce compliance costs, because monitoring

VOC is less complex and expensive than monitoring acetaldehyde. We

haven't received any evidence that sources can selectively control VOC

at the expense of increased acetaldehyde, nor do we know of any

incentive for sources to do so. Therefore, we're asking for comment on

whether we should promulgate a final standard that allows the use of

VOC as a surrogate for acetaldehyde.

XI. Why Did We Select the Proposed Monitoring Requirements?

The proposed monitoring requirements are consistent with our policy

of developing them ``top-down,'' with the most stringent tier

representing continuous monitoring that directly measures compliance

with the emission limits. We have published appropriate EPA monitoring

methods, and several sources already do similar monitoring to show

compliance with permit requirements.

XII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Test Methods?

The proposed rules would require emissions tests for cases in which

a source decides to meet the emission limit by using an add-on control

device. The test methods we propose to require are existing EPA methods

that are familiar to the industry and readily available. Late in

proposal development we identified two test methods developed by a

voluntary consensus body that may be alternatives for EPA Method 2 and

EPA Method 18. The first, ASTM D 3464-96, Standard Test Method for

Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer, may be an

equivalent alternative to EPA Method 2. The second, ASTM D 6060-96,

Standard Practice for Sampling of Process Vents with a Portable Gas

Chromatograph, is a possible alternative to EPA Method 18, but may lack

sufficient quality assurance procedures to fully substitute for Method

18 in this rulemaking. We will further compare these two ASTM methods

to EPA Methods 2 and 18, and evaluate the appropriateness of their use

for the final subpart CCCC rule. We also request comments on the

feasibility of using these or other methods to perform the necessary

testing procedures to show compliance with the proposed standards.

Because of the long history behind use of the EPA methods, we would

need compelling evidence to convince us that other methods are better

alternatives.

We have identified some concerns related to the use of EPA Method 2

for measuring volumetric flow rate due to unpredictably fluctuating

pressures in the exhaust stacks of the fermenters. Under these

conditions, it may not be possible to obtain reliable air flow data by

using a pitot tube and manometer. We are considering whether we need to

modify Method 2 or replace it with another method when we promulgate

the final rules. We ask the public to comment and provide relevant

information on this issue.

XIII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements?

The proposed rules require you to comply with the notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General Provisions.

They also establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements we must

have to ensure you comply with requirements in subpart CCCC.

XIV. How Can I Comment on This Proposed Rule?

A. Written Comments

We want your participation before arriving at our final decisions

and strongly encourage all comments, including complete supporting data

and detailed analyses if possible so we can best use these comments.

Send all comments to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Docket No. A-97-13 (see ADDRESSES) by December 18, 1998.

If you want to send proprietary information for consideration,

clearly distinguish it from other comments and label it ``Confidential

Business Information.'' Send submissions containing such proprietary

information directly to the following address to make sure the

proprietary material doesn't go into the docket: Attention:

[[Page 55822]]

Michele Aston, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential Business

Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina, 27711. Don't send it to the public docket or through

electronic mail. We will disclose information you claim to be

confidential only as allowed by 40 CFR part 2. If you don't claim

confidentiality, we may make your information available to the public

without further notice to you .

B. Public Hearing

If you want to provide verbal comments about the proposed

standards, contact us (see ADDRESSES), and we will hold a public

hearing. Anyone may file a written statement by December 18, 1998. Send

written statements to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A-97-13. If a public

hearing is held, we will place a verbatim transcript of the hearing and

written statements in the docket, which you can read and copy at the

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

XV. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposed

Rule?

A. Docket

The docket for this regulatory action is A-97-13. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the information we considered in

developing this proposed rule. It's a dynamic file because we keep

adding material throughout the rule's development. The docketing system

allows you to readily identify and locate documents so you can

participate in rulemaking. Along with the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, contents of the docket will serve as the

record in case of judicial review (see section 307(d)(7)(A) of the

Act).

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must

determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and

therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities.

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof.

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Because the proposed rules will affect only 10 existing facilities,

and because we expect no new facilities, we project the economic

effects to be far less than $100 million nationwide. Nor do we

anticipate any significant adverse effects to the facilities. Under

Executive Order 12866, this action is not a significant regulatory

action and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State,

local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any

sources subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase

control systems to meet the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with

States, as described in section III.E of this preamble, to enable them

to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule.

D. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Under

Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

we must provide OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble

to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the

nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires us to

develop an effective process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments because no known nutritional

yeast manufacturing facilities are located within these governments'

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

We've submitted to OMB requirements for collecting information

associated with the proposed standards (those included in 40 CFR part

63, subpart A and subpart CCCC) for approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an

Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1886-01), and

you may get a copy from Sandy Farmer, OP, Regulatory Information

Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may

also be downloaded off the interent at http://www.epa.gov/icr.

The total 3-year burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

for this collection is estimated at 19,135 labor hours, and the annual

average burden is 6,379 labor hours for the affected facilities. Annual

capital costs for VOC monitoring systems is estimated to be

[[Page 55823]]

$622,300 ($373,400 per facility for five facilities and annualized over

three years). This estimate includes annual performance tests for some

sources; ongoing monitoring for all sources; semiannual reports when

someone doesn't follow a plan for startups, shutdowns, and

malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual reports on excess emissions;

maintenance inspections; notices; and recordkeeping.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources people

spend to generate, maintain, keep, or disclose to or for a Federal

Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate,

and verify information; process, maintain, disclose, and provide

information; adjust ways to comply with any previously applicable

instructions and requirements; train people to respond to a collection

of information; search data sources; collect and review information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person need not respond

to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid

OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the

accuracy of our burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

lessening a respondent's burden (including automation) to the Director,

OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,

725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Mark your comments

``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.'' Include EPA's ICR number in any

correspondence. The final rule will respond to all comments from OMB or

the public on this proposal's information-collection requirements.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities because few or none of the 10

facilities expected to be subject to the proposed rule are small

entities, and because the regulatory impacts are anticipated to be

insignificant. Therefore, I certify that this proposed action will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.

L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt

the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205

do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the

alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling

timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with

significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,

educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a

Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more

for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any one year. The proposed rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they

own or operate no sources subject to this proposed rule and therefore

are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements

of this proposed rule. Regarding the private sector, the proposed rule

will affect only 10 existing facilities nationwide. We project that

annual economic effects will be far less than $100 million. Thus,

today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in developing this proposed

rule, EPA consulted with States, as described in section III.E of this

preamble, to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the

development of this proposed rule.

We also have determined that this proposed rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable

duties on small governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources

subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase control

systems to meet the requirements of this proposed rule.

H. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks Under Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1)

``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonable alternatives considered by the Agency.

The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.

272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

[[Page 55824]]

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose

to use longstanding EPA Reference test methods and procedures that show

compliance with emission standards. Specifically, we require EPA test

methods 1 through 4 and 25A, and Performance Specifications 8 and 9, as

codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We identified two candidate

voluntary consensus standards as being potentially applicable, and we

are soliciting comment on them in this proposed rulemaking. These

methods are discussed in more detail in section XII of this preamble.

XVI. What is the Statutory Authority for This Proposed Rule?

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided in sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rulemaking is also subject to

section 307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Nutritional yeast manufacturing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 7, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCCC (Option 1 and Option

2) to read as follows:

[Option 1 for Subpart CCCC]

Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

What This Regulation Covers

Sec.

63.2130 What is in this regulation?

63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?

63.2136 When must I comply?

General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and for

Monitoring and Performance Tests

63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the

standard?

63.2141 What monitoring must I do?

63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?

Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control

63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the

standard?

Requirements for Incinerators

63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?

63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the standard?

Requirements for Biofiltration

63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?

63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the standard?

Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring

63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of

monitoring?

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

63.2165 What reports must I prepare?

63.2166 What records must I maintain?

63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?

Delegation of Authorities

63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?

Secs. 63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]

Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

What This Regulation Covers

Sec. 63.2130 What is in this regulation?

This regulation describes the actions you must take to reduce

emissions if you own or operate a facility that manufactures

nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast or Saccharomyces

cerevisiae. The regulation establishes emission standards and states

what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all who must

follow the regulation; others depend on the means you use to comply

with an emission standard.

Sec. 63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?

(a) This regulation applies to you if you own, operate, or build a

facility that manufactures nutritional yeast and it falls under either

of the following categories:

(1) It is located at a new or existing major source of hazardous

air pollutant (HAP) emissions, meaning: ``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, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous

air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of

hazardous air pollutants.''

(2) It is located at a new or existing area source that increases

its actual or potential HAP emissions enough to become a major source.

(b) Each individual fermentation production line is an affected

source if it supports the industrial production of Saccharomyces

cerevisiae and it fits the following descriptions.

(1) Fermentation production line. A ``fermentation production

line'' means all fermenters that can hold more than 7,000 gallons and

are used in sequence to produce yeast. This regulation limits the line

to the last three fermentation stages, which may be referred to as

``stock, first generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A

batch combines these three fermentation stages to produce a single

product. A fermentation production line excludes flask, pure-culture,

or yeasting-tank fermentation, as well as all operations after the last

dewatering operation, such as filtration.

(2) Purposes of yeast production. This regulation applies to your

facility only if the yeast is made 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.

(c) This regulation also doesn't apply when you perform any of the

following operations at your facility:

(1) Produce specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne,

whiskey, and beer.

(2) Produce torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic

fermentation.

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

Sec. 63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?

(a) Unless you comply with the standard using equipment specified

in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, you must meet the emission

limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) or acetaldehyde in the

exhaust-gas stream from a fermenter during a fermentation batch.

(1) Prior to submitting your compliance certification under

Sec. 63.9(h) (initial compliance), you must select

[[Page 55825]]

whether you will monitor VOC or acetaldehyde. This selection will

determine the applicable standards for your facility. Section 63.2165

contains additional information on the notification procedures you must

follow in making your selection.

(2) If you monitor VOC, comply with the concentration limits of

Table 1 of this section:

Table 1.--Limits on VOC Concentrations

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

Maximum

allowable

concentration

Fermentation stage of VOC,

measured as

ethanol

(ppm)

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

Last stage (Trade)....................................... 150

Second-to-last stage (First generation).................. 225

Third-to-last stage (Stock).............................. 450

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

(3) If you monitor acetaldehyde, comply with the concentration

limits of Table 2 of this section:

Table 2.--Limits on Acetaldehyde Concentrations

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

Maximum

allowable

concentration

Fermentation stage of

acetaldehyde

(ppm)

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

Last stage (Trade)....................................... 27

Second-to-last stage (First generation).................. 41

Third-to-last stage (Stock).............................. 81

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

(b) If you follow the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section,

you must maintain the exhaust flow rate over a batch for every

fermenter below the maximum flow rate set according to the following

procedures.

(1) For an existing fermenter, set the flow rate cap based on the

average exhaust flow rate for that fermenter over the last 12 months.

(2) For a fermenter constructed or reconstructed after October 19,

1998, you must cap the flow rate at the maximum flow rate per fermenter

volume specified in our written guidance.

(c) If you use an incinerator to comply with the standard, you must

maintain the minimum operating temperature established in

Sec. 63.2142(a).

(d) If you use a biofilter to comply with the standard, you must

maintain the pressure drop within the complying pressure drop range

established in Sec. 63.2142(a).

Sec. 63.2136 When must I comply?

(a) If construction of your fermentation production line commenced

on or before October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after [Insert

date 3 years from publication of final rule in Federal Register.]

(b) If construction or reconstruction of your fermentation

production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must comply on

and after [Insert date of publication of final rule in Federal

Register] or on and after the date when you start operations, whichever

is later.

(c) If your fermentation production line becomes an affected source

after October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after the date 3 years

following the day it became an affected source, as defined by

Sec. 63.2131.

(d) If you can't meet a deadline, you may ask to extend the

compliance date by following the criteria and procedures in

Sec. 63.6(i).

(e) You must comply with the provisions in this subpart at all

times except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (as

defined in Sec. 63.2.)

General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and

for Monitoring and Performance Tests

Sec. 63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the

standard?

(a) Process control. You may use process control to reduce VOC and

acetaldehyde emissions and comply with the emission standard. ``Process

control'' means reducing emissions of VOC and acetaldehyde by

manipulating the flow of raw material, supply of oxygen, or some other

input, thereby controlling fermentation.

(b) Add-on control technology. As an alternative to process

control, you may use an add-on control technology, such as incineration

or biofiltration, to reduce VOC and acetaldehyde emissions and comply

with the emission standard.

(c) Showing compliance. Whether you use process or add-on controls,

you must show initial and ongoing compliance with the emission

standards in Sec. 63.2135. See the rest of this subpart for procedures

you must follow.

(d) Operation and maintenance. You must comply with the operation

and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e).

(e) General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) apply to owners and operators of major sources of HAP

emissions in all source categories, including nutritional yeast

manufacturing. Table 1 of this section lists the General Provisions

that apply to nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities:

Table 1 of Sec. 63.2140--General Provisions That Apply to Subpart CCCC

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

Applies to subpart

Reference, subpart A general CCCC, 63.2130- Comment

provisions 63.2229

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

63.1-63.5...................... Yes.

63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j)........... Yes.

63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)- Yes.

(h)(9).

63.7(h)(7)..................... No................. Sec. 63.6(h)(7),

using continuous

opacity

monitoring,

doesn't apply.

63.7........................... Yes.

63.8........................... Yes.

63.9........................... Yes.

63.10.......................... Yes.

63.11.......................... No................. Don't use flares

to comply with

the emission

limits.

63.12-63.15.................... Yes.

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

[[Page 55826]]

Sec. 63.2141 What monitoring must I do?

(a) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.8.

(b) You must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all

monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and the

plan for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions that you must develop and

use according to Sec. 63.6(e).

(c) If you choose to continuously monitor VOC emissions, you must

use Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part

60, to show that your continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is

operating properly.

(1) Use EPA Method 25A, in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to do the

relative-accuracy test PS 8 requires.

(2) Calibrate the reference method and the CEMS with ethanol.

(3) Collect a 1-hour sample for each reference-method test.

(4) Set the CEMS span at 1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant emission

limit.

(d) If you choose to continuously monitor acetaldehyde emissions,

you must use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show that your CEMS is

operating properly.

(e) If you are subject to Sec. 63.2135(b), you must continuously

monitor either the air-flow rate or a parameter of the blower system

correlated with the air-flow rate exiting each fermenter's exhaust

stack. Use a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to

determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. A

``fermenter's exhaust stack'' means the vent or ductwork that provides

an outlet for gas from a fermenter.

Sec. 63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?

(a) Testing frequency. If you choose to comply with the standard

using an add-on control technology, you must test its initial

performance to show compliance with the emission limits in

Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) or (a)(3) and to establish baseline monitoring

parameters that satisfy Secs. 63.2150 and 63.2155, as applicable. You

must test the control device's performance while manufacturing the

product that comprises the largest percentage of average annual

production. Test the device's performance within 180 days from the

compliance date that applies to you and test it again at least every 3

years or when process conditions change that would require a new

correlation.

(b) Approved test methods. You must follow the procedures in

Secs. 63.7 and 63.8 and use one of the following test methods. Unless

changed in this subpart, all EPA methods are in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter.

(1) Use Method 1 to select the sampling port's location and the

number of traverse points.

(2) Use Method 2 to measure volumetric flow rate.

(3) Use Method 3 for gas analysis to determine the dry molecular

weight of the stack gas.

(4) Use Method 4 to determine moisture content of the stack gas. 40

CFR part 60.

(5) Use EPA Method 25A, or any alternative validated by EPA Method

301, to measure VOC as ethanol.

(c) Additional requirements for performance tests. Make sure you:

(1) Design the test to sample a complete batch. You must do three

sampling runs for each of the three fermentation stages in a batch, as

defined in this rule.

(2) Do the test at a point in the exhaust-gas stream before you

inject any dilution air, meaning any air not needed to control

fermentation.

(3) Record the results of each run of the performance test.

Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control

Sec. 63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) If you monitor VOC using data obtained under Sec. 63.2141(c),

you must calculate the VOC concentration (measured as ethanol) from

each fermentation stage of the batch. Record data as 15-minute block

values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following

requirements:

(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.

(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.

(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.

(b) The VOC concentration of a stage is the average of all 15-

minute block values recorded during that stage. You meet the emission

standard in Sec. 63.2135(a) if the VOC concentration is no more than

the values in Table 1 for each fermenter.

(c) If you monitor acetaldehyde using data obtained under

Sec. 63.2141(d), you must calculate the acetaldehyde concentration from

each fermentation stage of the batch. Record data as 15-minute block

values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following

requirements:

(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.

(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.

(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.

(d) The acetaldehyde concentration of a stage is the average of all

15-minute block values recorded during that stage. You meet the

emission standard in Sec. 63.2135(a) if the acetaldehyde concentration

is no more than the values in Table 2 for each fermenter.

(e) Using the data obtained under Sec. 63.2141(e), you must

calculate the flow rate from each fermenter for each batch. Record data

as 15-minute block values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the

following requirements:

(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.

(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.

(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.

(f) The flow rate of a stage is the average of all 15-minute block

values recorded during that stage. You meet Sec. 63.2135(b) if the flow

rate recorded for each fermenter is no more than the maximum flow rate

cap established under Sec. 63.2135(b).

Requirements for Incinerators

Sec. 63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?

(a) You must monitor and record the temperature in the main chamber

and afterburner at least once every 15 minutes.

(b) Make sure the monitoring equipment is installed and operating,

and verify the data, before or during the performance test. To verify

that your equipment is operating, you must meet at least one of the

following standards:

(1) The manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations

for installing, operating, and calibrating the system.

(2) Other written procedures that ensure reasonably accurate

monitoring.

(c) Install, operate, and maintain the monitoring equipment so it

gives you representative measurements of parameters from the regulated

sources.

Sec. 63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) First, you must establish the minimum operating temperature for

each combustion chamber and afterburner with a performance test under

procedures in Sec. 63.2142. The minimum operating temperature is the

average of the three test run values recorded under Sec. 63.2142(c).

(b) Second, you must ensure that the temperature in each combustion

chamber stays at or above the minimum operating temperature, based on

15-minute block values taken according to Sec. 63.2150.

[[Page 55827]]

Requirements for Biofiltration

Sec. 63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?

(a) You must monitor and record the pressure drop across the

biofiltration system at least once every 8 hours.

(b) You must maintain the pressure drop across the biofiltration

system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of the complying

pressure drop, or within the range of the complying values for pressure

drop established during your initial performance test. ``Complying

pressure drop'' means the pressure drop at which your system meets an

emission standard.

Sec. 63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) You must establish the complying pressure drop across the

system during a performance test, following procedures in Sec. 63.2142.

(b) For each biofiltration system, you may establish either of the

following:

(1) A range of complying pressure drops by conducting multiple

compliance performance tests.

(2) One complying pressure drop as the average pressure drop

measured over three test runs of a single performance test.

(c) The pressure drop across your system must stay within 5 percent

and 1 inch of the water column of the complying pressure drop, or range

established in your performance test.

Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring

Sec. 63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of

monitoring?

(a) Monitoring and recordkeeping. (1) Request and receive approval

from the Administrator to use other monitoring methods, following

Sec. 63.8(f).

(2) Use the approved alternate monitoring procedure so you

continuously meet the emission standard that applies to you.

(3) Comply with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements the

Administrator specifies.

(b) Compliance demonstrations. (1) Do an initial performance test

to show you meet the emission standard.

(2) During any performance test, you must show that your monitoring

method can determine whether your process controls or add-on controls

meet the emission standard that applies to you.

(3) Unless the Administrator specifies another schedule, test

performance once per year.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Sec. 63.2165 Which reports must I prepare?

(a) You must follow the notification procedures in Sec. 63.9 and

the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.10. If the Administrator hasn't

delegated authority under subpart E of this part to your State, you

must notify the EPA's appropriate regional office. If your State has

delegated authority, notify your State and send copy of each notice to

the appropriate EPA regional office. The regional office may waive this

requirement.

(b) Following the procedures in Sec. 63.9(h), within 60 days after

completing the relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in

Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, or 63.2156, notify the Administrator of your

initial compliance status. In the case of Sec. 63.2145, process

control, you must report at least three months worth of complying data.

(c) Annually, certify your compliance by reporting the following

information:

(1) How you determined compliance, including specific information

about the parameters you monitored and the methods you used to monitor

them.

(2) The results of your monitoring procedures or methods.

(3) How you will continue to comply including a description of

monitoring and reporting requirements and test methods.

(4) A statement attesting to whether your facility has complied

with this regulation, signed by a responsible official who shall

certify its accuracy.

Sec. 63.2166 What records must I maintain?

(a) In addition to meeting the recordkeeping requirements under

Sec. 63.10, you must record the following information in a daily log:

(1) Operation time for all control devices and monitoring

equipment.

(2) Details of all routine and other maintenance on all control

devices and monitoring equipment, including dates and duration of any

outages.

(3) The fermentation stage for which you're using each fermenter.

(b) You must also record the information required to support your

compliance demonstrations under Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, and 63.2156.

Sec. 63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?

You must keep all records available for inspection for at least 5

years--onsite for the most recent 2 years of operation. You may keep

records for the previous 3 years off site.

Delegation of Authorities

Sec. 63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a

State under subpart E of this part, the Administrator will retain the

authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) [Reserved]

Sec. 63.2171--63.2229 [Reserved]

[Option 2 for Subpart CCCC]

Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

What This Regulation Covers

Sec.

63.2130 What is in this regulation?

63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?

63.2136 When must I comply?

General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission standards and for

Monitoring and Performance Tests

63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the

standard?

63.2141 What monitoring must I do?

63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?

Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control

63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the

standard?

Requirements for Incinerators

63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?

63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the standard?

Requirements for Biofiltration

63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?

63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the standard?

Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring

63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of

monitoring?

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

63.2165 What reports must I prepare?

63.2166 What records must I maintain?

63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?

Delegation of Authorities

63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?

63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]

[[Page 55828]]

Subpart CCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast

What This Regulation Covers

Sec. 63.2130 What is in this regulation?

This regulation describes the actions you must take to reduce

emissions if you own or operate a facility that manufactures

nutritional yeast, also known as baker's yeast or Saccharomyces

cerevisiae. The regulation establishes emission standards and states

what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all who must

follow the regulation; others depend on the means you use to comply

with an emission standard.

Sec. 63.2131 Does this regulation apply to me?

(a) This regulation applies to you if you own, operate, or build a

facility that manufactures nutritional yeast and it falls under either

of the following categories:

(1) It is located at a new or existing major source of hazardous

air pollutant (HAP) emissions, meaning: ``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, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous

air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of

hazardous air pollutants.''

(2) It is located at a new or existing area source that increases

its actual or potential HAP emissions enough to become a major source.

(b) Each individual fermentation production line is an affected

source if it supports the industrial production of Saccharomyces

cerevisiae and it fits the following descriptions.

(1) Fermentation production line. A ``fermentation production

line'' means all fermenters that can hold more than 7,000 gallons and

are used in sequence to produce yeast. This regulation limits the line

to the last three fermentation stages, which may be referred to as

``stock, first generation, and trade'' and ``CB4, CB5, and CB6.'' A

batch combines these three fermentation stages to produce a single

product. A fermentation production line excludes flask, pure-culture,

or yeasting-tank fermentation, as well as all operations after the last

dewatering operation, such as filtration.

(2) Purposes of yeast production. This regulation applies to your

facility only if the yeast is made 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.

(c) This regulation also doesn't apply when you perform any of the

following operations at your facility:

(1) Produce specialty yeasts, such as those for wine, champagne,

whiskey, and beer.

(2) Produce torula yeast (Candida utilis) using aerobic

fermentation.

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

Sec. 63.2135 What emission standards must I meet?

(a) Unless you comply with the standard using equipment specified

in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, you must meet the applicable

emission limits in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(3) of this section for

volatile organic compounds (VOC) or (a)(4) through (a)(5) of this

section for acetaldehyde emitted from the fermentation production line.

(1) Prior to submitting your compliance certification under

Sec. 63.9(h) (initial compliance), you must select whether you will

monitor VOC or acetaldehyde. This selection will determine the

applicable standards for your facility. Section 63.2165 contains

additional information on the notification procedures you must follow

in making your selection.

(2) If you monitor VOC and construction of your fermentation

production line commenced on or before October 19, 1998, you must limit

VOC emissions from each line to 9.4 pounds per ton of liquid yeast

produced (9.4 lb/ton LY) for each calendar month.

(3) If you monitor VOC and construction or reconstruction of your

fermentation production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must

limit VOC emissions from each line to 7.2 lb/ton LY for each calendar

month.

(4) If you monitor acetaldehyde and construction of your

fermentation production line commenced on or before October 19, 1998,

you must limit acetaldehyde emissions from each line to 1.7 lb/ton LY

for each calendar month.

(5) If you monitor acetaldehyde and construction or reconstruction

of your fermentation production line commenced after October 19, 1998,

you must limit acetaldehyde emissions from each line to 1.3 lb/ton LY

for each calendar month.

(b) If you use an incinerator to comply with the standard, you must

maintain the minimum operating temperature established in

Sec. 63.2142(a).

(c) If you use a biofilter to comply with the standard, you must

maintain the pressure drop within the complying pressure drop range

established in Sec. 63.2142(a).

Sec. 63.2136 When must I comply?

(a) If construction of your fermentation production line commenced

on or before October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after [Insert

date 3 years from publication of final rule in Federal Register.]

(b) If construction or reconstruction of your fermentation

production line commenced after October 19, 1998, you must comply on

and after [Insert date of publication of final rule in Federal

Register] or on and after the date when you start operations, whichever

is later.

(c) If your fermentation production line becomes an affected source

after October 19, 1998, you must comply on and after the date 3 years

following the day it became an affected source, as defined by

Sec. 63.2131.

(d) If you can't meet a deadline, you may ask to extend the

compliance date by following the criteria and procedures in

Sec. 63.6(i).

(e) You must comply with the provisions in this subpart at all

times except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (as

defined in Sec. 63.2.)

General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and

for Monitoring and Performance Tests

Sec. 63.2140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the

standard?

(a) Process control. You may use process control to reduce VOC and

acetaldehyde emissions and comply with the emission standard. ``Process

control'' means reducing emissions of VOC and acetaldehyde by

manipulating the flow of raw material, supply of oxygen, or some other

input, thereby controlling fermentation.

(b) Add-on control technology. As an alternative to process

control, you may use an add-on control technology, such as incineration

or biofiltration, to reduce VOC and acetaldehyde emissions and comply

with the emission standard.

(c) Showing compliance. Whether you use process or add-on controls,

you must show initial and ongoing compliance with the emission

standards in Sec. 63.2135. See the rest of this rule for procedures you

must follow.

(d) Operation and maintenance. You must comply with the operation

and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.6(e).

(e) General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) apply to owners and operators of major sources of HAP

emissions in all source categories, including nutritional yeast

manufacturing. Table 1 of this section

[[Page 55829]]

lists the General Provisions that apply to nutritional yeast

manufacturing facilities:

Table 1 of Sec. 63.2140.--General Provisions That Apply to Subpart CCCC

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

Applies to subpart

Reference, subpart A general CCCC, 63.2130- Comment

provisions 63.2229

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

63.1-63.5...................... Yes.

63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j)........... Yes.

63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)- Yes.

(h)(9).

63.7(h)(7)..................... No Sec. 63.6(h)(7),

using continuous

opacity

monitoring,

doesn't apply.

63.7........................... Yes.

63.8........................... Yes.

63.9........................... Yes.

63.10.......................... Yes.

63.11.......................... No Don't use flares

to comply with

the emission

limits.

63.12-63.15.................... Yes.

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

Sec. 63.2141 What monitoring must I do?

(a) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.8.

(b) You must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all

monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and the

plan for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions that you must develop and

use according to Sec. 63.6(e).

(c) If you choose to continuously monitor VOC emissions, you must

use Performance Specification 8 (PS 8), in appendix A of 40 CFR part

60, to show that your continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is

operating properly.

(1) Use EPA Method 25A, in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, to do the

relative-accuracy test PS 8 requires.

(2) Calibrate the reference method and the CEMS with ethanol.

(3) Collect a 1-hour sample for each reference-method test.

(4) Set the CEMS span at 1.5 to 2.5 times the relevant emission

limit.

(d) If you choose to continuously monitor acetaldehyde emissions,

you must use PS 9 or an approved alternative to show that your CEMS is

operating properly.

(e) If you are subject to Sec. 63.2135(a), you must continuously

monitor either the air-flow rate or a parameter of the blower system

correlated with the air-flow rate exiting each fermenter's exhaust

stack. Use a calibrated annubar or other approved alternative to

determine the air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack. A

``fermenter's exhaust stack'' means the vent or ductwork that provides

an outlet for gas from a fermenter.

Sec. 63.2142 What performance tests must I complete?

(a) Testing frequency. If you choose to comply with the standard

using an add-on control technology, you must test its initial

performance to show compliance with the emission limits in

Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) and (a)(3), as applicable, and to establish baseline

monitoring parameters that satisfy Secs. 63.2150 and 63.2155, as

applicable. You must test the control device's performance while

manufacturing the product that comprises the largest percentage of

average annual production. Test the device's performance within 180

days from the compliance date that applies to you and test it again at

least every 3 years or when process conditions change that would

require a new correlation.

(b) Approved test methods. You must follow the procedures in

Secs. 63.7 and 63.8 and use one of the following test methods. Unless

changed in this subpart, all EPA methods are in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter.

(1) Use Method 1 to select the sampling port's location and the

number of traverse points.

(2) Use Method 2 to measure volumetric flow rate.

(3) Use Method 3 for gas analysis to determine the dry molecular

weight of the stack gas.

(4) Use Method 4 to determine moisture content of the stack gas. 40

CFR part 60.

(5) Use EPA Method 25A, or any alternative validated by EPA Method

301, to measure VOC as ethanol.

(c) Additional requirements for performance tests. Make sure you:

(1) Design the test to sample a complete batch. You must do three

sampling runs for each of the three fermentation stages in a batch, as

defined in this rule.

(2) Do the test at a point in the exhaust-gas stream before you

inject any dilution air, meaning any air not needed to control

fermentation.

(3) Record the results of each run of the performance test.

Requirements for Showing Compliance Using Process Control

Sec. 63.2145 If I use process control, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) If you monitor VOC using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(c) and

air flow using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(e), you must record the

VOC concentration and air-flow rate in every fermenter's exhaust stack

(or a correlated parameter.) Record data as 15-minute block averages

values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet the following

requirements:

(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.

(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.

(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.

(b) You meet the applicable emission standards in Sec. 63.2135(a)

if the calendar month average VOC emissions per ton of liquid yeast

produced is no more than the limits in Sec. 63.2135(a)(2) and (a)(3)

for each batch. You must calculate emissions using the following

procedures:

(1) Calculate emissions from each affected fermentation stage (E)

using the following formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.002

where:

a(t)=air flow in the fermenter's exhaust stack at a particular time;

[[Page 55830]]

t0 and t1=the beginning and end, respectively, of

the time period for the production of a batch; and

c(t)=the concentration of VOC in the fermenter's exhaust stack at a

particular time.

(2) Calculate emissions from each batch (B) using the following

formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.003

where:

n=the number of fermentation stages;

Es=emissions (measured in pounds) from stage s; and

Y=batch yield. ``Batch yield'' means a discrete quantity of yeast

produced from the last fermentation stage of a batch operation and is

expressed as tons of liquid yeast based on 30 percent solids.

(3) Calculate the calendar month average using the following

formula:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19OC98.004

where:

Omonth=the number of batch operations in a calendar month;

and

Bn=emissions from batch n.

(c) If you monitor acetaldehyde using procedures under

Sec. 63.2141(d) and air flow using procedures under Sec. 63.2141(e),

you must record the acetaldehyde concentration and air-flow rate in

every fermenter's exhaust stack (or a correlated parameter.) Record

data as 15-minute block values. To be valid, your monitoring must meet

the following requirements:

(1) Two 15-minute block values per hour.

(2) Eighteen or more hours per day.

(3) Eighteen or more days for each 30-day period.

(d) You meet the applicable emission standards in Sec. 63.2135(a)

if the calendar month average VOC emissions per ton of liquid yeast

produced is no more than the limits in Sec. 63.2135(a)(4) and (a)(5)

for each batch. You must calculate emissions using the equations in

paragraph (b) of this section, substituting acetaldehyde data for VOC

data, where appropriate.

Requirements for Incinerators

Sec. 63.2150 If I use an incinerator, what monitoring must I do?

(a) You must monitor and record the temperature in the main chamber

and afterburner at least once every 15 minutes.

(b) Make sure the monitoring equipment is installed and operating,

and verify the data, before or during the performance test. To verify

that your equipment is operating, you must meet at least one of the

following standards:

(1) The manufacturer's written specifications or recommendations

for installing, operating, and calibrating the system.

(2) Other written procedures that ensure reasonably accurate

monitoring.

(c) Install, operate, and maintain the monitoring equipment so it

gives you representative measurements of parameters from the regulated

sources.

Sec. 63.2151 If I use an incinerator, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) First, you must establish the minimum operating temperature for

each combustion chamber and afterburner with a performance test under

procedures in Sec. 63.2142. The minimum operating temperature is the

average of the three test run values recorded under Sec. 63.2142(c).

(b) Second, you must ensure that the temperature in each combustion

chamber stays at or above the minimum operating temperature, based on

15-minute block values taken according to Sec. 63.2150.

Requirements for Biofiltration

Sec. 63.2155 If I use biofiltration, what monitoring must I do?

(a) You must monitor and record the pressure drop across the

biofiltration system at least once every 8 hours.

(b) You must maintain the pressure drop across the biofiltration

system within 5 percent and 1 inch of the water column of the complying

pressure drop, or within the range of the complying values for pressure

drop established during your initial performance test. ``Complying

pressure drop'' means the pressure drop at which your system meets an

emission standard.

Sec. 63.2156 If I use biofiltration, how do I comply with the

standard?

(a) You must establish the complying pressure drop across the

system during a performance test, following procedures in Sec. 63.2142.

(b) For each biofiltration system, you may establish either of the

following:

(1) A range of complying pressure drops by conducting multiple

compliance performance tests.

(2) One complying pressure drop as the average pressure drop

measured over three test runs of a single performance test.

(c) The pressure drop across your system must stay within 5 percent

and 1 inch of the water column of the complying pressure drop, or range

established in your performance test.

Requirements for Other Means of Monitoring

Sec. 63.2160 How can I get approval for, and use, other means of

monitoring?

(a) Monitoring and recordkeeping. (1) Request and receive approval

from the Administrator to use other monitoring methods, following

Sec. 63.8(f).

(2) Use the approved alternate monitoring procedure so you

continuously meet the emission standard that applies to you.

(3) Comply with monitoring and recordkeeping requirements the

Administrator specifies.

(b) Compliance demonstrations. (1) Do an initial performance test

to show you meet the emission standard.

(2) During any performance test, you must show that your monitoring

method can determine whether your process controls or add-on controls

meet the emission standard that applies to you.

(3) Unless the Administrator specifies another schedule, test

performance once per year.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Sec. 63.2165 Which reports must I prepare?

(a) You must follow the notification procedures in Sec. 63.9 and

the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.10. If the Administrator hasn't

delegated authority under subpart E of this part to your State, you

must notify the EPA's appropriate regional office. If your State has

delegated authority, notify your State and send copy of each notice to

the appropriate EPA regional office. The regional office may waive this

requirement.

(b) Following the procedures in Sec. 63.9(h), within 60 days after

completing the relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in

Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, or 63.2156, notify the Administrator of your

initial compliance status. In the case of Sec. 63.2145, process

control, you must report at least three months worth of complying data.

(c) Annually, certify your compliance by reporting the following

information:

(1) How you determined compliance, including specific information

about the parameters you monitored and the methods you used to monitor

them.

(2) The results of your monitoring procedures or methods.

(3) How you will continue to comply including a description of

monitoring and reporting requirements and test methods.

(4) A statement attesting to whether your facility has complied

with this regulation, signed by a responsible official who shall

certify its accuracy.

[[Page 55831]]

Sec. 63.2166 What records must I maintain?

(a) In addition to meeting the recordkeeping requirements under

Sec. 63.10, you must record the following information in a daily log:

(1) Operation time for all control devices and monitoring

equipment.

(2) Details of all routine and other maintenance on all control

devices and monitoring equipment, including dates and duration of any

outages.

(3) The fermentation stage for which you're using each fermenter.

(b) You must also record the information required to support your

compliance demonstrations under Secs. 63.2145, 63.2151, and 63.2156.

Sec. 63.2167 How long do I have to maintain records?

You must keep all records available for inspection for at least 5

years--onsite for the most recent 2 years of operation. You may keep

records for the previous 3 years off site.

Delegation of Authorities

Sec. 63.2170 What authorities may be delegated to the States?

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a

State under subpart E of this part, the Administrator will retain the

authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) [Reserved].

Sec. 63.2171-63.2229 [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98-27700 Filed 10-16-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P