National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation, 78545-78558 [2022-27523]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78545-78558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27523]


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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021; FRL-4866.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AN36


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site 
Remediation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.

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

[[Page 78546]]

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the site 
remediation source category. This action finalizes amendments to remove 
exemptions from the rule for site remediation activities performed 
under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as a remedial action or a non-
time-critical removal action, and for site remediation activities 
performed under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
corrective actions conducted at treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2865; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the purpose of this action?
    B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
III. Summary of Final Action and Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Removal of the CERCLA and RCRA Exemptions
    B. Retention of the Co-Location Requirement
    C. Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are 
shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category               NESHAP           NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  40 CFR part 63,    325211
                                 subpart GGGGG.    325192.
                                                   325188.
                                                   32411.
                                                   49311.
                                                   49319.
                                                   48611.
                                                   42271.
                                                   42269.
Federal Government............                     Federal agency
                                                    facilities that
                                                    conduct site
                                                    remediation
                                                    activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/site-remediation-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the 
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the 
action and key technical documents at this same website.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
finalized changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021).

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) by February 21, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal

[[Page 78547]]

proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the purpose of this action?

    On October 8, 2003, the EPA promulgated emission standards for 
control of certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from site 
remediations located at major sources of HAP--the 2003 Site Remediation 
NESHAP (68 FR 58172); 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. The 2003 Site 
Remediation NESHAP applied only to volatile organic HAP. 68 FR 58175. 
The 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP exempted site remediations performed 
under CERCLA authority as a remedial action or a non-time-critical 
removal action and site remediations under a RCRA corrective action 
conducted at a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) that is 
either required by a permit issued by the EPA or a State program 
authorized by the EPA under RCRA section 3006; required by orders 
authorized under RCRA; or required by orders authorized under RCRA 
section 7003. 68 FR 58172 and 58176; 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3). 
(This document refers to these exemptions as the ``CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions''; however, it should be noted that the scope of these 
exemptions is narrower than the full scope of remediations that may be 
conducted under, or in relation to, CERCLA or RCRA authority.) The 
NESHAP also specified that site remediations are not subject to subpart 
GGGGG unless they are co-located at a facility with one or more other 
stationary sources that emit HAP and meet the affected source 
definition specified for a source category that is regulated by another 
subpart under part 63. 40 CFR 63.7881(a)(2). (This document refers to 
this as the ``co-location'' criterion.)
    The CERCLA and RCRA exemptions were based on the EPA's conclusion 
that the requirements of these specific types of remediations under 
CERCLA and RCRA are ``functionally equivalent'' to the HAP emissions 
control requirements of the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP. 68 FR 58176. 
EPA reasoned that these programs use remediation approaches that would 
generally address the protection of public health and the environment 
from air pollutants emitted from remediation activities on a site-
specific basis. Further, in both programs, the public is given an 
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, and both 
programs are subject to Federal oversight and enforcement authority. 68 
FR 58184-85. However, the EPA did not make a determination in 
promulgating the RCRA and CERCLA exemptions that the kinds of emissions 
controls, including monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, that are implemented in the CERCLA and RCRA programs were 
at least as stringent as the requirements of the CAA, including that 
RCRA and CERCLA requirements met the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standard established pursuant to CAA section 112(d). 
Nor did EPA identify a statutory basis for exempting these sources from 
CAA section 112 requirements.
    Following promulgation of the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP, on 
October 8, 2003, the EPA Administrator received a petition for 
reconsideration of certain aspects of the final rule from the Sierra 
Club, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and Concerned 
Citizens for Nuclear Safety. This petition stated that the EPA (1) 
lacked the statutory authority to promulgate the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions, and (2) had a duty to set standards for each listed HAP 
that petitioners alleged were emitted from the source category, 
specifically referring to heavy metal HAP, not just the volatile 
organic HAP listed in table 1 of the subpart. In addition, petitioners 
filed a petition for review of the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP in the 
court, Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 03-1435. The parties agreed to 
place this case in abeyance pending EPA's review of the petition for 
reconsideration.
    On November 29, 2006, the EPA promulgated technical amendments to 
the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP (71 FR 69011), but did not resolve, 
address, or respond to the issues in the petition for reconsideration. 
On October 14, 2014, the court ordered the parties in Sierra Club et 
al. v. EPA to show cause why the case should not be administratively 
terminated, and on November 13, 2014, the parties filed a joint 
response informing the court that they were actively exploring a new 
approach to the issues raised in the petition. On March 25, 2015, the 
EPA issued a letter \1\ to the petitioners granting reconsideration on 
the issues raised in the petition and indicated that the agency would 
issue a Federal Register document initiating the reconsideration 
process (see Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0150). The letter noted 
that the issue of regulation of heavy metal HAPs should be considered 
separately and as a part of the statutorily required risk and 
technology review (RTR). The petition for reconsideration and EPA's 
2015 letter granting reconsideration are available for review in the 
rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0024 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0021-0150). On May 13, 2016, the EPA proposed to revise 
subpart GGGGG by removing the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions, as well as to 
remove the ``co-location'' condition in the NESHAP and requested 
comment on those proposed revisions (81 FR 29821).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, on September 3, 2019 (84 FR 46138), the EPA proposed 
amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP related to the RTR which was 
conducted as required under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f). In the 
2019 proposal, the EPA used the opportunity to request additional 
comment regarding the implementation of the NESHAP under a scenario in 
which the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions were removed. Specifically, the 
EPA sought additional comments on whether subcategorization may be 
appropriate or whether there were other methods of distinguishing among 
appropriate requirements for CERCLA or RCRA-exempt sources, including 
how applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance 
demonstration requirements could be structured so that formerly exempt 
sources would be able to comply with the Site Remediation NESHAP 
effectively and efficiently while also meeting the requirements of

[[Page 78548]]

RCRA and/or CERCLA. 84 FR 46167-69. The EPA explained that it would 
take comments on these topics but act upon the exemptions at a later 
date.
    Separately, in accordance with our March 25, 2015, letter, the RTR 
action reviewed the issue of whether heavy metals or other inorganic 
HAP may be emitted from this source category. We proposed that there is 
a lack of data indicating such HAP are emitted from this source 
category but requested comment seeking additional data. 84 FR 46161.
    The EPA finalized the RTR on July 10, 2020 (85 FR 41680). We made 
clear that we were not acting on the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions, 85 FR 
41683, and we finalized our proposed determination that there was a 
lack of data to support the assertion that inorganic and metal HAP are 
emitted from the site remediation source category and so we did not 
establish emissions standards for these HAP for the source category (85 
FR 41690 and 41694-95).
    The EPA proposed and finalized three key changes to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP in the RTR rulemaking (85 FR 41680). First, we 
revised leak detection thresholds for certain valves and pumps under 
the technology review required by CAA section 112(d)(6), see 85 FR 
41690-91. Second, the rule addressed the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) case law under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) by 
adding a set of work practice requirements under CAA section 112(h) to 
monitor certain pressure release devices (PRDs) for actuation, 85 FR 
41691-94. Third, the rule established a work practice standard also 
related to SSM with respect to planned routine maintenance of control 
systems on storage tanks, 85 FR 41695-96.
    On September 8, 2020, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, 
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and Sierra Club filed a 
petition for review of EPA's final RTR action in the court, Concerned 
Citizens for Nuclear Safety v. EPA, No. 20-1344 (D.C. Cir.). On that 
same date, Sierra Club filed a petition for reconsideration of the RTR, 
identifying as grounds for reconsideration the continued existence of 
the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions, and whether the Site Remediation NESHAP 
should regulate non-organic HAPs. [EPA-OAR-HQ-2002-0021-0050]
    In this action, we are finalizing the May 13, 2016, proposal to 
remove the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions from the Site Remediation NESHAP 
and are addressing comments submitted in response to both the 2016 
proposal and the 2019 RTR proposal on the exemptions issue. In the same 
2016 action, we proposed to remove the criterion in 40 CFR 
63.7881(a)(2) that an affected site remediation is only subject to the 
NESHAP if it is co-located with a facility that is a major source 
already subject to regulation under at least one other NESHAP in 40 CFR 
part 63. Based on our review of the public comments, as discussed in 
this action, we are not finalizing the proposal to remove the co-
location criterion in this action.
    We are not addressing in this action the second issue raised in the 
2020 petition for reconsideration, i.e., whether the EPA has a duty to 
set standards for non-organic HAP emissions from site remediation 
activities. The EPA will address that issue in a separate rulemaking.

B. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address 
emissions of HAP from stationary sources. CAA section 112(d) requires 
the Agency to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for each category or 
subcategory of major sources listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c). 
``Major sources'' are defined in CAA section 112(a) as sources that 
emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a 
single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

III. Summary of Final Action and Significant Changes Since Proposal

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the 
reconsideration of certain aspects of the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP, 
and amends, as proposed, the Site Remediation NESHAP to remove the 
CERCLA and RCRA exemptions at 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3). For 
affected sources that are existing sources, we are finalizing a 
compliance date of 18 months from the effective date of the final 
amendment removing the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions (see section III.C. 
for further discussion). We define existing sources, for purposes of 
this action, as those site remediations that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before May 13, 2016, the date of publication of 
the proposal to remove the exemptions. New sources, for purposes of 
this action, are those site remediations that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after May 13, 2016. Any new sources that would have 
formerly been exempted by 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) or (3) must comply with 
the NESHAP as of the date this document is published in the Federal 
Register. CAA section 112(d)(10), (i)(1).
    The EPA is not finalizing the proposed amendment to remove the 
requirement that an affected site remediation be co-located with a 
facility that is regulated by other NESHAP. Our reasoning for this 
decision is explained in section III.B of this document. In the 
following subsections, we introduce and summarize the final amendments 
to the Site Remediation NESHAP. For each issue, this section provides a 
description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's 
rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key 
comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this 
preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document available in the docket.

A. Removal of the CERCLA and RCRA Exemptions

    As discussed in the May 13, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking on 
reconsideration of the NESHAP (81 FR 29821), the 2003 Site Remediation 
NESHAP exempted site remediations performed under the authority of 
CERCLA and those conducted under a RCRA corrective action or other 
required RCRA orders. The exemptions were based on the EPA's conclusion 
that the requirements of these programs consider the same HAP emissions 
as the 2003 Site Remediation NESHAP and, in addition, these programs 
provide opportunities for public involvement through the Superfund 
Record of Decision process and the RCRA permitting process for 
corrective action cleanups. The EPA concluded that these programs serve 
as the functional equivalent of the establishment of NESHAP under CAA 
section 112. Petitioners asserted that the public lacked an opportunity 
to comment on the functional equivalence conclusion. In the May 13, 
2016, proposal, we proposed to amend the rule by removing 40 CFR 
63.7881(b)(2) and (3) and solicited comment. In the proposal, we 
explained that on reconsideration we agreed with petitioners that the 
Agency lacked statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to exempt 
affected sources in a listed source category from otherwise applicable 
NESHAP requirements on the ``functional equivalence'' basis articulated 
in the 2003 final rule. 81 FR 29824. We further explained that the 
requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP are appropriate and 
achievable at all subject site remediations, including those conducted 
under CERCLA or RCRA authority. Id. Also, as noted above, on September 
3, 2019 (84 FR 46138), as

[[Page 78549]]

part of the statutorily required RTR, the EPA proposed amendments to 
the Site Remediation NESHAP. In the 2019 proposal, the EPA used the 
opportunity to request additional comment regarding the implementation 
of the NESHAP under a scenario in which the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions 
were removed.
    Through the 2016 and 2019 proposals for the site remediation source 
category, the EPA solicited and received comments both in favor of and 
in opposition to the removal of the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions. The key 
comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA failed to provide a 
sufficient basis and purpose for the rule amendments as required by CAA 
section 307(d)(3). These commenters stated that nothing in CERCLA, 
RCRA, or the CAA has changed that would make the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions improper. The commenters also stated that since the agency 
does not expect any HAP reductions from the proposed changes (and in 
light of the 2019 risk assessment showing no adverse risks), there is 
no basis for these amendments. Several of these commenters stated that 
the EPA did not provide a basis for the proposed changes other than 
that the agency signed a consent agreement with the Sierra Club, noting 
that the proposal does not discuss why the agency's original conclusion 
that a RCRA/CERCLA-managed site remediation is the ``functional 
equivalent'' of the site remediation standard was incorrect or why that 
finding should be changed. One commenter also stated that CERCLA and 
RCRA provide ample safeguards for protecting public health and welfare 
with regard to HAP emissions, as evidenced by the EPA's estimate that 
there would be no further HAP reductions with the proposed changes. The 
commenter stated that due to this, the removal of the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions does not satisfy the CAA's intent to list sources which 
cause or significantly contribute to air pollution which might 
``reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare.''
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions are 
proper. As explained in the preamble to the 2016 proposed rule, see 89 
FR 29823-29824, the basis and purpose of the proposed rule amendments 
are to meet the obligations of the CAA to establish NESHAP for all 
sources in the listed source category. The site remediation source 
category was listed under CAA section 112(c)(1). Once a source category 
is listed, CAA section 112(c)(2) mandates that the EPA ``shall 
establish emission standards under subsection [112](d).'' CAA section 
112(d) in turn mandates the establishment of emission standards ``for 
each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources.'' While 
CAA section 112(d)(1) allows for distinguishing among classes, types, 
and sizes of sources in establishing emission standards, nothing in CAA 
section 112 authorizes the EPA to exempt certain sources entirely from 
emissions standards based on regulation under some other statute. 
Congress has made clear through the plain language of CAA section 112 
that the development and implementation of NESHAPs promulgated pursuant 
to CAA section 112 is a mandatory mechanism for regulation of HAP 
emissions across all major sources of such emissions. e.g., National 
Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding 
that section 112(d)(1) requires EPA to set emissions standards for all 
listed HAP emitted from each listed major source category or 
subcategory). This holds true for the site remediation source category 
notwithstanding that the RCRA and CERCLA programs may also address air 
pollutant emissions from disposal and remediation activities.
    While we originally promulgated exemptions from the NESHAP for 
certain facilities, including facilities where site remediations were 
performed under authority of CERCLA or RCRA, we have re-evaluated the 
legal basis for these exemptions and determined that they should be 
removed. In response to the petition for reconsideration received 
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA in 2003 from the Sierra 
Club, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and Concerned 
Citizens for Nuclear Safety (which is available in the docket for this 
action), we have reconsidered the exemptions in the rule for these 
sources and our rationale for this approach.\2\ We have determined, as 
explained above, that there is no statutory authority under section 112 
of the CAA to exempt sources in a listed source category from NESHAP 
requirements simply because those sources may be subject to similar 
requirements through other statutes. In removing these exemptions, the 
EPA will be meeting its statutory obligations to establish and apply 
MACT standards for all affected source emissions of HAP at these major 
sources in the site remediation source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commenter is incorrect that the EPA entered into a consent 
decree with environmental organizations. While the EPA and those 
parties had considered entering into a settlement agreement in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 03-1435 (D.C. Cir.), that agreement was 
never finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to commenters' contention that nothing has changed 
since the 2003 promulgation of the NESHAP, we note that the basis for 
removing the exemption is to bring this NESHAP in line with the 
statutory requirement of CAA section 112 to regulate all affected 
sources of HAP in a listed source category. Case law since the 2003 
promulgation of the NESHAP has only strengthened and confirmed that 
this is a correct understanding of the plain language of the statute. 
E.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 
(confirming the holding in National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 
625, 633-34 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
    With respect to commenters' contention that EPA did not, in its 
2016 proposal, explain why the agency's original conclusion that a RCRA 
or CERCLA-managed site remediation is the ``functional equivalent'' of 
the site remediation standard was incorrect, EPA disagrees that such an 
explanation is necessary, because the CAA does not authorize exemptions 
on this basis in the first place. Nonetheless, as the EPA explained in 
the May 2016 proposal, the site remediation activities conducted under 
the authority of CERCLA and RCRA are similar to site remediation 
activities that were not exempt from the Site Remediation NESHAP, and 
the requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP are appropriate for and 
achievable by all site remediation activities.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the Site Remediation NESHAP 
amendments should not apply retroactively to existing RCRA and CERCLA 
site remediations. Two commenters added that if it were to apply to any 
of these sites, it should be only to remediation projects that are not 
yet fully developed. In the alternative, these commenters suggested 
that compliance with CERCLA or RCRA corrective action requirements 
should be deemed as compliance with the Site Remediation NESHAP. Other 
commenters suggested that where remediation plans under CERCLA or RCRA 
have already been approved and the plans include air emission control 
requirements, the EPA should view these as acceptable work practice and 
control standards. These commenters stated that this would also 
alleviate any potential conflicts between the Site Remediation NESHAP 
and the approved remediation plan under CERCLA or RCRA. One commenter 
also added that the evaluations of the hazards associated with the 
remediation activity required under CERCLA are more

[[Page 78550]]

inclusive and protective than the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements. 
Several commenters stated that a grandfathering provision should be put 
in place to ensure the sites currently conducting an approved CERCLA or 
RCRA remediation at the time of the adoption of the final rule can 
continue to clean up with no delays. One commenter noted that there is 
precedent for this in NESHAPs, such as the Pharmaceutical NESHAP, which 
grandfathered existing process vents that were controlled by 93 percent 
or greater prior to the NESHAP proposal date.
    A commenter added that removal of the exemption would eliminate the 
EPA's current site-specific discretion to determine whether application 
of the Site Remediation NESHAP is relevant and appropriate for a site. 
The commenter noted that the reason many sites are addressed under 
CERCLA is because they are large and complex, and applying the Site 
Remediation NESHAP may not be consistent with the methods that would 
otherwise be used to perform the remediation. The commenter also added 
that even if an alternative work practice were approved, this could 
either delay the remediation or force additional administrative 
activities to occur under the CAA. The commenter also remarked that 
under CERCLA, only the substantive requirements of other laws are 
considered potentially relevant and appropriate, but not the 
administrative requirements, such as reporting and recordkeeping. The 
commenter asked that the EPA consider creating subcategories that would 
exempt certain large-scale remediation activities, such as cleanups of 
large volumes of soil, sludge, or sediment, as the Site Remediation 
NESHAP may interfere with the use of the remedial technologies that 
would otherwise be selected under the National Contingency Plan.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that existing site remediations should 
not be subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP. Section 112 of the CAA 
requires that the EPA issue regulations addressing both new and 
existing sources. See, e.g., CAA sections 112(a), (d), and (i). 
Removing the exemptions is not retroactive rulemaking. Retroactivity 
refers to requirements ``extending in scope or effect to matters that 
have occurred in the past.'' Black's Law Dictionary 1318 (7th Ed. 
1999). The EPA is not applying the removal of the exemptions 
retroactively but rather prospectively. The requirements of the NESHAP 
will apply going forward at both new and existing site remediation 
sources. As authorized under CAA section 112(i)(3), the compliance date 
for existing sources is 18 months after the effective date of this 
final rule. In line with how other source categories are regulated, 
this will provide time for existing site remediations (existing as of 
May 13, 2016) that become newly subject to the NESHAP through the 
removal of the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions to comply with the 
requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP in accordance with the 
governing cleanup program's statutory and regulatory requirements. 
During this time period, the owners or operators of the site 
remediation affected source will be able to evaluate the need for 
additional emissions control in accordance with the governing cleanup 
program and put those controls in place by the compliance date. The 
commenters have supplied no information with reasonable specificity 
that this time period for compliance, or the NESHAP's requirements 
themselves, will unduly delay cleanup activities.
    The commenters' requests to consider compliance with CERCLA or RCRA 
sufficient for compliance with CAA requirements is effectively a 
request to simply continue the exemptions. As explained above, Congress 
directed EPA, under CAA section 112, to establish emission standards 
for listed source categories under the procedures and criteria of that 
section of the Act and did not provide for EPA to defer that standard-
setting process to other statutory programs.
    We are not reopening our 2003 determinations regarding MACT for the 
Site Remediation NESHAP. Under the reasoning and analysis of the 
original 2003 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, the EPA's 
MACT findings were equally valid for the CERCLA and RCRA sources that 
the EPA exempted.\3\ However, we reviewed the comments to determine 
whether a basis existed to revisit these determinations with respect to 
the CERCLA and RCRA sources, and we find that commenters have not 
provided information to the agency that would warrant reopening these 
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Similarly, the amendments to the NESHAP in the RTR action in 
2020 are applicable and achievable for the entire source category 
and were not premised on the continued existence of the CERCLA and 
RCRA exemptions. Two of the three key changes were related to the 
need to address SSM case law under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and 
were applied as achievable work practice standards for the entire 
source category, 85 FR 41691-96. The EPA acknowledged that its 
analysis of the impact of the third change, the leak detection and 
repair enhancements, was not assessed for exempt sources, id. 41690. 
However, the EPA did not find any basis in the RTR rulemaking to 
treat the exempt sources differently should the exemption be lifted, 
but merely noted that the impacts of this change would be considered 
if the exemptions were removed. The EPA has considered these impacts 
for the CERCLA and RCRA exempt sources, including both environmental 
benefits and costs, with respect to all of the key changes to the 
NESHAP made in the RTR. Section IV of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, commenters have not supplied sufficient information 
to establish why ``grandfathering'' a particular emission standard is 
appropriate, even if ``grandfathering'' may have been used in the one 
example cited by commenter. The requirements of the NESHAP have been 
applicable to non-exempt new and existing site remediation sources 
since the original NESHAP was promulgated, and the EPA is not aware of 
any existing sources facing difficulty with compliance with the 
requirements of the NESHAP, nor have commenters supplied such 
information.
    Nor have the commenters supplied information or examples 
demonstrating that compliance with the requirements of the NESHAP is 
incompatible or will interfere with the implementation of ongoing 
CERCLA or RCRA remediation activities at the formerly exempt sites. In 
general, the Site Remediation NESHAP does not prescribe remediation 
strategies, technology, or equipment, but rather establishes emissions 
limits and in some cases work practice standards that apply depending 
on the kinds of strategies selected for the remediation (e.g., if 
process vents are used, then requirements applicable to process vents 
apply, if tanks are used, then requirements applicable to tanks apply, 
etc.). As the EPA indicated at proposal, and as commenters have 
generally affirmed, the EPA believes that, for the most part, the 
standards established in the NESHAP are already being met at CERCLA and 
RCRA overseen cleanups, and thus the emissions control requirements of 
the NESHAP should not be unreasonably costly or onerous to meet.
    Further, the process and sources of information used in adopting 
the original standards confirm that there is no need to reopen our 
category-wide MACT determinations. To select a MACT emissions 
limitation (or work practice standard) for each affected source, in the 
original promulgation of the NESHAP, we looked at the types of air 
emission controls required under national air emission standards for 
sources similar to those sources that potentially may be associated 
with site remediations. These air emission standards are MACT for other 
source categories, particularly the Off-site Waste and Recovery 
Operations (OSWRO) NESHAP under 40 CFR part

[[Page 78551]]

63, subpart DD, and the air emission standards for RCRA hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under subparts AA, BB, and 
CC in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 (RCRA Air Rules). The control levels 
established by the emission limitations and work practices we 
promulgated are widely implemented at existing sources subject to these 
similar rules, thus demonstrating that the control levels are 
technically achievable. See 68 FR 58174.
    Thus, these control requirements and action levels already existed 
in either the RCRA Air Rules or the OSWRO NESHAP, or both. Given that 
these existing rules specify control requirements for sources similar 
to those comprising the affected source group for the Site Remediation 
NESHAP, and that sources already regulated by these existing standards 
also will likely manage and/or treat remediation material regulated by 
the Site Remediation NESHAP, we continue to believe that the 
requirements of subpart GGGGG represent achievable industry practice 
for remediation activities including at the formerly exempt RCRA and 
CERCLA sites.
    Further, as commenters acknowledge, CERCLA cleanups should be 
designed to meet the substantive environmental requirements of other 
statutes in accordance with compliance with Applicable or Relevant and 
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA section 121(d). The 
programmatic requirements of CERCLA require the consideration of 
virtually any Federal standard as an ARAR, including the Site 
Remediation NESHAP. In other words, substantive requirements of the 
Site Remediation NESHAP are expected to be considered as potential 
ARARs.\4\ Furthermore, the substantive provisions may also have been 
considered relevant and appropriate requirements under CERCLA on a 
site-specific basis since the promulgation of the regulations in 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compliance With Other Laws Manual Parts I and II (OSWER 540-
G-89-006, Aug. 8, 1989 and Aug. 1989), both available in the docket 
at EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA notes that decisions on compliance with ARARs are 
made within the CERCLA regulatory framework rather than the Clean Air 
Act, and as a result, the EPA will not address those issues in this 
action. For example, CERCLA authorizes waivers from applicable 
environmental regulations in certain situations. Two examples of 
potential waivers authorized in the statute are when compliance with a 
substantive Federal requirement that may be an ARAR may result in 
greater risk to human health and the environment or where other 
alternatives will achieve equivalent performance. CERCLA section 
121(d)(4). In any event, CERCLA remediations must assure protection of 
human health and the environment. While the EPA anticipates that waiver 
circumstances should be rare in meeting the requirements of the Site 
Remediation NESHAP, nonetheless, such flexibility is available on an 
as-needed basis through the provisions of CERCLA rather than the CAA.
    For the reasons discussed above and in the preamble for the 
proposed rule and our response to comments document available in the 
docket, we are removing the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions from the Site 
Remediation NESHAP.

B. Retention of the Co-Location Requirement

    In the May 13, 2016, proposal on reconsideration, the EPA proposed 
to remove the criterion in 40 CFR 63.7881(a)(2) that an affected site 
remediation is only subject to the NESHAP if it is co-located with a 
facility that is a major source already subject to regulation under at 
least one other NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63. This rule change was proposed 
to further effectuate the removal of the exemptions so that any 
formerly exempt CERCLA or RCRA site remediations that are themselves 
major sources of HAP, without regard for co-location with a major 
source, should be subject to the rule. 81 FR 29824. This proposed 
amendment would have the effect of making any site remediations with 
emissions in excess of major source thresholds subject to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP for the first time, and would affect all site 
remediations, not only those falling under the CERCLA or RCRA 
exemptions.
    Based on our review of the public comments, as discussed below, the 
EPA is not finalizing this proposed rule amendment in this action.
    The EPA received several comments in opposition to the removal of 
the co-location requirement. Key comments and our response include the 
following:
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that with the removal of 
the criteria that a remediation be co-located with a major source 
facility for HAP, an oil or chemical spill with emissions over the 
major source thresholds set out in CAA section 112(a)(1) would be 
subject to the rule, even if the spill occurred in a remote, 
inaccessible, or potentially expansive location, such as remote Alaska. 
The commenters urged the EPA to keep the co-location condition or 
provide an exemption for remediation as a result of a spill response. 
One commenter added that without the co-location condition, 
applicability will likely extend to small sources that were not 
considered in the original rulemaking.
    Response: We have concluded that it is not appropriate to finalize 
the proposed rule amendment to remove the co-location criterion, and we 
are retaining that provision of the NESHAP. Based on the available 
information regarding the amount of HAP emitted from site remediations, 
remediation facilities that are not co-located with major sources are 
not major sources of HAP--i.e., the Agency has no data to suggest that 
site remediation affected sources that are not already co-located with 
a major source themselves emit greater than 10 tons per year of any 
single HAP or 25 tons per year of all HAPs.\5\ The effect of removing 
the co-location criterion would be to require applicability 
determinations in many situations where it would be extremely difficult 
to substantiate whether the applicability thresholds are met or not, 
and yet it would be unlikely that such thresholds are met. As 
commenters observe, such circumstances could arise in emergency 
scenarios where there is an overriding imperative to address immediate 
threats to human health or the environment. At such source locations 
(e.g., in the field or along transportation corridors), neither the 
``source'' itself (e.g., the site of a spill that is being remediated), 
or its ``owner or operator,'' may have any experience with CAA 
compliance, including the necessary permitting requirements, the data 
for making CAA applicability determinations, or requirements for 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. They may not even possess 
requisite ownership interests in such sites to be able to effectively 
implement such requirements. The onset of Site Remediation NESHAP 
compliance obligations in these circumstances--even if limited to 
making an applicability determination based on the level of emissions 
that could occur from site remediation activities--could inhibit or 
delay responders from taking necessary, immediate steps to protect 
human health and the environment. Therefore, because there are no data

[[Page 78552]]

suggesting that there are site remediations that are themselves major 
sources of HAP, and to avoid the potential that rendering applicability 
determinations could inhibit site remediations in a variety of unusual 
or emergency circumstances, the EPA is retaining the applicability 
condition that site remediations be co-located with a facility that is 
a major source regulated by at least one other NESHAP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's analysis for the RTR reviewed NEI data for active 
remediations. Active remediation emissions averaged less than 1 
percent of emissions of the associated major sources subject to the 
rule. [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Site Remediation Residual Risk and Technology Review, Docket ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0833-0001].
    \6\ We note that the fact that we do not believe there are site 
remediations that are themselves major sources in no way undermines 
the basis for the listing of the site remediation category itself 
(which we are not reopening), or the requirements of the NESHAP. 
Site remediation affected sources are associated with other major 
sources of HAP, and site remediation sources would otherwise go 
unregulated under CAA section 112 at those major sources in the 
absence of this NESHAP. Thus, the EPA views this NESHAP as necessary 
to ensure that all sources of HAP at major sources are addressed 
under CAA section 112. National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 
625, 633-34 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding that section 112(d)(1) 
requires EPA to set emissions standards for all listed HAP emitted 
from each listed major source category or subcategory); Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (confirming holding that 
section 112(d)(1) requires EPA to set emissions standards for all 
listed HAP emitted from each listed major source category or 
subcategory).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the EPA is not finalizing the proposed amendment to remove the 
co-location condition, remote sites not co-located at a stationary 
source of HAP regulated by another NESHAP will not be regulated through 
this action. However, we note that if and when a site remediation is 
performed as a result of a spill, it will be necessary to bring 
personnel and remediation equipment to the area, and those responding 
to such circumstances can be expected to implement situation-
appropriate measures to protect air quality under relevant emergency 
response actions, as provided for under CERCLA, Clean Water Act section 
311, and other relevant remediation and emergency response statutes at 
the state and Federal levels.

C. Compliance Dates

    The EPA proposed several compliance dates in the May 13, 2016, 
proposed notice of reconsideration. We proposed to make the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.7950 
through 63.7953 and 63.7955 applicable to new and existing affected 
sources conducting site remediations under CERCLA or RCRA on the 
effective date of the final amendments removing the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions, which is the date of publication of this final rule in the 
Federal Register.
    For existing affected sources (e.g., existing as of May 13, 2016), 
we proposed a compliance date for the rule's other requirements for 
site remediations conducted under the authorities of CERCLA or RCRA of 
18 months from the effective date of the final amendments removing the 
CERCLA and RCRA exemptions.
    For new affected sources, we proposed a compliance date for the 
rule's requirements for site remediations conducted under the 
authorities of CERCLA or RCRA of the effective date of the final 
amendments removing the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions or upon initial 
startup, whichever is later.
    Based on our review of the public comments, as discussed below, the 
EPA is finalizing this action with one change to the proposed 
compliance dates for existing affected sources. For existing affected 
sources, the compliance date for all the site remediation NESHAP 
requirements, including the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
specified in 40 CFR 63.7950 through 63.7953 and 63.7955, is 18 months 
from the effective date of the final amendments removing the CERCLA and 
RCRA exemptions. This date is June 24, 2024. For new affected sources, 
the compliance date for all the site remediation NESHAP requirements is 
the effective date of the final amendments removing the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions or upon initial startup, whichever is later. CAA section 
112(d)(10), (i)(1).
    The EPA received several comments regarding these compliance 
timeframes. These comments are summarized below along with our 
responses.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that a compliance date 18 months 
after the final rule is promulgated may be appropriate for facilities 
that do not require additional emission controls but claimed that 
additional time will be needed for facilities that require additional 
emission controls. Several other commenters stated that 18 months is 
not enough time to comply with the rule, and potentially not enough 
time to even determine whether sources are exempt from the rule. These 
commenters suggest 3 years be given for compliance with the rule 
amendments. One commenter also suggested that the EPA incorporate into 
the compliance date the time needed to modify existing RCRA permits or 
CERCLA records of decision (RODs) to reflect new control devices, time 
for getting an air construction permit, and time for approval of 
alternative test methods. This commenter suggested a compliance date of 
5 years after the promulgation of the standards. One commenter noted 
concerns about the compliance date for new sources, which may start up 
soon after promulgation of the amendments. The commenter recommends 
that new sources be provided 3 years from the amendment affected date 
or until initial startup, whichever is later, to comply.
    Response: We have concluded that 18 months after the effective date 
of this action is sufficient time for existing sources to come into 
compliance. We consider 18 months a reasonable estimate for the work to 
be done. We also note that commenters have not supplied reasonably 
specific information that 18 months is not practicable, and the EPA is 
obligated to require compliance with these requirements as 
expeditiously as practicable. CAA section 112(i)(3). Further, the EPA 
does not have discretion under the statute to provide 5 years for 
existing sources to come into compliance as suggested by one commenter. 
See id (requiring compliance no later than 3 years after the effective 
date).
    As the EPA indicated at proposal, and as commenters have generally 
affirmed, for the most part, the emissions standards established in the 
NESHAP are already being met at cleanups overseen under CERCLA and 
RCRA, and thus additional emissions controls are unnecessary in most 
cases. To comply with the NESHAP, we anticipate that some facilities 
may need to install pressure relief device monitors, which entails 
identifying affected pressure release devices and installing monitors 
that are capable of alerting a facility operator of a pressure release 
device actuation. When these requirements were added to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP in 2020 (85 FR 41680), the compliance date selected 
for existing sources was 18 months, to allow site remediation facility 
owners and operators to research equipment and vendors, and to 
purchase, install, test, and properly operate any necessary equipment. 
The EPA considers that providing more than 18 months now for existing 
facilities operating under the authority of RCRA or CERCLA to comply 
would be excessive compared to the compliance period provided for other 
existing facilities and relative to the actual work involved. We also 
anticipate that some existing facilities may need to revise their leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) programs to use the leak definitions 
included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for valves and pumps. A 
compliance time of 18 months is adequate for existing facility owners 
or operators to modify their existing LDAR programs to comply with 
these standards for pumps and valves. When the requirement to comply 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, was added to the Site Remediation 
NESHAP in 2020 (85

[[Page 78553]]

FR 41680) for the leak definitions for valves and pumps rather than the 
leak definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, we provided a one-year 
compliance date for these requirements for existing facilities. 
However, to simplify compliance, in this action we have provided one 
date (i.e., 18 months after promulgation) by which existing facilities 
must meet all requirements.
    In order to avoid any confusion and unnecessary burden regarding 
the onset of compliance requirements under the NESHAP for formerly 
exempt existing sources (e.g., existing by May 13, 2016), we are not 
finalizing our proposal that existing sources comply by the effective 
date of the final rule with the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.7950 through 63.7953 and 63.7955. While we 
generally believe such requirements could be complied with relatively 
quickly, the content of many of these requirements relates to 
information regarding compliance with emissions limitations, work 
practice standards, or other requirements that would not begin until 18 
months after the effective date of this action. E.g., 40 CFR 
63.7951(a)(1) (first compliance report not due until the onset of 
compliance obligations according to the schedule established in 40 CFR 
63.7883). The Agency has determined that it would make sense in this 
case to simply align the onset of all requirements of subpart GGGGG for 
existing sources under a single compliance schedule. Thus, for existing 
sources, the compliance date for all requirements of the NESHAP will be 
18 months from the effective date of this rule.
    Affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
after May 13, 2016 (the date we proposed to remove the exemptions), are 
``new sources'' for purposes of section 112 and must comply immediately 
upon the effective date of this final rule or on initial startup, 
whichever is later. This is consistent with the CAA, and the EPA does 
not have discretion to alter this requirement. CAA section 112(a)(4), 
112(d)(10), and 112(i)(1).
    To the extent any source-specific circumstances may exist 
warranting potential relief from compliance timing as authorized by the 
statute, source owners or operators are encouraged to review the 
mechanisms for obtaining such relief that are available under subpart A 
of part 63. 40 CFR 63.6. For example, 40 CFR 63.6(i) allows the 
Administrator to grant extensions of compliance with emission standards 
under certain specified circumstances.
    For purposes of complying with the Initial Notification 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2), the EPA is not finalizing any 
changes to the language of 40 CFR 63.7950 in this action. However, with 
respect to both new and existing affected sources formerly covered by 
the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions being removed in this action, the Agency 
interprets the phrase ``120 calendar days after the source becomes 
subject to this subpart'' as used in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.  
63.7950 as referring to the date 120 calendar days after the 
publication of this document in the Federal Register.
    Finally, we note that when and how records of decision at CERCLA 
Superfund sites may be reopened, amended, or modified is a matter to be 
addressed within the Superfund program itself rather than in this CAA 
action.
    We are, therefore, finalizing a compliance date of 18 months from 
the effective date of these final amendments for existing sources and 
on the effective date or upon initial startup, whichever is later, for 
new sources that become subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP as a 
result of the removal of the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate 74 facilities will become subject to the Site 
Remediation NESHAP as a result of the removal of the CERCLA and RCRA 
exemptions. Based on available information from the RCRA and CERCLA 
programs, 31 of these 74 facilities are expected to be subject to only 
a limited set of the rule requirements under 40 CFR 63.7881(c)(1). Due 
to the low annual quantity of HAP contained in the remediation material 
excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed during the site 
remediations conducted at these facilities, they would likely only be 
required under the Site Remediation NESHAP to prepare and maintain 
written documentation to support the determination that the total 
annual quantity of the HAP contained in the remediation material 
excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed at the facility is 
less than 1 megagram per year. For the remaining 43 facilities, we 
anticipate each facility will have an annual quantity of HAP in the 
removed remediation material of 1 megagram or more. For these 
facilities, we expect that the facilities already generally meet the 
emission control and work practice requirements of the Site Remediation 
NESHAP. As discussed in further detail below, we anticipate certain 
formerly exempt facilities will incur some limited costs to comply with 
current SSM provisions in the NESHAP following the RTR rulemaking, 85 
FR 41691-96, and the updating of leak detection and repair requirements 
under CAA section 112(d)(6), 85 FR 41690-91. These impacts are 
estimated below.
    The 2020 RTR rulemaking for the site remediation source category 
made three substantive changes to the standards. We modified the 
threshold for detection of leaks for valves and pumps within the 
existing LDAR program. We also added a requirement to monitor certain 
pressure release devices (PRDs).\7\ While current RCRA standards in 
subpart BB (40 CFR 264.1050) include LDAR, the leak threshold for 
valves and pumps in light liquid service are 10,000 ppm. In the 2020 
RTR for site remediation, the NESHAP's thresholds were revised to 500 
ppm for valves, 1,000 ppm for pumps upon inspection, and 2,000 ppm to 
make a repair. These changes pursuant to the technology review could 
require additional actions from affected sources to comply with the 
Site Remediation NESHAP. However, the decision to remove the CERCLA and 
RCRA exemptions is not dependent on or affected by the cost of 
compliance with these changes. We stated in the 2016 proposal that we 
did not anticipate significant costs of compliance for sources affected 
by removal of the exemptions. We continue to find this to be the case; 
however, given that the NESHAP was modified in the interim, we have 
updated our impact analysis to reflect these changes in the NESHAP, 
which may result in slightly greater environmental benefits due to 
removing the exemptions, and some slightly higher compliance costs, as 
summarized in section IV.C.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA added a work practice standard for certain storage 
vessels. That work practice was determined to be without cost. 85 FR 
41696. Note that the SSM changes were made under authority of 
112(d)(2) and (3) rather than (d)(6).
    \8\ While this section discloses to the public the overall 
anticipated impacts of this action as per standard Agency practice, 
the EPA is not reopening any of its MACT or RTR determinations for 
this source category. See section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 43 facilities that we anticipate will have an annual 
quantity of HAP in the removed remediation material of 1 megagram or 
more, we anticipate that 30 will have no applicable emission control 
requirements or work practice standards because the waste is shipped 
offsite for treatment and no controls or work practice requirements 
would be applicable prior to treatment. For these 30 facilities, we 
anticipate the only new requirements for the Site Remediation NESHAP 
will be the initial and ongoing recordkeeping and reporting obligations

[[Page 78554]]

required by 40 CFR 63.7936 and 63.7950 through 63.7952. These sections 
describe the recordkeeping and reporting activities required for 
transferring the remediation material off-site to another facility; the 
initial notification and on-going notification requirements; the 
ongoing semi-annual compliance reporting requirements; and 
recordkeeping requirements for continuous monitoring, planned routine 
maintenance, and for units that are exempt from control requirements 
under Sec. Sec.  63.7885(c) and/or 63.7886(d).
    The remaining 13 facilities are anticipated to have on-site 
remediation activities for which the emission control requirements of 
the NESHAP will apply. While we anticipate that most of these emission 
control activities are already being conducted under existing 
requirements through RCRA or CERCLA, the PRD and revised LDAR 
requirements (e.g., new leak detection and repair thresholds for valves 
and pumps) will also apply, as well as the recordkeeping and reporting 
activities described above.
    Finally, as explained in the following section, while the EPA 
generally expects that existing, formerly exempt site remediations are 
already meeting the substantive emissions control requirements of the 
NESHAP (with the possible exception of the revisions to the NESHAP 
promulgated in the 2020 RTR rulemaking), there is at least some 
anecdotal evidence from comments that this may not be the case in all 
circumstances. As explained in greater detail in the response to 
comments document, to the extent this situation exists, it could mean 
the compliance costs of this action are proportionately greater than we 
estimate; however, such circumstances do not obviate any prior 
determinations of cost-effectiveness with respect to this NESHAP. 
Indeed, such circumstances would only strengthen the basis for removing 
the exemptions to ensure that the emissions reduction benefits of this 
NESHAP are achieved.
    While new site remediations are likely to be conducted under the 
authority of CERCLA or RCRA in the future, we are currently not aware 
of any such new site remediation affected sources that are expected to 
be constructed.
    The potential scope of this action's impacts on affected entities 
is discussed in greater detail in the memorandum, ``National Impacts 
Associated with the Final Amendments to Remove the Exemption for 
Facilities Performing Site Remediations under CERCLA or RCRA in the 
NESHAP for Site Remediation,'' which is available in the rulemaking 
docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021).

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We estimate that the application of the change in the LDAR leak 
thresholds to the formerly exempt sources will result in a HAP 
emissions reduction of 2 tons per year. As explained in the memo ``Leak 
Detection and Repair Program Impacts for Site Remediation RCRA and 
CERCLA Facilities'' the lower leak threshold has the potential to 
reduce emissions by requiring repair of smaller leaks.
    A second change made in the 2020 rule included a requirement to 
perform additional monitoring of PRD actuations that will also apply to 
formerly exempt sources. The PRD monitoring leads to emission 
reductions by immediately alerting operators to the actuation of a PRD, 
which is typically caused by a malfunction. Due to their nature, the 
frequency or duration of malfunctions cannot be predicted, so 
estimation of future emissions reductions is not possible. As such, no 
additional emissions reductions due to the addition of PRD monitoring 
are included in our assessment of air quality impacts.
    For the remainder of the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements, we 
estimate the potential for a small amount of HAP emission reductions 
from the removal of the CERCLA and RCRA exemptions. We expect that most 
facilities newly becoming subject to the rule will either be subject to 
a limited set of the emissions control requirements of the rule due to 
the low amount of HAP contained in the remediation material handled, 
will already meet the emissions control requirements of the rule, or 
will not have any applicable emissions control requirements for the 
specific remediation activities and material handled. We received 
comments that some sources subject to RCRA or CERCLA requirements would 
be required to add or supplement controls if the applicability of the 
NESHAP was changed. The EPA acknowledges that such a situation could 
arise and only strengthens the basis for removing the exemptions to 
ensure that the emissions reduction benefits of this NESHAP are 
achieved. The commenters did not provide information to allow us to 
make a reliable estimate of how often this may occur, or the cost or 
amount of emission reductions that could result from applicable 
requirements and controls. It is also possible that with further 
examination of the NESHAP and the existing emissions controls at their 
facility(s), a commenter could determine that no further emission 
control is necessary. Another possibility is that certain requirements 
that should have been in place will now be imposed, and the 
corresponding emissions reductions will now be realized, further 
strengthening the basis for removing these exemptions. Thus, the EPA 
acknowledges that there may be HAP emissions reductions as a result of 
the remainder of the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements, but we have 
not quantified the potential reductions beyond the 2 tons per year from 
LDAR reductions, due to a lack of information to substantiate or 
quantify the potential reductions. Therefore, while unquantified, we 
consider there is a potential for an unquantified amount of HAP 
emission reductions to result from this action.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We anticipate that 13 of the 74 affected facilities will implement 
additional emissions control measures to meet the LDAR and PRD 
requirements of the Site Remediation NESHAP at a total estimated 
capital cost of $79,000 and a total annual cost of $21,000 for all 13 
facilities. We have estimated the nationwide annual compliance costs, 
including the LDAR and PRD requirements for these facilities as well as 
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all 74 affected 
facilities to be approximately $2.7 million.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this final rule, as 
detailed in the memorandum, ``Economic Impact Analysis for Site 
Remediation NESHAP Amendments: Final Report,'' which is available in 
the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021). The 
economic impacts of the rule are calculated as the percentage of total 
annualized costs incurred by each affected ultimate parent owner 
relative to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct 
economic impact to ultimate parent owners of facilities while presuming 
no impact on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent 
owners affected by this proposal will incur total annualized costs of 
0.1 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic impacts 
are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by this 
rule, and there will not be substantial impacts on the market. The 
costs of the rule are not expected to result in a significant market 
impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or 
absorbed by the firms.

[[Page 78555]]

E. What are the benefits?

    The final standards are projected to achieve 2 tons of reductions 
in HAP through the applicability of lower leak detection and repair 
thresholds. In addition, we anticipate some unquantified amount of HAP 
emissions reduction at some formerly exempt site remediations as a 
result of additional monitoring of PRDs. In addition, any future 
remediation activities initiated at the formerly exempt existing site 
remediations or site remediations constructed in the future will 
include the required levels of HAP emissions control. To the extent 
facilities newly subject to the NESHAP must revise their CAA 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, we anticipate improved data 
and information with respect to air emissions at these facilities. We 
have not quantified the monetary benefits associated with the 
amendments; however, the avoided emissions will result in improvements 
in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with 
exposure to air pollution from these emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations (people of 
color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations (59 FR 
7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is 
intended to advance racial equity and support underserved communities 
through Federal Government actions (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021). The 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income, with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' The EPA further defines fair treatment to mean that ``no 
group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental 
harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative 
environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial 
operations or programs and policies.'' In recognizing that people of 
color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden of 
environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of 
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 
air pollution. Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating EJ in 
the Agency's actions, and following the directives set forth in 
multiple Executive Orders, the Agency has carefully considered the 
impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns.
    To examine the potential for any EJ concerns that might be 
associated with site remediation facilities that are affected by 
removing these exemptions, we performed a demographic analysis, which 
is an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations 
living within 5 kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA 
then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for 
each of the demographic groups.
    The results show that for populations within 5 km of the 74 
existing facilities, the following demographic groups were above the 
national average: African American (15 percent versus 12 percent 
nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent versus 19 percent nationally), 
Other/Multiracial (16 percent versus 8 percent nationally), people 
living below the poverty level (16 percent versus 13 percent 
nationally), over 25 without a high school diploma (14 percent versus 
12 percent nationally) and linguistic isolation (7 percent versus 5 
percent nationally).
    The results show that for populations within 50 km of the 74 
existing facilities, the following demographic groups were above the 
national average: African American (15 percent versus 12 percent 
nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent versus 19 percent nationally), 
Other/Multiracial (12 percent versus 8 percent nationally), over 25 
without a high school diploma (13 percent versus 12 percent nationally) 
and linguistic isolation (7 percent versus 5 percent nationally). The 
average percentage of the population living within 50km of the 74 
facilities that is living below the poverty level is equal to the 
national average (13 percent). However, we note that half of the 
facilities (34 facilities) have populations within 50km that are above 
the national average for poverty.
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed is 
included as Table 2. The methodology and the results of the demographic 
analysis are presented in a technical report, ``Analysis of Demographic 
Factors for Populations Living Near Site Remediation Facilities,'' 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0021).

                Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results For Site Remediation Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population within  Population within
                   Demographic group                         Nationwide        50 km of 74         5 km of 74
                                                                                facilities         facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        328,016,242         90,083,099          2,763,629
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                                         (Number of facilities above national average percentage
                                                                             for demographic)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 60           51% (44)           48% (48)
African American.......................................                 12           15% (33)           15% (24)
Native American........................................                0.7          0.3% (13)          0.3% (14)
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......                 19           21% (18)           21% (19)
Other and Multiracial..................................                  8           12% (17)           16% (24)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Income by Percent
                                                         (Number of facilities above national average percentage
                                                                             for demographic)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 13           13% (36)           16% (34)
Above Poverty Level....................................                87%           87% (38)           84% (40)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Education by Percent

[[Page 78556]]

 
                                                         (Number of facilities above national average percentage
                                                                             for demographic)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma..............                 12           13% (32)           14% (31)
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 88           87% (42)           86% (43)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                         (Number of facilities above national average percentage
                                                                             for demographic)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................                  5            7% (19)            7% (13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities
  are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    The EPA investigated the risk for exempt sources in parallel to the 
risk assessment for the affected sources of the category (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018- 0833). The maximum individual risk for cancer was 4-
in-1 million for actual emissions and for maximum allowable emissions. 
The hazard indices for noncancer risks were well below 1 (0.3 for 
actual and maximum allowable emissions). The regulatory changes to this 
NESHAP (subpart GGGGG) discussed in section III.A of this action will 
further the effort to improve human health impacts for populations in 
these demographic groups.
    Among the 13 facilities for which we anticipate this action will 
result in a reduction of HAP emissions, the area within 5km of at least 
seven of the facilities exceeds the national average for at least one 
racial/ethnicity demographic, the area within 5km of at least six 
facilities exceeds the national average for ``People Living Below the 
Poverty Level'', and the area within 5km of at least five facilities 
exceeds the national average for ``Greater than or equal to 25 years of 
age without a High School Diploma.'' The changes will provide 
additional health protection for all populations, including for people 
of color, low-income, and indigenous communities living near these 
sources.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it 
raises novel legal and policy issues. Any changes made in response to 
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2062.10. OMB Control Number 2060-0534. You can find a copy of 
the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 
The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them. To check whether the ICR for this action is approved, 
please consult Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch, and search using OMB Control Number 2060-0534. OMB typically 
reviews ICR packages within sixty days of a final notice.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    Respondents/affected entities: Unlike a specific industry sector or 
type of business, the respondents potentially affected by this ICR 
cannot be easily or definitively identified. Potentially, the Site 
Remediation NESHAP may be applicable to any type of business or 
facility at which a site remediation is conducted to clean up media 
contaminated with organic HAP when the remediation activities are 
performed, the authority under which the remediation activities are 
performed, and the magnitude of the HAP in the remediation material 
meets the applicability criteria specified in the rule. A site 
remediation that is subject to this rule potentially may be conducted 
at any type of privately-owned or government-owned facility at which 
contamination has occurred due to past events or current activities at 
the facility. For site remediation performed at sites where the 
facility has been abandoned and there is no owner, a government agency 
takes responsibility for the cleanup.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 104 total for the source category, 
of which 74 are estimated to become respondents as a result of this 
final action.
    Frequency of response: Semiannual.
    Total estimated burden: 42,945 total hours (per year) for the 
source category, of which 24,068 hours are estimated as a result of 
this final action. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

[[Page 78557]]

    Total estimated cost: $3.1 million total (per year) for the source 
category, of which approximately $2.7 million is estimated as a result 
of this final action. This includes $250,000 total annualized capital 
or operation and maintenance costs for the source category, of which 
$146,000 is estimated as a result of this final action.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
final amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP are estimated to affect 
74 facilities. Of these 74 facilities, 19 are owned by the Federal 
Government, which is not a small entity. The remaining 55 facilities 
are owned by 46 firms, and the Agency has determined that one of these 
can be classified as a small entity using the Small Business 
Administration size standards for their respective industries. The 
small entity subject to the requirements of this action is a small 
business. The Agency has determined that one small business may 
experience an impact of less than 0.1% of revenues in one year. Details 
of this analysis are presented in the memorandum, ``Economic Impact 
Analysis for Site Remediation NESHAP Amendments: Final Report,'' which 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0021).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. Because the proposed rule amendments would result in reduced 
emissions of HAP and reduced risk to anyone exposed, the EPA believes 
that the proposed rule amendments would provide additional protection 
to children. More information on the source category's risk can be 
found in section IV of the preamble published on September 13, 2019 (84 
FR 46138). The complete risk analysis results and the details 
concerning its development are presented in the memorandum entitled 
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Site Remediation Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule,'' 
available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018- 0833).

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Additional technological controls are 
not anticipated due to this action and no increased energy use is 
expected.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income 
populations as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994). The results of our demographic analysis show that the 
percentages of people of color, low-income populations and/or 
indigenous peoples who live within 5 km of the 74 existing facilities 
are slightly (2 or 3 percent) or moderately higher (8 percent) than the 
national average: African American (15 percent versus 12 percent 
nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent versus 19 percent nationally), 
Other/Multiracial (16 percent versus 8 percent nationally), people 
living below the poverty level (16 percent versus 13 percent 
nationally), over 25 without a high school diploma (14 percent versus 
12 percent nationally) and linguistic isolation (7 percent versus 5 
percent nationally). The small level of emission reductions is unlikely 
to affect the risk borne by these populations in a measurable amount. 
The reductions of 2 tons of HAP per year plus an unquantifiable amount 
due to the remainder of the NESHAP provisions discussed in section IV.B 
are not enough to be reliably quantified with respect to risk or 
impact. While the quantity of HAP reductions is small, directionally 
the final amendments increase the level of protection provided to human 
health and the environment by regulating site remediations previously 
exempt from the Site Remediation NESHAP.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) as follows:

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

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


[[Page 78558]]


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

Subpart GGGGG--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Site Remediation


Sec.  63.7881  [Amended]

0
2. Section 63.7881 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(2) and (3).

0
3. Section 63.7882 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7882   What site remediation sources at my facility does this 
subpart affect?

* * * * *
    (d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section:
    (1) Each affected source for your site is considered an existing 
source if your site remediation commenced construction or 
reconstruction under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response and Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) as a remedial action 
or a non-time-critical removal action on or before May 13, 2016.
    (2) Each affected source for your site is considered an existing 
source if your site remediation commenced construction or 
reconstruction under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
corrective action conducted at a treatment, storage, and disposal 
facility (TSDF) that is either required by your permit issued by either 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state program 
authorized by the EPA under RCRA section 3006; required by orders 
authorized under RCRA; or required by orders authorized under RCRA 
section 7003 on or before May 13, 2016.
    (3) Each affected source for your site is considered a new source 
if your site remediation commenced construction or reconstruction under 
the authority of CERCLA as a remedial action or a non-time-critical 
removal action after May 13, 2016.
    (4) Each affected source for your site is considered a new source 
if your site remediation commenced construction or reconstruction under 
a RCRA corrective action conducted at a TSDF that is either required by 
your permit issued by either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) or a State program authorized by the EPA under RCRA section 3006; 
required by orders authorized under RCRA; or required by orders 
authorized under RCRA section 7003 after May 13, 2016.

0
4. Section 63.7883 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7883  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, the 
following dates for compliance apply to sources identified in Sec.  
63.7882(d):
    (1) Site remediations identified in Sec.  63.7882(d)(1) and (2) 
must comply with the requirements of this subpart that apply to you no 
later than June 24, 2024.
    (2) Site remediations identified in Sec.  63.7882(d)(3) and (4) 
must comply with the requirements of this subpart that apply to you no 
later than December 22, 2022, or upon initial startup, whichever is 
later.

[FR Doc. 2022-27523 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P