[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78545-78558]
[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.

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

                                                         (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).

    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:

    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


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57166-57167]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4612-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4612-DR), dated September 1,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 1, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Missouri resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds,
tornadoes, and flooding during the period of June 24 to July 1,
2021, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Missouri.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, David Gervino, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal

Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Andrew, Audrain, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell, Callaway, Carroll,
Chariton, Clinton, Cooper, Daviess, Grundy, Holt, Howard, Lincoln,
Livingston, Moniteau, Montgomery, Ralls, Ray, and Saline Counties
for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Missouri are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22407 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P