Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oklahoma; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units,[...]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units, and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document "we," "us," and "our" means the EPA.

I. Background

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July 10, 2025, proposal (90 FR 30616). In that document, we proposed to accept the OSWI, HMIWI, and CISWI negative declarations submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), withdraw EPA's proposed approval of the Oklahoma CISWI state plan revision, and amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in accordance with the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.

II. Response to Comments

EPA received three comments during the 30-day public comment period which closed on August 11, 2025. Summaries of the three comments and EPA's responses to them are provided below.

Comment: The commenter expresses general opposition to the rulemaking and "projects" that adversely impact Oklahoma and its residents, and cites concerns for Oklahoma's health, land, water, and air.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns for public health and the environment. However, these comments are not relevant to and are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This action merely amends 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL to reflect receipt of Oklahoma's negative declarations for existing incinerators subject to the OSWI, HMIWI, and CISWI emission guidelines (EG) within its jurisdiction. These negative declarations address CAA section 111(d)/129 provisions that were previously promulgated by EPA ( i.e., the respective EGs at 40 CFR part 60, subparts FFFF, Ce, and DDDD; the implementation regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and the procedural framework at 40 CFR part 62, subpart A), and exempts the State from the requirement to submit a State plan due to the absence of applicable designated facilities within the State's jurisdiction. In addition, the commenter does not specify in detail what "projects" they are opposed to. This action does not authorize or approve any incineration project, does not modify and permit existing or new sources, and does not establish requirements for other source categories. The commenter does not identify a deficiency in Oklahoma's negative declaration certifications or compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts FFFF, Ce, and DDDD. Concerns about specific facilities or projects should be directed to the appropriate State and/or local permitting authorities and appropriate processes.

Comment: Support is expressed for EPA's regulation of pollutants from existing incinerators, while urging EPA to account for carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) emissions from industrial, medical, and municipal waste combustion. The comment asserts that CO ₂ emissions are often undercounted in emission inventories. The comment requests that EPA work with states to better quantify CO ₂ emissions and incorporate that data into national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and policy planning. Additionally, it argues that a greater emphasis on emissions data transparency can contribute towards waste reduction, reuse/composting, and lower-carbon alternatives. Overall, the comment recommends that EPA should request or incentivize voluntary CO ₂ reporting and incorporate relevant metrics into future State plan guidance.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's input and acknowledges the commenter's concern for carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) emissions and desire for improved controls and reporting. However, these comments are generally outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking solely addresses Oklahoma's negative declarations under CAA section 111(d)/129 for existing incinerators subject to the OSWI, HMIWI, and CISWI EGs and simply provides notice that Oklahoma has certified that there are no such units within its jurisdiction while amending the CFR accordingly. The applicable EGs at 40 CFR part 60, subparts DDDD (CISWI EG), FFFF (OSWI EG), and Ce (HMIWI EG) address solid waste combustion provisions under CAA section 129 that provide for emission limitations for particulate matter (PM), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. ⁽¹⁾ These CAA section 129 EGs do not establish emission limits or requirements for CO _2. Such incinerators (designated facilities) under relevant CAA section 129 EGs are still subject to applicable emissions reporting requirements, but as previously stated, Oklahoma is simply certifying that they have no such applicable sources within their jurisdiction, and EPA is amending the CFR accordingly providing record of that certification.

Comment: The commenter raises several concerns with the Reworld facility as well as the proposed revisions to the title V permit for the facility which would allow for the facility to accept and burn regulated medical waste. The commenter's concerns include: Reworld's proximity to downtown Tulsa, the potential acceptance of waste from outside of Oklahoma, and the classification of the facility as a large municipal waste combustor (LMWC) despite the proposed burning of regulated medical waste (RMW) in addition to the facility already burning "commercial" and "special waste". The commenter states that many citizens are also opposed to the Reworld facility burning RMW. The commenter believes that the permit revision is not properly following Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60) rules and is doing so at the detriment of the public. The commenter generally disagrees with the negative declaration submitted by ODEQ to EPA for HMIWI and strongly believes the Reworld facility should be classified as a HMIWI facility and be subject to HMIWI EG. The commenter provided documentation on the proposed permit revision in support of their comments.

The commenter additionally provided their interpretation and context regarding the Federal rules under the NSPS and EG, the process for negative declarations and Oklahoma's handling and categorization of facilities under the NSPS and EG, including which facilities would be subject to exemptions or negative declarations under these rules. The commenter also provided some background on the Reworld facility as well as the public notice process and status for the facility's proposed permit revision.

Response: EPA notes the commenter's concern regarding the proposed permit revision for Reworld which would allow the facility to accept and burn additional RMW. EPA also notes that ODEQ has historically categorized the Reworld facility as an existing LMWC subject to the LMWC EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, which are implemented through the State's approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan for LMWC (63 FR 59887, November 6, 1998). EPA additionally notes that the facility is authorized to burn 30 percent or greater municipal solid waste (MSW) as defined under 40 CFR 60.51b and has previously been approved to incinerate RMW on May 1, 2025 (2014-1722-TVR (M-2). The title V permit for Reworld classifies the facility as a LMWC while also authorizing combustion of additional medical waste.

The LMWC rules provide that incinerators that have a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day and burn greater than 30 percent MSW by feedstream meet the LMWC NSPS/EG applicability requirements, unless the facility falls under an exemption (see 40 CFR 60.32b and 60.50b). ⁽²⁾ Similarly, under the HMIWI rules, facilities must meet the stated applicability requirements and not fall under an exemption to be subject to the HMIWI NSPS/EG (see 40 CFR 60.32e and 60.50c). Incinerators that combust more than 10 percent hospital/medical/infectious waste (HMIW) generally fall under the HMIWI rules unless they fall under an exemption, such as meeting applicability requirements under the LMWC rules. In the context of Reworld, per 40 CFR 60.50c(e) of the HMIWI NSPS and 40 CFR 60.32e(e) of the HMIWI EG, any combustor which meets applicability requirements under subpart Cb for LMWC are not subject to these subparts for HMIWI. In other words, as Reworld meets the applicability requirements for the LMWC EG, Reworld is exempt from the requirements of the HMIWI NSPS and EG. Reworld is required to maintain at least 30 percent municipal solid waste in the feedstream (by weight) each month to remain subject to the LMWC EG and avoid classification as a cofired combustor (see Condition 2.A.ii and 40 CFR 60.51b). ⁽³⁾

In addition, EPA notes that on March 10, 2026, EPA finalized revised NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart VVVV) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW) for LMWC effective May 11, 2026 (91 FR 11802). The LMWC final rule revises emission limits to be more stringent for cadmium, lead, particulate matter, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide for all NSPS/EG sources, and for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide for certain EG sources and all NSPS sources; and, among other revisions, reestablishes applicability dates for new and existing sources. EPA estimates a reduction of 3,269 tons per year of regulated pollutants from existing sources. State plans implementing the revised LMWC EG requirements at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWWW, are due March 10, 2027.

Therefore, under the new LMWC EG, Reworld will be subject to more stringent emission limits and requirements than under the previous LMWC EG. Table 2 of the final rule establishing the revised LMWC EG (91 FR 11802, May 11, 2026) details how emission limits have become more stringent across all of the aforementioned pollutants. While the HMIWI EG are broadly more stringent than the LMWC EG, the revised LMWC contains a lower emissions limit for PM _2.5 (20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)) than the HMIWI EG for large HMIWI facilities (25 mg/dscm).

Overall, EPA agrees with ODEQ's assessment that the Reworld facility meets the applicability requirements for the LMWC EG and therefore is not subject to the HMIWI EG. EPA has not found or been provided any evidence that suggests that Oklahoma has such facilities (incinerators subject to the HMIWI EG) within their jurisdiction. The negative declaration submitted by ODEQ for facilities that fall under the HMIWI EG in Oklahoma is still considered acceptable by EPA and addresses the corresponding provisions of Clean Air Act sections 111(d) and 129 and 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma , 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the State of Oklahoma requested approval under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) ("SAFETEA"), to administer in certain areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) the State's environmental regulatory programs that were previously approved by the EPA outside of Indian country. The State's request excluded certain areas of Indian country further described below.

The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the States's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively "excluded Indian country lands").

The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).

As explained above, the EPA is accepting the CAA sections 111(d)/129 negative declarations submitted by the State of Oklahoma for sources subject to the OSWI EG, HMIWI EG, and CISWI EG. These negative declarations apply statewide in Oklahoma, including certain areas of Indian country in the State of Oklahoma other than the excluded Indian country lands as described above.

IV. Final Action

In this final action, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart LL, to reflect receipt of negative declaration letters submitted by ODEQ on August 10, 2020, April 1, 2020, and September 13, 2024, for facilities subject to the OSWI, HMIWI, and CISWI EGs, respectively. These letters certify that there are no existing incinerators subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts FFFF (as amended on November 24, 2006), Ce, and DDDD, within Oklahoma's jurisdiction, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.23(b), 40 CFR 60.2982, 40 CFR 62.06, and sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B, FFFF, Ce, and DDDD; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities received by the EPA from states, the EPA's role is to notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

This final action that amends 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of these OSWI, HMIWI, and CISWI negative declarations will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA offered consultation to tribal governments that may be affected by this action and provided information about this action.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 25, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

Subpart LL-Oklahoma

⁽¹⁾  CAA section 129(a)(4).

⁽²⁾ See also , CAA section 129(g)(5), "an incineration unit shall not be considered to be combusting municipal waste for purposes of section 7411 [CAA section 111] of this title or this section if it combusts a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or less of the weight of which is comprised, in aggregate, of municipal waste".

⁽³⁾  See the definition for cofired combustors under 40 CFR 60.51b "Cofired combustor".