Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 79443 

1The Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

revision that is dated April 24, 2020, and received 

by EPA on June 19, 2020, is comprised of three 

previous submittals—one dated January 21, 2016; 

one dated October 25, 2017; and one dated January 

14, 2019. 

2EPA notes that the April 24, 2020, submission 

was received by EPA on June 19, 2020. For clarity, 

throughout this document EPA will refer to the June 

19, 2020, submission by its cover letter date of April 

24, 2020. 

3EPA has previously taken action on portions of 

the April 24, 2020, submittal. The April 24, 2020, 

submittal contains changes to other Mecklenburg 

LIP-approved rules that are not addressed in this 

document. EPA will be acting on those rules in 

separate actions. 

4.0 Address Correction Services 

4.1 Address Correction Service 

* * * * * 

4.1.5 Other Classes 

[Revise the third sentence and add a 

new fourth and fifth sentence of 4.1.5 to 

read as follows:] 

* * * Except for Full-Service and 

Seamless acceptance mailings, when 

separate corrections are necessary for 

First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing 

Mail, Form 3547 is mailed to the sender 

with the address correction fee charged 

and the mail is forwarded. When 

separate address corrections are 

necessary for forwarded parcels, 

shippers that apply the IMpb to their 

parcels must request ACS and an 

electronic address correction notice via 

ACS is provided to the participant and 

the electronic address correction fee 

will be charged. There are two versions 

of ACS available to parcel shippers, 

IMpb ACS or Traditional ACS.* * * 

* * * * * 

Christopher Doyle, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22086 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0264; FRL–8980–02– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Mecklenburg Emission Control 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to 

the Mecklenburg County portion of the 

North Carolina SIP, hereinafter referred 

to as the Mecklenburg Local 

Implementation Plan (LIP). The revision 

was submitted by the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), on 

behalf of Mecklenburg County Air 

Quality (MCAQ) via a letter dated April 

24, 2020. The revision includes updates 

to various emission control standards 

contained in the Mecklenburg County 

Air Pollution Control Ordinance 

(MCAPCO) incorporated into the LIP. 

EPA is approving these changes 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2021–0264. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Josue Ortiz Borrero, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

8085. Mr. Ortiz Borrero can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

ortizborrero.josue@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The original Mecklenburg County LIP 

was submitted to EPA on June 14, 1990, 

and EPA approved the plan on May 2, 

1991. See 56 FR 20140. Mecklenburg 

County prepared three submittals to 

modify the LIP for, among other things, 

general consistency with the North 

Carolina SIP.1 The three submittals were 

submitted as follows: NCDAQ 

transmitted the October 25, 2017, 

submittal to EPA but later withdrew it 

from review through a letter dated 

February 15, 2019. On April 24, 2020, 

NCDAQ resubmitted the October 25, 

2017, update to EPA and also submitted 

the January 21, 2016, and January 14, 

2019, updates. Due to an inconsistency 

with public notice at the local level, 

these submittals were withdrawn from 

EPA through a letter dated February 15, 

2019. Mecklenburg County corrected 

this error, and NCDAQ submitted the 

updates to EPA in a submittal dated 

April 24, 2020.2

The April 24, 2020, submittal 

includes changes and updates to the 

following rules to align them more 

closely with their analogous SIPapproved North Carolina regulations: 

MCAPCO Rules 2.0502, Purpose; 

2.0507, Particulates from Chemical 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, 

Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 

2.0513, Particulates from Portland 

Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates 

from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, 

Particulates from Miscellaneous 

Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack 

Height. EPA is approving the 

incorporation of these rules into the 

Mecklenburg LIP.3

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on July 25, 2024 (89 

FR 60339), EPA proposed to approve the 

April 24, 2020, SIP revision. The details 

of North Carolina’s submittal and the 

rationale for EPA’s action are explained 

further in the July 25, 2024, NPRM. 

Comments on the NPRM were due on or 

before August 26, 2024. EPA received 

three sets of comments on the July 25, 

2024, NPRM. One set of comments is 

not relevant to this action and two sets 

of comments are substantively identical. 

The two substantively identical 

comment sets are addressed below. All 

three comment sets are available in the 

docket for this action. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received two substantively 

identical sets of comments on the July 

25, 2024, NPRM from Clean Future 

(Commenter). EPA has summarized and 

responded to the comments below. 

Comments: The Commenter generally 

supports EPA’s action and states that 

this SIP revision is ‘‘an important step 

toward improving air quality 

management in the region.’’ The 

Commenter provides generalized 

suggestions regarding the LIP and 

implementation of the LIP, including a 

request for a requirement that ‘‘actively 

gets updates and statements of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
79444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4Rule 2.0508, currently entitled Control of 

Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills in the 

Mecklenburg LIP, is being renamed to Particulates 

from Pulp and Paper Mills. 

5Rule 2.0513, currently entitled Control of 

Particulates from Portland Cement Plants in the 

Mecklenburg LIP, is being renamed to Particulates 

from Portland Cement Plants. 

6Rule 2.0514, currently entitled Control of 

Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries in the 

Mecklenburg LIP, is being renamed to Particulates 

from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries 

7 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

facilities,’’ a request for regular 

assessments to ensure the regulations 

are being properly implemented, and a 

recommendation that EPA establish a 

mechanism for periodic review and 

adjustment of the regulations to 

incorporate new developments and 

address any unforeseen challenges. The 

Commenter also notes that there should 

be monitoring and enforcement and 

‘‘effective mechanisms and reporting,’’ 

notes the importance of reviewing how 

these updated standards compare with 

current federal and State guidelines and 

notes the importance of assessing the 

effectiveness of these regulations to 

reduce emissions. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

Commenter’s support for this action. 

Due to the general nature of the 

Commenter’s requests and suggestions, 

EPA is only able to provide general 

responses. 

The scope of EPA’s review in 

evaluating SIP revisions is limited to the 

process in CAA section 110 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations codified at 40 

CFR part 51. Under CAA section 110, 

States have broad discretion to choose 

the mix of emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques that they will implement (or 

update) through a SIP to provide for 

attainment and maintenance of national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

EPA’s role, with respect to a SIP 

revision, is focused on reviewing the 

submission to determine whether it 

meets the minimum criteria of the CAA. 

These minimum criteria include CAA 

section 110(l), which prohibits EPA 

from approving a SIP revision that 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. Where a SIP 

revision meets the minimum CAA 

criteria, EPA must approve the 

submission. When approving a SIP 

revision, the Agency is not establishing 

its own requirements for the State to 

implement. If, at any time, EPA finds 

that a SIP is inadequate to attain or 

maintain the relevant NAAQS or 

otherwise does not comply with the 

CAA, EPA has the authority under CAA 

section 110(k)(5) to require the State to 

revise its SIP to correct such 

inadequacies. 

In general, the Act addresses 

monitoring, reporting, and enforcement 

in SIPs (as well as LIPs). See, e.g., CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques’’); CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B)(i) (requiring the 

‘‘establishment and operation of devices 

. . . to . . . monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality’’); 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) (requiring ‘‘a 

program to provide for the enforcement’’ 

of such measures); CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) (addressing reporting). The 

LIP revisions at issue here are narrow 

and only include updates to emission 

standards in MCAPCO 2.0502, Purpose; 

2.0507, Particulates from Chemical 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, 

Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 

2.0513, Particulates from Portland 

Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates 

from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, 

Particulates from Miscellaneous 

Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack 

Height. The revision does not alter any 

existing LIP-approved monitoring, 

enforcement, or reporting requirements, 

remove any such requirements, or add 

any such requirements. Given the 

limited nature of this SIP revision and 

EPA’s role in reviewing SIP revisions 

discussed above, the comments 

regarding monitoring, reporting, and 

enforcement are beyond the scope of 

this action. Regarding the Commenter’s 

recommendation to establish a 

mechanism for periodic review and 

adjustment of regulations to incorporate 

new developments and challenges, EPA 

reiterates that it has the authority to 

issue a SIP call under CAA section 

110(k)(5) if, at any time, it finds the SIP 

to be inadequate to attain or maintain 

the relevant NAAQS or otherwise does 

not comply with the CAA. 

Regarding the importance of assessing 

the effectiveness of these regulations to 

reduce emissions and comparing the 

revision with federal and State 

guidelines, EPA reviewed the revision 

in accordance with CAA section 110(l), 

which prohibits the Agency from 

approving a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

Act. In developing the NPRM, EPA 

evaluated each rule revision, including 

its potential impact on air quality and 

its consistency with applicable CAA 

requirements, and determined that the 

revision meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(l). EPA is therefore 

approving this revision to the 

Mecklenburg LIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections 

I and II of this preamble, EPA is 

finalizing the incorporation by reference 

of the following revised MCAPCO 

Rules, with a local effective date of 

December 15, 2015, into the 

Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 

2.0507, Particulates from Chemical 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, 

Particulates from Pulp and Paper 

Mills; 4 2.0513, Particulates from 

Portland Cement Plants; 5 2.0514, 

Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 

Foundries; 6 2.0515, Particulates from 

Miscellaneous Industrial Processes; and 

2.0533, Stack Height. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.7

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the aforementioned 

SIP revision by incorporating the 

following MCAPCO Rules, with a local 

effective date of December 15, 2015, into 

the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose; 

2.0507, Particulates from Chemical 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants; 2.0508, 

Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills; 

2.0513, Particulates from Portland 

Cement Plants; 2.0514, Particulates 

from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries; 2.0515, 

Particulates from Miscellaneous 

Industrial Processes; and 2.0533, Stack 

Height. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 79445 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• 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 CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 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.’’ EPA further defines the term 

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.’’ 

NCDAQ did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 29, 2024. 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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 20, 2024. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. In § 52.1770 paragraph (c)(3), 

amend the table by revising the entries 

for ‘‘Rule 2.0502’’, ‘‘Rule 2.0507’’, ‘‘Rule 

2.0508’’, ‘‘Rule 2.0513’’, ‘‘Rule 2.0514’’, 

‘‘Rule 2.0515’’, and ‘‘Rule 2.0533’’ to 

read as follows. 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) EPA-Approved Mecklenburg 

County Regulations 

Citation Title/subject 

County 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

SECTION 2.0500 EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS 

*******

Rule 2.0502 ............ Purpose ................................................... 12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

* * * * * * * 

Rule 2.0507 ............ Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer 

Manufacturing Plants.

12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
79446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Citation Title/subject 

County 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Rule 2.0508 ............ Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills ... 12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

* * * * * * * 

Rule 2.0513 ............ Particulates from Portland Cement 

Plants.

12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

Rule 2.0514 ............ Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing 

Foundries.

12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

Rule 2.0515 ............ Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes.12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

*******

Rule 2.0533 ............ Stack Height ............................................ 12/15/2015 9/30/2024, [Insert first page of Federal 

Register citation].

..............................

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–22134 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R03–RCRA–2024–0046; FRL–11702– 

03–R3] 

West Virginia: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final action. 

SUMMARY: The state of West Virginia has 

applied to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of revisions to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these revisions satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization 

and is hereby authorizing West 

Virginia’s revisions through this direct 

final rule. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on November 29, 2024, 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comments by October 30, 2024. If EPA 

receives any such comments, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

RCRA–2024–0046 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

The EPA encourages electronic 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically or need other 

assistance, please contact Priscilla Ortiz 

Carrero, the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Please also contact Priscilla Ortiz 

Carrero if you need assistance in a 

language other than English or if you are 

a person with disabilities who needs a 

reasonable accommodation at no cost to 

you. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Priscilla Ortiz Carrero, RCRA Programs 

Branch, Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 3 Four Penn Center, 1600 John 

F. Kennedy Blvd. (Mail code 3LD31), 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2852, Phone 

number: (215) 814–3428; email: 

ortizcarrero.priscilla@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States that have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program is 

revised to become more stringent or 

broader in scope, States must revise 

their programs and apply to EPA to 

authorize the revisions. Authorization of 

revisions to State programs may be 

necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other 

revisions occur. Most commonly, States 

must revise their programs because of 

revisions to EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

On August 9, 2022, West Virginia 

submitted a final program revision 

application (with updated checklists 

submitted the following year) seeking 

authorization of revisions to its 

hazardous waste program that 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated through August 21, 2019. 

EPA concludes that West Virginia’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 

3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR 

part 271. Therefore, EPA grants West 

Virginia final authorization to operate 

its hazardous waste program with the 

revisions described in its authorization 

application, as outlined below in 

section G of this preamble. 

West Virginia has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1