2100 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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); 

• 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; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 2, 2018. 

Ken Moraff, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00477 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 257 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0613; FRL–9972– 

95–OLEM] 

Oklahoma: Approval of State Coal 

Combustion Residuals State Permit 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 

or Act), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the application submitted by the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality to allow the Oklahoma Coal 

Combustion Residuals (CCR) state 

permit program to operate in lieu of the 

Federal CCR program. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that 

Oklahoma’s program meets the standard 

for approval under RCRA. Once 

approved, the State program 

requirements and resulting permit 

provisions will be subject to EPA’s 

inspection and enforcement authorities 

under RCRA and other applicable 

statutory and regulatory provisions as 

discussed below. This notice also 

announces that EPA is seeking comment 

on this proposal during a 45-day public 

comment period, and is providing an 

opportunity to request a public hearing 

within the first 15 days of this comment 

period. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 2, 2018. In addition, a 

public hearing request must be 

submitted on or before January 31, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2017–0613, at https://

www.regulations.gov or by mail to: EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

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 whose disclosure 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 the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Jackson, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

telephone number: (703) 308–8453; 

email address: jackson.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. General Information 

A. Overview of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Oklahoma’s CCR state permit program 

application, pursuant to RCRA 

4005(d)(1)(B). Oklahoma’s proposed 

program would allow the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) to enforce rules promulgated 

under its solid waste statute related to 

CCR activities in non-Indian Country, as 

well as to handle permit applications 

and to enforce permit violations. If 

approved, Oklahoma’s CCR permit 

program will operate in lieu of the 

Federal CCR program, codified at 40 

CFR part 257, subpart D. 

This notice also announces that EPA 

is seeking comment on this proposal, 

and providing an opportunity to request 

a public hearing on whether the State’s 

program is at least as protective as the 

federal program. If there is significant 

interest shown in holding a public 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2101 

1ODEQ’s initial CCR permit program application, 

subsequent supplementation, and EPA’s 

determination of completeness letter are available 

in the docket supporting this proposal. 

hearing EPA will then hold a public 

hearing. Please submit any request for a 

public hearing within the first 15 days 

of the public comment period through 

the Contact Us form on the following 

web page: (https://www.epa.gov/ 

coalash). If the desire for a public 

hearing is demonstrated EPA will hold 

the hearing at the Oklahoma Department 

of Environmental Quality building 

located at 707 N Robinson Ave., 

Oklahoma City, OK on February 13, 

2018 starting at 9 a.m. EPA will post a 

confirmation of the public hearing in 

the docket and on the EPA CCR website 

(https://www.epa.gov/coalash) 

providing information for the hearing. 

EPA has also engaged federallyrecognized Tribes within the State of 

Oklahoma in consultation and 

coordination regarding the program 

authorizations for ODEQ. EPA has 

established opportunities for formal as 

well as informal discussion throughout 

the consultation period, beginning with 

an initial conference call on October 19, 

2017. Tribal consultation will be 

conducted in accordance with the EPA 

policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes 

(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2013-08/documents/cons-andcoord-with-indian-tribes-policy.pdf). 

B. Background 

CCR are generated from the 

combustion of coal, including solid 

fuels classified as anthracite, 

bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite, 

for the purpose of generating steam for 

the purpose of powering a generator to 

produce electricity or electricity and 

other thermal energy by electric utilities 

and independent power producers. CCR 

includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, 

and flue gas desulfurization materials. 

CCR can be sent off-site for disposal or 

beneficial use or disposed in on-site 

landfills or surface impoundments. 

On April 17, 2015, EPA published a 

final rule, creating 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D, that established a 

comprehensive set of minimum 

requirements for the disposal of CCR in 

landfills and surface impoundments (80 

FR 21302). The rule created a selfimplementing program which regulates 

the location, design, operating criteria, 

and groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action for CCR disposal, as 

well as regulating the closure and postclosure care of CCR units and requiring 

recordkeeping and notifications for CCR 

units. The regulations do not cover the 

‘‘beneficial use’’ of CCR as that term is 

defined in § 257.53. 

C. Statutory Authority 

EPA is issuing this proposed 

determination pursuant to section RCRA 

sections 4005(d) and 7004(b)(1). See 42 

U.S.C. 6945(d), 6974(b)(1). 

Section 2301 of the 2016 Water 

Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation (WIIN) Act amended Section 

4005 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), creating a new 

subsection (d) that establishes a Federal 

permitting program similar to those 

under RCRA subtitle C and other 

environmental statutes. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d). Under the WIIN Act, states may 

develop and submit a CCR permit 

program to EPA for approval; once 

approved the state permit program 

operates in lieu of the Federal 

requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(1)(A). 

To become approved, the statute 

requires that a State provide ‘‘evidence 

of a permit program or other system of 

prior approval and conditions under 

State law for regulation by the State of 

coal combustion residuals units that are 

located in the State.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(1)(A). In addition, the statute 

directs that the State submit evidence 

that the program meets the standard in 

section 4005(d)(1)(B), i.e., that it will 

require each coal combustion residuals 

unit located in the State to achieve 

compliance with either: (1) The Federal 

CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D; or (2) other State criteria that 

the Administrator, after consultation 

with the State, determines to be at least 

as protective as the Federal 

requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(1)(B). EPA has 180 days from 

receiving a complete application to 

make a final determination, and must 

provide public notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. See 42 

U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). 

To receive EPA approval, EPA must 

determine that the state program 

requires each CCR unit located in the 

state to achieve compliance either with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D, or with state criteria that EPA 

determines (after consultation with the 

State) to be at least as protective as the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). 

EPA may approve a proposed state 

permit program in whole or in part. Id. 

Once a program is approved, EPA 

must review the program at least every 

12 years, as well as no later than 3 years 

after a revision to an applicable section 

of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or 1 year 

after any unauthorized significant 

release from a CCR unit located in the 

state. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(I)– 

(III). EPA also must review a program at 

the request of another state alleging that 

the soil, groundwater, or surface water 

of the requesting state is or is likely to 

be adversely affected by a release from 

a CCR unit in the approved state. See 42 

U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(IV). 

In a state with an approved CCR 

program, EPA may commence 

administrative or judicial enforcement 

actions under RCRA § 3008 if the state 

requests assistance or if the EPA 

determines that an EPA enforcement 

action is likely to be necessary to ensure 

that a CCR unit is operating in 

accordance with the criteria of the 

permit program. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(4). 

II. Oklahoma’s Application 

ODEQ issued a Notice of Rulemaking 

Intent related to its proposed CCR 

program and accepted public comments 

from December 1, 2015 through January 

13, 2016. ODEQ then published an 

Executive Summary rulemaking 

document that included the public 

comments received and the ODEQ 

responses. 

In September 2016, ODEQ 

promulgated Oklahoma Administrative 

Code (OAC) Title 252 Chapter 517 

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 

from Electric Utilities, establishing its 

CCR program. OAC 252:517 

incorporates all of the federal 

regulations at 40 CFR part 257, subpart 

D, with some minor modifications as 

discussed below. 

On July 31, 2017 Oklahoma submitted 

to EPA its initial application. The State 

supplemented its original application 

on October 18, 2017. EPA determined 

that the application was complete and 

notified Oklahoma of its determination 

by letter dated December 21, 2017.1

EPA is aware of six CCR facilities 

currently in Oklahoma. Approval of 

ODEQ’s CCR application would allow 

the ODEQ regulations to apply to those 

existing CCR units as well as any future 

CCR units not located in Indian country 

in lieu of the Federal requirements. 

EPA is not aware of any existing CCR 

units in Indian country within 

Oklahoma, but EPA will maintain sole 

authority to regulate and permit CCR 

units in Indian country, meaning formal 

and informal reservations, dependent 

Indian communities, and Indian 

allotments, whether restricted or held in 

trust by the United States. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2102 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

III. EPA Analysis of Oklahoma’s 

Application 

As discussed in Section I.C. of this 

notice, the statute requires EPA to 

evaluate two components of a state 

program to determine whether it meets 

the standard for approval. First, EPA is 

to evaluate the adequacy of the permit 

program (or other system of prior 

approval and conditions) itself. See 42 

U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A). Second, EPA is to 

evaluate the adequacy of the technical 

criteria that will be included in each 

permit, to determine whether they are 

the same as the federal criteria, or to the 

extent they differ, whether the modified 

criteria are ‘‘at least as protective as’’ the 

federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(1)(B). Only if both components 

meet the statutory requirements may 

EPA approve the program. See 42 U.S.C. 

6945(d)(1). 

On that basis, EPA conducted an 

analysis of ODEQ’s application, 

including a thorough analysis of OAC 

252:517 and its adoption of 40 CFR part 

257, subpart D. Based on this analysis, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

ODEQ’s submitted CCR permit program 

meets the standard for approval in 

section 4005(d)(1)(A) and (B). EPA is 

therefore proposing to approve 

Oklahoma’s application. Oklahoma’s 

program contains all the elements of the 

federal rule, including requirements for 

location restrictions, design and 

operating criteria, groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action, 

closure requirements and post-closure 

care, recordkeeping, notification and 

internet posting requirements. It also 

contains state-specific language, 

references and state-specific 

requirements that differ from the federal 

rule, which EPA has preliminarily 

determined to be at least as protective 

as the Federal criteria. EPA’s analysis 

and preliminary findings are discussed 

in greater detail below and in the 

Technical Support Document. 

Non-substantive changes include 

language inserts and deletions to enable 

the ODEQ to permit CCR units and 

enforce the Oklahoma rule. The 

revisions include: The removal of 

statements regarding national 

applicability; the inclusion of language 

to require submittal and approval of 

plans to ODEQ; the inclusion of 

permitting provisions to allow the 

ODEQ to administer the CCR rules in 

the context of a permitting program; the 

inclusion of state-specific location 

restrictions; the inclusion of procedures 

for subsurface investigation; the 

inclusion of provisions addressing cost 

estimates and financial assurance. 

Throughout Oklahoma’s Chapter 517 

rules, references for tribal notifications 

and/or approval that appear in the 

federal rule have been deleted along 

with the terms ‘‘Indian Country,’’ 

‘‘Indian Lands,’’ and ‘‘Indian Tribe.’’ 

EPA will retain sole authority to 

regulate and permit CCR units in Indian 

country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, 

which includes reservations, dependent 

Indian communities, and Indian 

allotments, whether restricted or held in 

trust by the United States. EPA treats as 

reservations trust lands validly set aside 

for the use of a tribe even if the trust 

lands have not been formally designated 

as a reservation. See, e.g., Oklahoma 

Tax Commission vs. Citizen Band 

Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 

498 U.S. 505, 511 (1991). 

A. Adequacy of Oklahoma’s Permit 

Program 

RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) requires a 

State seeking program approval to 

submit to EPA an application with 

‘‘evidence of a permit program or other 

system of prior approval and conditions 

under State law for regulation by the 

State of coal combustion residuals units 

that are located in the State.’’ 

RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) does not 

require EPA to promulgate regulations 

for determining the adequacy of State 

programs. EPA is therefore relying in 

large measure on the existing 

regulations in 40 CFR part 239, 

Requirements for State Permit Program 

Determination of Adequacy, on the 

statutory requirements for public 

participation in RCRA Section 7004, 

and on the Agency’s experience in 

reviewing and approving State programs 

in general. However, in order to aid 

States in developing their programs and 

to provide a clear statement of how, in 

EPA’s judgment, the existing regulations 

and statutory requirements in both 

4005(d) and 7004 apply to state CCR 

programs, on August 15, 2017 EPA 

announced the availability of an interim 

final Guidance for Coal Combustion 

Residuals State Permit Programs (82 FR 

38685). This guidance outlines the 

process and procedures EPA generally 

intends to use to review and make 

determinations on State CCR permit 

programs. EPA evaluated the adequacy 

of ODEQ’s permit program based on the 

statutory requirements and EPA’s 

interpretation of the regulatory 

requirements. A summary of EPA’s 

findings are below, organized by the 

program elements identified in the Part 

239 regulations and the guidance 

document; our detailed analysis of the 

submitted State program can be found 

in the Technical Support Document 

which is included in the docket for this 

proposal. 

1. Permitting Guidelines 

Based on section 7004 and on the part 

239 regulations, it is EPA’s judgment (as 

expressed in the interim final guidance) 

that an adequate permitting program 

will provide for public participation by 

ensuring that: Documents for permit 

determinations are made available for 

public review and comment; final 

determinations on permit applications 

are made known to the public; and 

public comments on permit 

determinations are considered. 

All environmental permit and 

modification applications in Oklahoma 

are subject to the Oklahoma Uniform 

Environmental Permitting Act (UEPA) 

and the permitting rules promulgated to 

carry out UEPA. UEPA classifies all 

permit applications into three tiers that 

determine the level of public 

participation and administrative review 

the permit application will receive. See 

OAC 252:4–7–2. Oklahoma classifies 

solid waste management applications, 

including CCR applications, into their 

respective tiers at OAC 252:4–7–58 

through 60. All permit documents, 

regardless of tier, are available for 

review and copying. OAC 252:4–1–5. 

Oklahoma describes the Tier I 

program as ‘‘the category for those 

things that are basically administrative 

decisions which can be made by a 

technical supervisor with no public 

participation except for the landowner.’’ 

OAC 252:4–7–2. The Tier I permit 

application requires an application, 

notice to the landowner, and 

Department review. 27A O.S. § 2–14– 

103(9). Only applications for minor 

modifications, lateral expansions within 

the permit boundary below a certain 

capacity, and approval of technical 

plans fall within the Tier I category. 

OAC 252:4–7–58. 

The Tier II permit application process 

expands upon the Tier I requirements to 

include published notice of the 

application filing and published notice 

of the draft permit or denial and 

opportunity for a public meeting. 27A 

O.S. § 2–14–103(10). The Tier II process 

covers new permits for on-site CCR 

disposal units and more substantial 

modifications to existing facilities 

beyond Tier I. OAC 252:4–7–59. 

The Tier III permit application 

process includes the requirements of 

Tiers I and II and adds notice of an 

opportunity for a process meeting, 

response to public comments, and 

notice of an opportunity for an 

administrative permit hearing. 27A O.S. 

§ 2–14–103(11). The Tier III process 

covers new permits for off-site disposal 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2103 

units and permits for some significant 

modifications to off-site disposal units. 

OAC 252:4–7–60. 

UEPA provides for public notice and 

review of permit applications and 

significant permit modifications through 

its Tier II and III programs. Tier II and 

III programs also provide the 

opportunity for public hearing, and, in 

the case of Tier III applications, the 

opportunity for an administrative 

hearing. These programs appear to 

provide adequate opportunities for 

public participation in the permitting 

process, and the application of UEPA to 

the CCR permitting program is 

consistent with Oklahoma’s practice 

across environmental programs. Permit 

and modification applications for CCR 

facilities fall under the existing solid 

waste management application at OAC 

252:4–7–58 through 60, and those 

classifications are used for Oklahoma’s 

authorized Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfill program. 

2. Guidelines for Compliance 

Monitoring Authority 

Based on the part 239 regulations, it 

is EPA’s judgment (as expressed in the 

interim final guidance), that a state’s 

application for permit program approval 

should demonstrate that the state has 

the authority to gather information 

about compliance, perform inspections, 

and ensure that information it gathers is 

suitable for enforcement. 

ODEQ has compliance monitoring 

authority under 27A O.S. § 2–3–501, 

allowing for inspections, sampling, 

information gathering, and other 

investigation. This authority extends to 

ODEQ’s proposed CCR permit program 

and would provide the authority to 

adequately gather information for 

enforcement. 

3. Guidelines for Enforcement Authority 

Further, based on the part 239 

regulations, it is EPA’s judgment (as 

expressed in the interim final guidance), 

that a state’s application for permit 

program approval should demonstrate 

that the state has authority to administer 

RCRA § 4005(c)(1)(B) and (C) programs 

to have adequate enforcement authority 

to administer those programs, including: 

The authority to restrain any person 

from engaging in activity which may 

damage human health or the 

environment, the authority to sue to 

enjoin prohibited activity, and the 

authority to sue to recover civil 

penalties for prohibited activity. 

ODEQ appears to have adequate 

enforcement authority for its existing 

programs under 27A O.S. § 2–3–501– 

507 and that authority extends to 

ODEQ’s proposed CCR permit program. 

4. Intervention in Civil Enforcement 

Proceedings 

Based on section 7004 and on the part 

239 regulations, it is EPA’s judgment (as 

expressed in the interim final guidance) 

that a state application for permit 

program approval should demonstrate 

that the state provides adequate 

opportunity for citizen intervention in 

civil enforcement proceedings through 

the requirements found in 40 CFR 239.9. 

In general, those requirements state that 

the state must provide authority to 

allow citizen intervention or provide 

assurance of (1) a notice and public 

involvement process, (2) investigating 

and providing responses about 

violations, and (3) not opposing 

intervention when permitted by statute, 

rule, or regulation. 

ODEQ’s CCR program appears to 

satisfy the civil intervention 

requirement (40 CFR 239.9(a)) by 

allowing intervention by right. (see 12 

OK Stat § 12–2024). In addition, ODEQ’s 

CCR program would satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 239.9(b) by 

providing a process to respond to 

citizen complaints (see 27A O.S. § 2–3– 

101,503) and by not opposing citizen 

intervention when allowed by statute 

(see 27A O.S. § 2–7–133). ODEQ in 

meeting 40 CFR 239.9(b)(2) has an 

extremely robust process for responding 

to citizen complaints. In 27A O.S. § 2– 

3–101–F–1, The complaints program is 

responsible for intake processing, 

mediation and conciliation of inquiries 

and complaints received by the 

Department and which shall provide for 

the expedient resolution of complaints 

within the jurisdiction of the 

Department. In 27A O.S. § 2–3–503, if 

the Department undertakes an 

enforcement action as a result of a 

complaint, the Department shall notify 

the complainant of the enforcement 

action by mail. The State program in 

27A O.S. § 2–3–503 offers the 

complainant an opportunity to provide 

written information pertinent to the 

complaint within fourteen (14) calendar 

days after the date of the mailing. The 

State’s program also goes further in 27A 

O.S. § 2–3–104 that the complaints 

program shall, in addition to the 

responsibilities specified by Section 2– 

3–101 of this title, refer, upon written 

request, all complaints in which one of 

the complainants remains unsatisfied 

with the Department’s resolution of said 

complaint to an outside source trained 

in mediation. It is clear that ODEQ takes 

public intervention seriously in 

enforcement actions considering the 

additional elements of the State’s 

complaint process. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that these requirements allow a 

minimum necessary level of citizen 

involvement in the enforcement 

process. 

B. Adequacy of Technical Criteria 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that ODEQ’s submitted CCR permit 

program generally meets the standard 

for approval in RCRA section 

4005(d)(1)(B)(i), as it will require each 

CCR unit located in Oklahoma to 

achieve compliance with the applicable 

criteria for CCR units under 40 CFR part 

257. To make this preliminary 

determination, EPA compared ODEQ’s 

proposed CCR permit program to 40 

CFR part 257 to determine whether it 

differed from the federal requirements, 

and if so, whether those differences met 

the standard for approval in RCRA 

section 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C). 

Oklahoma has adopted all of the 

technical criteria at 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D into its regulations at OAC 

Title 252 Chapter 517. While ODEQ’s 

CCR permit program also includes some 

modification of 40 CFR part 257, 

subpart D, the majority of ODEQ’s 

modifications were merely those that 

were needed to allow the State to 

implement the part 257 criteria through 

a permit process. As mentioned above, 

the 40 CFR part 257, subpart D rules 

were meant to be implemented directly 

by the regulated facility, without the 

oversight of any regulatory authority, 

such as a state permitting program. For 

example, ODEQ removed 40 CFR 

257.61(a)(2)(iv), which references the 

Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act requirements because 

Oklahoma does not have any coastal or 

ocean environments which apply under 

the MPRSA regulations. EPA considers 

these revisions to be ministerial, and as 

such, they do not substantively modify 

the federal technical criteria. 

ODEQ also made a few minor changes 

to the 40 CFR 257, Subpart D criteria. 

These changes reflect the integration of 

the CCR rules with the responsibilities 

of other state agencies or state specific 

conditions. There are a few minor 

changes that were made inadvertently 

that will be changed by the State 

through another rulemaking, including a 

typographic error in Chapter 517–9– 

4(g)(5) and removal of the words ‘‘and 

the leachate collection and removal’’ 

from 40 CFR 257.70(e). The State has 

acknowledged these differences and has 

plans to correct any errors. Additional 

changes include removal of the web link 

to EPA publication SW–846 under the 

definition ‘‘Representative Sample’’ in 

40 CFR 257.53; and the replacement of 

40 CFR 257.91(e) with a reference to the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2104 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

(OWRB) Section 785:35–7–2. After 

review of this OWRB regulation, an EPA 

groundwater expert finds the Oklahoma 

rules to be more stringent than the 

requirements under 40 CFR 257.91(e). 

EPA preliminarily finds these changes 

to be minor because the key aspects of 

the CCR program including 

requirements for location restrictions, 

design and operating criteria, 

groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action, closure requirements and postclosure care, recordkeeping, notification 

and internet posting requirements are 

not substantially changed or reduced by 

the Oklahoma revisions and in one 

example is more stringent. These 

changes do not keep the overall program 

from being at least as protective as 40 

CFR part 257, subpart D. EPA’s full 

analysis of Oklahoma’s CCR permit 

program can be found in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) located in the 

docket for this notice. 

IV. Proposed Action 

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), 

EPA is proposing to wholly approve 

ODEQ’s CCR permit program 

application. 

Dated: January 3, 2018. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Land and Emergency Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00474 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 11–42, 09–197; 

FCC 17–155] 

Bridging the Digital Divide for LowIncome Consumers, Lifeline and Link 

Up Reform and Modernization, 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible 

for Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes and seeks 

comment on reforms to ensure the 

Lifeline program rules comport with the 

authority granted to the Commission in 

the Communications Act and to curb 

wasteful and abusive spending in the 

Lifeline program. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how Lifeline might 

more efficiently target funds to areas 

and households most in need of help in 

obtaining digital opportunity. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 24, 2018, and reply comments 

are due on or before February 23, 2018. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this document, you 

should advise the contact listed below 

as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 17–287, 

11–42, and 09–197, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jodie Griffin, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 

Inquiry (NPRM and NOI) in WC Docket 

Nos. 17–287, 11–42, 09–197; FCC 17– 

155, adopted on November 16, 2017 and 

released on December 1, 2017. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following internet address: http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2017/db1201/FCC-17- 

155A1.pdf. The Fourth Report and 

Order, Order on Reconsideration and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order that 

was adopted concurrently with the 

NPRM and NOI are published elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposes 

and seeks comment on reforms to 

ensure the Lifeline program rules 

comport with the authority granted to 

the Commission in the Communications 

Act and to curb wasteful and abusive 

spending in the Lifeline program. 

Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment 

on ending the Commission’s previous 

preemption of states’ role in designating 

certain eligible telecommunications 

carriers and removing the Lifeline 

Broadband Provider designation; 

targeting Lifeline funds to facilitiesbased broadband-capable networks 

offering both voice and broadband 

services; adopting a self-enforcing 

budget cap for the program; improving 

the eligibility verification and 

recertification processes to further 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program; and improving providers’ 

incentive to provide quality 

communications services by 

establishing a maximum discount level 

for Lifeline-supported service. In the 

Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks 

comment on how Lifeline might more 

efficiently target funds to areas and 

households most in need of help in 

obtaining digital opportunity. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

2. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposes 

and seeks comment on reforms to 

ensure that the Commission is 

administering the Lifeline program on 

sound legal footing, recognizing the 

important and Congressionally 

mandated role of states in Lifeline 

program administration, and rooting out 

waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. 

These steps must precede broader 

discussions about how the Lifeline 

program can be updated to effectively 

bring digital opportunity to those who 

are currently on the wrong side of the 

digital divide. 

3. The Commission first seeks 

comment on ways the Commission can 

better accommodate the important and 

lawful role of the states in the Lifeline 

program. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the Lifeline Broadband 

Provider category of ETCs and the state 

preemption on which it is based. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

ways to encourage cooperative 

federalism between the states and the 

Commission to make the National 

Verifier a success. 

4. In this section, the Commission 

addresses the serious concerns that have 

been raised that the Commission’s 

creation of Lifeline Broadband Provider 

(LBP) ETCs and preemption of state 

commissions’ designations of such LBPs 

was inconsistent with the role 

contemplated for the states in Section 

214 of the Act. In the 2016 Lifeline 

Order, 81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016, the 

Commission established a framework to 

designate providers as Lifeline 

Broadband Providers (LBPs), eligible to 

receive Lifeline reimbursement for 

qualifying broadband internet access 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS