        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0529; FRL-9987-36-Region 4]
        Alabama: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Alabama has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has reviewed Alabama's application and is proposing to determine that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0529, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Audrey Baker, Materials and Waste Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8483; fax number: (404) 562-9964; email address: baker.audrey@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 changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
        New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA implements those requirements and prohibitions in the states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the states are granted authorization to do so.
        B. What decision is EPA proposing to make in this rule?
        Alabama submitted final complete program revision applications, dated November 2, 2016 and May 11, 2018, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2015 (including RCRA Clusters 1
           XV, XVI, XIX through XXI, XXIII, and XXIV). EPA concludes that Alabama's applications to revise its authorized program meet 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 proposes to grant Alabama final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization applications, and as outlined below in Section F of this document.

            1 A “cluster” is a grouping of hazardous waste rules that EPA promulgates from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year.

        Alabama has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
        C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?
        If Alabama is authorized for the changes described in Alabama's authorization applications, these changes will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program, and therefore will be federally enforceable. Alabama will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
        • Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
        • Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
        • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
        This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which EPA is proposing to authorize Alabama are already effective, and are not changed by today's proposed action.
        D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

        EPA will evaluate any comments received on this proposed action and will make a final decision on approval or disapproval of Alabama's proposed authorization. Our decision will be published in the Federal Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.
        E. What has Alabama previously been authorized for?

        Alabama initially received final authorization on December 8, 1987, effective December 22, 1987 (52 FR 46466), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to Alabama's program on the following dates: November 29, 1991, effective January 28, 1992 (56 FR 60926); May 13, 1992, effective July 12, 1992 (57 FR 20422); October 21, 1992, effective December 21, 1992 (57 FR 47996); March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993 (58 FR 20422); September 24, 1993, effective November 23, 1993 (58 FR 49932); February 1, 1994, effective April 4, 1994 (59 FR 4594); November 14, 1994, effective January 13, 1995 (59 FR 56407); August 14, 1995, effective October 13, 1995 (60 FR 41818); February 14, 1996, effective April 15, 1996 (61 FR 5718); April 25, 1996, effective June 24, 1996 (61 FR 5718); November 21, 1997, effective February 10, 1998 (62 FR 62262); December 20, 2000, effective February 20, 2001 (65 FR 79769); March 15, 2005, effective May 16, 2005 (70 FR 12593); June 2, 2005, effective August 1, 2005 (70 FR 32247); September 13, 2006, effective November 13, 2006 (71 FR 53989); April 2, 2008, effective June 2, 2008 (73 FR 17924); and March 20, 2017, effective May 19, 2017 (82 FR 14327).
        F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
        Alabama submitted two separate final complete program revision applications seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Its application dated November 2, 2016, included changes associated with 71 FR 16862; 2
           208 and 220, and its application dated May 11, 2018, included changes associated with Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213, 222, 223, 225-227, 232, and 234. EPA proposes to determine, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Alabama's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize Alabama for the following program changes:

            2 A “checklist” is developed by EPA for each federal rule amending the RCRA regulations. The checklists document the changes made by each federal rule and are presented and numbered in chronological order by date of promulgation.

            3 The Alabama regulatory citations are from the Alabama Hazardous Waste Management Rules, effective March 31, 2011 (Checklist 223); April 8, 2016 (Checklists 208 and 220); and March 31, 2017, (Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213, 222, 225, 226, 227, 232, and 234).

            4 The National Environmental Performance Track Program referenced in the Burden Reduction Initiative Rule has been discontinued.

          Table 1

            Description of federal requirement

              Federal Register date and page
            Analogous State authority 3

            Checklist 206.1, Nonwastewaters from Dyes and Pigments (Correction)
            70 FR 35032 6/16/05
            335-14-2-.04(3)(d)2. and (3)(d)3.(iv)(II).

            Checklist 207, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule
            70 FR 10776 3/4/05, 70 FR 35034 6/16/05
            335-14-1.-02(1)(a)70., (1)(a)164.-165.; 335-14-2.01(7), (7)(b)(iii)(II); 335-14-3-.02(1)(a), (2)(a)-(b), (2)(b)1.-2., (8); 335-14-3-.03(3)(b), (4), (5)(k); 335-14-3-.05(5)(c), (5)(e); 335-14-3-.06(1)(c)-(e); 335-14-3 Appendix I—Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and Instructions; 335-14-4-.02(1)(a)1.-3., (1)(g), (2)(b); 335-14-5-.05(1), (2)(a)1.(i)-(v), (2)(a)2., (2)(b)4., (2)(e), (3)(a)-(e), (3)(f)1.-7., (3)(g), (7)(a); 335-14-6-.05(1)(a), (2)(a)1.(i)-(iv), (2)(b)4., (2)(e), (3)(a)-(g), and (7)(a).

            Checklist 208, Methods Innovation Rule and SW-846 Update IIIB
            70 FR 34538 6/14/05, 70 FR 44150 8/1/05
            335-14-1-.02(2); 335-14-1-.03(1)(d); 335-14-2-.01(3)(a)2.(v); 335-14-2-.03(2)(a)1.-2.; 335-14-2-.04(6)(b)2.(iii)(I)-(II); 335-14-2 Appendix I—Representative Sampling Methods; 335-14-2 Appendix II—III [Reserved]; 335-14-5-.10(1)(a); 335-14-5-.14(15)(c); 335-14-5-.27(c)(5); 335-14-5-.28(c)(14); 335-14-5 Appendix IX—Groundwater Monitoring List; 335-14-6-.10(1)(a); 335-14-6-.14(15)(d); 335-14-6-.27(5); 335-14-6-.28(14); 335-14-6-.29(2), (5); 335-14-7-.08(1), (3), (7), (13); 335-14-7 Appendix IX—Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations; 335-14-8-.02 (2)(b)2.(i)(III)-(IV), (10)(c)1.(iii)-(iv), (13)(a)2.(ii)(II); 335-14-8-.06(5)(c)2.(i)-(ii); 335-14-9-.04(1), (8); 335-14-9 Appendix IX—Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test Method and Structural Integrity Test (SW-846, Method 1310); 335-14-17-.02(1)(b)1.(ii); 335-14-17-.05(6)(c); 335-14-17-.06(4)(c); and 335-14-17-.07(4)(c).

            Checklist 209, Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Mercury Containing Equipment
            70 FR 45508 8/5/05
            335-14-1-.02(1)(a)12., (1)(a)154., (1)(a)166., (1)(a)254., (1)(a)295.; 335-14-2-.01(9)(c); 335-14-5-.01(1)(g)12.(iii); 335-14-6-.01(1)(c)14.(iii); 335-14-8-.01(1)(c)2.(ix)(III); 335-14-9-.01(1); 335-14-11-.01(1)(a)3., (4)(a)-(c); 335-14-11-.02(4)(c), (5)(d); 335-14-11-.03(3)(b)4.-5.; 335-14-11-.03(4)(c) and (5)(d).

            Checklist 211, Revision of Wastewater Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous Waste Mixtures (“Headworks exemptions”)
            70 FR 57769 10/4/05
            335-14-2-.01(3)(a)2.(iv)(I)-(II), (IV), and (VII)-(VIII).

            Checklist 213,4 Burden Reduction Initiative
            71 FR 16862 4/4/06
            335-14-1-.03(11)(b)1.-7.; 335-14-2-.01(4)(a)9.(iii)(v), (4)(f)9.; 335-14-5-.02(6)(b)4., (7)(a)4.; 335-14-5-.04(3)(b), (7)(i); 335-14-5-.05(4)(b)1.-2., (4)(b)6., (4)(b)8., (4)(b)10., (4)(b)18.-19.; 335-14-5-.06(9)(d), (9)(g)2.-3.; 335-14-5-.06(10)(f)-(g), (11)(g); 335-14-5-.07(4)(e)5., (6), (11); 335-14-5-.08(4)(i), (6)(i), (8)(e); 335-14-5-.09(5); 335-14-5-.10(2)(a), (2)(b)5.(ii), (3)(a)-(b), (4)(a), (4)(i)2., (6)(b)-(g), (7)(f); 335-14-5-.12(2)(c); 335-14-5-.13(11)(b); 335-14-5-.14(15)(f); 335-14-5-.15(4)(a)2., (8)(d); 335-14-5-.19(5)(c)2.; 335-14-5-.23(2)(a)-(c); 335-14-5-.23(4)(a)4.(ii), (4)(g), (5)(a); 335-14-5-.28(12)-(13); 335-14-5-.30(1), (2)(c)2., (2)(c)4.; 335-14-6-.02(6)(b)4., (7)(a)4.; 335-14-6-.04(3)(b), (7)(j); 335-14-6-.05(4)(b); 335-14-6-.06(1)(d)1., (1)(d)3., (4)(d)2., (4)(d)5.; 335-14-6-.07(4)(e)5., (6), (11); 335-14-6-.08(4)(h), (6)(h), (8)(e); 335-14-6-.09(5); 335-14-6-.10(2)(a), (2)(b)5.(ii), (3)(a)-(b), (4)(a), (4)(i)2., (6)(a)-(f), (7)(f), (12)(c)-(g); 335-14-6-.11(2)(a), (5); 335-14-6-.12(10)(a); 335-14-6-.13(11)(e); 335-14-6-.14(2)(a), (4)(a); 335-14-6-.14(15)(b)-(g); 335-14-6-.23(2)(a)-(c), (4)(a)4.(ii), (4)(g), (5)(a); 335-14-6-.28(12)-(13); 335-14-6-.30(1), (2)(c)2., (2)(c)4.; 335-14-7-.08(3)-(4); 335-14-8-.02(5)(a), (7)(a), (17)(c)15.; 335-14-9-.01(7) and (9).

            Checklist 220, Academic Laboratories Generator Standards
            73 FR 72912 12/1/08
            335-14-2-.01(5)(c)6.-7.; 335-14-3-.01(j), (j)1.-2.; 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)30., (1)(a)38., (1)(a)84., (1)(a)111., (1)(a)140.-142., (1)(a)181., (1)(a)222., (1)(a)277., (1)(a)298., (1)(a)322.; 335-14-1-.12; and 335-14-3-.12(2)-(17).

            Checklist 222, OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries
            75 FR 1236 1/8/10
            335-14-3-.01(1)(d); 335-14-3-.05(6), (9)(a)-(b); 335-14-3-.09(1)(a)-(b), (3)(a)-(g), (4)(a)-(e), (5)(a)-(e), (6)(a)-(g), (7)(a)-(b), (8)(a)-(c), (9), (10)(a)-(d); 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)44., (1)(a)58.-61., (1)(a)99., (1)(a)121., (1)(a)177.-178., (1)(a)218.-219., (1)(a)220.(viii) and (xiii), and (1)(a)268.; 335-14-4-.01(1)(d); 335-14-5-.02(3)(a)2.; 335-14-5-.05(2)(a)2., (2)(d); 335-14-6-.02(3)(a)2.; 335-14-6-.05(2)(a)2., (2)(d); and 335-14-7-.07(1)(a).

            Checklist 223, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications
            75 FR 12989 3/18/10, 75 FR 31716 6/4/10
            335-14-1-.02(1)(a)173., (1)(a)208.; 335-14-2-.01(2)(c) Table 1, (4)(a)17.(vi), (5)(b), (5)(e), (5)(f)2., (5)(g), (6)(a)2.-3., (6)(c)1., (6)(d), (7)(a)1.(ii), (7)(a)2.(ii), (7)(b)1., (7)(b)3.; 335-14-2-.03(4)(a)8.; 335-14-2-.04(1)(c)-(d), (2)(a), (3)(a) Table, (4)(f) Table; 335-14-2 Appendix VII—Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste; 335-14-3-.01(1)(f), (2)(d); 335-14-3-.02(4)(f); 335-14-3-.03(5)(a)-(c), (5)(d)5., (5)(g), (5)(j); 335-14-3-.04(2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(d); 335-14-3-.06(1)(b); 335-14-5-.04(3), (7)(d)2.; 335-14-5-.05(3)(e)6., (3)(f)1. 7.-8.; 335-14-5-.14(15)(e), (17)(b); 335-14-5-.19(3)(a)3.(ii)-(iv), (3)(e)4.(iv)(VI); 335-14-6-.04(3)(b), (7)(d)2.; 335-14-6-.05(3)(e)6., (3)(f)1., (3)(f)7.-8; 5 335-14-6-.14(15)(f), (17)(b); 335-14-7-.03(1)(b), (3); 335-14-7-.06(1)(d); 335-14-7-.07(1)(b); 335-14-7-.08(2); 335-14-9-.04(1), (8); and 335-14-8-.01(4)(a).

            Checklist 225, Removal of Saccharin and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Wastes
            75 FR 78918 12/17/10
            335-14-2-.04(4) Table after subparagraph (e); 335-14-2 Appendix VIII—Hazardous Constituents; 335-14-9-.00; and 335-14-9 Appendix VII—Effective Dates of Surface Disposed Prohibited Hazardous Wastes.

            Checklist 226, Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical Corrections
            75 FR 79304 12/20/10
            335-14-1-.02(1)(a)30.; 335-14-3-.12(7)(b)3.(i), (13)(e)1., (15)(a)1., and (15)(b)1.

            Checklist 227, Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes
            76 FR 34147 6/13/11
            335-14-9-.00.

            Checklist 232, Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule
            79 FR 36220 6/26/14
            335-14-1-.02(1)(a)61.; 335-14-2-.05(1)(a)5.(i)(VI), (1)(a)5.(x)-(xi), (3), and (3)(a)-(b).

            Checklist 234, Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule
            80 FR 18777 4/8/15
            335-14-2-.01(4)(a)12.(i), (4)(a)16.; and 335-14-2-.04(9).

        G. Where are the revised state rules different from the federal rules?

            5 The correct internal cross reference in 335-14-6-.05(3)(f)8. to the State analog for 40 CFR 262.42(a) should be: “335-14-3-.04(3)(a)” not “335-14-3-.04(3).”

        When revised state rules differ from the federal rules in the RCRA state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the federal program. Pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929, state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting regulations that are broader in scope than the federal program, such regulations cannot be authorized and are not federally enforceable.
        In its review of the Alabama regulations submitted as part of the program revision applications that are the subject of this proposed rule, EPA did not find any State regulations to be broader in scope than the federal program. However, EPA has determined that certain regulations included in Alabama's program revision applications are more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program in Alabama when authorized. These more stringent requirements are set forth in Table 2 below:

          Table 2

            Alabama more stringent provisions
            Explanation

            335-14-5-.05(7)(a) and 335-14-6-.05(7)(a)
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 264.76(a) and 265.76(a) by including the following additional recordkeeping requirement: “The owner or operator must retain a copy of each un-manifested waste report for, at least, three (3) years from the due date of the report.”

            335-14-11-.03(b)5
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 273.32(b)(5) by requiring a large quantity handler of universal waste to include certain information in its notice of universal waste management that is no longer required at the federal level.

            335-14-5-.13(11)(b) and 335-14-6-.13(11)(e)
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 264.280(b) and 265.280(e) by requiring that the professional engineer be “independent.”

            335-14-6-.04(7)(j)
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.56(i) by requiring the owner or operator to notify before resuming operations.

            335-14-6-.05(4)(b)6
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.73(b)(6) by requiring a facility to maintain in its operating record additional monitoring, testing, and analytical data not required by the federal regulation.

            335-14-6-.10(12)(c)
            Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.201(c) by requiring that inspections be documented.

        EPA cannot delegate certain federal requirements associated with the federal manifest registry system in the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule (Checklists 207). Additionally, EPA cannot delegate the federal requirements associated with international shipments (i.e., import and export provisions) associated with the OECD Requirements for Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (Checklist 222) or the Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube Rule (Checklist 232). Alabama has adopted these requirements and appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them.
        H. Who handles permits after the final authorization takes effect?
        Alabama will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Table 1 above after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Alabama is not yet authorized.
        I. How does today's proposed action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Alabama?
        Alabama is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State, which includes the Poarch Band of Creek Indians. Therefore, this proposed action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
        J. What is codification and will EPA codify Alabama's hazardous waste program as proposed in this rule?
        Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing to codify the authorization of Alabama's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart B, for the authorization of Alabama's program changes at a later date.
        K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of Alabama's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to authorize pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to authorize State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

        Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in proposing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). “Burden” is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this action proposes authorization of pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
           This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

          Dated: November 20, 2018.
          Mary S. Walker,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2018-26357 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0012
        RIN 2127-AK58
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, so that brake fluids would be tested with ethylene, propylene, and diene terpolymer (EPDM) rubber, as this type of rubber is increasingly being used in brake fluid seals. This NPRM also updates references to standards issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM) (no substantive changes to the standard would be made by these updates), and corrects minor errors in the standard.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
          You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For non-legal issues: Mr. Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4921). Mr. Daniel's fax number is: (202) 366-7002.

            For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2992). Ms. Nakama's fax number is: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. Testing With Ethylene, Propylene, and Diene Terpolymer Rubber
          III. Updating SAE Standard J1703
          IV. Updating American Society for Testing and Materials Standards
          V. Other Proposed Corrections and Updates to FMVSS No. 116
          VI. Effective Date
          VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
          VIII. Public Participation

        I. Background
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116), specifies requirements for fluids for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor vehicles, containers for these fluids, and labeling of the containers. The purpose of the standard is to reduce failures in the hydraulic braking systems of motor vehicles that may occur because of the manufacture or use of improper or contaminated fluid. FMVSS No. 116 was developed from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards J1703, J1704, and J1705, which address the performance requirements and test procedures for DOT3, DOT4, and DOT5 brake fluid, respectively. FMVSS No. 116 incorporates by reference or otherwise refers to particular editions (by date) of SAE J1703. FMVSS No. 116 also references several standards published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) relating to test procedures and devices.
        II. Testing With Ethylene, Propylene, and Diene Terpolymer Rubber
        This document proposes to update FMVSS No. 116 so that brake fluids would be tested with the materials currently used in the manufacture of brake fluid seals. Over the past two decades, the motor vehicle industry has increasingly gone from using styrene- butadiene rubber (SBR) for the brake system seals to ethylene, propylene, and diene terpolymer (EPDM)(as characterized by SAE J1703 AUG2008) rubber because EPDM rubber is more heat resistant and less expensive to manufacture. At present, FMVSS No. 116 tests the effects of brake fluid on SBR, but not on EPDM rubber.1
           In this NPRM, we propose to include the testing of brake fluid on EPDM rubber. The following amendments are proposed.

            1 In the early 1980s, SAE added testing of EPDM rubber to SAE J1703, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid, and SAE J1704, Borate Ether Based Brake Fluid.

        a. Definition of “Brake Fluid”
        To apply FMVSS No. 116 to brake fluid that contacts EPDM rubber, we propose to expand the definition of “brake fluid” at S4 of the standard to expressly state that “brake fluid” includes liquids that contact EPDM rubber in a hydraulic brake system.
        b. Corrosion Test

        The corrosion test in FMVSS No. 116 (S5.1.6 and S6.6) evaluates the corrosive effects of brake fluid on several materials that are designed to come into contact with brake fluid, including iron, steel, aluminum, brass, copper, and SBR. Currently in the test, duplicate samples of metal corrosion test strips are assembled and placed along with an SBR wheel cylinder cup into a test jar, immersed in water-wet brake fluid, capped and placed in an oven at 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) for 120 hours. Upon removal from the oven and cooling, the strips, SBR wheel cylinder cup and fluid are examined and tested. The performance results are based on an average of the results from each sample.
        We propose to add an EPDM slab stock to each test jar and to use performance criteria and test procedures developed by the SAE and incorporated into SAE J1703, dated August 2008 (“SAE J1703 AUG2008”)(see Appendix D), and SAE J1704, dated June 2003 (“SAE J1704 JUN2003”).2
           NHTSA has evaluated these SAE standards and tentatively concludes that these standards will effectively evaluate the compatibility of brake fluid with EPDM for the following reasons. The SAE brake fluid standards are developed and edited by the SAE Brake Fluid Standards Committee. The Committee members are from the brake fluid manufacturing, packaging, and testing industries as well as from the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The Committee members have considerable knowledge and experience with brake fluid products and brake fluid standards, and we believe it would be reasonable to rely on the Committee's knowledge and expertise. The agency has reviewed the material in SAE J1703 and J1704 and determined that it should be referenced in FMVSS No. 116.

            2 We are proposing to update the current reference to SAE J1703 and add a reference to J1704 in the standard to refer to these August 2008 and June 2003 versions of the standards. See discussion in next section of this preamble.

        c. Effect on Rubber
        At present, the effect of brake fluid on SBR is tested by using two jars with two SBR wheel cylinder cups tested in each jar. One jar is heated to 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) and the other is heated to 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit). We propose to amend this test by including two EPDM rubber specimens in two additional jars (see SAE J1704 JUN2003). Also, we propose adopting the performance requirements for EPDM rubber specimens in SAE Standard J1703 AUG2008, paragraphs 4.11.3 and 4.11.4. As previously stated, we tentatively conclude it would be reasonable to rely on the knowledge and expertise of the Brake Fluid Standards Committee in proposing to adopt the performance requirements for EPDM rubber specimens.
        d. Continuing To Test SBR
        We believe there is still a need for FMVSS No. 116 to continue to specify testing the effect of brake fluid on SBR. Based on limited inquiries to industry (to fewer than nine companies), NHTSA believes that industry has not completely converted to using EPDM rubber, and in some cases, manufacturers continue to use SBR in brake system seals. We note that under SAE Standards J1703 AUG2008 and J1704 JUN2003, the most recent versions of those standards, brake fluid is still tested for its effect on SBR. Since it appears that SBR is continued to be used in brake system seals, we propose to continue to test the effect of brake fluids on SBR in FMVSS No. 116.
        III. Updating SAE Standard J1703
        Since FMVSS No. 116 took effect in the early 1970's, we have referenced SAE standard J1703 as the source of the specifications for materials and procedures used in the specified FMVSS No. 116 tests. SAE has updated its standard over the years and the editions of the standard currently referenced in FMVSS No. 116 are not recent editions of the standard issued by that organization.
        For example, FMVSS No. 116 specifies the use of materials and apparatus set forth in the tables and appendices of SAE Standard J1703 to conduct brake fluid testing. The current edition of J1703 is SAE Standard J1703 AUG2008, which has specifications for the corrosion test strips, the compatibility fluid, and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. However, FMVSS No.116 makes several references to SAE Standard J1703b, which is a 1971 edition of the SAE standard. FMVSS No. 116 also references SAE Standard J1703 NOV83 and other editions of SAE Standard J1703.
        The contents of the appendices and figures of the older editions of SAE Standard J1703 are generally the same as the contents of the newer editions, although the compatibility fluid has been updated as necessary to be representative of current brake fluids. This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 116 to incorporate by reference the most recent version of the SAE brake fluid standard that contains the appropriate information. These updates make no substantive changes in the requirements, with the exception of the compatibility fluid, which has been changed from the JAN1995 version. We propose to reference the most recent version of SAE Standard J1703 because the most recent versions of the Standards are readily available from the SAE.
        The following table summarizes the proposed references to the updated SAE Standard J1703.

          Table 1—Summary of SAE J1703 References in FMVSS No.116

            Reference site
            Current version
            Proposed version
            NHTSA comments

            S6.2 Wet Equilibrium Boiling Point
            Appendix E of SAE J1703 NOV83
            Appendix E of SAE J1703 AUG 2008
            No change in specifications.

            S6.2.1 Triethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (TEGME—RM-71).

            S6.5 Fluid StabilityS6.5.4.1 Materials—Compatibility Fluid.

            Appendix B of SAE J1703 JAN95
            Appendix B of SAE J1703 AUG 2008
            Compatibility fluid is changed to be representative of recently marketed products.

            S6.6 CorrosionS6.6.3(a) Materials—Corrosion Test Strips.

            Appendix C of SAE J1703b
            Appendix A of SAE J1703 AUG 2008
            No change in specifications.

            S6.10 CompatibilityS6.10.1 Summary of Procedure—Compatibility Fluid.

            Appendix B or SAE J1703 JAN95
            Appendix B of SAE J1703 AUG 2008
            Compatibility fluid is changed periodically.

            S6.11 Resistance to Oxidation
            Appendix C of SAE J1703b
            Appendix A of J1703 AUG 2008
            No change in specifications.

            S6.11.3(b) Reagents and Materials—Iron and aluminum test strips.

            S6.12 Effect on SBR CupsS6.12.2(c) SBR Cups. See S7.6.

            Appendix B of SAE J1703b
            Appendix C of SAE J1703 AUG 2008
            No change in specifications.

            S6.13 Stroking PropertiesS13.2 Apparatus and Equipment-Stroking Fixture Apparatus.

            Figure 1 of J1703 NOV83
            Figure 2 of SAE J1703 OCT2000
            No change in specifications.

            S7.6 Standard SBR Brake Cups-SBR compounding, vulcanization and physical properties
            Appendix B of SAE J1703b
            Appendix C of J1703 AUG 2008
            No change in specifications.

        IV. Updating American Society for Testing and Materials Standards
        FMVSS No. 116 also references several standards published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). These ASTM standards refer to equipment and equipment specifications for materials and apparatus used to conduct several of the brake fluid tests in FMVSS No. 116. The ASTM standards have been updated by ASTM committees. NHTSA proposes to update the editions of the ASTM standards referenced in FMVSS No. 116 because the most recent versions of the standards are readily available from ASTM. The following table summarizes the proposed updates to the ASTM Standards.

          Table 2—ASTM Standards Referenced in FMVSS No. 116

            ASTM standard
            Reference cited in FMVSS No. 116
            Referenced version
            Updated version
            NHTSA Comments

            ASTM D2515 Viscometers for Brake Fluid Testing
            S6.3.2(a) Viscometers
            ASTM D2125-66
            ASTM D446-07
            Standard designation change; #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM E1 Thermometers for Brake Fluid Testing
            S6.3.2(d) Thermometers
            ASTM E1-68
            ASTM E1-07
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM D445 Viscosity Test procedures
            S6.3.3(a) Thermometers
            ASTM D445-65
            ASTM D445-06
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM E77 Thermometer calibration
            S6.3.3(b) Thermometers
            ASTM E77-66
            ASTM E77-06
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM D1121 Equipment for ph testing
            S6.4.2 Apparatus
            ASTM D1121-67
            ASTM D1121-06
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM E298 Testing reagents for purity
            S6.11.3(a) Benzoyl peroxide
            ASTM E298-68
            ASTM E298-01
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM D1193 Distilled Water Specifications
            S7.1 Distilled Water
            ASTM D1193-70
            ASTM D1193-06
            #116 information unchanged.

            ASTM D1123 Water Content
            S7.2 Water Content of Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids
            ASTM D1123-59
            ASTM D1123-99(2003)
            #116 Information unchanged.

            ASTM D1415 Hardness Testing
            S7.4 Measuring Hardness of SBR and EPDM Cups
            ASTM D1123-68
            ASTM D1123-99(2003)
            #116 Information unchanged.

        V. Other Proposed Corrections and Updates to FMVSS No. 116
        Through our contact over the years with Transport Canada, vehicle manufacturers, brake fluid manufacturers and brake fluid testing facilities, we are aware that corrections and updates to FMVSS No. 116 are in order. The following are our proposed changes, with rationale for the proposed changes.
        a. Correction to Reference in S6.3.2(a) Viscometers
        At present, S6.3.2 Viscometers, states that the viscosity should be measured within the precision limits of S6.4.7. This reference is incorrect. The correct reference is S6.3.7. This NPRM would correct the reference so the regulatory text refers to S6.3.7.
        b. Temperature Measurement Gradations

        At present in FMVSS No. 116, there are two temperature measurement references (see S6.3.2(c), Viscometer bath, and S6.3.3(b), Thermometers) where accuracy to the nearest 0.01 degree Celsius (0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) is specified. In this NPRM, we propose to make the temperature control requirements and the gradations specified for thermometers consistent. Therefore, we propose that the temperature of the viscometer bath for the 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) viscosity tests be allowed to vary by 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit). We propose to amend the text at S6.3.2(c) to allow an increase in temperature variation from 0.01 degrees Celsius (0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) to 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit). In addition, S6.3.3(b) Thermometers, currently refers to checking thermometers to the nearest 0.01 degree Celsius (0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) by direct comparison with a standardized thermometer. The thermometers specified in the standard for kinematic viscosity testing are listed in Table IV of FMVSS No. 116 and have gradation of 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degree Fahrenheit). To make S6.3.3(b) consistent with the Table IV thermometers, we propose to amend S6.3.3(b) so that the thermometers are checked to the nearest 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit). NHTSA believes this proposed change in temperature variation will not adversely affect the accuracy of the viscosity measurements. Comments are requested on this issue.
        c. Timers
        At present, S6.3.3(c), Timers, refers to signals broadcast by the National Bureau of Standards, Station WWV, Washington, DC. We propose to change the reference to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which replaced the National Bureau of Standards, to update other references, and include a new reference to a government Web site that can be consulted for the correct time. Therefore, we propose to amend the information in the first sentence of S6.3.3(c) to read: “Time signals are broadcast by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Station WWV, Fort Collins, Colorado at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Mc/sec (MHz), or the following Web site: http://www.time.gov.”
        d. Reinstatement of Inadvertently Removed Paragraph
        S5.1.10, Compatibility, describes the performance requirements for brake fluid when tested in accordance with S6.10.1(a), At low temperature, and S6.10.3(b), At 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit). At some point, S6.10.3(b) was inadvertently removed from FMVSS No. 116. In this NPRM, we propose to reinstate the paragraph.
        VI. Effective Date

        We propose that if made final, the amendments proposed in this NPRM become effective 180 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. We solicit public comment on this issue.
        VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Further, it is not significant for the purposes of the DOT policies and procedures. This proposed rule would update the standard so that it tests brake fluid with EPDM rubber specimens, updates references to SAE and ASTM Standards, and corrects errors. We believe brake fluid is already manufactured to be compatible with EPDM rubber, since the material is used in brake systems today. The costs of the proposed rule would be minimal. We estimate that there are 10 to 15 brake fluid manufacturers that provide brake fluid for the United States market, including OEM and aftermarket brake fluid, and a somewhat larger number of packagers of brake fluid. If this proposal is made final, the brake fluid manufacturers will need to conduct testing to determine whether their products meet the new requirements after these amendments become effective. However, the testing costs should not increase significantly because this proposal would require changes in relatively inexpensive test equipment, including the purchase of EPDM rubber.
        b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if made final, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The statement of the factual basis for this certification is that, as discussed above, brake fluid currently meets the proposed requirements for testing with EPDM rubber. The effects of this rulemaking would also have no significant economic impact because this rulemaking also simply updates references to SAE and ASTM Standards and would correct errors. For these reasons, the changes proposed would not have any significant economic impacts on small businesses, small organizations or small governmental jurisdictions.
        c. National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposal would 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 the responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
        Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's proposed rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be unnecessary.

        Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied preemption: In some instances, State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's proposed rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.
        e. Unfunded Mandates Act

        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
        f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
        Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, “Civil Justice Reform,” we have considered whether this proposed rule, if made final, would have any retroactive effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49 U.S.C. section 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use.
        49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
        g. Paperwork Reduction Act
        NHTSA has determined that this proposed rule will not impose any “collection of information” burdens on the public, within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This rulemaking action will not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any manufacturer or any other party.
        h. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards 3

           in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. Consistent with the NTTAA, in this proposed rule, we propose to update references (in FMVSS No. 116) to SAE and ASTM standards, which are voluntary industry consensus standards.

            3 Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specifications and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”

        i. Executive Order 13045 Economically Significant Rules Disproportionately Affecting Children
        Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This regulatory action does not meet either of those criteria.
        j. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        —Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in comments to the docket number cited in the heading of this notice.
        k. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        VIII. Public Participation
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to the Docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

        Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

        How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I submit confidential business information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 571 as set forth below.

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 571.116 is amended by:
          a. Revising in S4, the definition of “brake fluid”;
          b. Adding in S5.1.6, paragraphs (j), (k) and (l);
          c. Adding in S.5.1.12, paragraphs (d), (e) and (f);
          d. Revising, in S6.2.1, the first sentence;
          e. Revising, in S6.3.2, in paragraph (a), the first sentence;
          f. Revising, in S6.3.2, in paragraph (c), the third and fourth sentences;
          g. Revising, in S6.3.2, in paragraph (d), the first sentence;
          h. Revising, in S6.3.3, in paragraph (b), the first sentence and third sentence;
          i. Revising, in S6.3.3, the first sentence of paragraph (c);
          j. Revising, in S6.4.2, the first sentence;
          k. Revising, S6.5.4.1;
          l. Revising in S6.6.3, the first sentence of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b);
          m. Revising, in S6.6.4(b), the heading and adding at the end, the sentence set forth below;
          n. Revising S6.6.5;
          o. Revising, in S6.10.1, the first sentence;
          p. Revising, in S6.10.2, paragraph (e);
          q. Revising, in S6.10.3, in paragraph (a), the first sentence;
          r. Adding, in S6.10.3, paragraph (b);
          s. Revising, in S6.11.3, in paragraph (a), the second sentence;
          t. Revising, in S6.11.3, paragraph (b);
          u. Revising S6.12;
          v. Redesignating, in S6.12.1, the existing paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b);
          w. Revising, in S6.12.2, paragraph (c);
          x. Redesignating, in S6.12.3, the existing sentence as paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (b);
          y. Redesignating, in S6.12.4, the existing paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b);
          z. Redesignating S6.12.5 Calculation as S6.12.5.1 Calculation—SBR Cups.

          aa. Adding, after S6.12.5.1, S6.12.5.2 Calculation—EPDM Rubber Specimens and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c);
          bb. Revising, in S6.13.2, the first sentence;
          cc. Revising S7.1;
          dd. Revising in S7.2, the first sentence;
          ee. Revising, in S7.4.1, paragraph (b); and
          ff. Revising in S7.6, the first sentence in the undesignated paragraph following the note, and adding a new sentence immediately following that sentence, to read as follows:

            § 571.116
            Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids.

            S4. Definitions

              Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner liner tube stock, natural rubber (NR) or ethylene, propylene, and diene terpolymer (EPDM) rubber.

            S5.1.6 Corrosion.

            (j) The EPDM rubber test specimens at the end of the test shall meet the requirements specified in paragraph 4.6.2 of SAE J1704 JUN2003 with respect to disintegration and sloughing.
            (k) The EPDM rubber test specimens at the end of the test shall meet the requirements specified in paragraph 4.6.2 of SAE J1704 JUN2003 with respect to hardness.
            (l) The EPDM rubber test specimens at the end of the test shall meet the requirements specified in paragraph 4.6.2 of SAE J1704 JUN2003 with respect to volume requirements.

            S5.1.12 Effects on SBR cups and EPDM rubber specimens.

            (d) EPDM rubber specimens tested as specified in S6.12.4 (of FMVSS No. 116) at 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) shall meet the performance requirements for volume and hardness specified in paragraph 4.11.3 of SAE J1703 AUG 2008.
            (e) EPDM rubber specimens tested as specified in S6.12.4 (of FMVSS No. 116) at 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) shall meet the performance requirements for volume and hardness specified in paragraph 4.11.4 of SAE J1703 AUG2008.
            (f) The EPDM rubber specimens shall show no disintegration as evidenced by stickiness, blisters or sloughing.

            S6.2.1 Summary of procedure. A 350 ml. sample of the brake fluid is humidified under controlled conditions; 350 ml. of SAE triethylene glycol monomethyl ether (TEGME) as described in Appendix E of SAE J1703 AUG2008, “Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids,” is used to establish the end point of humidification. * * *

            S6.3.2 Apparatus.

            (a) Viscometers. Calibrated glass capillary-type viscometers, ASTM D446-07, “Standard Specifications and Operating Instructions for Glass Capillary Kinematic Viscometers,” measuring viscosity within the precision limits of S6.3.7 of FMVSS No. 116. * * *

            (c) Viscometer bath. * * * For measurements within 15 degrees to 100 degrees Celsius (60 degrees to 212 degrees Fahrenheit) the temperature of the bath medium shall not vary by more than 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit) over the length of the viscometers, or between the positions of the viscometers, or at the locations of the thermometers. Outside this range, the variation shall not exceed 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit).
            (d) Thermometers. Liquid-in-Glass Kinematic Viscosity Test Thermometers, covering the range of test temperatures indicated in Table IV and conforming to ASTM E1-07, “Standard Specifications for ASTM Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers,” and in the IP requirements for IP Standard Thermometers. * * *

            S6.3.3 Standardization.

            (b) Thermometers. Check liquid-in-glass thermometers to the nearest 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by direct comparison with a standardized thermometer. * * * (See ASTM E 77-98 (2003), “Standard Test Method for Inspection and Verification of Thermometers.”)
            (c) Timers. Time signals are broadcast by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Station WWV, Fort Collins, Colorado at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Mc/sec (MHz), or the following Web site: http://www.time.gov. * * *

            S6.4.2 Apparatus. The pH assembly consists of the pH meter, glass electrode, and calomel electrode, as specified in ASTM D1121-07, “Standard Test Method for Reserve Alkalinity of Engine Coolants and Antirusts.” * * *

            S6.5.4.1 Materials. SAE RM-66-5 Compatibility Fluid as described in Appendix B of SAE J1703 AUG2008, “Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.”

            S6.6.3 Materials.
            (a) Corrosion test strips. Two sets of strips from each of the materials listed in Appendix A of SAE J1703 AUG2008. * * *
            (b) SBR cups and EPDM rubber specimens. Two unused standard SAE SBR wheel cylinder (wc) cups as specified in S7.6 and two unused EPDM specimens 25.4 mm x 25.4 mm (1 inch x 1 inch) as specified in Appendix D of SAEJ1703 AUG2008.

            S6.6.4 Preparation.

            (b) SBR WC cups and EPDM rubber specimens * * * Determine the volume of each EPDM rubber specimen according to the procedure specified in paragraph 5.6.2 of SAE J1704 JUN2003 and the hardness of each specimen as specified in FMVSS No. 116, S7.4.

            S6.6.5 Procedure. (a) Rinse the two SBR wheel cylinder cups and two EPDM specimens in ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 SBBF fluids) for not more than 30 seconds and wipe dry with a clean lint-free cloth. Place one SBR cup with lip edge facing up and one EPDM specimen in each jar. Insert a metal strip assembly inside each cup with the fastened end down and the free end extending upward. (See Figure 5.)
            When testing brake fluids, except DOT 5 SBBF, mix 760 ml. of brake fluid with 40 ml. of distilled water. When testing DOT 5 SBBFs, humidify 800 ml. of brake fluid in accordance with S6.2 of FMVSS No. 116, eliminating determination of the ERBP. Using this water-wet mixture, cover each strip assembly to a minimum depth of 10 mm above the tops of the strips. Tighten the lids and place the jars for 120 ± 2 hours in an oven maintained at 100 degrees ± 2 degrees Celsius (212 degrees ± 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Allow the jars to cool at 23 degrees ± 5 degrees Celsius (73.4 degrees ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit) for 60 to 90 minutes.
            (b) Immediately remove the strips from the jars using forceps, agitating the strip assembly in the fluid to remove loose adhering sediment. Examine the test strips and jars for adhering crystalline deposits. Disassemble the metal strips, and remove adhering fluid by flushing with water; clean each strip by wiping with a clean cloth wetted with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids). Examine the strips for evidence of corrosion and pitting. Disregard staining or discoloration.
            (c) Place the strips in a dessicator containing silica gel or other suitable dessicant, maintained at 23 degrees ± 5 degrees Celsius (73.4 degrees ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit) for at least one hour. Determine the change in weight of each metal strip. Average the results for the two strips of each type of metal. Immediately following the cooling period, remove the SBR cups and EPDM specimens for the jars with forceps. Remove loose adhering sediment by agitation of the cups and specimens in the mixture.
            (d) Rinse the SBR cups and EPDM specimens in ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) and air-dry. Examine the SBR cups and EPDM specimens for evidence of sloughing, blisters and other forms of disintegration. Measure the base diameter and hardness of each SBR cup within 15 minutes after removal from the mixture. Within 15 minutes after removal from the mixture, weigh the EPDM specimens; calculate the volume change as specified in paragraph 5.6.2 of SAE J1704 JUN2003 and test for hardness (See FMVSS No. 116, S7.4).
            (e) Examine the mixture for gelling. Agitate the mixture to suspend and uniformly disperse sediment. From each jar, transfer a 100 ml. portion of the mixture to an ASTM cone-shaped centrifuge tube. Determine the percent sediment after centrifuging as described in S7.5. Measure the pH value of the corrosion test fluid according to S6.4.6 of FMVSS No. 116. Measure the pH value of the test mixture according to S6.4.6 of FMVSS No. 116.

            S6.10.1 Summary of procedure. Brake fluid is mixed with an equal volume of SAE RM-66-05 Compatibility Fluid, then tested in the same way as the water tolerance (See S6.9 of FMVSS No. 116) is tested, except that the bubble flow time is not measured. * * *
            S6.10.2 Apparatus and materials.

            (e) SAE RM-66-05 Compatibility Fluid. As described in Appendix B of SAE Standard J1703 AUG2008, “Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.”
            S6.10.3 Procedure.

            (a) At low temperature. Mix 50 ± 0.5 mL of brake fluid with 50 ± 0.5 mL of SAE RM-66-05 Compatibility Fluid. * * *
            (b) At 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit). Place tube and test fluid from S6.10.3(a) of FMVSS No. 116 for 24 ± 2 hours in an oven maintained at 60 degrees Celsius ± 2 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit ± 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Remove the tube and immediately examine the contents for evidence of stratification. Determine percent sediment by centrifuging as described in S7.5 of FMVSS No. 116.

            S6.11.3 Reagents and materials.

            (a) Benzoyl peroxide, reagent grade, 96 percent. * * * Reagent strength may be evaluated by ASTM E298-01, “Standard Test Methods for Assay of Organic Peroxides.”
            (b) Corrosion test strips. Two sets of cast iron and aluminum metal test strips as described in Appendix A of SAE J1703 AUG2008.

            S6.12 Effects on SBR cups and EPDM rubber specimens. The effects of a brake fluid in swelling, softening, and otherwise affecting standard SBR wheel cylinder cups and EPDM specimens shall be evaluated by the following procedure.
            S6.12.1 Summary of the procedure.

            (b) Four EPDM specimens, 25.4 mm × 25.4 mm (one inch × one inch) are measured, weighed, and their hardness determined. The specimens, two to a jar, are immersed in the test brake fluid. One jar is heated for 70 hours at 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) and the other jar is heated for 70 hours at 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit). Afterwards, the specimens are washed, examined for disintegration, measured again, weighted again, and tested again for hardness.

            S6.12.2 Equipment and supplies.

            (c) SBR cups and EPDM rubber specimens. For rubber cup specimens, see S7.6 of FMVSS No. 116. For EPDM rubber specimens, see Appendix D of SAE Standard J1703 AUG2008.

            S6.12.3 Preparation.

            (b) Measure the base diameters of the SBR cups as described in S6.6.4(b) of FMVSS No. 116 and the hardness of each as described in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 116. Determine the volume of each EPDM rubber specimen as specified in paragraph 5.11.3 of SAE J1703 AUG2008 and the hardness of each EPDM rubber specimen as described in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 116.
            S6.12.4 Procedure.

            (b) Wash the EPDM rubber specimens in 90 percent ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) (See S7.3 of FMVSS No. 116) for not longer than 30 seconds and quickly dry with a clean, lint-free cloth. Using forceps, place two specimens in each of two jars, add 75 ml of brake fluid to each jar and cap tightly. Place one jar in an oven held at 70 degrees ± 2 degrees Celsius (158 degrees ± 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) for 70 ± 2 hours). Place the other jar in an oven held at 120 degrees ± 2 degrees Celsius (248 degrees ± 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) for 70 degrees ± 2 hours. Allow each jar to cool for 60 to 90 minutes at 23 degrees ± 5 degrees Celsius (73.4 degrees ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit). Remove specimens, wash with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 fluids) for not more than 30 seconds, and quickly dry. Examine specimens for disintegration, as evidenced by stickiness, blisters, or sloughing. Measure each specimen, test the hardness of each specimen, and complete the procedure for determining percent change in volume (paragraph 5.11.3 of SAE J1703 AUG2008) of each specimen within 15 minutes after removal from the fluid.
            S6.12.5.1 Calculation—SBR Cups.

            S6.12.5.2 Calculation—EPDM rubber specimens.
            (a) Calculate the percentage change in volume of each specimen as specified in paragraphs 5.11.3 of SAE J1703 AUG2008.
            (b) Calculate the change in hardness for each specimen. (See S7.4 of 49 CFR 571.116.)
            (c) Note disintegration as evidenced by stickiness, blisters, or sloughing.

            S6.13.2 Apparatus and equipment. The stroking fixture type apparatus shown in Figure 1 of SAE J1730 OCT2000 with components arranged as shown in Figure 2 of SAE J1703 OCT2000. * * *

            S7.1 Distilled water. Nonreferee reagent water as specified in ASTM 1193-06, “Standard Specification for Reagent Water,” or water of equal purity.
            S7.2 Water content of motor vehicle brake fluid. Use analytical methods based on ASTM D1123-99 (2003), “Standard Test Methods for Water in Engine Coolant Concentrate by the Karl Fischer Reagent Method,” for determining the water content of brake fluids, or other methods of analysis yielding comparable results. * * *

            S7.4.1 Apparatus.

            (b) Hardness tester. A hardness tester meeting the requirements for the standard instrument as described in ASTM D1415-06, “Standard Test Method for Rubber Property-International Hardness” and graduated directly in IRHD units.

            S7.6 Standard styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) brake cups. * * * Compounding, vulcanization, physical properties and other details of the finished cups shall be as specified in Appendix C of SAE J1703 AUG2008. The size of the finished cups shall be as specified in Figures 4, 5 and 6 of SAE J1703 OCT2000. * * *

            Issued on: January 26, 2010.
             Stephen R. Kratzke,
             Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2010-1958 Filed 2-2-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 121121645-2645-01]
        RIN 0648-BC80
        Control Date for Qualifying Landings History in the Central Gulf of Alaska Trawl Groundfish Fisheries

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); control date.

          SUMMARY:
          At the request of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), this notice announces a control date of December 31, 2012, that may be used as a reference for future management actions applicable to, but not limited to, qualifying landings and permit history for an allocation-based management or catch share program in the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) trawl groundfish fisheries. This date corresponds to the end of the fishing year for this fishery, so that the full catch history for 2012 may be considered in any such future management actions. We also expect that this notice will publish close to the control date of December 31, 2012, and so will not either prompt speculation in advance of the control date, or disadvantage any fishers regarding their fishing activity after the control date, but before publication. This notice is intended to promote awareness of possible rulemaking and provide notice to the public that any accumulation of landings history in the Central GOA trawl groundfish fisheries occurring after the control date may not be credited for purposes of making any allocation under a future management program. This notice is also intended to discourage speculative entry into the fisheries while the Council considers whether and how allocations of fishing privileges should be developed under a future management program.

          DATES:
          December 31, 2012, shall be known as the control date for the Central GOA trawl groundfish fisheries and may be used as a reference for allocations in a future management program that is consistent with the Council's objectives and applicable Federal laws.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Baker: 907-586-7228 or rachel.baker@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking would apply to owners and operators of catcher vessels and catcher/processors participating in Federal fisheries prosecuted with trawl gear in the Central Reporting Area of the GOA. The Central Reporting Area, defined at § 679.2 and shown in Figure 3 to 50 CFR part 679, includes the Central Regulatory Area (Statistical Areas 620 and 630).
        The Council and NMFS annually establish biological thresholds and annual total allowable catch limits for groundfish species to sustainably manage the groundfish fisheries in the GOA. To achieve these objectives, NMFS requires vessel operators participating in GOA groundfish fisheries to comply with various restrictions, such as fishery closures, to maintain catch within specified total allowable catch limits. The GOA groundfish fishery restrictions also include prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for species that are generally required to be discarded when harvested. When harvest of a PSC species reaches the specified PSC limit for that fishery, NMFS closes directed fishing for the target groundfish species, even if the total allowable catch limit for that species has not been harvested.
        The Council and NMFS have long sought to control the amount of fishing in the North Pacific Ocean to ensure that fisheries are conservatively managed and do not exceed established biological thresholds. One of the measures used by the Council and NMFS is the license limitation program (LLP) which limits access to the groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the GOA. The LLP is intended to limit entry into federally managed fisheries. For groundfish, the LLP requires that persons hold and assign a license to each vessel that is used to fish in federally managed fisheries, with some limited exemptions. The preamble to the final rule implementing the groundfish LLP provides a more detailed explanation of the rationale for specific provisions in the LLP (October 1, 1998; 63 FR 52642).

        Over the course of the past few years, the Council has recommended amendments to the FMP to reduce the use of PSC in the GOA fisheries. Under Amendment 93 to the FMP, the Council recommended, and NMFS approved, Chinook PSC limits in the GOA pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) trawl fisheries (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). In June 2012, the Council recommended an FMP amendment to reduce halibut PSC limits for the trawl and longline fisheries in the Central GOA and Western GOA. This series of actions reflects the Council's commitment to reduce PSC in the GOA fisheries. Participants in these fisheries, particularly the Central GOA trawl fisheries, have raised concerns that the current limited access management system creates a substantial disincentive for participants to take actions to reduce PSC usage, particularly if those actions could reduce target catch rates. Additionally, any participants who choose not to take actions to reduce PSC usage stand to gain additional target catch by continuing to harvest groundfish at a higher catch rate, at the expense of any vessels engaged in PSC avoidance. In October 2012, the Council unanimously adopted a purpose and need statement, and goals and objectives, to support the development of a management system that would remove this disincentive to reduce PSC usage.

        The Council intends to develop a management program that would replace the current limited access management program with allocations of allowable harvest (catch shares) to individuals, cooperatives, or other entities. The goal of the program is to improve stock conservation by creating vessel-level and/or cooperative-level incentives to control and reduce PSC, and to create accountability measures for participants when utilizing target, secondary, and PSC species. The Council also intends for the program to improve operational efficiencies, reduce incentives to fish during unsafe conditions, and support the continued participation of coastal communities that are dependent on the fisheries. The Council intends to develop an analysis of alternatives for a catch share management program that meets its goals and objectives. In developing the alternatives for analysis, the Council will consider how other fishery management programs have considered and applied MSA catch share provisions to meet similar goals and objectives.
        To dampen the effect of speculative entry into the Central GOA trawl groundfish fisheries in anticipation of the future catch share program, the Council announced a control date of December 31, 2012. The Council stated that it may not credit any catch history in those fisheries after the control date for purposes of making allocations under a future management program. The control date may be used as a reference for future management measures in determining how to credit landings and permit history acquired before or after this date for purposes of establishing an allocation-based management program. The establishment of a control date, however, does not obligate the Council to use this control date or take any action or prevent the Council from selecting another control date or imposing limits on permits acquired prior to the control date. Accordingly, this notification is intended to promote awareness that the Council may develop a catch share management program to achieve its objectives for the Central GOA trawl fisheries; to provide notice to the public that any current or future accumulation of fishing privilege interests in the Central GOA trawl fisheries may be affected, restricted, or even nullified; and to discourage speculative participation and behavior in the fisheries while the Council considers whether and how fishing privileges should be assigned or allocated in the future. Any measures the Council considers may require changes to the FMP. Such measures may be adopted in a future amendment to the FMP, which would include opportunity for further public participation and comment.

        NMFS encourages public participation in the Council's development of the Central GOA trawl groundfish fisheries catch share management program. Please consult the Council's web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/ for information on public participation in the Council's decision-making process.
        This notification and control date do not impose any legal obligations, requirements, or expectation.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: December 17, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-30962 Filed 12-21-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P