        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 200903-0232]
        RIN 0648-BJ94
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Interim Measures for American Samoa Bottomfish

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed temporary rule; interim measures; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes this temporary rule for an interim catch limit (ICL) of 13,000 lb of American Samoa bottomfish for fishing year 2020. NMFS would monitor 2020 catches, and if the fishery reaches the ICL, we would close the fishery in Federal waters for the remainder of the calendar year. This temporary action is necessary to reduce overfishing of American Samoa bottomfish while minimizing socio-economic impacts to fishing communities. This proposed rule supports the long-term sustainability of American Samoa bottomfish.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by September 28, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed temporary rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0099, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0099, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the American Samoa Archipelago (FEP) is available from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, or www.wpcouncil.org.

          NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from this temporary rule. The draft EA and other supporting documents are available from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brett Schumacher, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5185.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS and the Council manage the bottomfish fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Federal waters) around American Samoa under the FEP and the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Most of the management measures for the fishery are found at 50 CFR 665.
        In 2019, the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) published a benchmark stock assessment that indicated that the multi-species bottomfish stock complex in American Samoa is overfished and experiencing overfishing. NMFS presented these findings at the October 2019 meeting of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in Honolulu, Hawaii, and at the October 2019 Council meeting in Pago Pago, American Samoa. At these meetings, the SSC and Council accepted the stock assessment as the best scientific information available for the management of bottomfish in American Samoa. In January 2020, NMFS determined that the assessment results represent the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, NMFS determined in February 2020, that the stock is overfished and subject to overfishing, and notified the Council of this determination and the Council's obligations to end overfishing and rebuild the stock under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(3).
        Upon notification that a stock is subject to overfishing, the Council must immediately set catch at a level that would end overfishing. See 50 CFR 600.310(j)(2)(i). Upon notification that a stock is overfished, the Council must prepare and implement a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or regulation that wound end overfishing and rebuild the stock. See 50 CFR 600.310(j)(2)(ii). This action must be implemented within two years of the notification.
        The 2019 stock assessment indicated that the annual catch would need to be limited to no more than 8,000 lb through 2025 to end overfishing, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1. However, the average annual catch of American Samoa bottomfish management unit species (MUS) in the latest five years of the stock assessment (2013-2017) was 21,129 lb. The Council discussed the results of the stock assessment, including the levels of catch that would be needed to end overfishing immediately, at its 180th meeting in American Samoa in October 2019. Fishermen commented that a catch limit of 8,000 lb bottomfish that would end overfishing, or a closure of the federal fishery altogether, would result in detrimental economic, social, and cultural impacts. They indicated that bottomfish, particularly the species found in the deeper federal waters, are primarily used for cultural purposes and for subsistence, rather than for profit. In response to these concerns, the Council requested that NMFS implement an interim measure to reduce, but not necessarily end immediately, overfishing of the stock while the Council develops action required by MSA 304(e)(3), consistent with section 304(e)(6). In consideration of concerns from fishermen and the Council's request, NMFS considered catch levels greater than 8,000 lb that would mitigate effects of management on fishing communities while the Council and NMFS develop long-term management measures to end overfishing and rebuild the stock.
        The regulations on emergency actions and interim measures under National Standard 1 (50 CFR 600.310(j)(4)) provide conditions that must be met to implement an interim measure under MSA 304(e)(6):
        1. The interim measures are needed to address an unanticipated and significantly changed understanding of the status of the stock or stock complex;
        2. Ending overfishing immediately is expected to result in severe social and/or economic impacts to a fishery; and
        3. The interim measures will ensure that the stock or stock complex will increase its current biomass through the duration of the interim measures.
        We evaluate whether these conditions are met in the EA and summarize as follows:

        1. The overfished and overfishing conditions in the fishery were not known before the 2019 benchmark stock assessment, and the stock was believed to be healthy according to the previous stock assessment. Thus, condition (1) has been met;
        2. Catch would have to be substantially reduced from recent catches to immediately end overfishing (from over 21,000 lb to 8,000 lb), and comments from fishermen indicate that ending overfishing immediately would have negative social, economic, and cultural impacts to community members who use bottomfish resources for commercial, subsistence, religious, and cultural purposes. The Council recognized these perspectives in their request for an interim action and believes that ending overfishing immediately would have severe social and/or economic impacts to the fishery, and NMFS concurs with this conclusion. Thus, condition (2) has been met; and

        3. The PIFSC completed expanded catch projections that indicated a catch of up to 13,000 lb would allow the MUS stock biomass to increase during the effective period of this interim measure. Implementing a catch limit of 13,000 lb and closing the fishery after that limit is reached would ensure biomass increases (condition 3). However, even after a closure of the fishery in Federal waters, catch is expected to continue unconstrained in American Samoa waters. Thus, catch is expected to exceed 13,000 lb notwithstanding NMFS's implementation of a catch limit of 13,000 lb. Due to unconstrained fishing of the stock in American Samoa waters, no NMFS action can ensure that biomass increases. However, a catch limit of 13,000 lb provides a conservation benefit relative to the status quo (i.e., an unconstrained fishery), reduces overfishing, and contributes to rebuilding the stock.
        NMFS discussed potential alternative management options for the interim measure at subsequent public Council meetings, and during meetings with managers from the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR). Fishermen and Council members from American Samoa commented at public Council meetings that a catch limit of 0 lb, 8,000 lb, or even 13,000 lb would have social, cultural and economic effects. In a June 15, 2020, letter to the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, the DMWR expressed concerns that the ICL of 13,000 lb is too low for their fishermen to subsist, and that a closure of offshore banks in Federal waters to bottomfish fishing would deprive fishermen of important fishing grounds for deep-water snappers that are critical for cultural ceremonies.
        Based on this information and considering the best scientific information available and Federal requirements for interim management actions, NMFS proposes to implement an ICL of 13,000 lb. This ICL provides a balance between regulatory requirements to reduce overfishing, and the need to mitigate impacts of fishery management on communities in American Samoa. The best scientific information available projects that 13,000 lb is the greatest level catch that would allow stock biomass to increase during the interim measure, as required by 50 CFR 600.310(j)(4), so Federal regulations do not allow NMFS to implement a greater ICL. At the same time, 13,000 lb is 63 percent greater the 8,000 lb level that would end overfishing. The present action therefore addresses impacts to the fishery and related communities (inclusive of cultural fishing practices) to the degree NMFS is able within regulatory constraints. Under the proposed measure, overfishing would be reduced relative to the status quo, and socio-economic impacts to the community would be minimized relative to measures that would end overfishing immediately.
        The conservation benefit achieved by this measure may be mitigated by circumstances outside NMFS authority. Specifically, catch would likely exceed the ICL because 85 percent of bottomfish habitat is located in territorial waters that are outside of NMFS authority, and American Samoa does not have regulations that would close territorial waters in the event a Federal ICL is reached. Therefore, if the ICL is reached and NMFS closes the fishery in Federal waters, fishing is expected to continue unconstrained in territorial waters. While NMFS does not have detailed spatial information to determine the amount of bottomfish caught in territorial waters versus Federal waters, we assume that bottomfish abundance and catch are distributed equally across habitat. We therefore assume that 15 percent of total catch will occur in Federal waters because 15 percent of bottomfish habitat occurs in federal waters. If the ICL is reached and NMFS closes the fishery in Federal waters catch is expected to exceed 13,000 lb, because most habitat is in territorial waters and would remain open to bottomfish fishing. However, because this action provides for the closure of offshore fishing grounds under Federal jurisdiction, we expect some conservation benefit to the stock complex. Therefore, we anticipate the proposed interim rule would provide a conservation benefit relative to the no-action alternative.
        To maintain consistency with the timeframe of catch projections and the bottomfish fishing year (January-December), under the proposed rule NMFS would monitor catches of bottomfish MUS made in both territorial and Federal waters during calendar year 2020 and count the combined 2020 catch toward the ICL. As an inseason AM, if NMFS projects that the fishery will reach the ICL, we would close the fishery in Federal waters through December 31, 2020.

        NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed temporary rule, and specifically invites public comments that address the impact of this proposed action on cultural fishing in American Samoa. NMFS will announce the final rule in the Federal Register. We must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Administrative Procedure Act
        Section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for a 15-day comment period for these types of fishery rules (See 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)). Additionally, NMFS finds good cause that a longer notice and comment period would be contrary to public interest. Specifically, the proposed action needs to be implemented immediately to establish thresholds that would minimize adverse biological effects to the stock and adverse long-term socioeconomic effects to fishermen and communities that utilize bottomfish in American Samoa.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        The proposed action would specify an interim catch limit (ICL) of 13,000 lb for American Samoa bottomfish for 2020, as well as in-season accountability measure (AM). If and when the available data indicates the fishery would reach ICL, NMFS would close the fishery in Federal waters, from the outer boundary of territorial waters at 3 miles from shore to 200 miles from shore, for the remaining time that the interim catch limit is in effect as an AM. As authorized under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the rule would be in effect for no more than 180 days, from the date of publication in the Federal Register, through December 31, 2020. To maintain consistency with the timeframe of the fishing year in the fishery and catch projections from NMFS, catches made after January 1, 2020, in both territorial waters and Federal waters around American Samoa would count toward the ICL for the 2020 fishing year. Provided certain conditions have been met, NMFS may extend the interim measures from January 1, 2021, to July 5, 2021, for an additional 186 days.

        The fishery is likely to reach the ICL, given recent catch history, as catch of American Samoa bottomfish has exceeded the proposed ICL annually from 2013 to 2017. Catch estimates for these years are available from the stock assessment, which provides the best available estimate of total catch of BMUS. These estimates include catch of BMUS reported at the species level, plus an estimate of BMUS catch reported under general categories (e.g., snapper, emperor, deep bottomfish). Estimated total catch data for 2018 and 2019 that would be directly comparable are not available. Most catch would have been retained for personal consumption or sharing, rather than sold, as the American Samoa bottomfish fishery is predominantly non-commercial with at most 30 participants. In recent years, NMFS estimates catch sold (percent of catch sold) to be as follows: 2,047 lb (6.9 percent) in 2015, 1,131 lb (5.6 percent) in 2016, and 1,137 lb (7.1 percent) in 2017. Revenue from American Samoa bottomfish catch were an estimated $6,075 in 2015, $3,896 in 2016, and $5,688 in 2017. Upon reaching the ICL, fishing for or possessing American Samoa bottomfish would be prohibited in Federal waters around American Samoa, as would sale, purchase, or possession of any American Samoa bottomfish caught in Federal waters. Because 85 percent of the bottomfish habitat is in territorial waters located closer to shore, most catch likely comes from territorial waters rather than Federal waters, although NMFS does not have quantitative information on catch by location.

        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities are small entities under the SBA definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. There might be some disproportionate economic impacts on areas fished. Bottomfish fishermen in American Samoa who tend to fish for bottomfish in Federal waters rather than territorial waters, would need to modify their target catch or fishing activities, including areas fished, in the event of a closure of this fishery while the interim measure is in effect. For those who do catch some bottomfish fish for sale, this could mean an increase in costs and/or decrease in revenue.
        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, this action should not result in significant adverse economic impacts to individual entities, as this is primarily a non-commercial fishery. The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.
        For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Accountability measure, American Samoa, Bottomfish, Fisheries, Fishing, Interim catch limit, Pacific Islands.

          Dated: September 3, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Add § 665.102 to read as follows:

          § 665.102
          Bottomfish Interim Catch Limit.
          (a) The interim catch limit for American Samoa bottomfish MUS for fishing year 2020 is 13,000 lb.

          (b) When the interim catch limit is projected to be reached, the Regional Administrator shall publish a document to that effect in the Federal Register and shall use other means to notify permit holders. The document will include an advisement that the fishery will be closed, beginning at a specified date that is not earlier than seven days after the date of filing the closure notice for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, through the end of the fishing year in which the interim catch limit is reached.
          (c) On and after the date the fishery is closed as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, fishing for and possession of American Samoa bottomfish MUS is prohibited in Federal waters around American Samoa, except as otherwise authorized by law.
          (d) On and after the date the fishery is closed as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, possession, sale, offering for sale, and purchase of any American Samoa bottomfish MUS caught in Federal waters around American Samoa is prohibited.

        3. In § 665.103, suspend the introductory paragraph, add paragraph (a) and reserve paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 665.103
          Prohibitions.
          (a) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of this chapter and § 665.15, it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

          (1) Fish for American Samoa bottomfish MUS or ECS, or seamount groundfish MUS using gear prohibited under § 665.104.
          (2) Fish for, possess, sell, offer for sale, or purchase any American Samoa bottomfish MUS in a closed fishery, in violation of § 665.102.
          (b) [Reserved]

      [FR Doc. 2020-19953 Filed 9-10-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-BG84
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to specify how NMFS determines the amount of limited access privileges held and used by groups in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) for the purposes of managing the excessive share limits under the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. Amendment 48 is necessary to make the Crab FMP consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements and NMFS' current method of managing excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before October 2, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, by any one of the following methods.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for Amendment 48 may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the CR Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP is available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.
        The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The CR Program established a limited access privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch. This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ).
        NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ; this IFQ is called Class A IFQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery.
        The CDQ Program was established by the Council and NMFS in 1992, and in 1996, authorization for the Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The purpose of the CDQ Program is (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI, (2) to support economic development in western Alaska, (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)).
        Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the CDQ Program and identifies the villages eligible to participate in the CDQ Program through the six entities specified in Section 305(i)(1)(D) as the CDQ groups (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “CDQ group” as an entity identified as eligible for the CDQ Program under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(D). The CDQ Program receives annual apportionments of total allowable catches (TACs) for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the six different CDQ groups. In addition to their allocations under the CDQ Program, CDQ groups participate in the AFA and CR Program fisheries by purchasing QS and PQS or through ownership of vessels or processors that participate in the fisheries. The CDQ groups have purchased both QS and PQS under the CR Program.
        Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council and NMFS to establish excessive share limits for limited access privilege (LAP) programs to prevent excessive accumulation of privileges by participants in the LAP programs (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(D)). The intent of these limits is to prevent excessive consolidation in the harvesting and processing sectors in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities. Because determination of excessive shares must consider the specific circumstances of each fishery, the Council has implemented different excessive share limits in the LAP programs in Alaska's fisheries, including the CR Program.
        The excessive share limit regulations prohibit a person from holding and using more than a specific portion of the LAPs allocated under the CR Program. Under 50 CFR 679.2, “person” includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other non-individual entities. To monitor holdings and use of LAPs, NMFS determines what portion of a program's harvesting and processing privileges a person holds and uses to ensure that no person holds or uses more privileges than authorized by the excessive share limit established for each LAP.

        NMFS determines a person's holding and use of a LAP by summing (1) the amount directly held and used by that person, and (2) the amount held and used by that person indirectly through an ownership interest in or control of another entity that also holds and uses the LAP. Businesses that hold and use LAPs in the CR Program are often composed of multiple owners that have ownership interests in multiple fishing businesses. In cases where a LAP is held by a business entity with more than one owner, NMFS applies the excessive share limits (also called holding and use limits or caps) to each entity that has an ownership interest in or control of the LAP to monitor whether those entities each exceed the established caps. Ownership attribution refers to the method NMFS uses to assess the relationships between different entities that participate in LAP programs.
        NMFS uses two ownership attribution methods to assess these relationships. The two methods for attribution are the “individual and collective” rule and the “10-percent rule.” Under the individual and collective rule, a person is attributed holding or use of LAPs proportionally to their ownership in or control of other entities that hold or use LAPs. For example, if Company A owns or controls 15 percent of Company B that holds LAPs, Company A would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of those LAPs. In contrast, under the 10-percent rule, a person is attributed 100 percent of an entity's LAPs if that person owns or otherwise controls ten percent or more of that entity. Thus, if Company A owns or controls 10 percent or more of Company B, then all of Company B's holdings of LAPs are attributed to Company A. The individual and collective rule is less restrictive than the 10-percent rule because a person is only attributed holding or use in proportion to how much that person owns or controls of other entities, rather than attributing 100 percent of the other entity's LAP holdings once the 10-percent threshold is met.
        When the Council recommended the CR Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the CR Program EIS. To address this concern, the CR Program includes limits on the amount of QS and PQS that a person can hold and the amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person can use. To facilitate the monitoring of these limits, NMFS requires holders of QS and PQS that are non-individual entities to annually submit information on their ownership structure, down to the individual level, and on each owner's percentage holdings in the entity. Holding and use limits for QS and IFQ vary across CR Program fisheries because of different fleet characteristics and the differences in historic dependency of participants on the different crab fisheries. Under 50 CFR 680.42(a)(2), NMFS applies holding and use limits on QS and IFQ using the individual and collective rule for all participants, including CDQ groups, as was recommended by the Council for monitoring harvesting privileges.
        For processing privileges, the CR Program limits a person to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially-issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). The rationale for holding and use limits is described in the CR Program EIS and the final rule implementing the CR Program (70 FR 10174, 10175; March 2, 2005). Under 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3), NMFS applies holding and use limits on PQS and IPQ using the 10-percent rule, as was recommended by the Council and as was addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CR Program (69 FR 63200, 63219 & 63226; October 29, 2004).
        When the CR Program was implemented, NMFS used the 10-percent rule to monitor PQS and IPQ holding and use limits in the CR Program for all program participants, including CDQ groups. In 2006, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; the Coast Guard Act) revised the Magnuson-Stevens Act to specify that CDQ groups would be subject to excessive share ownership, harvesting, or processing limitations only to the extent of their proportional ownership (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(F)(i)). Since the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has used the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. The individual and collective rule allows CDQ groups to hold and use more PQS and IPQ than non-CDQ persons because non-CDQ persons will remain subject to the more restrictive ownership attribution method (the 10-percent rule).

        Amendment 48 would revise the Crab FMP to make it consistent with NMFS' ownership attribution process for calculating holding and use of PQS and IPQ to monitor excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the CR Program. Amendment 48 would revise Section 2.7.1 under Chapter 11 of the FMP in the Processing Sector Elements section of the Crab FMP to specify that PQS and IPQ holding and use caps for CDQ groups are applied using the individual and collective rule, without continuing to use the 10-percent rule for determining whether an entity is included in calculating a CDQ group's holding and use caps. For example, if a CDQ group holds 15 percent of a company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ, Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP would clarify that the CDQ group would be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of that PQS or IPQ. Amendment 48 would not revise the Crab FMP for the QS and IFQ holding and use limits under the CR Program because NMFS uses the individual and collective rule to monitor QS and IFQ holding and use limits for all program participants, including CDQ groups. NMFS has used the individual and collective rule to determine holding and use of PQS and IPQ by CDQ groups since enactment of the Coast Guard Act; however, NMFS has not revised the Crab FMP to reflect this statutory change or NMFS' current process.
        Amendment 48 would benefit CDQ groups and the public by revising the Crab FMP for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 48 would also update the Crab FMP to specify the method NMFS currently uses to determine holding and use of processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring excessive share limits for the CR Program.

        Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 48, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 48. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 48, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered,comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: July 31, 2017.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-16376 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R01-RCRA-2018-0431; FRL-9990-16-Region 1]
        New Hampshire: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The state of New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire's application and has determined 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 April 1, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: Stephen Yee—yee.steve@epa.gov.
          • Fax: (617) 918-0197.
          • Mail: Stephen Yee, RCRA Waste Management & UST Section, Office of Site Remediation & Restoration, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: OSRR07-01), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Stephen Yee, RCRA Waste Management & UST Section, Office of Site Remediation & Restoration, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: OSRR07-01), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R01-RCRA-2018-0431. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.
          You can view and copy New Hampshire's application and associated publicly available materials from 9:00 a.m. to Noon and 12:30 to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, at the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109-3912; by appointment; Tel: (617) 918-1990 or from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Public Information Center, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301; Tel: (603) 271-2919 or 271-8876. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with either the EPA Library or the NHDES Public Information Center to facilitate access to the documents.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stephen Yee, RCRA Waste Management & UST Section, Office of Site Remediation & Restoration, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: OSRR07-01), Boston, MA 02109-3912, Tel: (617) 918-1197; Fax: (617) 918-0197, email: yee.steve@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 will implement those requirements and prohibitions in New Hampshire, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
        B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

        On September 10, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules promulgated between July 1, 1986 and June 30, 2014 (also known as Non-HSWA, HSWA, and RCRA Clusters). EPA concludes that New Hampshire's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established under 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 New Hampshire final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application, and as outlined below in Sections F and G of this document.
        New Hampshire has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as discussed above.
        C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?
        If New Hampshire is authorized for the changes described in New Hampshire's authorization application, these changes will become part of the authorized State hazardous waste program and will therefore be federally enforceable. New Hampshire will continue to have primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA would maintain 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 which EPA is proposing to authorize in New Hampshire are already effective and are not changed by today's proposed action.
        D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?
        If EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address all such comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you should do so at this time.
        E. What has New Hampshire previously been authorized for?
        The State of New Hampshire initially received final authorization on December 18, 1984, effective January 3, 1985 (49 FR 49093) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to New Hampshire's program on the following dates: November 14, 1994, effective January 13, 1995 (59 FR 56397); and February 27, 2006, effective March 29, 2006 (71 FR 9727).
        F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
        On September 10, 2018, the State of New Hampshire submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA proposes to determine, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that New Hampshire'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. EPA is proposing to authorize New Hampshire for the following program changes:
        New Hampshire is seeking authorization for updated state regulations addressing most federal requirements through June 30, 2014 and also for changes to New Hampshire's base program for which they had been previously authorized. Significant program revisions in this package include the Land Disposal Restrictions and hazardous waste listings. We are proposing to authorize the program changes as provided in each of the following Revision Checklists (RC):

        RC 13—Definition of Solid Waste for 40 CFR 260.30—260.33 only;
        RC 81—Petroleum Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings (F037 and F038);

        RC 89—Revision to the Petroleum Refining Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings (F037 and F038); (RC 91)—Administrative Stay for F032, F034, and F035 Listing (HSWA/Non HSWA) (Superseded by 57 FR 5859 and 57 FR 61492, see RCs 101 and 120 in RCRA Clusters II and III, respectively);

        RC 101—Administrative Stay for the Requirement That Existing Drip Pads be Impermeable (HSWA/Non HSWA) (Superseded by 57 FR 61492, see RC 120 in RCRA Cluster III);
        RC 117A—Reissuance of the “Mixture” and “Derived-From” Rules;
        RC 135—Recovered Oil Exclusion;
        RC 140—Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of HW;
        RC 150—Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste; Amendment II;
        RC 152—Imports and Exports of HW: Implementation of OECD Council Decision;
        RC 156—Military Munitions Rule: HW Identification and Management; Explosives Emergencies; Manifest Exemption for Transport of HW on Right-of-Ways on Contiguous Properties;
        RC 159—Conformance with the Carbamate Vacatur;
        RC 169—Petroleum Refining Process Wastes;
        RC 178—Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Leachate Exemption;
        RC 183—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Technical Corrections;
        RC 187—Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Clarification;
        RC 189—Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes;
        RC 192A—Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revisions;
        RC 194—Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revision II;
        RC 195—Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification and Listing;
        RC 206—Nonwastewaters from Dyes and Pigments;
        RC 207—Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule;
        RC 218—F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes;
        RC 222—OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spend Lead-Acid Batteries;

        RC 225—Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents—There is no checklist for this rule because it removes provisions from the regulations.;
        RC 227—Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes;
        RC 229—Conditional Exclusions for Solvent Contaminated Wipes;

        Special Consolidated Checklist for the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) as of 6/30/92 includes the following checklists:

        • RC 34—Land Disposal Restrictions;
        • RC 39—California List Waste Restrictions;
        • RC 50—Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 62—Land Disposal Restrictions Amendments to First Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 63—Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 66—Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the First Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 78H—Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 78N—Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes;
        • RC 83—Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments;

        • RC 95—Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric Arc Furnace Dust;

        • RC 102—Second Correction to the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions;
        • RC 103—Hazardous Debris Case-by-Case Capacity Variance;
        • RC 106—Lead-bearing Hazardous Materials Case-by-Case Capacity Variance;

        Special Consolidated Checklist for the Phases I-IV LDRs as of 12/31/02 includes the following checklists:

        • RC 109—Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris;
        • RC 116—Hazardous Soil Case-By-Case Capacity Variance;
        • RC 117A—Reissuance of the “Mixture” and “Derived-From” Rules;
        • RC 123—Land Disposal Restrictions; Renewal of the Hazardous Waste Debris Case-by-Case Capacity Variance;
        • RC 124—Land Disposal Restrictions for Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic Wastes Whose Treatment Standards Were Vacated;
        • RC 136—Removal of the Conditional Exemption for Certain Slag Residues;
        • RC 137—Universal Treatment Standards and Treatment Standards for Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes;
        • RC 151—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Decharacterized Wastewaters, Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners;
        • RC 155—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Emergency Extension of the K088 Capacity Variance;
        • RC 157—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes, Paperwork Reduction and Streamlining, Exemptions From RCRA for Certain Processed Materials; and Miscellaneous Hazardous Waste Provisions;
        • RC 160—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Emergency Extension of the K088 National Capacity Variance, Amendment;
        • RC 161—Emergency Revision of the Carbamate Land Disposal Restrictions;
        • RC 167A—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes;
        • RC 167B—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Hazardous Soils Treatment Standards and Exclusions;
        • RC 167C—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV- Corrections;
        • RC 170—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers, Amendment;
        • RC 171—Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Treatment Standards for Listed Hazardous Wastes from Carbamate Production;
        • RC 172—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Extension of Compliance Date for Characteristic Slags;
        • RC 173—Land Disposal Restrictions; Treatment Standards for Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction (K088); Final Rule;
        • RC 178—Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Leachate Exemption;
        • RC 183—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Technical Corrections;
        • RC 189—Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes;
        • RC 190—Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Deferral for PCBs in Soil;
        • RC 195—Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification and Listing;
        • RC 201—Treatment Variance for Radioactively Contaminated Batteries;

        Checklist for the Wood Preserving Listings as of 12/31/02 includes the following checklists:

        • RC 92—Wood Preserving Listings; Technical Corrections;
        • RC 120—Wood Preserving; Revisions to Listings and Technical Requirements;
        • RC 162—Clarification of Standards for Hazardous Waste LDR Treatment Variances;
        • RC 167F—Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters.

        A detailed cross walk for each of the checklists mentioned above can be found in the administrative record for this Federal Register authorization.
        G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?
        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, states cannot receive federal authorization for such regulations, and they are not federally enforceable.
        The most significant differences between the New Hampshire rules and the federal rules are highlighted and summarized in the Table 1 below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference, nor every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete regulations to ensure that they understand their compliance responsibilities.
        1. More Stringent Provisions
        There are aspects of the New Hampshire program which are more stringent than the federal program. These requirements would become part of New Hampshire's authorized program and would be federal enforceable. All of these more stringent requirements are, or will become, part of the federally enforceable RCRA program when authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in addition to the State requirements which track the minimum Federal requirements. These more stringent requirements are identified as MS in the Table 1 below.
        2. Broader-In-Scope Provisions
        There are aspects of the New Hampshire program that are broader-in-scope than the federal program. These broader-in-scope requirements do not become part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. Regulated entities must comply with these requirements in accordance with State law. These broader-in-scope requirements are identified as BIS in the Table 1 below.
        3. Partially Broader-In-Scope
        There are aspects of the New Hampshire program that are partially broader-in-scope than the federal program. These partially broader-in-scope requirements are the result of New Hampshire not adopting certain portions of the regulations. These partially broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. However, the parts of the regulations which are not partially broader-in-scope are part of the federally enforceable RCRA program. Regulated entities must comply with these requirements in accordance with State law. These broader-in-scope requirements are identified as Partially BIS in the Table 1 below.
        4. Different but Equivalent Provisions
        New Hampshire also has some regulations that differ from, but have been determined to be equivalent to, the federal regulations. These state regulations will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program when authorized by the EPA. These different but equivalent requirements are identified as EQ in the Table 1 below.

        5. There are certain federal requirements that EPA cannot delegate to the States, although New Hampshire has adopted these requirements by reference, EPA would continue to implement those requirements. These requirements are identified in the Table 1 below.

          Table 1

            Description of checklist number and the Federal requirement
            Analogous state authority 1—(Env-Hw)

              RC 117A—Reissuance of the “Mixture” and “Derived-From” Rules

            261.3(a)(2)(i)

            401.01(b)(3)—NH's mixture rule regulates as characteristic wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g., soils) if the mixture exhibits a characteristic. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)

            401.01(b)(2); 401.01(c)(2)—NH's mixture rule regulates as listed wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g., soils). (Partially BIS).

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)-(E)
            NH is not adopting an analog to these provisions. (BIS).

            261.3(b)(2)

            401.01(b)(2); 404.02—NH's mixture rule regulates as listed wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g., soils). (Partially BIS).

            261.3(b)(3)

            401.01(b)(3)—NH's mixture rule regulates as characteristic wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g., soils) if the mixture exhibits a characteristic. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(c)(2)(i)
            401.01(c)(2), 404.03(a), 404.03(b)—NH includes precipitation run-off that exhibits a characteristic. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B)
            401.03(b)(30)—NH has adopted the exemption for fuels produced from the refining of oil-bearing HW (now at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)) but has not adopted the other exemptions. (Partially BIS).

              RC 135—Recovered Oil Exclusion

            261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B)
            401.03(b)(30)—NH has adopted the exemption for fuels produced from the refining of oil-bearing HW (now at 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)) but has not adopted the other exemptions. (Partially BIS).

            261.6(a)(3)(v), now at 261.6(a)(3)(iv)
            NH is not adopting these provisions. (BIS).

            261.6(a)(3)(vi)
            An analog to this provision does not currently exist in NH rules, and this provision was subsequently deleted in RC169.

              RC 140—Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of HW

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)-(G)
            NH is not adopting these exemptions. (BIS).

              RC 169—Petroleum Refining Process Wastes

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C)
            N/A—NH is not adopting the exemption. (BIS).

            261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B)
            401.03(b)(30)—NH has adopted the exemption for fuels produced from the refining of oil-bearing HW (40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)) but has not adopted the other exemptions. (Partially BIS).

            261.6(a)(3)(iv)(C)
            NH is not adopting this provision. (BIS).

              RC 192A—Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revisions

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)

            401.01(b)(2); 401.01(c)(2)—NH's mixture rule regulates as listed wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g., soils). NH has not yet adopted RC191. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(c)(2)(i)
            401.01(c)(2); 404.03(a); 404.03(b)—NH includes precipitation run-off that exhibits a characteristic. NH has not yet adopted RC191. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(h)(1)-(3)
            NH has not yet adopted RC191. (BIS).

              RC 194—Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revision II

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)

            401.01(b)(2), 401.01(c)(2)—NH's mixture rule regulates as listed wastes mixtures of hazardous wastes with materials that are not solid wastes (e.g.,, soils). NH has not yet adopted CL191. (Partially BIS).

            261.3(a)(2)(iv)(A)-(G)
            NH is not adopting these exemptions. (BIS).

              RC 207—Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule

            262.27(a)
            510.01(e)—NH requires generators of ≥100 kgs./month to certify. (MS).

            262.27(b)
            510.01(f)—NH requires generators of <100 kgs./month to certify. (MS).

            262.34(m)
            511.02(b)(3); 507.03(a) and (b)—NH does not allow accumulation as provided in 40 CFR 262.34(d)-(f). (MS).

              RC 229—Conditional Exclusions for Solvent Contaminated Wipes

            260.10 “Solvent-contaminated wipe”
            401.02(d) and (e)—Used oil is a listed waste in NH. NH's definition allows wipes to contain used oil. (EQ) Wipes used to clean up solvent spills of 12 fluid ounces or more are not eligible for the exemption. (BIS).

            261.4(a)(26)(i)
            401.03(g)(3)-(7)—NH has added a clarifying requirement at (g)(1) that excess spent solvent can't be added to wipes to avoid disposal. (EQ).

            261.4(b)(18)(i)
            401.03(g)(3)-(7)—NH has added a clarifying requirement at (g)(1) that excess spent solvent can't be added to wipes to avoid disposal. (EQ).

            261.4(b)(18)(vi)(A)
            401.03(b)(28)c.3—NH prohibits disposal in NH MSW landfills. (BIS).

              Special Consolidated Checklist for the Land Disposal Restrictions as of June 30, 1992

            261.5(b)—(RC 34)
            503.01, 508, 1201.03(b)—NH has not adopted the very small quantity generator (VSQG) exclusion but does exempt VSQGs from LDR requirements. (MS).

            261.5(f)(2); 261.5(g)(2)—(RC 34)
            503.01, 508—NH has not adopted the VSQG exclusion. (MS).

            262.34(d)(4)—(RC 83)
            507.03(a)—NH rules allow generators of between 100 and 1000 kgs./month to accumulate up to 90 days rather than 180. (MS).

            263.12—(RC 34)
            104.63; 304.11; 601.01(b)(2) and (3); 701.01(a)—NH requires a permit for transfer facilities. (MS).

            268.1(c)(3)—(RCs 34, 39, 50, 66, 78); 268.1(c)(3)(i)-(ii)—(RC 78)
            1202.02(b)(1)—NH prohibits underground injection of HW. (MS)

            268.3(b)—(RCs 78, 102)
            1202.02(f), NH has not adopted an analog to this provision. (MS).

            268.5(a)-(i)—(RC 34)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 102.02(b)(1); 1202.02(a)(1).

            268.6(a)-(n)—(RC 34)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 1202.02(a)(1).

            268.7(a)(10)—(RCs 78, 83)
            509.05; 1202.02(i)—NH has not adopted an analog to this provision. (MS).

            268.42(b)—(RCs 34, 39, 78)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 1202.02(a)(1).

            268.44(a)-(g)—(RC 34)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 102.02(b)(1); 1202.02(a)(1).

              Special Consolidated Checklist for the Phases I-IV Land Disposal Restrictions as of December 31, 2002

            262.34(d)(4)—(RC 179)
            507.03(a)—NH rules allow generators of between 100 and 1000 kgs./month to accumulate up to 90 days rather than 180 (MS).

            264.1(g)(6)—(RCs 124, 137)
            404.01; 701.02(a)(4)—NH rules do not include language specifically allowing dilution of D001 and D003 wastes in ENUs and WWTUs. (MS).

            265.1(c)(10)—(RCs 124, 137)
            404.01, 701.02(a)(4)—NH rules do not include language specifically allowing dilution of D001 and D003 wastes in ENUs and WWTUs. (MS).

            268.1(c)(3)(i)-(ii)—(RC 151)
            1202.02(b)(1)—NH prohibits underground injection of HW. (MS).

            268.3(b)—(RC 151)
            1202.02(f)—NH has not adopted an analog to this provision. (MS).

            268.5(h)(2)(ii)-(vi)—(RC 109)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 102.02(b)(1); 1202.02(a)(1).

            268.7(a)(7)—(RCs 137, 157, 167C)
            509.05; 1202.01 incorporates 40 CFR 268 by reference; 1202.02(b)(2)—NH prohibits underground injection of HW. (MS).

            268.42(b)—(RC 109)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 1202.02(a)(1).

            268.44(a)(1)-(2)—(RC 162)
            N/A—These federal regulations are not being incorporated by reference, since the authority is being retained by EPA; 102.02(a); 102.02(b)(1); 1202.02(a)(1).

              Special Consolidated Checklist for the Wood Preserving Listings as of December 31, 2002

            262.34(a)(1)(i)—(RC 92)
            507.01(a)—(EQ); 507.02(a)—(EQ); 509.02(a)(6)—(EQ); 507.02(b)-(f)—NH requires storage on impervious surfaces; secondary containment if wastes with free liquids are stored near floor drains, manholes, or sinks; and for containers stored outside, protection from precipitation, secondary containment, and setbacks from wells and storm drains (MS); 509.03(b), (e), (g) and (i)—For satellite storage NH requires: Training, appropriate management of incompatible wastes, and inspections. (MS).

            262.34(a)(1)(ii)—(RC 92)
            507.01(a); 507.02(a)—(EQ); 507.03(a)—(EQ); 509.02(a)(7)—(EQ); 508.03(d)—NH requires federal VSQGs that accumulate ≥100 kg of HW in tanks to comply with portions of Subpart J. (MS).

            1 State of New Hampshire's Hazardous Waste Rules, effective August 14, 2017.

        H. Who handles permits after the final authorization takes effect?
        When the final authorization takes effect, New Hampshire will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA (Hazardous and Solid Waste Act) permits or portions of permits that it has issued in New Hampshire prior to the effective date of this authorization until the State incorporates the terms and conditions of the federal permits into the State RCRA permits. EPA will not issue any new permits, or new portions of permits, for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for any HSWA requirements for which New Hampshire is not yet authorized. EPA has the authority to enforce state-issued permits after the State is authorized.
        I. What is codification and is EPA codifying New Hampshire's hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

        Codification is the process of placing citations and references to 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 adding these citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing to codify the authorization of New Hampshire's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart EE for this authorization of New Hampshire's program changes at a later date.
        J. 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 New Hampshire'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: January 29, 2019.
          Deborah A. Szaro,
          Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

      [FR Doc. 2019-03590 Filed 2-28-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P