        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9925-55-Region 5]
        Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Michigan has applied to EPA for final authorization of the revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's application with regards to federal requirements and is proposing to authorize the State's program revisions.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before June 1, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689, by one of the following methods:

            Web site: www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Email: greenberg.judith@epa.gov.

            Mail: Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689. 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 www.regulations.gov Web site 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 CD-ROM or other electronic media 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 or 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 http://www.epagov/epahome/dockets/.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the information is not publicly available; e.g., CBI or other information for which 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 may view and copy Michigan's application from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the following addresses:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone (312) 886-4179; or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284-6555.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Judith Greenberg can be reached by telephone at (312) 886-4179 or via email at greenberg.judith@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
        States which 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 request 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 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
        B. What decisions have we made in this rule?
        We have made a tentative decision that Michigan's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in the authorization application. Michigan will have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its program revision application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
        C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?
        The effect of this tentative decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Michigan subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized state requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Michigan has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include among others, authority to:
        1. Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
        2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and

        3. 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 Michigan will be authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.
        D. What happens if EPA receives adverse comments on this action?

        If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later 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 Michigan previously been authorized for?
        Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16, 1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to Michigan's program on November 24, 1989, effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608); on January 24, 1991, effective June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517); on October 1, 1993, effective November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244); on January 13, 1995, effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095); on February 8, 1996, effective April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742); on November 14, 1997, effective November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775); on March 2, 1999, effective June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111); on July 31, 2002, effective July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617); on March 9, 2006, effective March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12141); on January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077), effective January 7, 2008; and on March 2, 2010, effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345).
        F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
        On June 9, 2014, Michigan submitted its final application seeking authorization of hazardous waste program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have determined, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Michigan's program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization for the following program changes:

            Description of federal requirement and revision checklist number 1

              Federal Register date and page (and/or RCRAstatutory authority)

            Analogous state authority

            NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments, Checklist 217
            April 8, 2008, 73 FR 18970
            R 299.9623, effective November 5, 2013.

            F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes, Checklist 218
            June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756
            R 299.9220, R 299.9307(6) and (7), effective November 5, 2013.

            Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, Checklist 220
            December 1, 2008, 73 FR 72912
            R 299.9205(5)(j), R 299.9301(9), R 299.9313 and R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            OECD Requirements: Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, Checklist 222
            January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236
            R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9), effective December 16, 2004.R 299.9401(5), effective March 17, 2008.
              R 299.9301(7), R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4), R 299.9312(1) and (2), R 299.9605(1) and (4), R 299.9608(1), (4) and (8), R 299.9804(7) and (8), and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, as amended, Checklist 223
            March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 31716
            R 299.9302(2), effective June 21, 1994.R 299.9209(7), R 299.9311, R 299.9413 and R 299.9803(4), effective September 11, 2000.
              R 299.9619(1) and (8), R 299.9627 and R 299.9635(5) and (12), effective December 16, 2004.

            R 299.9222, R 299.9310(2) and R 299.9404(1)(b), effective March 17, 2008.

            R 299.9105(l), R 299.9106(t), R 299.9202(2)(c), R 299.9204(1)(v)(vi), R 299.9205(1)(b), (1)(b)(ii), (2), (3)(a) and (b), R 299.9206(1)(b) and (d), (2), (2)(b) and (3), R 299.9207(1), (2), (3) and (5), R 299.9212(3)(h), R 299.9213(2) and (3), R 299.9220, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(1)(b), (2)(d) and (6), R 299.9306(1) and (1)(b) and (d), (2), (3), (3)(b), (4)(c), (6) and (7), R 299.9308(1), (3) and (6), R 299.9503(1)(c), R 299.9516(5), R 299.9607(1) and (4), R 299.9608(3), (6) and (8), R 299.9801(3) and (7), R 299.9804(3), R 299.9808(3)(c), (7) and (8), R 299.11003(1)(j), (k), (m), (n) and (u) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, Checklist 225
            December 17, 2010, 75 FR 78918
            R 299.9311, R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000.R 299.9627, effective December 16, 2004.
              R 299.11003(1)(n) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            Corrections to the Academic Generator Standards, Checklist 226
            December 20, 2010, 75 FR 79304
            R 299.9313(2) and (3), R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            Revisions of the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, Checklist 227
            June 13, 2011, 75 FR 34147
            R 299.9311 and R 299.9413, effective September 11, 2000.R 299.9627, effective September 11, 2004.

            R 299.11003(1)(u) and (2), effective November 5, 2013.

            Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications, Checklist 228
            April 13, 2012, 77 FR 22229
            R 299.9222, effective March 17, 2008.R 299.9801(3), effective November 5, 2013.

            1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.

          Equivalent State-Initiated Changes

            Michigan administrative rules
            Effective date of amended Staterequirement

            R 299.9102 (definition of “construction permit” removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of “operating license” modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except second sentence only of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R 299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R 299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and R 299.9821
            November 5, 2013.

        G. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?
        The most significant differences between the state rules we are proposing to authorize and federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need to comply.
        There are aspects of the Michigan program which are more stringent than the federal program. 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 found at (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
        Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables 1 and 2.
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9220 are more stringent than the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 since the State's listing of F019 includes recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption of wastewater treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the automobile assembly process, while the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 has separate recordkeeping requirements for generators claiming the exemption, rather than having the recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption.
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental and human health standards generally.
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the State rules require tank systems to comply with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55 standards (which address air pollution).
        Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent since the State rules require timely notification of an exceedance of a groundwater surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of act 451 and implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.
        Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State adopts updated versions of the “Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.”
        There are also aspects of Michigan's revised program which are broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
        R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.
        The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5, 2013 (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
        R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.
        H. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?
        Michigan 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 the proposed authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of the authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.
        I. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Michigan?
        Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
        1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within the State of Michigan;
        2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
        3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.

        Therefore, authorizing Michigan for these revisions would not affect Indian Country in Michigan. EPA would continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian Country. It is EPA's long-standing position that the term “Indian lands” used in past Michigan hazardous waste approvals is synonymous with the term “Indian Country.” Washington Dep't of Ecology
          v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 258.2.
        J. What is codification and is EPA codifying Michigan's hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?
        Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise a state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Michigan's rules, up to and including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes until a later date.
        K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state law (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Section A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
        1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
        The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
        3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule 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.).
        4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Because this rule approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
        5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

        Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e., 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).
        6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

        Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes).
        7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
        8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
        9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
        EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets 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 to this rule.
        10. Executive Order 12988
        As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 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.
        11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings
        EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.
        12. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
        Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
          Environmental protection; Administrative practice and procedure; Confidential business information; Hazardous materials transportation; Hazardous waste; Indians-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, 6974(b).

          Dated: January 15, 2015.
          Susan Hedman,
          Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2015-07347 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 020215032-2032-01; I.D. 110701D]
        RIN 0648-AP59
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2002 Specifications for the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed 2002 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2002 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery, including total allowable landings (TAL), state-by-state commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits and possession limits for Atlantic bluefish off the East Coast of the United States.  The intent of the specifications is to conserve and manage the bluefish resource and provide for sustainable fisheries.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on March 28, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Preliminary Regulatory Economic Evaluation (PREE), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) are available from:  Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE  19904-6790.  The EA, PREE, IRFA, and EFHA are accessible via the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr. htm.

        Comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Please mark the envelope, “Comments--2002 Bluefish Specifications.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Myles A. Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273, e-mail at Myles.A.Raizin@noaa.gov, fax at (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulations implementing the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J.  Regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.160.  The FMP requires that the Council recommend, on an annual basis, a TAL, which is composed of a commercial quota and a recreational harvest limit. The FMP also requires that: (1) the TAL for any given year be set based on the fishing mortality rate (F) resulting from the stock rebuilding schedule contained in the FMP, or the estimated F in the most recent fishing year, whichever is lower; and (2) a total of 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota, with the remaining 83 percent allocated as a recreational harvest limit, with the stipulation that if 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.50 million lb (4.8 million kg) as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed TAL.

        The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations.  NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not.  NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the Federal Register.  After considering public comment, NMFS will publish final specifications in the Federal Register.
        Proposed 2002 Specifications
        Proposed TAL
        On August 9, 2001, the Council adopted specifications for the 2002 Atlantic bluefish fishery.  NMFS has reviewed documents submitted by the Council in support of its recommendation for the 2002 specifications and has found that the Council has complied with the FMP objectives and other applicable law.  Therefore, NMFS is proposing to implement the Council's recommended specifications.  For the 2002 fishery, the stock rebuilding program in the FMP would restrict F to 0.41.  However, the 2000 fishery produced an F of only 0.326.  So, in accordance with the FMP, the TAL proposed for 2002 was set to achieve F=0.326.  The resulting Total Allowable Catch (TAC) recommended by the Council and proposed by NMFS is 29.1 million lb (13.2 million kg).  The TAL is calculated by deducting discards, estimated at 2.2 million lb (0.99 million kg) for 2002, from the TAC.  Therefore, the proposed TAL for 2002 is 26.866 million lb (12.19 million kg).
        Proposed Commercial Quota and Recreational Harvest Limit

        If the TAL for the 2002 fishery were allocated based on the percentages specified in the FMP, the commercial quota would be 4.567 million lb (2.07 million kg) with a recreational harvest limit of 22.299 million lb (10.12 million kg).  However, actual recreational landings from the last several years were much lower than this allocation, ranging between 8.30 and 14.3 million lb (3.76 and 6.49 million kg).  There is no reason to expect that recreational landings in 2002 will exceed this range from prior years.  Thus, the recreational fishery is not projected to land a 22.299 million-lb (10.12 million kg) harvest limit in 2002.  As such, the FMP and the implementing regulations authorize the specification of a commercial quota of up to 10.5 million lb (4.76 million kg) for 2002.  NMFS proposes to transfer 5.933 million lb from the initial 2002 recreational allocation of 22.299 million lb (10.12 million kg), resulting in 16.365 million lb (7.42 million kg) for the proposed 2002 recreational harvest limit and a proposed 2002 commercial quota of 10.5 million lb (4.76 million kg).  The proposed 2002 commercial quota would be an increase from the 2001 quota (9.58 million lb (4.35 million kg)) implemented by NMFS and the states under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish.  A recreational possession limit of 15 fish/person and a 2-percent TAL research set-aside are also proposed.  The FMP allows the Council to set a bag limit of between 5 and 20 fish that would allow the recreational fishery to harvest an amount of fish that does not exceed the proposed harvest limit.  From the implementation of the FMP in 1989, until 2001, the bag limit remained at 10 fish.  In 2001, the Council determined that a 15-fish bag limit would increase recreational harvest by only 5 percent when compared to the 10-fish bag limit.  Since the recreational harvest is estimated to remain low relative to the recreational harvest limit, the Council has concluded that continuing the 15-fish bag limit is appropriate to protect the bluefish stock.  Some or all of the research set-aside amount will be allocated if research proposals to utilize it are approved.  A Request for Proposals was published to solicit proposals for 2002, based on research priorities identified by the Council (66 FR 38636, July 25, 2001, and 66 FR 45668, August 29, 2001).  The deadline for submission was September 14, 2001, and proposals are currently under review.  If all of the bluefish research set-aside is allocated, the commercial quota would be 10.290 million lb (4.67 million kg) and the recreational harvest limit would be 16.038 million lb (7.28 million kg).  The quota set-asides, the commercial quota, and the recreational harvest limit will be adjusted in the final rule establishing the annual specifications for the bluefish fishery, if necessary, to reflect set-aside allocations to projects forwarded to the NOAA Grants Office for award.  If the awards are not made for any reason, NMFS will publish a notification in the Federal Register to restore the unused set-aside amount to the annual commercial and recreational allocations.
        Proposed State Commercial Allocations
        Proposed state commercial allocations for the recommended 2002 commercial quotas are shown in the table below, based on the  percentages specified in the FMP and subtracting the proposed 2-percent research set-aside.

            State
             % of quota
            2002 Commercial Quota (lb)
            2002 Commercial Quota (kg)
            2002 Commercial Quota (lb)
            2002 Commercial Quota (kg)

            With 2 % Research Set -Aside
            With 2 % Research Set -Aside

            ME
            0.6685
            70,193
            31,839
            68,789
            31,202

            NH
            0.4145
            43,523
            19,741
            42,652
            19,347

            MA
            6.7167
            705,254
            319,898
            691,148
            313,500

            RI
            6.8081
            714,851
            324,251
            700,553
            700,553

            CT
            1.2663
            132,962
            60,310
            130,302
            59,104

            NY
            10.3851
            1,090,436
            494,613
            1,068,627
            484,721

            NJ
            14.8162
            1,555,701
            705,654
            1,524,587
            691,541

            DE
            1.8782
            197,211
            89,453
            193,267
            87,664

            MD
            3.0018
            315,189
            142,967
            308,885
            140,108

            VA
            11.8795
            1,247,348
            565,787
            1,222,401
            554,472

            NC
            32.0608
            3,366,384
            1,526,966
            3,299,056
            1,496,427

            SC
            0.0352
            3,696
            1,676
            3,622
            1,643

            GA
            0.0095
            998
            452
            978
            443

            FL
            10.0597
            1,056,269
            479,115
            1,035,143
            469,533

            Total
            100.0000
            10,500,000
            4,762,720
            10,290,000
            4,667,465

        Classification
        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.  A summary of the analysis follows
         The analysis considered three alternatives.  Analysis of the  Preferred Alternative examined the impacts on industry that would result from a TAL of 26.87 million lb (12.19 million kg), with 10.50 million lb (4.76 million kg) allocated to the commercial sector of the fishery, which represents the maximum allowed under the FMP, and 16.37 million lb (7.42 million kg) allocated to the recreational sector with a 15-fish possession limit.  Analysis of Alternative 2 considered a TAL of 26.87 million lb (12.19 million kg) with a commercial allocation of 4.57 million lb (2.07 million kg); 22.30 million lb (10.11 million kg) recreational; and a 15-fish recreational possession limit.  Analysis of Alternative 3 considered a TAL of 26.87 million lb (12.19 million kg);9.58 million lb (4.35 million kg) commercial, which represents the commercial status quo ; 17.28 million lb (7.84 million kg) recreational; and a 15-fish possession limit.
        There is very little information available to empirically estimate how sensitive the affected party/charter boat anglers might be to the proposed fishing regulations.  However, given the level of the recreational harvest limit for 2002 and recreational landings in recent years it is not anticipated that this management measure will affect the demand for party/charter boat trips.  Given that the recreational harvest limit is over 61% higher than the 2000 landings, the possession limit is expected to increase angler satisfaction and is not expected to result in landings in excess of the recreational harvest limit.
         The analysis assumed that in the absence of cost data, gross revenue was a sufficient proxy for profitability.  Furthermore, the analysis identified all participants as small entities; therefore, there are no negative effects on those small businesses from disproportionate competitiveness with large entities.  Results of their analysis indicate that based on 2000 landings, on a coastwide basis, the Preferred Alternative would yield a 1.10-percent increase in revenue to the commercial sector, Alternative 2 would yield a 60.79 percent decrease, and Alternative 3 would yield an 8.45 percent decrease.
         The Council, in analyzing the impacts of the three alternatives on fishermen in individual states, concluded that the increase in revenues under the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 would occur in all states except New York and North Carolina.  Under Alternative 2, all states would show decreases in revenue.  The Council's analysis was based on the FMP requirement that an overage of the quota for an individual state in 2001 be subtracted from the quota for that state in the following year.  At the time the Council prepared their analysis,  both New York and North Carolina had exceeded their quota, and the Council based their analysis on the premise that quotas would be reduced in these states for the 2002 fishery.  The Council assumed that preexisting overages in 2001 could force reductions in available quota to the states of New York and North Carolina in 2002 at the rates of 71.86 percent and 10.76 percent, respectively.
         The Council further indicated that under the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3, the significantly negative economic impacts to the states of New York and North Carolina could easily be mitigated by a transfer of commercial quota from another state, as allowed under the FMP, making the impacts negligible.  This was accomplished under the FMP for the 2001 fishery, thus, making their initial analysis regarding the impacts of 2001 overages on the 2002 fishery moot.
         In sum, in the absence of perfect information regarding transfers for the 2001 fishery, the Council offered 2 scenarios-- one with transfers, in which they concluded there would be negligible economic impacts, and one without transfers, in which they concluded that significantly negative economic impacts would occur due to the requirement to reduce 2002 quotas to account for 2001 overages.  However, the Council did not take into account that fishermen in the states of North Carolina and New York have recorded landings in 2001 that far exceed the proposed 2002 quotas for those States.   This presents a quandary since it is uncertain as to whether transfers will take place in 2002 and if they do, to what extent those transfers will affect total 2002 landings.   A comparison of actual 2001 state landings and the proposed 2002 state quotas and a discussion of their impacts is found below.
         New information gathered by NMFS has made it possible to more accurately predict economic impacts of the proposed 2002 specifications to New York and North Carolina by comparing actual 2001 landings to proposed 2002 state allocations of the bluefish TAL.  The Council did not have complete 2001 landings data at the time it prepared its PREE.

         The Preferred Alternative of 10.50 million lb of bluefish TAL would allocate 1,090,436 lb (494,613 kg) of bluefish to New York and 3,366,384 lb (1,526,966 kg) to North Carolina.  Actual 2001 landings amounted to 1,186,843 lb (538,495 kg) for New York and 3,584,627 lb (1,626,418 kg) for North Carolina.  All other states landed less in 2001 than their proposed 2002 allocation of the total bluefish TAL, and, therefore, would not be impacted.
         Under the assumption that 2002 allocations for New York and North Carolina represent harvest constraints to those fisheries, there would be an 8-percent reduction in bluefish revenues in New York and a 6-percent reduction in North Carolina associated with the Preferred Alternative when compared to 2001 landings, 16 and 14-percent reductions associated with Alternative 3, and 60-and 59-percent reductions associated with Alternative 2.  Under Alternative 2, even with transfers of quota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Massachusetts would show a significant decrease in revenues for a substantial number of vessels according to the PREE.  Implicit in this analysis is the assumption that when a state's quota is reached and the fishery is closed, the state will not be able to take advantage of a transfer provision under the FMP that allows states that have a surplus quota to transfer a portion or all of that quota to a state that has or will reach its quota.  The transfer provision was implemented by Amendment 1 to the FMP as a tool to mitigate the adverse economic effects of prematurely closing a fishery when surplus quota exists.
         The Council, in its analysis, was correct in assuming that it is highly unlikely that reductions in revenues would occur since allocations to the states can be adjusted inseason through transfers.  Based on historical evidence, under the 2000 and 2001 bluefish fisheries, and, prior to 2000, under the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish, states have been cooperative in transferring commercial bluefish quota when needed by states running a deficit.  In fact, to harvest more than their allotted quota, New York and North Carolina received 200,000 and 1,134,000 lb (90,744 and 514,599 kg) of quota in 2001, respectively, from states that had surpluses.  Given that commercial coastwide landings have averaged 7.685 million lb (3.487 million kg) for the years 1998 through 2001, and the 2002 proposed TAL is 10.500 million lb (4.768 million kg), the Council had a strong basis to assume that transfers will again take place in 2002, thus reducing impacts to vessels in New York and North Carolina or other states that may require additional quota to avoid a closure.
         For all three alternatives, the Council notes that there is very little information available to estimate how sensitive the affected party/charter boat anglers might be to the proposed fishing regulations.  However, since the 2002 harvest limits are 61, 120, and 70 percent greater than 2000 recreational harvest, it can be assumed that there would be no negative impacts on party/charterboats from the 2002 specifications.
        Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
        An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as being any vessel that reported having landed one or more lb of bluefish in the Dealer data during calendar year 2000.  These data cover activity by unique vessels.  Of the active vessels reported in 2000, 829 vessels landed bluefish from Maine to North Carolina.  The Dealer data do not cover vessel activity in the South Atlantic.  The Dealer data indicate that 126 federally permitted vessels landed bluefish in North Carolina in 2000.  However, the North Carolina landings data for bluefish may be incomplete in this data system.  Trip Ticket Report data indicate that 1,088 vessels landed bluefish in North Carolina in 2000 (Lees Sabo, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, pers. comm., 2001).  Some of these vessels may be included in the 126 vessels identified as landing bluefish in the Dealer data.  As such, double counting is possible.  In addition, 136 vessels landed bluefish in Florida's east coast in 1999.  Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia are negligible compared to the total bluefish landing along the Atlantic coast in 2000.  As such, it was assumed there was no vessel activity for those two states.  In addition, it was estimated that in recent years approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels may have been active and/or caught bluefish.
        Alternatives which Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
        The Council and NMFS included a provision in the FMP that would minimize economic impacts to vessels in states that faced closure by allowing a transfer of quota within the coastwide allocation.  However, under certain circumstances where state surplus quotas are not available, there are no alternatives to mitigate significant economic impact.  It is more likely that this scenario would occur under Alternative 2 where the coastwide and state quotas are less than half the proposed quotas.  The Preferred Alternative provides a commercial coastwide quota that would not put constraints on total landings based on previous years' total landings, thus allowing for transfers to take place.  Also, the Preferred Alternative provides a recreational harvest limit that exceeds previous years' recreational harvest.
        Thus, the Preferred Alternative offers the best opportunity for minimizing any negative impact on small entities.
        This action is not controversial.  This proposed rule does not contain any collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.  It will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

          Dated: March 7, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-6070 Filed 3-12-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S