59812 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This regulation 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Since this final 

grant rule contains legally binding 

requirements, it is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq., and EPA will submit this rule in 

its report to Congress under the Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Environmental program 

grants, Water pollution control.

Dated: September 30, 2004. 

Mike O. Leavitt, 

Administrator.

■ EPA amends 40 CFR part 35 as follows:

■ 1. The authority citation for part 35, 

subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 

6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 

2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Pub. L. 

104–134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–299 (1966); 

Pub. L. 105–65, 111 Stat. 1344, 1373 (1997).

Subpart A—Amended

■ 2. Section 35.162 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (c)(1) to read as follows:

§ 35.162 Basis for allotment.

* * * * *

(c) Interstate allotment formula. EPA 

will set-aside 2.6 percent of the funds 

appropriated for the Water Pollution 

Control State grant program for 

interstate agencies. The interstate 

agency Water Pollution Control grant 

allotment formula consists of two parts: 

a funding floor with provisions for 

periodic adjustments for inflation, and a 

variable allotment. 

(1) Funding Floor. A funding floor is 

established for each interstate agency. 

Each interstate’s funding floor for FY 

2005 will be at least equal to its FY 2003 

allotment. Beginning in FY 2006, the 

interstate funding floor will ensure that 

unless there is a decrease in the CWA 

section 106 state appropriation, each 

interstate will receive at a minimum, the 

same level of funding received in the 

previous fiscal year. The funding floor 

for each interstate agency will be 

adjusted for inflation when the funds 

appropriated for states under the Water 

Pollution Control State grant program 

increase from the preceding fiscal year. 

These adjustments will be made on the 

basis of the cumulative change in the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI), published 

by the U.S. Department of Labor, since 

the most recent year in which Water 

Pollution Control State grant funding 

increased. Inflation adjustments to the 

interstate agency funding floor will be 

capped at the lesser of the percentage of 

change in appropriated funds or the 

cumulative percentage change in the 

inflation rate. If the appropriation for 

states under the Water Pollution Control 

State grant program decreases in future 

years, the funding floor will be 

disregarded and all interstate agency 

allotments will be reduced by an equal 

percentage.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–22523 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[VA156–5084a; FRL–7824–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

NOX RACT Determinations for 

Washington Gas Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revision consists of a 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for the control of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) from Washington Gas 

Company, Ravensworth Station, 

Registration No. 72277, located in 

Fairfax County, Virginia. EPA is 

approving these revisions in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 6, 2004 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by November 5, 2004. 

If EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by VA156–5084 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.

C. Mail: Makeba Morris, Chief, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. VA156–5084. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, 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 regulations.gov or email. The Federal 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department 

of Environmental Quality, 629 East 

Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty Harris, (215) 814–2168, or by email at harris.betty@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 59813

I. Background 

The Commonwealth of Virginia 

submitted a formal revision on April 26, 

2004 and a supplemental submittal on 

August 18, 2004 to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP 

revision consists of a RACT 

determination, contained in the permit 

to operate, for the control of NOX from 

Washington Gas Company, Ravensworth 

Station, Registration No. 72277, located 

in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Washington Gas Company, Ravensworth 

Station, Registration No. 72277 

The Washington Gas Company owns 

and operates a peak shaving, propane 

storage facility in Springfield, Virginia 

(the Ravensworth Station). VADEQ 

submitted a permit to operate for 

Washington Gas Company to implement 

RACT requirements for ten (10) natural 

gas-fired, Ingersoll Rand Model enginedriven compressors, one natural gasfired Caterpillar model electrical 

generator, three (3) natural gas-fired Erie 

City boilers, and one natural gas-fired 

Cleaver Brooks boiler. 

Emissions Controls 

The NOX emissions from each of the 

compressor engines shall be controlled 

by a combination of engine tuning and 

good combustion practices. Good 

combustion practices shall involve the 

continuous operation of the engines at 

optimum performance by maintaining 

operating parameters within ranges 

established during tuning and 

performance testing events, which will 

reduce NOX emissions. Prior to the 

tuning events, Washington Gas 

Company shall develop a tuning plan, 

which describes the activity to be 

involved in the tuning event. The plan 

shall provide the rationale for 

optimizing specific parameters and their 

significance in reducing NOX. The plan 

shall be submitted to VADEQ at least 30 

days prior to the performance test. NOX

emissions from the compressor engines, 

boilers and Caterpillar generator shall be 

controlled by proper operation and 

maintenance. Operators shall be trained 

in the proper operation of all such 

equipment. Washington Gas Company 

shall maintain records of the required 

training including a statement of time, 

place and nature of training provided. 

The gas company shall have available 

good written operating procedures and 

a maintenance schedule. These 

procedures shall be based on the 

manufacturer’s recommendations, at 

minimum. All records required by this 

condition shall be kept on site and made 

available for inspection by VADEQ.

Emissions Limitations 

A NOX emission limit for each 

compressor engine will be established 

based on the results of the performance 

tests. The emission limits based on the 

performance test required, each 

compressor engine shall be operated 

and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications and, to the 

extent practicable, in manner consistent 

with good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. NOX

emissions from each boiler shall not 

exceed 0.20 lbs/MMBtu. NOX emissions 

from the Caterpillar generator shall not 

exceed 1.5 g/bhp-hr. 

Testing 

The gas company shall conduct two 

sets of performance tests to measure 

NOX emissions in the exhaust stack of 

one of each model of compressor 

engine. The first set of tests, to be 

conducted prior to the tuning event, 

shall be for the purpose of establishing 

a baseline NOX emission rate for each 

unit tested. The second set of tests, to 

be conducted following the tuning 

event, shall be used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the tuning event and to 

correlate specific engine operating 

parameters to emissions. The gas 

company shall submit an original and 

one copy of a test protocol at least 30 

days prior to testing. Copies of the test 

results shall be submitted to VADEQ 

within 45 days after test completion. 

The gas company shall also prepare a 

report, which provides the parametric 

data collected, the correlation to NOX

emissions, and the selection of 

appropriate operating ranges to each 

operating parameter. The report shall be 

submitted to VADEQ along with the test 

report. The gas company shall perform 

tests to measure NOX emissions in the 

exhaust stack of two of four boilers to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limit. The gas company shall 

submit a copy of the test protocol at 

least 30 days prior to testing. The test 

results shall be submitted to VADEQ 

within 45 days after test completion and 

shall conform to the test report format. 

On Site Records 

The gas company shall maintain 

records of emission data and operating 

parameters as necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with this permit. These 

records shall include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

a. The tuning plan. 

b. The report detailing results of the 

tuning event, the parametric data 

collected, the correlation of operating 

parameters to emissions, and the 

selection of operating ranges of the 

parameters. 

c. The performance test reports for the 

compressor engines, including the 

results of both pre- and post-tuning. 

d. The performance test report for the 

boilers. 

e. Records of compressor engine, 

boiler and Caterpillar generator operator 

training, maintenance schedules and 

record of maintenance performed. 

These records shall be available for 

inspection by VADEQ and shall be 

current for the most recent five years. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP 

Revisions 

EPA is approving this SIP submittal 

because the Commonwealth established 

and imposed requirements in 

accordance with the criteria set forth in 

SIP-approved regulations for imposing 

RACT. The Commonwealth has also 

imposed record-keeping, monitoring, 

and testing requirements on these 

sources sufficient to determine 

compliance with these requirements.

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or

59814 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

* * *.’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a State agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only State enforcement and 

cannot have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

Clean Air Act, including, for example, 

sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 

enforce the requirements or prohibitions 

of the State plan, independently of any 

State enforcement effort. In addition, 

citizen enforcement under section 304 

of the Clean Air Act is likewise 

unaffected by this, or any, State audit 

privilege or immunity law. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP which 

establish and require NOX RACT for 

Washington Gas Company, Ravensworth 

Station, located in Fairfax County, 

Virginia. EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on December 6, 2004 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by November 5, 2004. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies 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.). 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). This rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, 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, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does 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). This action merely 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. 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. 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.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 59815

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability establishing sourcespecific requirements for Washington 

Gas Company, Ravensworth Station, 

located in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 6, 

2004. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action, pertaining to the 

NOX RACT for Washington Gas 

Company, Ravensworth Station, located 

in Fairfax County, Virginia, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Thomas Voltaggio, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV—Virginia

■ 2. Section 52.2420, the table in 

paragraph (d) is amended by adding 

entries for ‘‘Washington Gas Company, 

Ravensworth Station’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name 

Permit/order or 

registration number 

State effective 

date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 citation 

*******

............................................................................ ...................... [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins].

Washington Gas Company, Ravensworth Station Registration No. 

72277.

04/16/04 

08/11/04 

10/06/04 ........................................... 52.2420(d)(6). 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–22360 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 040112010–4114–02; I.D. 

093004C]

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

(NE) Multispecies Fishery; Closure of 

the Eastern U.S./Canada Area and 

Prohibition of Harvesting, Possessing, 

or Landing of Yellowtail Flounder from 

the U.S./Canada Management Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure of the Eastern U.S./

Canada Area and prohibition of 

harvesting, possessing, or landing of 

yellowtail flounder from the U.S./

Canada Management Area.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS 

(Regional Administrator), has 

determined that 85 percent of the total 

allowable catch (TAC) of Georges Bank 

(GB) yellowtail flounder allocated to be 

harvested from the Western and Eastern 

U.S./Canada Areas has been harvested 

by October 1, 2004. To prevent the GB 

yellowtail flounder TAC allocation from 

being exceeded, the Regional 

Administrator is closing the Eastern 

U.S./Canada Area to all limited access 

NE multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) 

vessels, unless participating in a future 

approved Special Access Program (SAP) 

for which the TAC allocation for the 

target stock for that SAP has not been 

fully harvested. In addition, the 

Regional Administrator is prohibiting 

all limited access NE multispecies DAS 

vessels from harvesting, possessing, or 

landing GB yellowtail flounder from 

within the entire U.S./Canada 

Management Area, effective October 1, 

2004.

DATES: Effective October 1, 2004, 2004, 

through April 30, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas W. Christel, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9141, fax (978) 281–

9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations governing the yellowtail 

flounder landing limit within the 

Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas 

are found at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C). 

The regulations authorize vessels issued 

a valid limited access NE multispecies 

permit and fishing under a NE 

multispecies DAS to fish in the U.S./

Canada Management Area, under 

specific conditions. The TAC allocation 

for GB yellowtail flounder for the 2004 

fishing year was specified at 6,000 mt in 

the final rule implementing Amendment 

13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) (April 27, 

2004, 69 FR 22906). Once 30 percent 

and/or 60 percent of the TAC 

allocations specified for the U.S./

Canada Management Area are projected 

to have been harvested, the regulations 

at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) authorize the 

Regional Administrator to modify or 

close access to the Eastern U.S./Canada 

Area to all limited access NE 

multispecies DAS vessels and prohibit 

all limited access NE multispecies DAS 

vessels from harvesting, possessing, or 

landing GB yellowtail flounder from the 

entire U.S./Canada Management Area to 

prevent over-harvesting the yellowtail 

flounder TAC allocation.

Based upon Vessel Monitoring System 

reports and other available information, 

the Regional Administrator has 

determined that 85 percent of the GB 

yellowtail flounder TAC of 6,000 mt has 

been harvested by October 1, 2004. Due 

to concerns regarding expected 

yellowtail flounder bycatch by vessels 

targeting groundfish other than 

yellowtail flounder within the U.S./

Canada Management Area and the