4808 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 19 / Monday, January 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(c) * * * 

(3) Subject to the exception in 

paragraph (c)(5) of this section, a State 

agency may not claim FFP as an 

allowable administrative cost on behalf 

of a child placed in an ineligible facility, 

including but not limited to the 

following facilities: a detention center, a 

hospital (medical or psychiatric), a 

public institution that accommodates 

more than 25 children, or a facility 

operated primarily for the detention of 

children who are determined to be 

delinquent. 

(4) * * * 

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, a State agency may claim 

administrative costs for up to one 

calendar month on behalf of a child in 

an ineligible facility, including but not 

limited to the following facilities: a 

detention center, a hospital (medical or 

psychiatric), a public institution that 

accommodates more than 25 children, 

or a facility operated primarily for the 

detention of children who are 

determined to be delinquent as the child 

transitions into a licensed foster family 

home or child care institution. The 

claims must be submitted after the child 

is in an eligible placement. 

(6) Allowable administrative costs do 

not include costs claimed on behalf of 

a child placed in an unlicensed foster 

family home. Exception: A State agency 

may claim such costs on behalf of a 

child placed in an unlicensed relative 

foster family home while it is in the 

process of licensing that home in 

accordance with its standard procedures 

for licensing foster family homes. If the 

State agency does not license the foster 

family home within its standard time 

frame, the State agency must 

discontinue administrative cost claims 

on behalf of the child. 

(7) Determinations of title IV–E foster 

care eligibility and foster care candidacy 

must be performed by an employee of 

the title IV–E State agency or an 

employee of another public agency that 

has entered into an agreement with the 

title IV–E State agency pursuant to 

section 472(a)(2) of the Act. 

(i) The State agency must redetermine title IV–E foster care 

eligibility every 12 months. 

(ii) The State agency must redetermine title IV–E foster care 

candidacy every 6 months. 

(iii) Contract personnel may gather 

the necessary documentation, prepare 

the case plan, complete the steps 

necessary for an eligibility 

determination, and make a 

recommendation to the State agency 

about a child’s eligibility for title IV–E 

foster care or foster care candidacy.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–1307 Filed 1–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 050112008–5008–01; I.D. 

010605E]

RIN 0648–AS23

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Herring Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed 2005 specifications for 

the Atlantic herring fishery; request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications 

for the 2005 Atlantic herring fishery, 

which would be maintained through 

2006 unless stock and fishery 

conditions change substantially. The 

regulations for the Atlantic herring 

fishery require NMFS to publish 

specifications for the upcoming year 

and to provide an opportunity for public 

comment. The intent of the 

specifications is to conserve and manage 

the Atlantic herring resource and 

provide for a sustainable fishery. NMFS 

also proposes one clarification to the 

Atlantic herring regulations, which 

would remove references to the dates on 

which the proposed and final rules for 

the annual specifications must be 

published.

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, on March 2, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting 

documents, including the 

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory 

Impact Review, Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), and 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are 

available from Paul J. Howard, 

Executive Director, New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 

Internet at http:/www.nero.gov.

Written comments on the proposed 

specifications should be sent to Patricia 

A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark on the outside of the envelope: 

‘‘Comments–2005 Herring 

Specifications.’’ Comments may also be 

sent via facsimile (fax) to 978–281–

9135. Comments on the specifications 

may be submitted by e-mail as well. The 

mailbox address for providing e-mail 

comments is Herr2005Specs@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: ‘‘Comments–2005 Herring 

Specifications.’’ Comments may also be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–

281–9259, e-mail at 

eric.dolin@noaa.gov, fax at 978–281–

9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Regulations implementing the 

Atlantic Herring Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) require the New England 

Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) Atlantic Herring Plan 

Development Team (PDT) to meet at 

least annually, no later than July each 

year, with the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission’s (Commission) 

Atlantic Herring Plan Review Team 

(PRT) to develop and recommend the 

following specifications for 

consideration by the Council’s Atlantic 

Herring Oversight Committee: 

Allowable biological catch (ABC), 

optimum yield (OY), domestic annual 

harvest (DAH), domestic annual 

processing (DAP), total foreign 

processing (JVPt), joint venture 

processing (JVP), internal waters 

processing (IWP), U.S. at-sea processing 

(USAP), border transfer (BT), total 

allowable level of foreign fishing 

(TALFF), and reserve (if any). The PDT 

and PRT also recommend the total 

allowable catch (TAC) for each 

management area and subarea identified 

in the FMP. As the basis for its 

recommendations, the PDT reviews 

available data pertaining to: Commercial 

and recreational catch; current estimates 

of fishing mortality; stock status; recent 

estimates of recruitment; virtual 

population analysis results and other 

estimates of stock size; sea sampling and 

trawl survey data or, if sea sampling 

data are unavailable, length frequency 

information from trawl surveys; impact 

of other fisheries on herring mortality; 

and any other relevant information. 

Recommended specifications are 

presented to the Council for adoption 

and recommendation to NMFS. NMFS 

reviews the Council recommendation, 

and may modify it if necessary to insure 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 19 / Monday, January 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 4809

that it is consistent with the criteria in 

the FMP and other applicable laws. 

After the review of the Council 

submission, NMFS has modified the 

following Council recommendations, for 

reasons detailed below: The Council 

recommended setting OY at 180,000 mt, 

DAH at 180,000 mt, DAP at 176,000 mt, 

USAP at 0, the TAC for Area 2 at 50,000 

mt, and the TAC for Area 3 at 60,000 mt.

Proposed 2005 Specifications

NMFS proposes the specifications and 

Area TACs contained in the following 

table.

SPECIFICATIONS AND AREA TACS FOR

THE 2005 (AND 2006) ATLANTIC

HERRING FISHERY

Specification Proposed Allocation (mt) 

ABC 220,000.

OY 150,000.

DAH 150,000.

DAP 146,000.

JVPt 0.

JVP 0.

IWP 0.

USAP 20,000 (Area 2 and 3 

only).

BT 4,000.

TALFF 0.

Reserve 0.

TAC - Area 1A 60,000 (January 1 - May 

31, landings cannot 

exceed 6,000).

TAC - Area 1B 10,000.

TAC - Area 2 30,000 (No Reserve).

TAC - Area 3 50,000.

In addition, the Council 

recommended, and NMFS proposes, to 

maintain the 2005 specifications for 

2006, unless stock and fishery 

conditions change substantially. The 

Herring PDT will update and evaluate 

stock and fishery information during 

2005, and the Council and NMFS may 

determine, based on the review by the 

Herring PDT, that no adjustments to the 

specifications are necessary for the 2006 

fishing year. Maintaining the 

specifications for 2 years would provide 

the Council with an opportunity to 

complete the development of 

Amendment 1 to the FMP, which may 

implement a limited access program for 

the herring fishery in addition to other 

management measures, including 

possible adjustments to the specification 

process.

NMFS also proposes one change to 

the Atlantic herring regulations, which 

would remove references to the dates on 

which the proposed and final rules for 

the annual specifications must be 

published, because it is not necessary to 

specify these dates in regulatory text. 

This regulatory language change is a 

matter of agency procedure and is 

consistent with previously approved 

measures.

An ABC of 220,000 mt is proposed, 

consistent with the MSY proxy 

recommended in Amendment 1 to the 

FMP, which is currently being 

developed. The 220,000 mt proxy 

recommended in Amendment 1 is 

intended to be a temporary and 

precautionary placeholder for MSY 

until the next stock assessment for the 

Atlantic herring stock complex is 

completed. Because of the importance of 

ABC as a means of determining the 

other values in the specifications, it is 

discussed in the specifications, even 

though it is not a value that is set by the 

specification process.

The FMP specifies that OY will be 

less than or equal to ABC minus the 

expected Canadian catch (C) from the 

stock complex. The estimate of the 

Canadian catch that is deducted from 

ABC will be no more than 20,000 mt for 

the New Brunswick weir fishery and no 

more than 10,000 mt for the Georges 

Bank fishery. With ABC set at 220,000, 

OY could be less than or equal to 

190,000 mt if the maximum catch is 

assumed for the Canadian herring 

fishery. The FMP also states that the 

establishment of OY will include 

consideration of relevant economic, 

social, and ecological factors and that, 

for this reason, OY may be less than 

ABC C. In addition, the Herring PDT 

recommended that OY be specified at a 

level lower than ABC for biological and 

ecological reasons.

The Council recommended that the 

OY and the DAH for the 2005 Atlantic 

herring fishery be set at 180,000 mt. The 

determination of OY was based, in part, 

on meeting the FMP objectives of 

increasing economic benefits to the U.S. 

fishing industry through the expansion 

of U.S. herring into the world market. If 

OY were set at a higher level, it could 

result in TALFF, which is that portion 

of the OY of a fishery that will not be 

harvested by vessels of the United 

States. While NMFS agrees that there 

are legitimate and legally defensible 

reasons to set the OY at a level that can 

be harvested by the domestic fleet and 

that would thereby preclude the 

specification of a TALFF, NMFS does 

not find that the Council’s analysis 

justifies the levels of OY and DAH that 

it recommended.

The allocation of TALFF would allow 

foreign vessels to harvest U.S. fish and 

sell their product on the world market, 

in direct competition with the U.S. 

industry. The Council expressed its 

concern, supported by industry 

testimony, that an allocation of TALFF 

would threaten the expansion of the 

domestic industry. The economic 

benefits to the Nation from TALFF 

activity are limited to the payment of 

poundage fees. However, the Council’s 

analysis also makes it clear that, despite 

the loss of poundage fees resulting from 

zero TALFF, the expansion of the U.S. 

industry would generate potential longterm economic benefits for U.S. Atlantic 

herring harvesters and processors that 

would outweigh that loss. For these 

reasons, the Council concluded, and 

NMFS agrees, that the specification of 

an OY at a level that can be fully 

harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby 

precluding the specification of a TALFF, 

will assist the U.S. Atlantic herring 

industry to expand and will yield 

positive social and economic benefits to 

U.S. harvesters and processors. NMFS, 

therefore, proposes that OY be specified 

at 150,000 mt.

The Council recommended that DAH 

be set at 180,000 mt. NMFS believes that 

this is too high for a number of reasons. 

First, the Council proposal presumes a 

dramatic increase in landings that is not 

justified in the Council’s submission. 

From 1996–2003, herring landings 

averaged 102,000 mt. The highest level 

of landings in recent years was in 2001, 

when they reached 121,332 mt. To 

justify a DAH of 180,000, one would 

have to assume a roughly 80–percent 

increase in DAH as compared to average 

landings in recent years, and a 50–

percent increase in DAH as compared to 

the highest year in the series. NMFS 

proposes setting DAH at 150,000 mt. 

This would allow a 23–percent increase 

in landings as compared to 2001, and 

would, therefore, better reflect fishery 

performance in recent years, while at 

the same time giving the fishery an 

opportunity to expand. Given the trends 

in landings, and the industry’s 

testimony that the fishery is poised for 

significant growth, NMFS concludes 

that it is reasonable to assume that in 

2005 the commercial fishery will 

harvest 150,000 mt of herring.

The Council’s recommendation for 

TACs assumed an OY of 180,000 mt. 

With the OY being set at 150,000 mt, the 

proposed TACs, too, have to be 

modified. While the proposed Area 1A 

and 1B TACs would remain the same as 

they were in 2004, NMFS proposes 

reducing the Area 2 TAC from 50,000 

mt to 30,000 mt, and the Area 3 TAC 

from 60,000 mt to 50,000 mt. These area 

allocations are intended to permit the 

fishery to increase landings above the 

highest levels achieved in recent years. 

The highest recent landings in Area 2 

were 27,198 mt in 2000; thus, the 

allocation would allow the fishery to 

slightly exceed that level. The highest 

recent landings in Area 3 were 35,079 

mt in 2001; thus, the allocation would 

4810 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 19 / Monday, January 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

allow the fishery to exceed that level by 

a considerable amount because this is 

the area most likely to see expanded 

harvests.

The regulations, at § 648.200(e), allow 

for inseason adjustments of the herring 

specifications. Thus, if the herring 

fishery during the 2005 or the 2006 

fishing year expands more than 

anticipated, the OY, the DAH, the DAP, 

and the area TACs could be increased to 

enable the fishery to perform to its 

fullest potential. Such increases would 

be constrained by the analysis that the 

Council included in this year’s 

specification recommendations. That 

means that DAH and OY could be 

increased to a maximum of 180,000 mt, 

the DAP could be increased to a 

maximum of 176,000 mt, and the Area 

2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC could be 

increased to 50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, 

respectively, which are the highest 

levels that the Council originally 

recommended and analyzed for each of 

these measures. NMFS invites the 

public to comment on the potential use 

of the inseason adjustment mechanism 

to set new levels for DAH, DAP, OY, 

and area TACs during the 2005 fishing 

year, should such changes be warranted 

based on the performance of the fishery. 

More specifically, NMFS invites the 

public to comment on the 

appropriateness of potentially 

increasing DAH and OY up to the 

maximum level of 180,000 mt, and the 

Area 2 TAC and the Area 3 TAC to 

50,000 mt and 60,000 mt, respectively, 

through the inseason adjustment 

mechanism.

The Council argued that DAP equals 

176,000 mt, and NMFS found its 

argument that current processing 

capacity is capable of handling that 

volume of fish persuasive. However, for 

the purposes of these specifications, 

DAP is determined not only by 

capability to process but also by 

whether domestic processors will utilize 

such capacity. Since DAH is proposed 

to be set at 150,000 mt (of which 4,000 

mt would be allocated for BT), DAP 

would be limited to 146,000 mt. It is 

certainly possible, given the capacity of 

the current harvesting fleet, the 

potential for market expansion to occur, 

and the expressed intent (made clear 

through public testimony) of the U.S. 

industry to increase its participation in 

the Atlantic herring fishery, that 

processors will utilize the 

recommended DAP. Because the 

Council’s recommended DAP is 

sufficient to process the entire DAH 

(minus the BT), the Council and NMFS 

proposes setting JVP at zero. Future JV 

operations would likely compete with 

U.S. processors for product, which 

could have a substantial negative impact 

on domestic facilities in a market-driven 

fishery. This is consistent with the 

following relationship, which is 

specified in the FMP: DAH = DAP + 

JVPt + BT.

The Council recommended setting 

USAP at zero, arguing that current 

shoreside capacity is sufficient to 

process U.S. landings, therefore 

eliminating the need for alternative 

processing capacity (USAP). The 

Council also argued that the FMP 

provides discretion to favor certain 

segments of the processing industry, 

and that to allow USAP would 

economically hurt shoreside processors/

communities. The Council expressed 

concern that, once utilized, USAP 

allocations would become permanent. 

Finally, the Council argued that the fact 

that there was USAP allocated from 

2000–2004 that was not used 

demonstrates that there is no interest in 

USAP.

NMFS believes that the Council’s 

rationale for setting USAP at zero is 

insufficient because it would favor one 

segment of the U.S. processing sector 

over another, without any justifiable 

reasons based on conservation 

objectives. On average, large amounts of 

the TAC in Areas 2 and 3 (where USAP 

was authorized in previous years) have 

not been taken each year. During the 

development of the specifications, at 

least one industry member expressed 

interest in pursuing USAP operations in 

2005. When the Council discussed the 

possibility of allocating 10,000 mt to 

USAP, this individual stated that USAP 

operations would not be feasible at that 

level. For these reasons, NMFS proposes 

setting USAP at 20,000 mt in Areas 2 

and 3 only. USAP could provide an 

additional outlet for harvesters and, 

therefore, increase the benefits to the 

U.S. industry. As for the Council’s 

concern that USAPs will become 

permanent, there is no basis for this 

concern. The specification process 

allows the Council to modify its 

recommendations in the future, 

provided there is justification.

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR 

part 648 and has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866.

The Council prepared an IRFA, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, which 

describes the economic impacts this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would have 

on small entities. A copy of the IRFA 

can be obtained from the Council or 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the 

Internet at http:/www.nero.noaa.gov. A 

summary of the analysis follows:

Statement of Objective and Need

A description of the reasons why this 

action is being considered, and the 

objectives of and legal basis for this 

action, is contained in the preamble to 

this proposed rule and is not repeated 

here.

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply

During the 2003 fishing year, 154 

vessels landed herring, 38 of which 

averaged more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of 

herring per trip. There are no large 

entities, as defined in section 601 of the 

RFA, participating in this fishery. 

Therefore, there are no disproportionate 

economic impacts between large and 

small entities.

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements

This action does not contain any new 

collection-of-information, reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements. It does not duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with any other 

Federal rules.

Minimizing Significant Economic 

Impacts on Small Entities

Impacts were assessed by the Council 

and NMFS by comparing the proposed 

measures to the Atlantic herring 

landings made in 2003. The proposed 

specifications are not expected to 

produce a negative economic impact to 

vessels prosecuting the fishery because, 

while it reduces the current (2003/2004) 

TACs for herring in Areas 2 and 3 

(while keeping Areas 1A and 1B the 

same), it still allows for landings levels 

that are significantly higher than the 

average landings achieved by the fishery 

in recent years. The proposed 2005 

specifications should allow for 

incremental growth in the industry, 

while taking into consideration 

biological uncertainty.

The specification of 150,000 mt for 

OY and DAH is proposed for the 2005 

fishery, and for the 2006 fishery if stock 

and/or fishery conditions do not change 

significantly during 2005. At this level, 

there could be an increase of up to 

50,000 mt in herring landings, or 

$7,150,000 in revenues, based on a 

market price of $143/mt. This could 

allow individual vessels to increase 

their profitability under the proposed 

2005 specifications, depending on 

whether or not new vessels enter the 

fishery (the herring fishery will remain 

an open-access fishery for the 2005 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 19 / Monday, January 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 4811

fishing year). The magnitude of 

economic impacts related to the 

146,000–mt specification of DAP will 

depend on the shoreside processing 

sector’s ability to expand markets and 

increase capacity to handle larger 

amounts of herring during 2005 and 

2006.

The potential loss associated with 

eliminating the JVPt allocation (20,000 

mt for 2003 and 2004) could 

approximate $2.9 million (based on an 

average price of $143/mt) if all of the 

20,000–mt allocation would have been 

utilized (10,000 mt for JVP and 10,000 

mt for IWP). However, very little of the 

10,000–mt JVP allocation was utilized 

in 2002 and 2003 and, as of August 

2004, no JVP activity for herring had 

occurred during the 2004 fishing year. 

The Council received no indication that 

demand for the JVP allocation will 

increase in 2005 and 2006. As a result, 

no substantial economic impacts are 

expected from reducing the JVP 

allocation to 0 mt in 2005 and possibly 

2006, as vessels that sold fish in the past 

to JV processor vessels could sell to U.S. 

processors.

The Area 1A and 1B TACs of 60,000 

and 10,000 mt, respectively, have been 

unchanged since the 2000 fishery. In 

2002 and 2003, the Area 1A TAC for the 

directed herring fishery was fully 

utilized and is expected to be fully 

utilized for the 2005 fishery. Therefore, 

no change is expected in profitability of 

vessels from the 2005 Area 1A 

specification. Since only 4,917 mt of 

herring were harvested in Area 1B in 

2003, the proposed 2005 specification of 

10,000 mt should allow for increased 

economic benefits to individual vessels 

prosecuting the fishery in this 

management area. The potential 

economic gains associated with 

allocating 20,000 mt for USAP could 

approximate $2.9 million (based on an 

average price of $143/mt) if all of the 

20,000–mt allocation were utilized in 

2005.

The Council analyzed four 

alternatives for OY and the distribution 

of TACs. One alternative would have 

retained the specifications implemented 

during the 2003 and 2004 fishing years, 

which would have maintained the OY at 

180,000 mt. This OY is still roughly 80 

percent greater than the average 

historical landings for this fishery, and 

therefore that level of OY would not 

pose a constraint on the fishery. The 

three other alternatives considered by 

the Council would set the OY at 150,000 

mt. Although the OY of 150,000 mt is 

lower than that proposed by the 

Council, it is still roughly 50 percent 

greater than the average historical 

landings for this fishery, and therefore 

that level of OY would not pose a 

constraint on the fishery. Each of the 

alternatives that would set the OY at 

150,000 mt would establish varying 

levels for the area TACs.

One alternative would have 

established the following TACs: Area 

1A, 60,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; Area 

2, 20,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 mt. The 

only area TAC that would be lower than 

2003/2004 under this option is the Area 

2 TAC. The most recent year in which 

the landings from this area were greater 

than 20,000 mt (the proposed TAC) was 

2000 (27,198 mt). The average landings 

from 2001 2003 were 14,300 mt with 

2003 landings at 16,079 mt. Under 

current market conditions, the new TAC 

may become constraining if the fishery 

in 2005 (and possibly 2006) is similar to 

that in 2000. If this is the case, then the 

Area 2 TAC fishing season could end 

before the end of the year, creating a 

potential economic constraint on the 

fishery, especially if vessels are forced 

to travel farther (increased steaming 

time) to harvest in Area 3.

Another alternative considered would 

have established the following TACs: 

Area 1A, 45,000 mt; Area 1B, 10,000 mt; 

Area 2, 35,000 mt; and Area 3, 60,000 

mt. With a 15,000–mt decrease in the 

combined Area 1 TACs, the economic 

impact of this option could be relatively 

large on vessels in the fishery that 

depend on herring in Area 1A, 

especially if those vessels are not able 

to move to other areas to obtain fish. 

Even if vessels could fish in other areas, 

their operating costs would be increased 

because of increased steaming time. An 

Area 2 TAC of 35,000 mt proposed 

under this alternative should not be 

constraining given recent landings 

history.

The final alternative considered 

would have established the following 

TACs: Area 1A, 55,000 mt; Area 1B, 

5,000 mt; Area 2, 30,000 mt; and Area 

3, 60,000 mt. With a 10,000–mt decrease 

in the combined Area 1 TACs, the 

impact of this alternative would very 

similar to the impact of the prior 

alternative, although not as severe. An 

Area 2 TAC of 30,000 mt proposed 

under this alternative should not be 

constraining given recent landings 

history.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 25, 2005.

Rebecca Lent,

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out above, 50 CFR 

part 648 is proposed to be amended as 

follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 648.200, paragraphs (c) and (d) 

are revised to read as follows:

§ 648.200 Specifications.

* * * * *

(c) The Atlantic Herring Oversight 

Committee shall review the 

recommendations of the PDT and shall 

consult with the Commission’s Herring 

Section. Based on these 

recommendations and any public 

comment received, the Herring 

Oversight Committee shall recommend 

to the Council appropriate 

specifications. The Council shall review 

these recommendations and, after 

considering public comment, shall 

recommend appropriate specifications 

to NMFS. NMFS shall review the 

recommendations, consider any 

comments received from the 

Commission and shall publish 

notification in the Federal Register

proposing specifications and providing 

a 30–day public comment period. If the 

proposed specifications differ from 

those recommended by the Council, the 

reasons for any differences shall be 

clearly stated and the revised 

specifications must satisfy the criteria 

set forth in this section.

(d) NMFS shall make a final 

determination concerning the 

specifications for Atlantic herring. 

Notification of the final specifications 

and responses to public comments shall 

be published in the Federal Register. If 

the final specification amounts differ 

from those recommended by the 

Council, the reason(s) for the 

difference(s) must be clearly stated and 

the revised specifications must be 

consistent with the criteria set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

previous year’s specifications shall 

remain effective unless revised through 

the specification process. NMFS shall 

issue notification in the Federal 

Register if the previous year’s 

specifications will not be changed.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–1744 Filed 1–28–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S