72382 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

State Notification-based relief (less than 

1,000 BOE per year) 

Request-based relief (less than 15 

BOE per well per day) 

Louisiana ................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Michigan .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. No. 

Montana ................................................................................................... Yes ................................................. No. 

Nevada .................................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................................................................. No .................................................. No. 

North Dakota ........................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................ No .................................................. No. 

South Dakota ........................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Utah ......................................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Wyoming .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. No. 

Federal oil and gas properties located 

in all other states are eligible for relief 

if they qualify as marginal properties 

under the rule and if no portion of the 

royalties derived from the property is 

shared with the state. 

For information on how to obtain 

relief, please refer to the rule, which can 

be viewed on the MMS Web site at 

http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/ 

FRNotices/AC30.htm. 

All correspondence, records, or 

information received in response to this 

Notice are subject to disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act. All 

information provided will be made 

public unless the respondent identifies 

which portions are proprietary. Please 

highlight the proprietary portions, 

including any supporting 

documentation, or mark the page(s) that 

contain proprietary data. Proprietary 

information is protected by the Federal 

Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 

1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), the 

Indian Mineral Development Act of 

1982 (25 U.S.C. 2103), and Department 

regulations (43 CFR part 2). 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Lucy Querques Denett, 

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–23621 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 234 and 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2001–10160] 

RIN 2130–AA94 

Standards for Development and Use of 

Processor-Based Signal and Train 

Control Systems; Clarification and 

Correcting Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; clarification and 

correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: FRA is clarifying preamble 

language and correcting rule text 

language in FRA’s Standards for 

Development and Use of ProcessorBased Signal and Train Control 

Systems, a final rule published on 

March 7, 2005 (PTC Rule). First, some 

language in the section-by-section 

analysis portion of the preamble to the 

PTC Rule inadvertently differs from the 

actual regulatory language, and FRA is 

noting the unintended variation to avoid 

confusion. Second, FRA is clarifying 

language regarding the applicability of 

new 49 CFR part 236, subpart H (the 

Processor-Based Standards) to highwayrail grade crossing warning systems 

(HGCWS). FRA wants to ensure that the 

rule language conforms with FRA’s 

initial intent that the regulation apply to 

only certain HGCWS. Therefore, FRA is 

adding a provision to clarify which 

HGCWS products may be excluded from 

the requirements of the PTC Rule. FRA 

is also adding a provision to clarify that 

certain HGCWS products excluded from 

the requirements of the Processor-Based 

Standards may, at the option of the 

railroad, be made subject to the 

Processor-Based Standards. Third, FRA 

is adding a provision to clarify which 

HGCWS products shall be included in 

the software management control plans 

pursuant to 49 CFR 236.18. Finally, FRA 

is correcting a minor error in which a 

provision of the Processor-Based 

Standards was incorrectly cited. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and 

Train Control Division, Office of Safety, 

FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail 

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6203); or Melissa 

Porter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont, NW., Mail 

Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6034). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

7, 2005, FRA published the PTC Rule, 

which establishes performance-based 

standards for the development and use 

of processor-based signal and train 

control systems. 70 FR 11052. Since the 

publication of the PTC Rule, FRA has 

determined that certain provisions need 

clarification or correction. First, FRA 

notes that some incorrect terms and an 

incorrect date were included in the 

section-by-section analysis portion of 

the preamble, all of which differ from 

the actual regulatory text. FRA is 

correcting the errors to prevent 

misinterpretations. Second, in 49 CFR 

234.275, ‘‘Processor-Based Systems,’’

FRA is clarifying the category of 

HGCWS to which it intended portions 

of the PTC Rule to apply. (All references 

in this final rule to a section or other 

provision are references to a section or 

other provision in title 49 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, unless otherwise 

noted). FRA is correcting that section to 

include a provision to exclude certain 

HGCWS products from the requirements 

of the PTC Rule, as the agency similarly 

did for signal and train control system 

products in § 236.911. FRA is further 

correcting § 234.275 to make it explicit 

that a railroad has the right to qualify an 

excluded product and make it subject to 

the Processor-Based Standards. Third, 

FRA is clarifying what HGCWS should 

be included in a railroad’s software 

management control plan, pursuant to 

§ 236.18. Finally, FRA is correcting an 

erroneous section reference in 

§ 236.913(c)(1). The section referenced 

does not exist. FRA more specifically 

discusses these issues in the ‘‘Sectionby-Section Analysis’’ below. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

1a. Preamble Language for § 236.18, 

‘‘Software Management Control [Plan]’’

In the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 236.18, FRA referred to the correct 

term ‘‘software management control 

plan’’ variously as ‘‘software 

management control’’ and ‘‘software 

management plan.’’ FRA notes that 

‘‘software management control’’ and 

‘‘software management plan’’ are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72383 

intended to refer to ‘‘software 

management control plan.’’

1b. Preamble Language for § 236.911, 

‘‘Exclusions’’

In the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 236.911, FRA erroneously stated that 

‘‘[p]aragraph (a) provides that the 

subpart does not apply to products in 

service as of May 6, 2005.’’ The 

referenced date should have read ‘‘June 

6, 2005’’ rather than ‘‘May 6, 2005.’’

FRA does not believe that this error has 

created significant confusion because 

the date is correct in the regulatory text 

itself, but in an effort to eliminate any 

possible confusion, we are pointing out 

that the date cited in the analysis should 

have been June 6, 2005. 

Corrections to Regulatory Text 

2. Section 234.275, ‘‘Processor-Based 

Systems’’

As issued in the PTC Rule, 

§ 234.275(b) requires that HGCWS 

containing ‘‘new or novel technology or 

that provide safety-critical data to a 

railroad signal [sic] system’’ comply 

with part 236, subpart H, the ProcessorBased Standards. Section 236.911, 

‘‘Exclusions,’’ provides that products 

designed in accordance with subparts A 

through G of part 236, that were in 

development as of March 7, 2005, may 

be excluded from the requirements of 

the Processor-Based Standards, but FRA 

inadvertently did not provide a similar 

exclusion for products designed in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 234, 

‘‘Grade Crossing Signal System Safety,’’

subparts A through D. Several railroads 

and suppliers submitted notifications to 

FRA by June 6, 2005, of various 

products that were in development, 

some of which contain processor-based 

highway-rail grade crossing warning 

systems, subsystems, or components 

(i.e., products that were designed in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 234, 

subparts A through D). 

In order to clarify that the exclusion 

from the Processor-Based Standards also 

applies to HGCWS products under 

development as of March 7, 2005, FRA 

is amending § 234.275(c) accordingly. 

The reasons for this decision are similar 

to those provided for excluding certain 

products pursuant to § 236.911, 

‘‘Exclusions’’: (1) it would be too costly 

for the railroads and suppliers to re-do 

work and analysis for a product on 

which development efforts have already 

begun, and (2) it would be unfair to 

subject later implementation of such 

technology to the requirements of the 

Processor-Based Standards. In addition, 

FRA will provide railroads and 

suppliers with the option to later elect 

to qualify an excluded product under 

the Processor-Based Standards. 

Therefore, in this technical amendment, 

FRA is adding a provision in 

§ 234.275(b) to exclude from the 

requirements of the Processor-Based 

Standards, those processor-based 

highway-rail grade crossing warning 

systems, subsystems, or components 

that meet all of the following criteria: (1) 

Currently under development, (2) 

designed in accordance with 49 CFR 

part 234, subparts A through D, and (3) 

not in service as of December 5, 2005, 

but will be placed in service as of 

December 5, 2008. Railroads and 

suppliers will, however, be required to 

submit a notification to FRA regarding 

the product under development by 

March 6, 2006 and the product must be 

placed in service as of December 5, 

2008. Any railroad or supplier that 

previously submitted a notification 

letter to FRA pursuant to § 236.911 

regarding a HGCWS need not submit a 

new notification letter. FRA will 

consider the previously submitted letter 

when determining whether a product 

should be excluded. 

If read literally, the last sentence of 

§ 234.275(c) as issued in the PTC Rule 

requires more HGCWS to be subject to 

the software management control plan 

requirement of § 236.18 than FRA 

intended. In particular, the rule 

language currently indicates that any 

existing products that both are used at 

HGCWS and provide safety-critical data 

to, or receive safety-critical data from, a 

railroad signal or train control system, 

are required to be included in the 

software management control plan, even 

if they are not processor-based, pursuant 

to § 236.18. The intent of requiring a 

software management control plan 

under § 236.18 is to ensure that the 

proper and intended version of software 

not required to be included in a Product 

Safety Plan pursuant to § 236.907 of this 

chapter, is documented and maintained 

throughout the life-cycle of the system. 

Only processor-based systems involve 

software, and thus the inclusion of a 

non-processor-based HGCWS in a 

software management control plan 

would provide no benefit, but would 

only add unnecessarily to the cost of 

implementation of the PTC Rule. In 

addition, FRA did not intend for 

HGCWS that receive information from a 

signal or train control system to be 

subject to the requirements of § 236.18. 

FRA is therefore restructuring § 234.275 

to correct these errors and to clarify the 

intended requirements of the regulation. 

3. Section 236.913, ‘‘Filing and 

Approval of PSPs’’

FRA is amending § 236.913(c)(1) as 

issued in the PTC Rule to correct an 

incorrect regulatory reference. The 

reference to non-existent § 236.917(e)(1) 

should be changed to § 236.917(a)(1). 

Accordingly, the regulatory text is 

changed to reflect the correct regulatory 

cite. 

Notice and Comment Procedures 

Because these corrections and 

clarifications do no more than revise the 

PTC Rule to meet FRA’s original intent 

when issuing the rule, notice and 

comment procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest within the 

meaning of section 553 (b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Public 

comment is unnecessary because in 

making these technical amendments, 

FRA is not exercising discretion in any 

way that would be informed by public 

comment. In addition, this revised rule 

poses no addition burden on any 

person, but rather provides a benefit to 

those who were inadvertently made 

subject to the PTC Rule, who are now 

no longer subject to the PTC Rule’s 

requirements. Therefore, FRA is 

proceeding directly to this final rule. 

Regulatory Impact 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This final rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures and is not considered 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

or under DOT policies and procedures. 

The technical changes made in this rule 

will not increase the costs or alter the 

benefits associated with this regulation 

beyond what was originally measured in 

the cost benefit analysis completed for 

the PTC Rule. The technical changes 

will, in fact, reduce the cost of 

complying with the rule back to the 

level contemplated when FRA 

completed its initial cost-benefit 

analysis. However, this cost reduction 

has not been specifically calculated. 

Because these technical amendments 

and corrections will bring the rule into 

compliance with FRA’s original costbenefit analysis, FRA does not believe it 

necessary to re-calculate the costs and 

benefits. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a review 

of rules to assess their impact on small 

entities. This final rule amends and 

clarifies existing requirements. Because 

the technical amendments contained in 

72384 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the document generally clarify 

requirements currently contained in the 

PTC Rule or allow for greater flexibility 

in complying with the PTC Rule, FRA 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no paperwork requirements 

associated with this final rule. 

Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this rule in 

accordance with its procedures for 

ensuring full consideration of the 

environmental impact of FRA actions, 

as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT 

Order 5610.1c. The rule meets the 

criteria establishing this as a non-major 

action for environmental purposes. 

Federalism Implications 

This final rule will not have a 

substantial effect 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. State and local 

officials were involved in developing 

the PTC Rule through the Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The 

RSAC has as permanent members two 

organizations representing State and 

local interests: The American 

Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials and the 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers. RSAC regularly provides 

recommendations to the FRA 

Administrator for solutions to regulatory 

issues that reflect significant input from 

its State members. Thus, in accordance 

with Executive Order 13132, 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

was not warranted in the PTC Rule and 

is not warranted for this final rule 

either. 

Compliance With the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal Regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act 

further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in promulgation of any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $120,700,000 

or more in any 1 year, and before 

promulgating any final rule for which a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published, the agency shall prepare 

a written statement * * *’’ detailing the 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. The 

rule issued today does not include any 

mandates, which will result in the 

expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$120,700,000 or more in any one year, 

and thus preparation of a statement is 

not required. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the PTC Rule contains 

errors that need to be corrected. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 234 

Highway safety, Railroad safety. 

49 CFR Part 236 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

The Final Rule 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

corrects chapter II, subtitle B, of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 234—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 234 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. 

■ 2. Revise § 234.275 to read as follows: 

§ 234.275 Processor-based systems. 

(a) Applicable definitions. The 

definitions in § 236.903 of this chapter 

shall apply to this section, where 

applicable. 

(b) Use of performance standard 

authorized or required. 

(1) In lieu of compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart, a railroad 

may elect to qualify an existing 

processor-based product under part 236, 

subpart H of this chapter. 

(2) Highway-rail grade crossing 

warning systems, subsystems, or 

components that are processor-based 

and that are first placed in service after 

June 6, 2005, which contain new or 

novel technology, or which provide 

safety-critical data to a railroad signal or 

train control system that is governed by 

part 236, subpart H of this chapter, shall 

also comply with those requirements. 

New or novel technology refers to a 

technology not previously recognized 

for use as of March 7, 2005. 

(3) Products designed in accordance 

with subparts A through D of this part, 

which are not in service but are in the 

developmental stage prior to December 

5, 2005 (or for which a request for 

exclusion was submitted prior to June 6, 

2005 pursuant to § 236.911 of this 

chapter), may be excluded from the 

requirements of part 236, subpart H of 

this chapter upon notification to FRA by 

March 6, 2006, if placed in service by 

December 5, 2008 (or March 7, 2008 for 

those products for which a request for 

exclusion was submitted to FRA prior to 

June 6, 2005). Railroads may continue to 

implement and use these products and 

components from these existing 

products. A railroad may at any time 

elect to have products that are excluded 

made subject to 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart H, by submitting a Product 

Safety Plan as prescribed in § 236.913 of 

this chapter and otherwise complying 

with part 236, subpart H of this chapter. 

(c) Product safety plan justifications. 

The Product Safety Plan (see § 236.903 

of this chapter) must explain how the 

performance objective sought to be 

addressed by each of the particular 

requirements of this subpart is met by 

the product, why the objective is not 

relevant to the product’s design, or how 

safety requirements are satisfied using 

alternative means. Deviation from those 

particular requirements is authorized if 

an adequate explanation is provided, 

making reference to relevant elements of 

the Product Safety Plan, and if the 

product satisfies the performance 

standard set forth in § 236.909 of this 

chapter. (See § 236.907(a)(14) of this 

chapter.) 

(d) Specific requirements. The 

following exclusions from the latitude 

provided by this section apply: 

(1) Nothing in this section authorizes 

deviation from applicable design 

requirements for automated warning 

devices at highway-rail grade crossings 

in the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD), 2000 

Millennium Edition, Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), dated 

December 18, 2000, including Errata #1 

to MUTCD 2000 Millennium Edition 

dated June 14, 2001 (http:// 

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/). 

(2) Nothing in this section authorizes 

deviation from the following 

requirements of this subpart: 

(i) § 234.207(b) (Adjustment, repair, or 

replacement of a component); 

(ii) § 234.209(b) (Interference with 

normal functioning of system); 

(iii) § 234.211 (Security of warning 

system apparatus); 

(iv) § 234.217 (Flashing light units); 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72385 

(v) § 234.219 (Gate arm lights and 

light cable); 

(vi) § 234.221 (Lamp voltage); 

(vii) § 234.223 (Gate arm); 

(viii) § 234.225 (Activation of warning 

system); 

(ix) § 234.227 (Train detection 

apparatus)—if a train detection circuit is 

employed to determine the train’s 

presence; 

(x) § 234.229 (Shunting sensitivity)—

if a conventional track circuit is 

employed; 

(xi) § 234.231 (Fouling wires)—if a 

conventional train detection circuit is 

employed; 

(xii) § 234.233 (Rail joints)—if a track 

circuit is employed; 

(xiii) § 234.235 (Insulated rail 

joints)—if a track circuit is employed; 

(xiv) § 234.237 (Reverse switch cutout circuit); or 

(xv) § 234.245 (Signs). 

(e) Separate justification for other 

than fail-safe design. Deviation from the 

requirement of § 234.203 (Control 

circuits) that circuits be designed on a 

fail-safe principle must be separately 

justified at the component, subsystem, 

and system level using the criteria of 

§ 236.909 of this chapter. 

(f) Software management control for 

certain systems not subject to a 

performance standard. Any processorbased system, subsystem, or component 

subject to this part, which is not subject 

to the requirements of part 236, subpart 

H of this chapter but which provides 

safety-critical data to a signal or train 

control system shall be included in the 

software management control plan 

requirements as specified in § 236.18 of 

this chapter. 

PART 236—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 236 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20501–

20505; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.49. 

■ 4. Amend § 236.913 by revising 

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

§ 236.913 Filing and approval of PSPs. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Not less than 180 days prior to 

planned use of the product in revenue 

service as described in the PSP or PSP 

amendment, the railroad shall submit an 

informational filing to the Associate 

Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590. The 

informational filing must provide a 

summary description of the PSP or PSP 

amendment, including the intended use 

of the product, and specify the location 

where the documentation as described 

in § 236.917(a)(1) is maintained. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 

2005. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Administrator, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–23571 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 040830250–5062–03; I.D. 

112305B] 

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in 

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery; Specifications and 

Management Measures; Inseason 

Adjustments 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Inseason adjustments to 

management measures; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces changes to 

management measures in the 

commercial and recreational Pacific 

Coast groundfish fisheries. These 

actions, which are authorized by the 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), will allow 

fisheries to access more abundant 

groundfish stocks while protecting 

overfished and depleted stocks. 

DATES: Effective 0001 hours (local time) 

December 1, 2005. Comments on this 

rule will be accepted through January 4, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by I.D. number 112305 by any 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: 

GroundfishInseason5.nwr@noaa.gov. 

Include I.D. number 112305B in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Carrie 

Nordeen. 

• Mail: D. Robert Lohn, 

Administrator, Northwest 

Region,NMFS, Attn: Carrie Nordeen, 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 

98115–0070. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Nordeen (Northwest Region, 

NMFS), phone: 206–526–6144; fax: 206–

526–6736; and e-mail: 

carrie.nordeen@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

available on the Government Printing 

Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/ 

fr/index.html. 

Background information and 

documents are available at the NMFS 

Northwest Region website at: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/ 

gdfsh01.htm and at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s website at: 

www.pcouncil.org. 

Background 

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and its 

implementing regulations at title 50 in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for 

over 80 species of groundfish off the 

coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 

California. Groundfish specifications 

and management measures are 

developed by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Pacific Council), 

and are implemented by NMFS. The 

specifications and management 

measures for 2005 - 2006 were codified 

in the CFR (50 CFR part 660, subpart G). 

They were published in the Federal 

Register as a proposed rule on 

September 21, 2004 (69 FR 56550), and 

as a final rule on December 23, 2004 (69 

FR 77012). The final rule was 

subsequently amended on March 18, 

2005 (70 FR 13118); March 30, 2005 (70 

FR 16145); April 19, 2005 (70 FR 

20304); May 3, 2005 (70 FR 22808); May 

4, 2005 (70 FR 23040); May 5, 2005 (70 

FR 23804); May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25789); 

May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28852); July 5, 

2005 (70 FR 38596); August 22, 2005 (70 

FR 48897); August 31, 2005 (70 FR 

51682); October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58066); 

October 20, 2005 (70 FR 61063); October 

24, 2005 (70 FR 61393); and November 

1, 2005 (70 FR 65861). 

Acceptable biological catches (ABCs) 

and optimum yields (OYs) are 

established for each year. Management 

measures are established at the start of 

the biennial period, and adjusted 

throughout the biennial management 

period, to keep harvest within the OYs. 

At the Pacific Council’s October 30 - 

November 4, 2005, meeting in San 

Diego, California, the Pacific Council’s 

Groundfish Management Team (GMT) 

considered 2005 catch data and new 

West Coast Groundfish Observer 

Program (WCGOP) data and made 

recommendations to adjust groundfish 

management measures for December