Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25611 

requested that the AAR put its concerns 

in writing. FRA received a letter from 

the AAR, dated April 9, 2012, 

requesting that FRA delay the effective 

date of the interpretation relating to the 

meaning of ‘‘day’’ in section 21103(a)(4), 

section IV.B.1 of the Final 

Interpretations, until January 1, 2013, 

and raising other concerns. FRA has 

posted the letter to the docket, Docket 

No. FRA–2009–0057. The letter argues 

that it is infeasible for railroads to 

comply with the interpretation by May 

29, 2012, for three reasons: 

First, the change to a 24-hour day requires 

significant programming changes for railroad 

information technology (IT) systems. These 

programming changes, which will require 

significant testing before they can be 

implemented, cannot be accomplished by 

May 29 or even shortly thereafter. Second, 

the change to a 24-hour day will require 

some railroads to hire additional employees 

* * *. Those railroads cannot hire and train 

employees by May 29. Third, the railroads 

need to update their training materials and 

train all affected employees on the new 

interpretation. 

Recognizing that it may not be 

possible for some railroads to comply 

with the new interpretation by May 29, 

2012, FRA is issuing this document, 

which delays the effective date of 

section IV.B.1, ‘‘What constitutes a ‘Day’ 

for the purpose of sec. 21103(a)(4)?’’ 

until January 1, 2013. All other sections 

of the Final Interpretations remain 

effective on May 29, 2012. 

In its April 9, 2012, letter, the AAR 

also requests a transition period from 

December 1, 2012 until the requested 

January 1, 2013, effective date in order 

to allow railroads to comply with the 

new interpretation of ‘‘day’’ for 

purposes of section 21103(a)(4) in 

advance of the effective date, rather than 

requiring compliance with the interim 

interpretation until the effective date of 

the new interpretation. To provide 

flexibility, rather than establish a static 

transition date, FRA will allow a 

railroad to choose to comply with the 

new interpretation on any date on or 

after May 29, 2012, and prior to January 

1, 2013. FRA suggests that railroads 

choosing to transition to the new 

interpretation prior to January 1, 2013, 

inform the appropriate FRA regional 

offices, to reduce confusion and avoid 

redundant information requests from 

FRA inspectors. 

Transition to the new interpretation 

must be by a railroad in its entirety, 

rather than on an employee-byemployee or subdivision-by-subdivision 

basis. Were a railroad to try to transition 

piecemeal, employees would likely be 

forced to move frequently between the 

interim interpretation and the new 

interpretation as they moved between 

subdivisions of the railroad. The AAR 

noted the complexity of moving 

employees from the interim 

interpretation to the new interpretation 

in the context of a single transition date; 

allowing multiple transition dates for a 

single railroad would exacerbate these 

concerns. 

FRA requests that Class I railroads 

provide monthly status reports to 

Richard Connor, FRA Operating 

Practices Specialist, at 

Richard.Connor@dot.gov or at the street 

address listed above, starting July 1, 

2012 and ending for each railroad after 

its transition to the new interpretation, 

to update FRA on the progress of each 

railroad toward resolving technological, 

training, and hiring issues, and any 

other issues that present an obstacle to 

compliance with the new interpretation. 

Such reports will allow FRA to ensure 

that railroads are working toward full 

compliance with the new interpretation 

no later than January 1, 2013. If FRA 

determines that railroads are not 

progressing toward implementation of 

the new interpretation, or if FRA is 

unable to gather the information 

necessary to make such a determination, 

FRA may publish an additional notice 

expediting the transition period. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 

2012. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10487 Filed 4–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Parts 17 and 424 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 226 and 424 

[Docket Nos. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0073; 

NOAA–110131071–2013–02; MO–92210–0– 

0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AX44; 0648–BA77 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Implementing 

Regulations for Requirements To 

Publish Textual Descriptions of 

Boundaries of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We (FWS and NMFS; also 

jointly referred to as the Services) are 

revising regulations related to 

publishing textual descriptions of 

proposed and final critical habitat 

boundaries in the Federal Register for 

codification in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. In the interest of making 

the process of designating critical 

habitat more user-friendly for affected 

parties, the public as a whole, and the 

Services, as well as more efficient and 

cost effective, we are going to maintain 

the publication of maps of proposed and 

final critical habitat designations, but 

are making optional the inclusion of any 

textual description of the boundaries of 

the designation in the Federal Register 

for codification in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. The boundaries of critical 

habitat as mapped or otherwise 

described in the Regulation 

Promulgation section of a rulemaking 

that is published in the Federal Register 

will be the official delineation of the 

designation. The coordinates and/or 

plot points from which the maps are 

generated will be included in the 

administrative record for the 

designation, and will be available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. We will also continue 

our practice of providing the public 

with additional tools and supporting 

information, such as interactive maps 

and additional descriptions, on the 

Internet site of the Service promulgating 

the designation and at the lead field 

office responsible for the designation 

(and we may also include such 

information in the preamble and/or at 

www.regulations.gov) to assist the 

public in evaluating the coverage of the 

critical habitat designation. We have 

undertaken this effort as part of the 

Services’ response to Executive Order 

13563 (Jan. 18, 2011) directing Federal 

agencies to review their existing 

regulations and, inter alia, to modify or 

streamline them in accordance with 

what they learned. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective May 

31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this rule will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Conservation and Classification, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 420; Arlington, VA 

22203, telephone 703/358–2171; 

facsimile 703/358–1735 and National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Protected Resources, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 

telephone 301–713–1401; facsimile 

301–713–0376. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Alt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Conservation and 

Classification, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 420; Arlington, VA 22203, 

telephone 703/358–2171; facsimile 703/ 

358–1735 or Marta Nammack, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Protected Resources, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 

telephone 301–427–8469; facsimile 

301–713–0376. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Before a plant or animal species can 

receive the protection provided by the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), 

it must first be added to the Federal lists 

of threatened and endangered wildlife 

and plants. The List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (found in title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

in § 17.11) and the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants (found in 50 CFR 

17.12) contain the names of all 

organisms that have been determined by 

the Services to qualify as ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or ‘‘threatened species.’’ After 

a species is listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act, the Service 

that listed the species designates as 

‘‘critical habitat,’’ to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, 

specific areas essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Under section 4(b)(5)(A) of the Act, 

the Services are required, when 

designating or revising critical habitat 

for species listed under the Act, to 

publish the complete text of the 

regulation in the Regulation 

Promulgation section of a rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register. The 

existing implementing regulations 

found in 50 CFR 17.94(b), 226.101, 

424.12(c), 424.16(b) and (c)(1)(ii), and 

424.18(a) have interpreted this 

requirement to comprise publication of 

both maps and textual descriptions of 

the boundaries of such habitat. We have 

found over time that textual 

descriptions of critical habitat 

boundaries are often difficult to 

interpret and understand, and do not 

provide clarity regarding the areas being 

designated. Publishing these textual 

descriptions is also inefficient and 

costly. Below we discuss our current 

requirements and their limitations, and 

the regulation changes we are 

promulgating to address these issues. 

NMFS’ current practice is to publish 

maps in the Federal Register along with 

a textual description of the boundaries 

of the areas being designated as critical 

habitat in both their proposed and final 

rules. FWS publishes only the maps in 

the proposed critical habitat rule and 

then publishes the maps along with a 

textual description of the boundaries in 

the final critical habitat rule. 

Historically we described the 

boundaries following a variety of 

methods, including Public Land Survey 

System designations (which specify 

township, range, and section; sometimes 

referred to as the ‘‘rectangular survey 

system’’) and metes-and-bounds (a 

system of describing a parcel of land 

using the physical features of local 

geography, along with directions and 

distances, to define the boundaries). 

However, as GIS and specific 

geographic-based data have become 

more available, we have been using 

predominantly the Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (a 

grid-based system employing a series of 

60 zones to specify locations on the 

surface of the Earth) and latitudelongitude. We adopted these practices 

because our current regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12(c) state, ‘‘Each critical 

habitat will be defined by specific limits 

using reference points and lines as 

found on standard topographic maps of 

the area.’’ Unfortunately, these 

descriptions are often difficult to 

interpret and understand, and do not 

provide clarity regarding which areas 

are being designated as critical habitat. 

Therefore, in addition to the maps and 

textual descriptions published in the 

Federal Register, over the last several 

years we have provided the public with 

interactive maps and additional 

descriptions, on the Services’ Internet 

sites and at the lead field office 

responsible for the designation. 

References to these Internet sites are 

cited throughout the proposed (NMFS 

only) and final (NMFS and FWS) rules 

and in our outreach materials for the 

specific action. In addition, we have 

provided maps and GIS coverages (data 

layers) to affected Federal agencies, 

states, counties, jurisdictions, and 

interested parties for use in their 

computer databases and to make 

available to their constituencies. Our 

understanding that the public has 

referred to these latter materials in lieu 

of the detailed coordinates and other 

similar textual descriptions published 

in the Federal Register and codified in 

the Code of Federal Regulations 

reinforces our view that these textual 

descriptions are of limited utility in 

informing the public as to which areas 

are designated as critical habitat. 

Given that the textual descriptions are 

of limited utility, we are revising the 

implementing regulations contained 

within 50 CFR 17.94(b), 226.101, 

424.12(c), 424.16(b) and (c)(1)(ii), and 

424.18(a), to eliminate the requirement 

to publish textual descriptions of 

proposed (NMFS only) and final (NMFS 

and FWS) critical habitat boundaries in 

the Federal Register and reprinting in 

the CFR, and instead provide that the 

map(s), as clarified or refined by any 

textual language within the rule, 

constitutes the definition of the 

boundaries of a critical habitat. Each 

critical habitat area will be shown on a 

map, with more-detailed information 

discussed in the preamble of the 

rulemaking documents published in the 

Federal Register. The map published in 

the CFR will be generated from the 

coordinates and/or plot points 

corresponding to the location of the 

boundaries. These coordinates and/or 

plot points will be included in the 

administrative record for the 

designation, and will be available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will make the additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). The maps and 

brief textual descriptions that we plan to 

publish in the Federal Register after we 

finalize this rule will be sufficient to 

inform the public of the boundaries of 

a particular critical habitat designation, 

and thus constitutes sufficient notice to 

the public. It is not necessary—or 

generally even helpful—for the public to 

have UTM or latitude-longitude 

coordinates in order to know where 

critical habitat is located. We believe 

these changes will be for the public 

good and make the process more userfriendly, without compromising the 

public’s understanding of the overall 

process. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25613 

In addition to making the process 

more accessible to the public, 

eliminating the need to publish detailed 

textual descriptions in the Federal 

Register and annually in the CFR will 

also result in significant financial 

savings, thereby saving Federal 

resources. In FWS’s final designations, 

UTM coordinate pairs or other textual 

descriptions of the boundaries of areas 

often account for more than half of the 

rulemaking document; therefore, 

eliminating the requirement to publish 

those textual descriptions will result in 

significant savings of Federal Register 

publication costs. For example, FWS 

spent $764,523 in fiscal year 2008, 

$539,639 in fiscal year 2009, and 

$662,952 in fiscal year 2010 to publish 

critical habitat designations in the 

Federal Register, for a total of 

$1,967,114 for the three fiscal years 

combined. If, based on the percentage of 

critical habitat Federal Register pages 

that were devoted in 2010 to textual 

descriptions, we estimate that 50 

percent of those total costs were spent 

on the publication of the textual 

descriptions of the boundaries, then 

publishing those descriptions cost the 

Service $983,557 for the three fiscal 

years, or $327,852 per fiscal year. 

In addition, the regulation portion of 

the rule, including the maps and textual 

descriptions of the boundaries, is 

reprinted annually in the CFR, resulting 

in a further expenditure of taxpayer 

resources. FWS spent $80,000 in fiscal 

year 2008, $92,400 in fiscal year 2009, 

and $83,160 in fiscal year 2010 to 

reprint critical habitat designations in 

the CFR. Based on a review of the 

current volume (i.e., number of pages) of 

critical habitat designations represented 

in the CFR, we estimate that the textual 

descriptions account for approximately 

75 percent of the volume and therefore 

75 percent of the printing costs. Using 

the estimated 75 percent as the cost of 

reprinting the textual descriptions of the 

boundaries, publishing those 

descriptions cost FWS $191,670 for the 

three fiscal years. Adding this to the 

Federal Register costs discussed above, 

we estimate that the annual cost for 

publishing textual descriptions of 

boundaries in the Federal Register and 

then reprinting them in the CFR is 

nearly $391,742 for FWS alone. Thus, 

eliminating the need to publish latitudelongitude coordinates, UTM coordinate 

pairs, or other detailed textual 

descriptions in the Federal Register and 

CFR would result in a significant cost 

savings to the Services and the public as 

a whole. 

Finally, relying on maps and brief 

textual descriptions to identify areas 

designated as critical habitat is 

consistent with the Act. Section 

4(a)(3)(A) of the Act only requires that 

critical habitat be designated ‘‘by 

regulation.’’ Moreover, section 

4(b)(5)(A) of the Act indicates that the 

Secretary shall ‘‘not less than 90 days 

before the effective date of the 

regulation—(i) publish a general notice 

and the complete text of the proposed 

regulation in the Federal Register, and 

(ii) give actual notice of the proposed 

regulation (including the complete text 

of the regulation).’’ We interpret the 

mandate to publish the ‘‘complete text’’ 

of the proposed regulation as requiring 

that the regulation provide a sufficiently 

detailed description of the area included 

within the proposed designation, in the 

form of maps and any accompanying 

text, so as to provide all interested 

persons with an understanding of, and 

a meaningful opportunity to comment 

on, the critical habitat boundaries. As is 

already the current practice with critical 

habitat designations containing detailed 

UTM coordinates as required by the 

existing regulations, the public will be 

able to refer to any additional 

supporting information we make 

available through our outreach efforts, 

Internet sites, and at the lead field office 

responsible for the designation to assist 

the public in understanding the official 

boundary. 

We note that the Services never 

maintained that requiring detailed 

textual descriptions was legally 

necessary. Instead, the first critical 

habitat regulations required only that 

critical habitat designations be 

‘‘accompanied by maps and/or 

geographical descriptions.’’ 43 FR 870, 

876 (Jan. 4, 1978). Although the Services 

subsequently added the requirement 

that critical habitat designations include 

textual descriptions describing the 

specific boundary limits of the critical 

habitat, there is nothing in the preamble 

to that rule indicating that the Services 

did so because the Act required it. 

Rather, it was in response to several 

commenters, who had opined that the 

proposed rule was not sufficiently clear 

in setting out the method by which 

critical habitat boundaries would be 

described. 45 FR 13009, 13015 (Feb. 27, 

1980). With this change, the regulations 

would continue to be explicit as to the 

method by which critical habitat 

boundaries would be described; it 

would just do so by means that do not 

require detailed textual descriptions. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28405), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by July 18, 2011. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties, and invited them to comment 

on the proposal. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing. 

During the comment period for the 

proposed rule, we received 14 comment 

letters directly addressing the proposed 

regulations for requirements to publish 

textual descriptions of boundaries of 

critical habitat. Five commenters 

supported the proposal, 8 commenters 

opposed it, and one commenter was 

neutral. All substantive information 

provided during comment periods has 

either been incorporated directly into 

this final determination or addressed 

below. 

Federal Agency Comments 

(1) Comment: Two Federal agencies 

suggested that we provide a link and a 

point of contact within the Federal 

Register publication to the internet sites 

maintained by both Services. 

Our Response: We will provide a link 

and a point of contact within the 

Federal Register publication to the 

Internet sites that will house the GIS 

information regarding the location of 

critical habitat. 

(2) Comment: Two Federal agencies 

suggested we provide more information 

on our GIS maps, such as detailed scale, 

legend, scale bar, north arrow, title, 

source, the date critical habitat was 

finalized, and Federal Register citation. 

Our Response: We will provide as 

much information as possible on the 

GIS maps to improve their usefulness. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘[T]he 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ Comments received from 

State agencies regarding the proposal to 

revise the implementing regulations 

requiring textual descriptions of critical 

habitat boundaries are addressed below. 

(3) Comment: Technical publishing 

limitations can create a barrier to 

utilizing the best scientific data 

available in the pictorial maps 

published in the Federal Register. 

Our Response: Although it is true 

there are technical publishing 

limitations imposed by the Federal 

Register regarding map size and detail, 

these limitations will not affect our 

mandated practice of using the best 

available science. In addition, if there 

are limitations imposed due to map size 

such that additional rule text would be 

necessary to ensure that interested 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

persons have adequate notice to afford 

them a meaningful opportunity to 

comment on the critical habitat 

boundary, we will provide language in 

the rule text to clarify the map. Plus, the 

coordinates and/or plot points from 

which the maps are generated will be 

included in the administrative record 

for the designation, and will be 

available to the public on the Internet 

site of the Service promulgating the 

designation, at www.regulations.gov, 

and at the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the designation. For the 

convenience of the public, we will 

continue to provide additional tools and 

supporting information on our Internet 

sites and at the lead field office of the 

Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and some of 

this information may also be included 

in the preamble and/or at 

www.regulations.gov). 

(4) Comment: Pictorial maps cannot 

always provide the same level of detail 

that a textual description can provide. 

Our Response: Although maps may 

not be as detailed as UTM and latitudelongitude coordinates, the maps and any 

accompanying textual description 

published in the Federal Register will 

provide sufficient notice to the public of 

the designation. We are not prohibiting 

textual descriptions. We always have 

the option to include them, and if we 

determine they are needed to ensure the 

public has adequate notice, we will 

include them in the rule text. We will 

also include in the administrative 

record for the designation the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the maps are based, and will make them 

available to the public on the Internet 

site of the Service promulgating the 

designation, at www.regulations.gov, 

and at the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the designation. In 

addition, as is the current practice, if we 

determine that any other supporting 

information or additional tools would 

help the public understand the official 

boundary map, we will make them 

available on our Internet sites and at the 

lead field office responsible for the 

designation (and we may also include 

such information in the preamble and/ 

or at www.regulations.gov). 

(5) Comment: Under the proposed 

change, access to the GIS data 

underlying the maps would be 

restricted. 

Our Response: Access to the GIS data 

underlying the maps would continue to 

be available on our Internet sites and 

from the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the critical habitat 

designation. We will also make hard 

copies available for individuals who do 

not have access to the internet upon 

request at our field offices. Our 

statement that ‘‘we do not think it is 

necessary for the public to have UTM or 

latitude-longitude coordinates in order 

to know where critical habitat is 

located,’’ is based on our understanding 

that for the last few years the public has 

not used the UTM or latitude-longitude 

coordinates to determine if their 

property is located in critical habitat 

areas, and that the UTM and latitudelongitude coordinates published in the 

Federal Register have not helped most 

individuals determine if their property 

is in or out of critical habitat 

designations, because they would need 

to have access to USGS quadrangle 

maps in order to plot the coordinates to 

determine the boundaries of critical 

habitat. We will continue to include in 

the administrative record the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the maps are based, and we will make 

those coordinates and/or plot points 

available to the public on our Internet 

sites and at the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for the critical 

habitat designation, and at 

www.regulations.gov, but will not 

publish these data in the Federal 

Register. 

(6) Comment: The Service’s intention 

to address the technical publishing 

limitations by directing the public to 

their Internet sites and local offices for 

more information is inadequate. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 4, we will address 

the technical publishing limitations by 

including whatever explanatory text the 

Service responsible for the designation 

determines is necessary to ensure the 

public has adequate notice of the 

designation. In addition, the coordinates 

and/or plot points from which the maps 

are generated will be included in the 

administrative record for the 

designation, and will be available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. For the convenience of 

the public, we will continue the current 

practice of making available on the 

Internet site and at the local field office 

of the designating Service any 

supporting information or additional 

tools that it determines would help the 

public understand the official boundary 

map. 

(7) Comment: The reliance on 

pictorial maps would affect the 

Services’ ability to analyze the primary 

constituent elements (PCE), economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts and the ability of the States and 

the public to consider and comment on 

these issues. 

Our Response: The Services are not 

changing the way we analyze the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, including the primary 

constituent elements, economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts. We will continue to define the 

critical habitat areas with coordinate 

data and use that data to generate the 

critical habitat map contained in the 

rule. The only difference from the way 

we presently are operating is that we 

would no longer publish the coordinate 

data in the Federal Register. The States 

and the public would still have that 

information in the supporting 

administrative record, and would be 

able to obtain it on our Internet sites, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the critical habitat designation. 

(8) Comment: Internet site addresses 

that contain the critical habitat 

boundaries should be provided in easily 

accessible locations for both the 

proposed and final rules. 

Our Response: We will continue to 

provide the critical habitat boundary 

information on our Internet sites and at 

the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the critical habitat 

designation and will make it available at 

www.regulations.gov for easy access. We 

will also continue to publish the 

Internet sites and local office addresses 

in the Federal Register for both the 

proposed and final critical habitat rules. 

(9) Comment: Complete metadata 

related to critical habitat maps, as well 

as a complete legal description of the 

boundary, should be available on the 

Services’ Internet sites and at all local 

field offices within the region of the 

designation. 

Our Response: We will provide this 

information on our Internet sites and at 

the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the critical habitat 

designation (and we may also make it 

available at www.regulations.gov). 

(10) Comment: In describing the 

proposed and final critical habitat 

boundary designation, the maps and 

data used in the Federal Register and 

other information vehicles should 

include references to how accurate the 

underlying data are and what at least 

the essential elements of the metadata 

are. 

Our Response: Information about the 

metadata and the accuracy of the data 

will be provided in the supporting 

rulemaking files for the proposed and 

final critical habitat boundaries. We will 

not publish this information in the 

Federal Register. 

(11) Comment: Critical habitat 

boundaries should be available in a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25615 

geographic information system (GIS) 

compatible format for downloading. 

Our Response: We concur, and we 

will provide GIS maps on our Internet 

sites and at the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for the critical 

habitat designation (and we may also 

make it available at 

www.regulations.gov). 

Public Comments 

(12) Comment: Three commenters 

fully support the proposal, because it 

would significantly streamline the 

process of designating critical habitat, 

would not weaken the effectiveness of 

the Act for wildlife, and would not 

undermine the public’s ability to 

identify the boundaries of proposed and 

final critical habitat designations. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

comments, and agree. 

(13) Comment: One commenter stated 

that there was inconsistent language in 

the proposed rule that should be 

clarified and corrected. In 50 CFR 

424.12(c) we use an ‘‘and’’ between the 

clauses and in 50 CFR 424.18(a) we use 

an ‘‘or’’ between the clauses. 

Our Response: We do not believe that 

the language is inconsistent as 

proposed. The ‘‘and’’ between the 

phrases in 50 CFR 424.12(c) is referring 

to the detailed information that will be 

provided in the preamble for each 

critical habitat designation. This 

information will also be on our Internet 

sites and at the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for the critical 

habitat designation. The ‘‘or’’ between 

the clauses in 50 CFR 424.18(a) is 

referring to the additional tools and 

supporting information that we will 

make available if we determine it would 

help the public understand the official 

boundary map. Such additional tools or 

supporting information may be 

published in the preamble of the 

rulemaking document or at 

www.regulations.gov, or—depending on 

the size, detail, etc.—may only be made 

available from our Internet sites and the 

lead office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. 

(14) Comment: Two commenters 

stated the definitive regulatory text is 

necessary to set forth the extent of 

critical habitat, its intended function 

and purpose, its regulatory basis, and 

any related interpretations. 

Our Response: We will continue to 

provide textual descriptions as 

necessary for purposes of clarifying or 

refining the location and boundaries of 

each area or to explain the exclusion of 

sites (e.g., paved roads, buildings) 

within the mapped area. The major 

change from the way we are currently 

doing business is that we would not 

publish the coordinates of the critical 

habitat boundaries in the Federal 

Register. This information would still 

be part of the administrative record 

underlying the designation, and will be 

available to the public on the Internet 

site of the Service promulgating the 

designation, at www.regulations.gov, 

and at the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the designation. 

(15) Comment: The proposed rule 

raises the possibility of overbroad 

designations of critical habitat made 

without careful prior analysis of the 

primary constituent elements, areas of 

exclusion for existing facilities, and 

delineation of the critical habitat 

boundaries. 

Our Response: We are not changing 

the way we analyze physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, including 

the primary constituent elements, areas 

of exclusion for existing facilities or 

delineation of the critical habitat 

boundaries. We will continue to 

generate the coordinates of the 

boundaries of the critical habitat, which 

will in turn provide the basis for the 

maps and any necessary textual 

descriptions published in the Federal 

Register. Therefore, the coordinate 

information will be part of the 

rulemaking files and will be available to 

the public. This will save the Federal 

government money, and provide better 

and easier public access to the data. 

(16) Comment: One commenter asked 

why the public was left out of the 50 

CFR 424.16(ii) language. 

Our Response: This section only 

applies to State and local governments. 

The public is always invited to 

comment, and this in no way prevents 

that from occurring. 

(17) Comment: One commenter 

wanted to know at whose discretion is 

the optional additional textual data 

provided, and what criteria go into that 

decision. 

Our Response: The discretion would 

fall to the Secretary of the Interior for 

critical habitat being designated by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and to the 

Secretary of Commerce for critical 

habitat being designated by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. The 

conditions that would lead the 

designating Secretary to make the 

decision to publish rule text in addition 

to the maps would include instances in 

which the rule text is necessary to 

ensure that the public has adequate 

notice of the location and boundaries of 

the designation or to explain the 

exclusion of sites (e.g., paved roads, 

buildings) within the mapped area. 

(18) Comment: One commenter stated 

that this proposal makes an already 

inadequate and unlawful notification 

system even worse by removing all 

meaningful constraints and 

requirements on how the Services 

designate critical habitat. 

Our Response: This regulation change 

does not alter how the Services 

designate critical habitat. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the 

designating Service must ensure that the 

public has adequate notice to provide 

meaningful comment on the proposed 

designation. To do this, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must fairly 

apprise interested persons of the issues 

in the rulemaking, and the agency must 

make available the data on which the 

rule is based. In the context of 

designation of critical habitat, this 

means, among other things, that the 

notice must fairly apprise interested 

persons as to what areas may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the designating Service must make 

available the coordinate information 

and/or plot points on which the maps 

published in the Federal Register are 

based. It is our intent that every 

designation issued pursuant to these 

revised regulations meet this standard. 

This rule would simply allow us to 

eliminate publishing the rarely-used 

coordinate data in the Federal Register, 

while still providing the public with 

adequate notification. 

(19) Comment: The Services are 

violating the Act by unlawfully shifting 

the burden of demonstrating what is or 

is not critical habitat to the landowner 

by this proposed rule change. 

Our Response: This rule change 

would not shift the responsibility of 

determining which specific areas are 

critical habitat to the landowner; this 

would still be the responsibility of the 

Services. The map combined with any 

additional rule text should provide 

adequate notice to the public regarding 

the critical habitat boundaries. 

Landowners would have no added 

burden of demonstrating what is or is 

not critical habitat, and as with critical 

habitat designations under the existing 

regulations, will continue to have access 

to the coordinates and/or plot points 

underlying the maps, as well as all of 

the additional tools and supporting 

information the Service responsible for 

the designation routinely makes 

available to help the public understand 

the official boundary. 

(20) Comment: The Services’ proposal 

violates the Act’s mandate that the 

agencies designate specific, not general, 

areas. 

Our Response: The Services would 

continue to be responsible for 

identifying specific areas, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

determinable, that meet the definition of 

critical habitat in the Act. The changes 

to the regulations discussed herein will 

not have any effect or bearing on that 

statutory requirement. We have 

determined, however, that the manner 

in which we have been describing the 

boundaries of the specific areas in our 

Federal Register document is not the 

most helpful or useful to the public. 

(21) Comment: One commenter stated 

that removal of the textual descriptions 

of critical habitat would violate the Act. 

Our Response: Relying on maps and 

brief textual descriptions to identify 

areas designated as critical habitat is 

consistent with the Act, as explained 

above. In fact, the current requirement 

to publish the textual descriptions is not 

found in the Act itself, but in our 

implementing regulations. With this 

change, the implementing regulations 

would continue to prescribe the manner 

in which the Secretaries will delineate 

critical habitat boundaries; the manner 

those regulations prescribe for 

delineating critical habitat boundaries 

would leave to the discretion of the 

agencies whether it was necessary to 

include the publication of textual 

descriptions in the Federal Register in 

a particular designation. 

(22) Comment: The Services’ assertion 

that even more limited descriptions of 

critical habitat will be sufficient to 

inform the public is unsupported and 

wrong, because map scales are too 

general to be of much use to individual 

landowners. 

Our Response: It is true that due to 

technical publishing limitations, the 

scale of some maps that will be 

published in the Federal Register may 

necessitate that we provide explanatory 

text for clarification. If the maps are 

ambiguous such that rule text would be 

needed to ensure the public has 

adequate notice of the designation, we 

will include accompanying text in the 

rule. Moreover, as with critical habitat 

designations under the existing 

regulations, the public will continue to 

have access to the coordinates and/or 

plot points underlying the maps, as well 

as all of the additional tools and 

supporting information the Service 

responsible for the designation routinely 

makes available to help the public 

understand the official boundary. 

(23) Comment: The Services’ proposal 

supplants established surveying 

techniques with unspecified general 

descriptions to the detriment of private 

landowners. 

Our Response: We would continue to 

use established surveying techniques for 

defining the boundaries of critical 

habitat, which would then be 

represented in the maps and any 

accompanying textual descriptions in 

the Federal Register. 

(24) Comment: One commenter stated 

that publishing only a detailed 

description of the critical habitat 

violates the Act, which requires 

publication of the complete text of the 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: We interpret the 

mandate to publish the ‘‘complete text’’ 

of the proposed regulation as requiring 

that the regulation provide a sufficiently 

detailed description of the area included 

within the proposed designation so as to 

provide all interested persons with an 

understanding of the critical habitat 

boundaries and a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on those 

boundaries. The regulation changes will 

allow us to continue to meet that 

mandate by publishing maps of the 

critical habitat boundaries. 

(25) Comment: The Services’ 

proposed changes would deny 

landowners due process. 

Our Response: We will continue to 

provide a sufficiently detailed 

description in the Federal Register of 

the critical habitat area in the form of 

maps and any accompanying rule text 

that is needed to provide landowners 

with a meaningful opportunity to 

comment. We will also continue to 

include within the administrative 

record for the designation the 

coordinates and/or plot points that were 

used to generate the maps and will 

make this data available on the Services’ 

Internet sites, www.regulations.gov, and 

at the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for the designation. In 

addition, as we already do under the 

existing regulations, whenever we 

conclude that additional tools or 

supporting information would help the 

public understand the official boundary, 

we will make those materials available 

on our Internet sites and at the lead field 

office of the Service responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and we may 

also provide them at 

www.regulations.gov). These changes 

will continue to provide landowners 

due process, as they will not alter the 

nature of the information the public 

currently uses to identify critical habitat 

boundaries. 

(26) Comment: The projected cost 

savings is minuscule compared to the 

increased cost burdens that will be 

imposed on individual property owners. 

Our Response: We do not anticipate 

that this change would impose 

increased cost burdens on individual 

property owners. The critical habitat 

boundaries will be reflected in maps 

and any accompanying text published 

in the Federal Register. In addition, 

individual property owners will be able 

to easily access additional information 

regarding the critical habitat designation 

on our Internet sites, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the critical habitat designation. We will 

not only save Federal monies, but also 

reduce the cost burden on individual 

property owners by making critical 

habitat information easier to obtain. 

(27) Comment: The Services should 

provide written notice directly to the 

owners of land by mail whenever they 

propose to include land in a critical 

habitat designation. 

Our Response: In addition to the 

Federal Register notices, the Services 

provide notification through outreach 

materials including press releases and 

legal notices in newspapers of the 

affected areas. We believe these 

outreach efforts are sufficient to inform 

the public about proposed critical 

habitat designations. Notifying property 

owners by mail would be costly, time 

consuming, and largely duplicative of 

our current outreach efforts. 

(28) Comment: The Services should 

publish maps in the Federal Register of 

a sufficient scale and with sufficient 

detail to allow a landowner to 

determine whether their property falls 

within a proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: The Federal Register 

limitations on map size and detail 

prevent the Services from being able to 

improve upon the present maps being 

published in the Federal Register. We 

will publish maps in the Federal 

Register in as detailed a manner as 

possible, given the technical limitations. 

For designations with large-scale maps, 

the map itself may leave ambiguity as to 

whether a particular property is within 

the mapped boundaries (and therefore 

covered by the critical habitat 

designation). When the designating 

Service determines that additional 

regulatory text clarifying ambiguities in 

the map is needed to ensure that the 

public would have adequate notice of 

the critical habitat boundaries, the 

designating Service will provide 

additional regulation text. The 

designating Service will ensure that the 

notice of proposed rulemaking provides 

sufficient notice of the boundary of the 

proposed designation to afford the 

public a meaningful opportunity to 

comment on it. Moreover, the Services 

will make available the underlying 

rulemaking files for the proposed and 

final rule (including the coordinate 

information and/or plot points on which 

the maps published in the Federal 

Register are based). 

(29) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that if the proposed rule is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25617 

adopted, it will reduce information that 

must be published in the Federal 

Register when designating critical 

habitat, and would potentially provide 

the opportunity to change the 

information available at agencies 

without going through rulemaking. 

Our Response: We would not be able 

to change the critical habitat designation 

without going through the rulemaking 

process. We have acknowledged that 

what is printed in the Federal Register 

and subsequently in the CFR will be the 

legally binding delineation of critical 

habitat. Should there be ambiguity due 

to the scale of the map such that 

additional regulatory text clarifying 

ambiguities in the map is needed to 

ensure that the public would have 

adequate notice of the boundaries, we 

will provide additional regulation text. 

The only change in the Federal Register 

would be the lack of the detailed 

coordinate data of the boundaries of the 

specific areas being designated as 

critical habitat (i.e., latitude-longitude 

and UTM coordinates). We would still 

generate that data, and would make it 

available on our Internet sites, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the critical habitat designation. Neither 

the critical habitat designation 

published in the Federal Register, nor 

the underlying data on which it is 

based, could be changed without 

undergoing a further rulemaking. 

(30) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the proposed approach could create 

significant concerns if implemented in a 

manner that designates wide swaths of 

lands on a map, only certain areas of 

which contain the physical and 

biological features necessary for 

conservation of the species. 

Our Response: The way we designate 

critical habitat would not change. This 

rule change would simply remove the 

requirement that we publish the 

reference points (i.e., textual 

descriptions) in the Federal Register 

and reprint them annually in the CFR. 

In addition, in instances where there are 

areas within a bigger area that do not 

contain the physical and biological 

features necessary for the conservation 

of the species, the Services would have 

the option of drawing the map to reflect 

only those parts of the area that do 

contain those features, or including a 

textual description that excludes from 

the designation specific areas that do 

not contain those features. 

(31) Comment: One commenter 

proposes that we add the following 

sentence to 50 CFR 424.18(a): ‘‘General 

descriptions of the location and 

boundaries of each area may be 

provided for clarification purposes or to 

explain the exclusion of sites (e.g., 

paved roads, buildings, etc.) within the 

mapped area.’’ 

Our Response: We have inserted that 

language in 50 CFR 424.12(c). We do not 

believe it is necessary to repeat this in 

50 CFR 424.18(a). 

(32) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned about the removal of the 

textual descriptions of existing final 

critical habitat boundaries set forth in 

the CFR and whether the broad scale 

maps would increase critical habitat. 

Our Response: Removing the 

coordinate data from the Federal 

Register and CFR will not increase or 

otherwise change the critical habitat 

boundaries or areas. We are merely 

planning to remove the reference points 

(i.e., UTM or latitude-longitude 

coordinates) of the textual descriptions 

from existing final critical habitat 

designations in the Federal Register and 

CFR in future rule making. We will, 

however, continue to provide this 

information on our Internet sites, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the critical habitat designation. 

(33) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, without the requirement of a 

written description, there is no 

assurance that the maps will or will not 

indicate the boundary of the critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: We are making the 

textual descriptions optional. This 

means we will not, in most cases, 

publish the reference points (i.e., UTM 

or latitude-longitude coordinates) in the 

Federal Register. However, every 

critical habitat designation must include 

a map delineating the critical habitat 

boundary, and may also include general 

textual descriptions for clarification 

purposes or to explain the exclusion of 

sites (e.g., paved roads, buildings, etc.) 

within the mapped area. The critical 

habitat map, combined with any general 

textual descriptions included in the rule 

text, will provide the public with 

adequate notice of where the boundary 

of the critical habitat designation is 

located. As we have acknowledged, 

therefore, the final rule published in the 

Federal Register and subsequently in 

the CFR will continue to contain the 

legally binding delineation of critical 

habitat. However, if for some reason a 

member of the public is uncertain about 

the boundaries of a particular critical 

habitat designation even after reading 

the map and any regulatory text, they 

will continue to have access to the 

coordinates and/or plot points 

underlying the maps, as well as all of 

the additional tools and supporting 

information the Service responsible for 

the designation already routinely makes 

available to assist the public in 

understanding the official boundary. 

(34) Comment: One commenter stated 

that our proposed changes to 50 CFR 

17.94(b) (Each Critical Habitat area will 

be shown on a map, with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents published 

in the Federal Register and made 

available from the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for such 

designation) was in conflict with our 

proposed changes to 50 CFR 424.18(a) 

(The Service may also create additional 

explanatory text, information, or maps 

and include them in the preamble of the 

rulemaking document or make them 

available from the lead office 

responsible for the designation). 

Our Response: The two provisions 

referenced by the commenter are 

consistent. Both provisions have two 

components. The first component 

requires that the detailed description of 

the action contained in the Federal 

Register rule and then in the CFR will 

include a map delineating the boundary 

of the designation. This can be found at 

50 CFR 424.18(a) (‘‘For a rule 

designating or revising critical habitat, 

the detailed description of the action 

will include a map that delineates the 

official boundary of the designation.’’) 

and at 50 CFR 17.94(b) (‘‘Each Critical 

Habitat area will be shown on a map 

* * *’’). The requirement to include a 

map in the detailed description of the 

action does not eliminate the option of 

also including additional clarifying rule 

text within that detailed description. 

The second component of the two 

provisions outlines ways to provide 

more information that we believe would 

be helpful to inform the public on the 

location of critical habitat above and 

beyond the detailed description of the 

action. This can be found at 50 CFR 

17.94(b) (‘‘with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents published 

in the Federal Register and made 

available from the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for such 

designation.’’) and at 50 CFR 424.18(a) 

(‘‘The Service responsible for the 

designation will include more-detailed 

information in the preamble of the 

rulemaking document and will make the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the map is based available to the public 

on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25618 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov)’’). Therefore, in 

accordance with 50 CFR 17.94(b), the 

more-detailed information we provide 

in the preamble of the rulemaking 

document will also be available from 

the lead Service office responsible for 

the designation. Any additional tools or 

supporting information––explanatory 

text, information, or maps––that we may 

provide would, in accordance with 50 

CFR 424.18(a), be available through our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

responsible for the designation, and 

depending on the size and format of that 

supporting information, it may also be 

included in the preamble to the 

rulemaking document and/or at 

www.regulations.gov. Also under 50 

CFR 424.18(a), the coordinates and/or 

plot points on which the map is based 

would be available at the Internet site 

and lead field office of the Service 

promulgating the designation and at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Regulation Changes 

50 CFR 17.94(b) 

The existing regulation states that the 

map provided by the Director does not, 

unless otherwise indicated, constitute 

the definition of the boundaries of a 

critical habitat. In order to provide more 

clarity regarding the areas being 

designated, as well as be more efficient 

and cost-effective, we are changing the 

wording of the first sentence to state, 

‘‘For the critical habitat designations 

published and effective after May 31, 

2012, the map provided by the Secretary 

of the Interior, as clarified or refined by 

any textual language within the rule, 

constitutes the definition of the 

boundaries of a critical habitat.’’ We are 

replacing ‘‘the Director’’ with ‘‘the 

Secretary of the Interior’’ since the 

authority to designate critical habitat 

under the Act lies with the Secretary 

due to the Secretarial discretion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude 

specific areas from final critical habitat. 

We are limiting application of the new 

language to critical habitat designations 

published after the effective date of the 

final rule. For existing critical habitat 

designations, we also intend to remove 

the textual descriptions of final critical 

habitat boundaries set forth in the CFR 

in order to save the annual reprinting 

cost, but we must do so in separate 

rulemakings to ensure that removing the 

textual descriptions does not change the 

existing boundaries of those 

designations. 

The second sentence of the existing 

regulation states, ‘‘Such maps are 

provided for reference purposes to guide 

Federal agencies and other interested 

parties in locating the general 

boundaries of the Critical Habitat.’’ We 

are revising this sentence to read ‘‘Each 

Critical Habitat area will be shown on 

a map, with more-detailed information 

discussed in the preamble of the 

rulemaking documents published in the 

Federal Register and made available 

from the lead field office of the Service 

responsible for such designation.’’ We 

believe this will provide greater clarity 

regarding the areas being designated, as 

well as be a more efficient and costeffective way to provide information to 

the public concerning areas designated 

as critical habitat. We acknowledge that 

what is printed in the Federal Register 

and subsequently in the CFR will be the 

legally binding delineation of critical 

habitat. In addition, the Services will 

include more-detailed information in 

the preamble of the rulemaking 

document and will make the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the official map is based available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. Furthermore, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). 

We are replacing the third existing 

sentence, which currently reads, 

‘‘Critical habitats are described by 

reference to surveyable landmarks 

found on standard topographic maps of 

the area and to the States and 

county(ies) within which all or part of 

the Critical Habitat is located.’’ The new 

wording will be ‘‘Each area will be 

referenced to the State(s), county(ies), or 

other local government units within 

which all or part of the Critical Habitat 

is located. General descriptions of the 

location and boundaries of each area 

may be provided to clarify or refine 

what is included within the boundaries 

depicted on the map, or to explain the 

exclusion of sites (e.g., paved roads, 

buildings) within the mapped area.’’ 

This change will relieve us of the 

regulatory and financial burden of 

publishing the textual descriptions of 

the boundaries of critical habitat in the 

regulations, which have shown to be of 

limited use to the general public. 

50 CFR 226.101 

This section addresses critical habitat 

designations made by the Secretary of 

Commerce. We are replacing the ‘‘Maps 

and charts identifying designated 

critical habitat * * *’’ phrase in the 

beginning of the last sentence with 

‘‘Additional information regarding 

designated critical habitat * * *.’’ This 

new language will provide the 

flexibility needed to provide any kind of 

useful information to the public 

concerning areas designated as critical 

habitat, and not just maps and charts. 

50 CFR 424.12(c) 

We are removing the references to 

defining critical habitat by specific 

limits using reference points and lines 

as found on standard topographic maps 

of the area. The revision will read, 

‘‘Each Critical Habitat area will be 

shown on a map, with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents published 

in the Federal Register and made 

available from the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for such 

designation.’’ This revision will provide 

more clarity regarding the areas being 

designated, as well as relieve the 

regulatory and financial burden of both 

Services being required to print these 

reference points in the Federal Register 

and reprint them annually in the CFR. 

We acknowledge that what is printed in 

the Federal Register and subsequently 

in the CFR will be the legally binding 

delineation of critical habitat. However, 

should there be ambiguity due to the 

scale of the map such that regulatory 

text clarifying the ambiguity is needed 

to ensure that the public would have 

adequate notice of the designation, the 

Services will include clarifying rule 

text. The designating Service will make 

the coordinates and/or plot points on 

which the map is based available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25619 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). In the future, 

we intend to remove the textual 

descriptions of final critical habitat 

boundaries set forth in the CFR for 

existing critical habitat designations in 

separate rulemakings in order to save 

the annual reprinting cost, without 

changing those boundaries. 

We are adding the following sentence 

to this regulation: ‘‘Textual information 

may be included for purposes of 

clarifying or refining the location and 

boundaries of each area or to explain the 

exclusion of sites (e.g., paved roads, 

buildings) within the mapped area.’’ 

50 CFR 424.16(b) 

The change to this section is in the 

first sentence where it currently states, 

‘‘A notice of a proposed rule to carry out 

one of the actions described in § 424.10 

shall contain the complete text of the 

proposed rule.’’ We are changing the 

wording ‘‘shall contain the complete 

text of the proposed rule’’ to ‘‘will 

contain a detailed description of the 

proposed action.’’ Although we will in 

fact publish the complete proposed 

critical habitat designation, it could be 

confusing to require that the notice of a 

proposed critical habitat designation 

contain ‘‘the complete text’’ of the 

proposed regulation,’’ since as a result 

of the other changes in this notice, the 

boundaries of a critical habitat 

designation may be identified using 

only a map. Because the regulation will 

consist of the legally binding detailed 

description of the designation, which 

will include the map, we included the 

language ‘‘will contain a detailed 

description of the proposed action’’ to 

clarify that the proposed rule must 

include the maps, and may include any 

accompanying text, that establish the 

legal boundary of the designation. We 

also added that the proposed rule ‘‘may 

also include rule text that clarifies or 

modifies the map’’ to make clear that 

the designating Service has the option of 

including textual descriptions that 

clarify or modify the map. 

50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(ii) 

The change to this section is that we 

have removed the parenthetical phrase 

‘‘(including the complete text of the 

regulation).’’ As stated above, although 

we would still give notice of the 

complete proposed critical habitat 

designation, it could be confusing to 

require that the notice include the 

‘‘complete text’’ of the designation, 

since as a result of the other changes in 

this notice, we are interpreting the 

‘‘complete text’’ of the designation to be 

the map, along with any optional rule 

text that may clarify the map. As 

discussed above, the Services will 

include more-detailed information in 

the preamble of the rulemaking 

document and will make the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the map is based available to the public 

on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). 

50 CFR 424.18(a) 

This section addresses the final rule 

requirements. In the second sentence of 

the existing regulation, we are replacing 

‘‘the complete text of the rule’’ with ‘‘a 

detailed description of the action being 

finalized.’’ As with the sections above 

that deal with the requirements for a 

proposed rule, changing the wording 

here, along with the other changes 

proposed in this notice, will clarify that 

the final rule must contain the detailed 

description of the designation as 

reflected in the map and any optional 

additional rule text that clarifies or 

refines the map. As discussed above, the 

Services will include more-detailed 

information in the preamble of the 

rulemaking document and will make the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the map is based available to the public 

on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). Because the 

regulation will consist of the legally 

binding detailed description of the 

designation, which will include the 

map, we included the language ‘‘will 

contain a detailed description of the 

proposed action’’ to clarify that the final 

rule must include the maps, and may 

include any accompanying text, that 

establish the legal boundary of the 

designation. 

In the fourth sentence of the existing 

regulation, we are removing the 

references to the final rule containing a 

description of the boundaries of the 

critical habitat being designated. We are 

modifying this section and expanding 

the discussion on the requirement for a 

map. The new section will read, ‘‘For a 

rule designating or revising critical 

habitat, the detailed description of the 

action will include a map of the critical 

habitat area, and may also include rule 

text that clarifies or modifies the map. 

The map itself, as modified by any rule 

text, constitutes the official boundary of 

the designation. The Service responsible 

for the designation will include moredetailed information in the preamble of 

the rulemaking document and will make 

the coordinates and/or plot points on 

which the map is based available to the 

public on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. In addition, if the 

Service responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov).’’ This change 

will provide more clarity regarding the 

areas being designated, and will assist 

the public in evaluating the coverage of 

the critical habitat designation, as well 

as allow us to reduce our printing costs 

in both the Federal Register and for the 

annual reproductions of the CFR. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

a. Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25620 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

b. Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

c. Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

d. Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq., whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

rule, if adopted, would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the RFA. This 

certification is available upon request 

(see ADDRESSES section above). 

This rule will revise the 

implementing regulations contained 

within 50 CFR 17.94(b), 226.101, 

424.12(c), 424.16(b) and (c)(1)(ii), and 

424.18(a), to eliminate the requirement 

to publish textual descriptions of 

proposed (NMFS only) and final (NMFS 

and FWS) critical habitat boundaries in 

the Federal Register and reprinting in 

the CFR, and instead provide that the 

map(s), as clarified or refined by any 

textual language within the rule, 

constitutes the definition of the 

boundaries of a Critical Habitat. A full 

description of the action, why it is being 

considered, and the legal basis for this 

action are contained in the preamble to 

this rule. The rule does not duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with other Federal 

rules. 

This rulemaking amends the 

procedural requirements for NMFS and 

FWS when designating critical habitat. 

NMFS and FWS are the only entities 

that are directly affected by this rule, 

and they are not considered to be small 

entities under SBA’s size standards. 

Therefore, no small entities are directly 

affected by this rule. 

The revisions to the implementing 

regulations herein are not expected to 

impose any direct costs on regulated 

entities. Although the Services will 

make additional information available 

to assist small entities in evaluating the 

coverage of the critical habitat 

delineated by the published maps, the 

Services already make such information 

available, and our understanding is that 

small entities and the public already 

routinely make use of such information. 

Therefore, eliminating the requirement 

to publish textual descriptions and 

instead publishing the maps in the 

Federal Register and making additional 

information available on the Internet 

site of the Service promulgating the 

designation, at www.regulations.gov, 

and at local field offices would not 

impose any additional burden on small 

entities. The elimination of the 

procedural requirement to publish 

textual descriptions of proposed (NMFS 

only) and final (NMFS and FWS) critical 

habitat boundaries in the Federal 

Register and reprinting in the CFR is an 

administrative action, and it is intended 

to facilitate public understanding of the 

critical habitat designation process and 

make it easier for the public to 

determine if specific areas are within 

the critical habitat designation. In fact, 

this regulation would make the process 

more cost-effective for the agencies and 

the public as a whole, and would 

potentially save the FWS alone an 

estimated $391,742 annually. Therefore, 

for the reasons above, this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), the Services make the following 

findings: 

a. This rule will not produce a Federal 

mandate. In general, a Federal mandate 

is a provision in legislation, statute, or 

regulation that would impose an 

enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)—(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

b. This rule will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

because the revisions to the 

implementing regulations herein will 

facilitate public understanding of the 

critical habitat designation process, and 

the areas included within the critical 

habitat, and make the process more costeffective for the agencies and the public 

as a whole by potentially saving the 

FWS alone an estimated $391,742 

annually. As such, we do not believe 

that a Small Government Agency Plan is 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have evaluated the revised 

implementing regulations for 

designating critical habitat, and have 

determined that this rule does not pose 

significant takings implications. The 

revisions to the implementing 

regulations are intended to facilitate the 

public understanding of the rulemaking 

process for critical habitat. It does not 

involve individual property rights. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25621 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

The revisions to the regulations 

addressed in this rule are intended to 

facilitate the public understanding of 

the rulemaking process for critical 

habitat, and thus should not 

significantly affect or burden the 

authority of the States to govern 

themselves. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

The revisions to the regulations 

addressed in this rule are intended to 

facilitate the public understanding of 

the rulemaking process for critical 

habitat, and thus should not 

significantly affect or burden the 

judicial system. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

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

This rule will not impose recordkeeping 

or reporting requirements on State or 

local governments, individuals, 

businesses, or organizations. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We analyzed this rule in accordance 

with the criteria of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), 43 CFR part 

46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 

2 and 8. 

A categorical exclusion from NEPA 

documentation applies to policies, 

directives, regulations, and guidelines 

that are ‘‘of an administrative, financial, 

legal, technical, or procedural nature’’ 

(43 CFR 46.210(i)). However, even if an 

individual Federal action falls within a 

categorical exclusion, the Service must 

still prepare environmental documents 

pursuant to NEPA if one of the 12 

exceptions listed in 43 CFR 46.215 

applies. 

We have reviewed each of the 12 

exceptions and have found that because 

this rule is administrative in nature (i.e., 

we are making optional the inclusion of 

any textual description of the 

boundaries of the designation in the 

Federal Register), none of the 

exceptions apply. Therefore, this action 

meets the requirements for a categorical 

exclusion from the NEPA process 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ and the Department of 

the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Native American Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have evaluated the potential effects on 

federally recognized Tribes from these 

revisions to our implementing 

regulations for critical habitat. We have 

determined that there are no potential 

effects to federally recognized Tribes, 

since the revisions to the implementing 

regulations are intended to facilitate the 

public understanding of critical habitat 

designations and save taxpayer monies. 

We will, however, continue to 

coordinate with Tribes as we 

promulgate critical habitat designations. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. 

‘‘Significant energy action’’ means any 

action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking that is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This rule to 

revise the implementing regulations for 

designating critical habitat does not 

qualify as a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866 and will 

not have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, and has not been designated by 

the Adminstrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are staff members from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 17, 226, 

and 424 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we are amending parts 

17, 226, and 424, title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.94, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.94 Critical habitats. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) For the critical habitat 

designations published and effective 

after May 31, 2012, the map provided by 

the Secretary of the Interior, as clarified 

or refined by any textual language 

within the rule, constitutes the 

definition of the boundaries of a critical 

habitat. Each critical habitat area will be 

shown on a map, with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents published 

in the Federal Register and made 

available from the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for such 

designation. Each area will be 

referenced to the State(s), county(ies), or 

other local government units within 

which all or part of the critical habitat 

is located. General descriptions of the 

location and boundaries of each area 

may be provided to clarify or refine 

what is included within the boundaries 

depicted on the map, or to explain the 

exclusion of sites (e.g., paved roads, 

buildings) within the mapped area. 

Unless otherwise indicated within the 

critical habitat descriptions, the names 

of the State(s) and county(ies) are 

provided for informational purposes 

only and do not constitute the 

boundaries of the area. 

(2) For critical habitat designations 

published and effective on or prior to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
25622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

May 31, 2012, the map provided by the 

Secretary of the Interior is for reference 

purposes to guide Federal Agencies and 

other interested parties in locating the 

general boundaries of the critical 

habitat. The map does not, unless 

otherwise indicated, constitute the 

definition of the boundaries of a critical 

habitat. Critical habitats are described 

by reference to surveyable landmarks 

found on standard topographic maps of 

the area and to the States and 

county(ies) within which all or part of 

the critical habitat is located. Unless 

otherwise indicated within the critical 

habitat description, the State and 

county(ies) names are provided for 

informational purposes only. 

* * * * * 

CHAPTER II—NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PART 226—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. 

■ 4. Revise § 226.101 to read as follows: 

§ 226.101 Purpose and scope. 

The regulations contained in this part 

identify those habitats designated by the 

Secretary of Commerce as critical, under 

section 4 of the Act, for endangered and 

threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Commerce. Those species are 

enumerated at § 223.102 of this chapter 

if threatened and at § 224.101 of this 

chapter if endangered. For regulations 

pertaining to the designation of critical 

habitat, see part 424 of this title; for 

regulations pertaining to prohibitions 

against the adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat, see part 

402 of this title. Additional information 

regarding designated critical habitats 

that is not provided in this section may 

be obtained upon request to the Office 

of Protected Resources (see § 222.102, 

definition of ‘‘Office of Protected 

Resources’’). 

CHAPTER IV—JOINT REGULATIONS 

(UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 

SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE); 

ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMITTEE 

REGULATIONS 

PART 424—[AMENDED] 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 424 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–205, 87 Stat. 884; 

Pub. L. 95–632, 92 Stat. 3751; Pub. L. 96–159, 

93 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 97–304, 96 Stat. 1411 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 6. In § 424.12, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 424.12 Criteria for designating critical 

habitat. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each critical habitat area will be 

shown on a map, with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents published 

in the Federal Register and made 

available from the lead field office of the 

Service responsible for such 

designation. Textual information may be 

included for purposes of clarifying or 

refining the location and boundaries of 

each area or to explain the exclusion of 

sites (e.g., paved roads, buildings) 

within the mapped area. Each area will 

be referenced to the State(s), county(ies), 

or other local government units within 

which all or part of the critical habitat 

is located. Unless otherwise indicated 

within the critical habitat descriptions, 

the names of the State(s) and county(ies) 

are provided for informational purposes 

only and do not constitute the 

boundaries of the area. Ephemeral 

reference points (e.g., trees, sand bars) 

shall not be used in any textual 

description used to clarify or refine the 

boundaries of critical habitat. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 424.16, revise paragraphs (b) 

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

§ 424.16 Proposed rules. 

* * * * * 

(b) Contents. A notice of a proposed 

rule to carry out one of the actions 

described in § 424.10 will contain a 

detailed description of the proposed 

action and a summary of the data on 

which the proposal is based (including, 

as appropriate, citation of pertinent 

information sources) and will show the 

relationship of such data to the rule 

proposed. If such a rule proposes to 

designate or revise critical habitat, such 

summary will, to the maximum extent 

practicable, include a brief description 

and evaluation of those activities 

(whether public or private) that, in the 

opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken, 

may adversely modify such habitat or 

may be affected by such designation. 

For any proposed rule to designate or 

revise critical habitat, the detailed 

description of the action will include a 

map of the critical habitat area, and may 

also include rule text that clarifies or 

modifies the map. Any such notice 

proposing the listing, delisting, or 

reclassification of a species or the 

designation or revision of critical habitat 

will also include a summary of factors 

affecting the species and/or its 

designated critical habitat. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Give actual notice of the proposed 

regulation to the State agency in each 

State in which the species is believed to 

occur and to each county or equivalent 

jurisdiction therein in which the species 

is believed to occur, and invite the 

comment of each such agency and 

jurisdiction; 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 424.18, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 424.18 Final rules—general. 

(a) Contents. A final rule promulgated 

to carry out the purposes of the Act will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

This publication will contain a detailed 

description of the action being finalized, 

a summary of the comments and 

recommendations received in response 

to the proposal (including applicable 

public hearings), summaries of the data 

on which the rule is based and the 

relationship of such data to the final 

rule, and a description of any 

conservation measures available under 

the rule. Publication of a final rule to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species or 

designate or revise critical habitat will 

also provide a summary of factors 

affecting the species. 

(1) For a rule designating or revising 

critical habitat, the detailed description 

of the action will include a map of the 

critical habitat area, and may also 

include rule text that clarifies or 

modifies the map. The map itself, as 

modified by any rule text, constitutes 

the official boundary of the designation. 

(i) The Service responsible for the 

designation will include more-detailed 

information in the preamble of the 

rulemaking document and will make the 

coordinates and/or plot points on which 

the map is based available to the public 

on the Internet site of the Service 

promulgating the designation, at 

www.regulations.gov, and at the lead 

field office of the Service responsible for 

the designation. 

(ii) In addition, if the Service 

responsible for the designation 

concludes that additional tools or 

supporting information would be 

appropriate and would help the public 

understand the official boundary map, it 

will, for the convenience of the public, 

make those additional tools and 

supporting information available on our 

Internet sites and at the lead field office 

of the Service that is responsible for the 

critical habitat designation (and may 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25623 

also include it in the preamble and/or 

at www.regulations.gov). 

(2) The rule will, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include a brief 

description and evaluation of those 

activities (whether public or private) 

that might occur in the area and which, 

in the opinion of the Secretary, may 

adversely modify such habitat or be 

affected by such designation. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10178 Filed 4–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P; 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120316196–2422–02] 

RIN 0648–BB89 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery; Interim Action; 

Republication 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; interim 

measures; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is republishing a 

temporary rule that implements interim 

Gulf of Maine (GOM) Atlantic cod (cod) 

management measures for the 2012 

fishing year. This republication is 

necessary to ensure the effective date for 

the rule’s measures are consistent with 

NMFS’s interim rule authority provided 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This rule is 

unchanged from the rule published on 

April 3, 2012, and subsequently 

withdrawn. The need of the interim 

measures is unchanged by the 

withdrawal and republication: To 

establish GOM cod Annual Catch Limits 

(ACLs); implement recreational 

management measures that will 

constrain catch to the recreational subACL; and reduce overfishing occurring 

on GOM cod in anticipation of further 

action to end overfishing in fishing year 

2013. 

DATES: Effective May 1, 2012, until 

October 29, 2012; comments must be 

received by May 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0045,’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0045 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Daniel Morris, Acting Regional 

Administrator, 55 Great Republic Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Copies of the supplemental 

environmental assessment (EA) 

prepared for this action by NMFS are 

available from Daniel Morris, Acting 

Regional Administrator, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

The supplemental EA is accessible via 

the Internet at http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov. A copy of the most 

recent stock assessment for GOM cod is 

also accessible via the Internet at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

phone: 978–281–9104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Explanation of Withdrawal and 

Republication of GOM Cod Interim 

Measures 

NMFS published the information that 

follows in this rule’s preamble, 

classification, and amendatory language 

on April 3, 2012 (77 FR 19944), in the 

Federal Register. The interim rule 

measures were issued under authority of 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and were designed to become 

effective on May 1, 2012, the first day 

of the 2012 GOM cod fishing year. The 

initially published interim rule did 

specify that the measures were to 

become effective on May 1, 2012, and 

were to be in effect for 180 days from 

the date of publication (April 3– 

September 30, 2012). The interim rule 

was published in advance of the start of 

the fishing year to afford advanced 

notice of the measures to fishery 

participants and the interested public. 

However, the effective date specified 

in the April 3, 2012 published interim 

rule is inconsistent with NMFS’s 

authority provided by section 305(c) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which 

specifies that interim rules cannot be 

effective for more than 180 days from 

the date the rule publishes in the 

Federal Register. However, the rule was 

intended to be effective for 180 days 

from May 1, 2012, not April 3, 2012. 

Because the language pertaining to 

effective dates for interim rules is 

specific in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

NMFS could not issue a correction 

notice to change the effective date and 

reset the 180-day effective period. 

To ensure that the interim rule 

measures effective date (May 1, 2012) 

and duration (180 days) is both correct 

and consistent with the authority 

provided to NMFS by the MagnusonStevens Act, we withdrew the rule 

published on April 3, 2012 (77 FR 

19944), and are now republishing the 

rule in the Federal Register, with 

minimal changes to explain the 

withdrawal and republication. For 

clarity, the language, descriptions, 

measures, and rules being implemented 

by this rule are the same as those 

previously published and withdrawn. 

The language that follows this section is 

unchanged from the language contained 

in the previously published and 

withdrawn rule. 

Plain Language Executive Summary 

A recent assessment of the amount of 

cod found in the GOM was finalized in 

January 2012. The results are 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES