Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18173 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AW92 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

Alabama Pearlshell, Round 

Ebonyshell, Southern Sandshell, 

Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw 

Bean, and Threatened Status for the 

Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, and 

Fuzzy Pigtoe; With Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the October 4, 2011, rule proposing 

endangered status for the Alabama 

pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), 

round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), 

southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), 

southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa 

choctawensis), and threatened status for 

the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), 

narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), 

and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema 

strodeanum), and designation of their 

critical habitat, under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for these eight species and an amended 

required determinations section of the 

proposal. We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

the associated DEA, and the amended 

required determinations section. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

April 26, 2012. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed rule 

and draft economic analysis on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket Number FWS–R4–ES–2011– 

0050, or by mail from the Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Comment submission: You may 

submit written comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2011– 

0050; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1601 

Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; 

telephone 850–769–0552; facsimile 

850–763–2177. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

designation of critical habitat for these 

eight mussels that was published in the 

Federal Register on October 4, 2011 (76 

FR 61482), our DEA of the proposed 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The distribution of the eight 

mussels; 

(b) The amount and distribution of 

habitat for these eight mussels; and 

(c) What areas occupied by these 

species at the time of listing contain 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species that we should include in 

the designation and why, and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential to the 

conservation of these species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

from the proposed designation that are 

subject to these impacts. 

(5) The projected and reasonably 

likely impacts of climate change on 

these eight mussels and on the critical 

habitat we are proposing. 

(6) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

(7) Information on the extent to which 

the description of economic impacts in 

the DEA is complete and accurate. 

(8) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and 

how the consequences of such reactions, 

if likely to occur, would relate to the 

conservation and regulatory benefits of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed rule (76 FR 

61482) during the initial comment 

period from October 4, 2011, to 

December 5, 2011, please do not 

resubmit them. We will incorporate 

them into the public record as part of 

this comment period, and we will fully 

consider them in the preparation of our 

final determination. Our final 

determination concerning designation of 

critical habitat will take into 

consideration all written comments and 

any additional information we receive 

during both comment periods. On the 

basis of public comments, we may, 

during the development of our final 

determination, find that areas proposed 

are not essential, are appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

or DEA by one of the methods listed in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the ADDRESSES section. We request that 

you send comments only by the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. We will post all 

hardcopy comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov as well. If you 

submit a hardcopy comment that 

includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule and 

DEA, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Panama City Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section, above). 

You may obtain copies of the proposed 

rule and the DEA on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

Number FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050, or by 

mail from the Panama City Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section, above). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Alabama pearlshell, round ebonyshell, 

southern sandshell, southern 

kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered 

pigtoe, narrow pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe 

in this document. For more information 

on previous Federal actions concerning 

these eight species, or their biology and 

habitat needs, refer to the proposed 

listing and designation of critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61482). This 

document is available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number 

FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050) or from the 

Panama City Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, above). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 4, 2011, we published a 

proposed rule to list and designate 

critical habitat for these species (76 FR 

61482). We proposed to designate 

approximately 2,406 kilometers (km) 

(1,495 miles (mi)) of stream and river 

channels within Bay, Escambia, Holmes, 

Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, 

and Washington Counties, Florida; and 

Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Coffee, 

Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, 

Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, 

Monroe, and Pike Counties, Alabama. 

We will submit for publication in the 

Federal Register a final critical habitat 

designation for these eight species on or 

before October 4, 2012. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions 

affecting critical habitat must consult 

with us on the effects of their proposed 

actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such exclusion will not result 

in the extinction of these species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus 

(activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies), the educational benefits of 

mapping areas containing essential 

features that aid in the recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, the economic impacts of 

designation; whether exclusion of a 

specific area is likely to result in 

conservation; the continuation, 

strengthening, or encouragement of 

partnerships; or implementation of a 

management plan. In the case of these 

eight mussels, the benefits of critical 

habitat include public awareness of the 

presence of these species and the 

importance of habitat protection, and, 

where a Federal nexus exists, increased 

habitat protection for these species due 

to protection from adverse modification 

or destruction of critical habitat. In 

practice, situations with a Federal nexus 

exist primarily on Federal lands or for 

projects undertaken by Federal agencies. 

We have not proposed to exclude any 

areas from critical habitat. However, the 

final decision on whether to exclude 

any areas will be based on the best 

scientific data available at the time of 

the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period and information about 

the economic impact of designation. 

Accordingly, we have prepared a draft 

economic analysis concerning the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

(DEA), which is available for review and 

comment (see ADDRESSES section, 

above). 

Draft Economic Analysis 

The purpose of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

critical habitat designation for these 

eight mussels. The DEA separates 

conservation measures into two distinct 

categories according to ‘‘without critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenarios. The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, considering protections 

otherwise afforded to the eight mussels 

(e.g., under the Federal listing and other 

Federal, State, and local regulations). 

The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario 

describes the incremental impacts 

specifically due to designation of 

critical habitat for these species. In other 

words, these incremental conservation 

measures and associated economic 

impacts would not occur but for the 

designation. Conservation measures 

implemented under the baseline 

(without critical habitat) scenario are 

described qualitatively within the DEA, 

but economic impacts associated with 

these measures are not quantified. 

Economic impacts are only quantified 

for conservation measures implemented 

specifically due to the designation of 

critical habitat (i.e., incremental 

impacts). For a further description of the 

methods of the analysis, see Chapter 2, 

‘‘Framework for the Analysis,’’ of the 

DEA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18175 

The DEA provides estimated costs of 

the foreseeable potential economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for these eight mussels over 

the next 20 years, which was 

determined to be the appropriate period 

for analysis because limited planning 

information is available for most 

activities to forecast activity levels for 

projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It 

identifies potential incremental costs as 

a result of the proposed critical habitat 

designation; these are those costs 

attributed to critical habitat over and 

above those baseline costs attributed to 

listing. The DEA quantifies economic 

impacts of mussel conservation efforts 

associated with the following categories 

of activity: (1) Impoundments, dams, 

and diversions; (2) dredging, 

channelization, and in-stream mining; 

(3) transportation and utilities; (4) 

residential and commercial 

development; (5) timber management, 

agriculture, and grazing; and (6) oil 

wells/drilling. 

Based on discussions with State and 

local regulatory authorities, including 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, and 

Northwest Florida Water Management 

District, land and water management 

practices are not expected to change due 

to the designation of critical habitat. 

The present value of the total 

incremental cost of critical habitat 

designation is estimated at $1.41 million 

over 20 years assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate, or $125,000 on an 

annualized basis. Transportation and 

utility activities are likely to be subject 

to the greatest incremental impacts at 

$1.02 million over 20 years, followed by 

development at $62,300; timber 

management, agriculture, and grazing 

activities at $56,600; and 

impoundments, dams, and diversions at 

$13,100 (present values over 20 years 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate). No 

incremental impacts to dredging, 

channelization, and in-stream mining 

are anticipated because these activities 

are not expected to occur within 

proposed critical habitat boundaries. No 

incremental impacts to oil wells or 

drilling operations are anticipated 

because there is no Federal nexus for 

these activities that would require 

section 7 consultation. Please refer to 

the DEA of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as all aspects of the 

proposed rule and our amended 

required determinations. We may revise 

the proposed rule or supporting 

documents to incorporate or address 

information we receive during the 

public comment period. In particular, 

we may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area, provided 

the exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of these species. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our October 4, 2011, proposed rule 

(76 FR 61482), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

executive orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have now 

made use of the DEA data to make these 

determinations. In this document, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 

13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), and the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA data, we are 

amending our required determinations 

concerning the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 

(Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use), 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 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 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

designation, we provide our analysis for 

determining whether the proposed rule 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of our final rule making. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than 

$5 million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for these 

species would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities, such as residential or 

commercial development entities. In 

order to determine whether it is 

appropriate for our agency to certify that 

the proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered each industry or category 

individually. In estimating the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. In areas where the 

these eight mussels are present, Federal 

agencies already are required to consult 

with us under section 7 of the Act on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18176 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect these species. 

If we finalize the proposed critical 

habitat designation, consultations to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat would be 

incorporated into the existing 

consultation process. 

In the DEA, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

entities resulting from implementation 

of conservation actions related to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the eight mussels. This analysis 

estimates that six small governments 

(counties) may be affected by the rule. 

The affected counties represent 9 

percent of small counties in Alabama 

and Florida. We anticipate 

approximately three to four counties 

could be affected each year, with an 

impact of approximately $875 per 

county. Assuming annual county tax 

revenues of at least $1 million, per 

county impacts represent approximately 

0.02 percent of annual revenues. 

Approximately 20 small developmentrelated entities are likely to incur 

administrative costs associated with 

section 7 consultations. Assuming that 

all of these entities are small, they 

represent approximately 0.04, or less 

than one, percent of all small developers 

and homebuilders in the affected 

counties. Annualized impacts per entity 

are approximately $48, which 

represents less than one percent of 

annual, per entity revenues. Please refer 

to the DEA of the proposed critical 

habitat designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts to small businesses. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Information for this analysis 

was gathered from the Small Business 

Administration, stakeholders, and the 

Service. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the proposed critical 

habitat designation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

As outlined in the DEA and in the 

amended RFA determination above, we 

do not believe that this rule will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. It will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year, and therefore is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on state or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. After 

careful review of the DEA we have 

determined that a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. The Office of 

Management and Budget provides 

guidance for implementing this 

executive order, and outlines the 

situations that are considered to have a 

‘‘significant energy effect’’ when 

compared with the regulatory action 

under consideration. As outlined in the 

DEA, we do not anticipate impacts to oil 

wells and drilling activities in the study 

area (critical habitat reaches and 

associated watersheds). Thus, we do not 

anticipate a ‘‘significant energy effect’’ 

from this rulemaking. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Panama City 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: March 16, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7200 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120109034–2171–01] 

RIN 0648–BB62 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery; Framework 

Adjustment 47 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

Framework Adjustment 47 (Framework 

47) to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to 

implement its measures through the 

proposed regulations. Framework 47 

was developed and adopted by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

(Council) based on the biennial review 

process established in the NE 

Multispecies FMP to develop annual 

catch limits (ACLs) and revise 

management measures necessary to 

rebuild overfished groundfish stocks 

and achieve the goals and objectives of 

the FMP. NMFS also proposes 

management measures and revisions to 

existing regulations that are not 

included in Framework 47, including 

common pool management measures for 

fishing year (FY) 2012, modification of 

the Ruhle trawl definition, modification 

of the method used to estimate fillets or 

parts of fish landed for at-home 

consumption, and clarification of the 

regulations for charter/party and 

recreational groundfish vessels fishing 

in groundfish closed areas. The 

proposed regulations are intended to 

prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished 

stocks, achieve optimum yield, and 

ensure that management measures are 

based on the best available scientific 

information. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0004,’’ 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS