31684 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 635.24, revise paragraph 

(a)(8)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) Estimated date of fishery closure 

based on when the landings are 

projected to reach 80 percent of the 

quota given the realized catch rates and 

whether they are projected to reach 100 

percent before the end of the fishing 

season; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 635.28, revise paragraphs (b)(2) 

and (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 635.28 Fishery closures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Non-linked quotas. If the overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota of a 

species or management group is not 

linked to another species or 

management group and that overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota is 

available as specified by a publication 

in the Federal Register, then that 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

commercial fishery for the shark species 

or management group will open as 

specified in § 635.27(b). When NMFS 

calculates that the overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional landings for a shark 

species and/or management group, as 

specified in § 635.27(b)(1), has reached 

or is projected to reach 80 percent of the 

applicable available overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional quota as specified 

in § 635.27(b)(1) and is projected to 

reach 100 percent of the relevant quota 

by the end of the fishing season, NMFS 

will file for publication with the Office 

of the Federal Register a notice of an 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

closure, as applicable, for that shark 

species and/or shark management group 

that will be effective no fewer than 4 

days from date of filing. From the 

effective date and time of the closure 

until NMFS announces, via the 

publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register, that additional overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota is 

available and the season is reopened, 

the overall, regional, and/or subregional fisheries for that shark species 

or management group are closed, even 

across fishing years. 

(3) Linked quotas. As specified in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quotas of some shark species and/or 

management groups are linked to the 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quotas of other shark species and/or 

management groups. For each pair of 

linked species and/or management 

groups, if the overall, regional, and/or 

sub-regional quota specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1) is available for both of the 

linked species and/or management 

groups as specified by a publication in 

the Federal Register, then the overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional 

commercial fishery for both of the 

linked species and/or management 

groups will open as specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1). When NMFS calculates 

that the overall, regional, and/or subregional landings for any species and/or 

management group of a linked group 

have reached or are projected to reach 

80 percent of the applicable available 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quota as specified in § 635.27(b)(1) and 

are projected to reach 100 percent of the 

relevant quota before the end of the 

fishing season, NMFS will file for 

publication with the Office of the 

Federal Register a notice of an overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional closure for 

all of the species and/or management 

groups in that linked group that will be 

effective no fewer than 4 days from date 

of filing. From the effective date and 

time of the closure until NMFS 

announces, via the publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register, that 

additional overall, regional, and/or subregional quota is available and the 

season is reopened, the overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional fishery for all 

species and/or management groups in 

that linked group is closed, even across 

fishing years. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–14665 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 180110024–8535–02] 

RIN 0648–BH33 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Special Management Zones for 

13 New Jersey Artificial Reefs 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS approves and 

implements management measures to 

designate 13 New Jersey artificial reefs 

as special management zones under the 

black sea bass provisions of the Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

Fishery Management Plan. The intent of 

these measures is to reduce user group 

conflicts and help maintain the 

intended socioeconomic benefits of the 

artificial reefs to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) and an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) for this action that describe the 

measures and other considered 

alternatives and analyzes of the impacts 

of the measures and alternatives. Copies 

of the EA and the IRFA are available 

upon request from Travis Ford, NOAA/ 

NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 

55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, 

MA 01930. The special management 

zone measures document is also 

accessible via the internet at: https://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

Copies of the small entity compliance 

guide are available from Michael 

Pentony, Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2298, or 

available on the internet at: http://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 6, 2015, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP) requested that the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

designate 13 artificial reef sites, 

currently permitted in Federal water by 

the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE), as 

special management zones (SMZ) under 

the black sea bass provisions of the 

Council’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

Black Sea Bass Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP), 50 CFR 648.148. The SMZ 

request noted that the NJDEP has 

received complaints from rod and reel 

anglers regarding fouling of their fishing 

gear on commercial pots/traps and lines 

on ocean reef sites for more than 20 

years. It also noted that the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) Sportfish 

Restoration Program (SRP), which was 

the primary funding source of the New 

Jersey Reef Program, had discontinued 

its funding of the program and all reef 

construction and monitoring activities 

until the gear conflicts are resolved. 

These gear conflicts are not consistent 

with the objectives of the SRP program, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31685 

which provides funding for the building 

and maintenance of the artificial reefs. 

In order to comply with the goals of the 

SRP, the FWS is requiring that state 

artificial reef programs limit gear 

conflicts by state regulations in state 

waters or by SMZs for sites in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The 

major issues from the FWS’s perspective 

include: (1) Proliferation of commercial 

fishing traps/pots on artificial reefs 

constructed with SRP funds; (2) 

commercial/recreational gear conflicts 

interfere with accomplishment of 

artificial reef grant objectives; and (3) 

absence of mechanisms to manage 

commercial fishing on reefs located in 

state-controlled waters and the EEZ. 

The Council established the SMZ 

Monitoring Team to develop an analysis 

of designating the 13 reefs as SMZs. On 

December 21, 2016, after a review of the 

Monitoring Team’s report and input 

from 3 public hearings, the Council 

recommended that NMFS designate all 

13 artificial reefs as SMZs through a 

regulatory amendment. This action 

approves and implements the Council’s 

recommended measures that apply in 

the Federal waters of the EEZ and to all 

vessels: Within the established areas of 

the SMZs, all vessels are only allowed 

to conduct fishing by handline, rod and 

reel, or spear fishing (including the 

taking of fish by hand). All pot/trap gear 

must be removed from these reef sites 

by August 8, 2018. 

The boundaries of the SMZs artificial 

reef sites encompass 19.71 square 

nautical miles (nmi2) (67.6 square 

kilometers (km2)) and are in Federal 

waters bounded by the following 

coordinates connected by straight lines 

in the sequence specified in Tables 1– 

13. 

TABLE 1—SEA GIRT REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 40°08.22′ 73°55.52′ 

ME Corner 40°07.30′ 73°56.67′ 

SE Corner 40°06.13′ 73°57.12′ 

SW Corner 40°06.17′ 73°57.57′ 

MW Corner 40°07.48′ 73°57.15′ 

NW Corner 40°08.63′ 73°55.73′ 

NE Corner 40°08.22′ 73°55.52′ 

TABLE 2—GARDEN STATE NORTH

REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°38.05′ 74°00.70′ 

TABLE 2—GARDEN STATE NORTH

REEF SITE—Continued 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

SE Corner 39°37.05′ 74°01.00′ 

SW Corner 39°37.00′ 74°02.50′ 

NW Corner 39°37.98′ 74°02.20′ 

NE Corner 39°38.05′ 74°00.70′ 

TABLE 3—GARDEN STATE SOUTH

REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°33.82′ 74°05.75′ 

SE Corner 39°33.33′ 74°05.85′ 

SW Corner 39°33.33′ 74°07.35′ 

NW Corner 39°33.80′ 74°07.20′ 

NE Corner 39°33.82′ 74°05.75′ 

TABLE 4—LITTLE EGG REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°29.00′ 74°10.00′ 

SE Corner 39°28.00′ 74°10.00′ 

SW Corner 39°28.00′ 74°12.00′ 

NW Corner 39°29.00′ 74°12.00′ 

NE Corner 39°29.00′ 74°10.00′ 

TABLE 5—ATLANTIC CITY REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°16.90′ 74°15.28′ 

SE Corner 39°13.93′ 74°11.80′ 

SW Corner 39°13.30′ 74°12.70′ 

NW Corner 39°16.22′ 74°16.18′ 

NE Corner 39°16.90′ 74°15.28′ 

TABLE 6—GREAT EGG REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°15.00′ 74°21.00′ 

SE Corner 39°14.00′ 74°21.00′ 

SW Corner 39°14.00′ 74°22.00′ 

NW Corner 39°15.00′ 74°22.00′ 

NE Corner 39°15.00′ 74°21.00′ 

TABLE 7—OCEAN CITY REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°10.75′ 74°32.45′ 

SE Corner 39°09.40′ 74°34.62′ 

SW Corner 39°09.82′ 74°34.97′ 

NW Corner 39°11.10′ 74°32.85′ 

NE Corner 39°10.75′ 74°32.45′ 

TABLE 8—SHARK RIVER REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.08′ 

SE Corner 40°06.20′ 73°41.08′ 

SW Corner 40°06.20′ 73°41.80′ 

NW Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.80′ 

NE Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.08′ 

TABLE 9—BARNEGAT LIGHT REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.10′ 

SE Corner 39°44.62′ 74°01.10′ 

SW Corner 39°44.62′ 74°01.95′ 

NW Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.95′ 

NE Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.10′ 

TABLE 10—WILDWOOD REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°57.85′ 74°39.70′ 

SE Corner 38°56.58′ 74°41.40′ 

SW Corner 38°57.55′ 74°42.60′ 

NW Corner 38°58.80′ 74°40.90′ 

NE Corner 38°57.85′ 74°39.70′ 

TABLE 11—DEEPWATER REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°59.00′ 74°10.50′ 

SE Corner 38°58.00′ 74°10.50′ 

SW Corner 38°58.00′ 74°11.50′ 

NW Corner 38°59.00′ 74°11.50′ 

NE Corner 38°59.00′ 74°10.50′ 

TABLE 12—CAPE MAY REEF SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°53.45′ 74°39.43′ 

SE Corner 38°50.07′ 74°42.25′ 

SW Corner 38°50.67′ 74°43.25′ 

NW Corner 38°53.97′ 74°40.62′ 

NE Corner 38°53.45′ 74°39.43′ 

TABLE 13—TOWNSEND INLET REEF

SITE

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°06.70′ 74°36.00′ 

SE Corner 39°06.25′ 74°36.00′ 

SW Corner 39°06.25′ 74°37.50′ 

NW Corner 39°06.70′ 74°37.50′ 

NE Corner 39°06.70′ 74°36.00′ 

Figure 1 shows the location of the 13 

artificial reef sites off the coast of New 

Jersey. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31686 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Corrections Under Regional 

Administrator Authority 

This rule includes a revision to the 

regulatory text to address text that is 

unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or that 

NMFS could otherwise improve. These 

changes are consistent with section 

305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

(MSA) which provides that the 

Secretary of Commerce may promulgate 

regulations necessary to ensure that 

amendments to an FMP are carried out 

in accordance with the FMP and the 

MSA. The revision, at § 648.148(a), 

clarifies that the Council may prohibit 

or restrain the use of specific types of 

fishing gear that are not compatible with 

the purpose of the artificial reef or fish 

attraction device or other habitat 

modification within the SMZ. 

Changes From Proposed Rule to Final 

Rule 

We made corrections to the 

coordinates for the Ocean City and 

Shark River Reef Sites to correct an error 

in the proposed rule. 

Comments and Responses 

We published a proposed rule for this 

action on February 13, 2018 (83 FR 

6152), and the comment period closed 

on March 15, 2018. We received 348 

comments about the SMZs during the 

comment period. There were 74 unique 

comments submitted in favor of the 

action. Of these, 13 were from 

recreational fishing/diving organizations 

and 61 were from individuals. One of 

the comments from an organization 

included 4,301 signatures in support of 

the action. In addition, we received 263 

form letters from individuals in support 

of the action. We received eight 

comments against implementing the 

SMZs (two from industry organizations 

and six from individuals with 

commercial fishing interests). The 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULESER09JY18.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31687 

remaining three comments were 

unrelated to this action. 

Comment 1: Comments in support of 

this action noted that this action will 

resolve the gear conflict on these reefs 

and will help restore the SRP funding. 

They argue that the vast majority of the 

funding to support these reefs comes 

from the recreational industry and that 

the original intent of these reefs was to 

promote recreational fishing. 

Furthermore, they comment that pot/ 

trap fishing is not consistent with the 

intent of the SRP, which was 

established through excise tax on 

recreational fishermen and divers. Many 

of the comments referenced the hazards 

that pot/trap fishing can cause on the 

reefs, including: Navigational hazards of 

multiple poorly marked pots; at-sea 

skirmishes; the need for crew to enter 

the water to untangle vertical lines from 

propellers; and threats to the safety of 

divers who may become entangled in 

pot lines. Many commenters said that 

pots/traps are overharvesting the reefs 

because there is no limit on the number 

of pots/traps and that these pots/traps 

take up the prime real estate on the 

reefs. In addition, they comment that 

the lost pots/traps can continue ghost 

fishing on the reefs leading to 

overharvesting. The commenters said 

that the pots/traps restrict use for other 

groups on the reefs, and that results in 

a large loss of revenue to recreational 

marine industries, including loss of 

gear, restrictions on expansion and 

maintenance of reefs, and a decrease in 

recreational fishing interest. Finally, 

regarding NMFS’ authority to 

implement this action, commenters 

discussed that this action represents the 

desires of NJDEP and the Council and a 

similar action took place on artificial 

reef sites off of Delaware in 2015. 

Response: The SMZs are intended to 

reduce the commercial/recreational gear 

conflicts on the artificial reefs, and help 

ensure unimpeded access to the 

artificial reefs for recreational and 

commercial rod and reel fishing. Both 

NJDEP and the Council recommended 

that we designate all 13 reef sites as 

SMZ for many of the reasons 

highlighted above. NMFS supports the 

Council’s recommendation to designate 

these areas as SMZs to reduce gear 

conflicts and help restore SRP funding 

to New Jersey. 

Comment 2: One individual 

commented that implementing the 

SMZs would violate National Standard 

1 of the Magnuson-Steven Act because 

it is not designed to achieve optimum 

yield of any species. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS is 

implementing this action under the 

black sea bass provisions of the Summer 

Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 

FMP. The most recent amendments to 

the FMP address how the management 

actions implemented comply with the 

National Standards. The black sea bass 

specifications are set by the Council to 

achieve optimum yield and these 

specification will take into account 

these SMZs moving forward. This action 

will not prevent the black sea bass 

fishery from achieving optimum yield. 

Comment 3: Three individuals, the 

Garden State Seafood Association 

(GSSA), and LaMonica Fine Foods 

commented that this action is not 

supported by science and gear conflicts 

are not substantiated, and is therefore a 

violation of National Standard 2 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

analysis of this action is based on the 

best scientific information available. 

Therefore, it is consistent with the 

requirements of National Standard 2. 

The EA for this action provides in-depth 

analysis of the economic and social 

impacts of designating these 13 artificial 

reef sites as SMZs. The analysis is based 

on the most recent available information 

from vessel activity along the East Coast 

where the vessels operate. This 

information is gathered from vessel trip 

reports (VTR) and fish dealer reports. 

No other information is available for 

such analyses. Vessel operators are 

required to report a single 

‘‘representative’’ point of fishing activity 

per VTR. Because self-reported VTR 

points are generally inadequate for 

identification of party/charter or 

commercial fishing activity occurring at 

a reef site, we used a statistical 

approach to assesses the spatial 

precision of the commercial fishing VTR 

points and derive probability 

distributions for actual fishing locations. 

This allowed for more robust analysis of 

the commercial fishing VTR data by 

taking into account some of the 

uncertainties around each reported 

point. The mapping approach is applied 

only to commercial fishing VTR data 

and not party/charter VTR data because 

it requires use of Northeast Observer 

Program data that are not available for 

party/charter fishing trips. Analysis of 

the impacts on the biological and 

physical environment is based on 

updated information on the status of the 

black sea bass resource and the physical 

environment. The FWS has determined 

that the gear conflicts are significant 

enough to pull the SRP funding from 

New Jersey, which is one of the driving 

factors for NJDEP and the Council 

requesting this action. However, the 

FMP does not require demonstration of 

gear conflicts to designate a reef as an 

SMZ. 

Comment 4: One individual 

commented that implementing the 

SMZs would violate National Standard 

3 of the Magnuson-Steven Act because 

it does nothing to manage any species 

of fish. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

regulations governing the designation of 

these SMZs are part of the black sea bass 

provisions of Summer Flounder, Scup 

and Black Sea Bass FMP. These SMZs 

are a tool developed in the FMP that the 

Council can use to help manage these 

stocks, consistent with National 

Standard 3. 

Comment 5: GSSA and one individual 

commented that this action is a 

violation of National Standard 4 of the 

Magnuson-Steven Act because it does 

not address several of its requirements, 

specifically: Fairness and equity 

(because it effectively bans commercial 

fishing); promotion of conservation (the 

recreational fleet will increase its catch); 

and avoidance of excessive shares (they 

claim that NMFS did not do a review to 

avoid excessive shares). 

Response: NMFS disagrees. This 

action does not violate the provisions of 

National Standard 4. National Standard 

4 guidelines at § 600.325(c) note that 

allocation of fishing privileges should 

be considered in relation to 

achievement of optimum yield or to 

achieve an objective of the FMP. This 

action allows access to New Jersey 

artificial reef sites in the EEZ only to 

those recreational and commercial 

fishermen using rod and reel and hand 

line gear in order to ameliorate gear 

conflicts between this gear type and 

fixed pot/trap gear. 

This action is consistent with the 

SMZ provisions of the Summer 

Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 

FMP. The SMZ regulations at § 648.148 

allow the Council to recommend to the 

Regional Administrator that an SMZ be 

approved. If the Regional Administrator 

concurs in the recommendation, an 

SMZ can be established. Within the 

SMZ, the Council may prohibit or 

restrain the use of specific types of 

fishing gear that are not compatible with 

the purpose of the artificial reef or fish 

attraction device or other habitat 

modification within an established 

SMZ. The Council already addressed 

these larger Magnuson-Stevens Act 

issues when it decided that the Regional 

Administrator could implement SMZs. 

This action promotes conservation as 

described in the National Standard 4 

guidelines because it encourages a 

rational, more easily managed use of the 

resource by reducing gear conflicts at 

the reef sites, and making the resource 

more accessible to rod and reel 

fishermen. More trips may be made to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31688 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

these areas if fishermen realize that they 

may no longer lose rod and reel gear to 

fixed pot/trap gear. This could result in 

increased economic benefits for those 

commercial and recreational fishermen 

who choose to fish in these areas. 

Certainly, given the small size of these 

artificial reef areas in comparison to the 

totality of available fishing grounds, 

these conservation benefits are expected 

to be minimal. This conclusion does not 

have any measureable impact on the 

overall management scheme because 

fishing mortality for the black sea bass 

stock is controlled by annual quotas 

which are allocated to the recreational 

and commercial sectors of the fishery 

based on historical performance of each 

sector. Thus, limiting access to the 

artificial reef areas under an SMZ 

designation is not be expected to affect 

achievement of the FMP’s conservation 

objectives one way or another. 

Regarding avoidance of excessive 

shares, the National Standard 4 

guidelines state that an allocation 

scheme must be designed to deter any 

person or other entity from acquiring an 

excessive share of fishing privileges, 

and to avoid creating conditions 

fostering inordinate control, by buyers 

or sellers, that would not otherwise 

exist. Designating these artificial reefs as 

SMZ does not represent an allocation 

scheme. Instead, it simply resolves user 

conflicts while enabling both 

commercial and recreational sectors to 

continue to harvest fish that are not 

controlled by vessel or group-specific 

allocations. 

Comment 6: GSSA and one individual 

commented that the NJDEP has 

managed artificial reefs to the benefit of 

both the commercial and recreational 

sectors because the Congressional 

statement of findings at 33 U.S.C. 

2101(a)(5) require it and therefore this 

action is inconsistent with these 

regulations. They also commented that 

this action is inconsistent with the 

National Artificial Reef Plan (NARP) 

standards at 33 U.S.C. 2102 and 33 CFR 

322.5(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), specifically, to 

facilitate access and use by U.S. 

recreational and commercial fishermen 

because it leaves no viable commercial 

fishery on the reef areas. In addition, 

they commented that it does not 

minimize conflicts among competing 

users of the artificial reefs and the 

resources on these reefs because it 

eliminates users rather than minimizing 

conflicts. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

statement of findings at 33 U.S.C. 

2101(a)(5) states that Congress found 

that properly designed, constructed and 

located artificial reefs can enhance 

habitat and diversity of resources; 

enhance United States recreational and 

commercial fishery resources; increase 

production of fishery product in the 

United States; increase the energy 

efficiency of recreational and 

commercial fisheries; and contribute to 

the United States and costal economies. 

These reefs were built with SRP funding 

to enhance recreational fishing. COE 

regulations at 33 U.S.C. 2101(a)(5) are 

designed to permit artificial reefs for the 

benefit of commercial and recreational 

fishing, and one of the standards for 

these regulations is the minimization of 

conflicting uses. Neither the statute nor 

the COE regulations require that all reefs 

be built to simultaneously benefit 

commercial and recreational fishing. 

This action does not prohibit 

commercial fishing on the reef sites. It 

prohibits the use of certain gears types 

on the reefs. Implementing SMZs for the 

New Jersey artificial reefs will increase 

recreational and commercial rod and 

reel fisheries opportunities, and likely 

increase energy efficiency of the 

recreational fleet (by reducing their 

search time for high quality fishing 

areas) and contribute to the U.S. and 

coastal economies. The New Jersey reefs 

were built with SRP funds to 

specifically enhance recreational 

fisheries. 

The SMZs will allow continued use 

among all to fish the artificial reefs. 

They will just be limited in the type of 

gear they can use. Anyone with proper 

commercial fishing permits may 

continue to fish on the artificial reefs 

using rod and reel or taking by hand, 

and private, charter, and party 

recreational vessels may continue to fish 

the artificial reefs with rod and reel 

gear. Although a robust commercial rod 

and reel fishery may not currently exist, 

one could operate under the restrictions 

of the SMZs. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that implementing these SMZs does not 

comply with the SMZ regulations at 50 

CFR 648.148 because this action only 

allows certain types of gear but doesn’t 

prohibit specific gears. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

regulations at § 648.148 state that the 

recipient of a COE permit for an 

artificial reef, fish attraction device, or 

other modification of habitat for 

purposes of fishing may request that an 

area surrounding and including the site 

be designated by the Council (MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council) 

as an SMZ. These SMZs will prohibit or 

restrain the use of specific types of 

fishing gear that are not compatible with 

the intent of the permitted area. This 

action would restrict use of all 

commercial gears other than handline, 

rod and reel, and spear fishing 

(including the taking of fish by hand), 

which is allowable under § 648.148. 

This is compatible with the intent of the 

New Jersey artificial reefs which were 

built with SRP funds. 

Comment 8: One individual 

commented that the Executive Order 

(E.O.) titled Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 

13771) requires that NMFS remove 

regulations in order to implement these 

new SMZs. 

Response: Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) guidance clarifies that 

E.O. 13771 only applies to rules that are 

significant, as that term is defined in 

E.O. 12866. OMB has determined that 

this rule is not significant pursuant to 

E.O. 12866. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of E.O. 

13771. 

Comment 9: One individual 

commented that NMFS should include 

estimates of profits from vessels fishing 

commercially on the reef sites so the 

public could better gauge the impact of 

the rule. 

Response: This information was 

available in the EA for this action. Table 

14 shows the ex-vessel revenue from the 

reef sites from 2011 through 2015. Since 

2012, the highest ex-vessel revenues 

were from landings at the Cape May reef 

site, which constituted almost half of 

the total ex-vessel revenue obtained 

from the 13 reef sites in 2015. Two other 

reef sites with measurable pot/trap exvessel revenue over the past few years 

include the Wildwood reef site and 

Ocean City reef site. It is important to 

point out; however, that because the 

size of each reef site is generally less 

than one square mile, the amount of 

pot/trap activity occurring at each reef 

site is limited. Ex-vessel revenue from 

pot/trap landings at all 13 reef sites 

combined approached only $25,000 in 

2015. This represents less than 1 

percent of total ex-vessel revenue (i.e., 

reef revenue and non-reef revenue 

combined) obtained by vessels with pot/ 

trap reef landings in 2015. Over the past 

5 years, ex-vessel reef revenue from pot/ 

trap landings has remained below 1 

percent of total ex-vessel revenue for 

vessels with pot/trap reef landings. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31689 

TABLE 14—EX-VESSEL REVENUE OF VTR MAPPED COMMERCIAL FISHING POT/TRAP TRIPS WHERE THE ESTIMATED

SPATIAL FOOTPRINT OF THE TRIP INCLUDES ONE OR MORE REEF SITES

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

$’s % $’s % $’s % $’s % $’s % 

Atlantic City Reef Site ............................... 3,002 13.4 5,090 12.5 1,224 4.8 894 3.8 1,422 5.7 

Barnegat Light Reef Site ........................... 51 0.2 41 0.1 44 0.2 35 0.2 50 0.2 

Cape May Reef Site .................................. 2,086 9.3 13,682 33.5 9,757 38.3 9,347 40.1 11,761 47.2 

Deepwater Reef Site ................................. 103 0.5 384 0.9 373 1.5 234 1.0 2,273 9.1 

Garden State North Reef Site ................... 103 0.5 35 0.1 25 0.1 8 0.0 62 0.2 

Garden State South Reef Site .................. 6 0.0 2 0.0 13 0.1 2 0.0 26 0.1 

Great Egg Reef Site .................................. 2,914 13.0 9,602 23.5 363 1.4 257 1.1 246 1.0 

Little Egg Reef Site ................................... 100 0.4 104 0.3 45 0.2 11 0.0 35 0.1 

Ocean City Reef Site ................................ 3,809 17.0 2,313 5.7 2,965 11.6 3,025 13.0 2,467 9.9 

Sea Girt Reef Site ..................................... 680 3.0 1,499 3.7 1,314 5.2 1,161 5.0 1,605 6.4 

Shark River Reef Site ............................... 2,247 10.0 2,391 5.9 1,863 7.3 1,052 4.5 1,028 4.1 

Townsends Inlet Reef ............................... 3,607 16.1 2,002 4.9 3,204 12.6 1,833 7.9 832 3.3 

Wildwood Reef Site ................................... 3,749 16.7 3,684 9.0 4,318 16.9 5,458 23.4 3,097 12.4 

Total ................................................... 22,457 ................ 40,830 ................ 25,507 ................ 23,317 ................ 24,903 ................

Comment 10: LaMonica Fine Foods 

commented that the commercial fleet 

has significant costs for permits and 

licenses to maintain the right to fish. 

Response: Any commercial license 

revenue in New Jersey is used for 

commercial fisheries management, not 

recreational management or artificial 

reefs. Further, this action is supported 

by the NJDEP despite the permit or 

license costs they may impose on 

commercial pot/trap vessels. Although 

the commercial pot/trap fishery may 

have costs for permits and licenses to 

maintain the right to fish from New 

Jersey, there are no costs for these 

vessels to retain their Federal permits. 

Comment 11: GSSA commented that 

this action would prevent New Jersey 

from harvesting $250,000 worth of 

lobsters annually. 

Response: This action will not 

prevent fishermen from harvesting 

lobsters. New Jersey lobster fishermen 

can relocate their pots/traps to other 

areas. This action does not reduce the 

number of pot/traps an individual can 

deploy. It only prohibits the use of pots/ 

traps on these reef sites. There are no 

buffer zones on these reef sites and 

fishermen could deploy their traps 

directly adjacent to the reefs. Fishermen 

will only be displaced over the 

relatively small area of the reef sites 

(19.71 nmi2 (67.6 km2)). Further, as 

stated above, we used the best available 

science to determine the impacts of this 

action and concluded that the impacts 

to commercial pot/trap fishing would be 

far less than those suggested by GSSA 

(see Table 14 above). 

Comment 12: GSSA commented that 

the economic impacts described in the 

action are inconsistent with the degree 

of pot/trap fishing on the reef sites. It 

asserts that if there is a minimal 

economic impact then the gear conflicts 

must not be substantial. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. Even 

though NMFS predicts that removing 

pot/trap gear from the reefs may have a 

slight negative economic impact on the 

commercial pot/trap fleet, this does not 

translate to only a minimal benefit to 

the rod and reel fleet. A single pot or 

trap and the affiliated lines may be 

associated with multiple gear conflicts. 

Therefore, although there will likely be 

a minimal economic impact to the pot/ 

trap fleet, this will likely relieve the 

majority of the gear conflicts on the 

reefs. Furthermore, New Jersey’s 

funding for these reefs has been 

suspended and will not be fully 

available to maintain these reefs unless 

the gear conflict issue is resolved. The 

lack of funding and resulting failure to 

maintain the reefs could lead to long 

term negative impacts on both 

commercial and recreational fishing. 

Comment 13: GSSA commented that 

the natural bottom around New Jersey is 

sandy and that the reefs provide a 

unique habitat for black sea bass, tautog, 

and lobsters. They argue that 

prohibiting pot/trap gear from these 

sites will have a significant impact on 

the industry catching these species. 

Further, an individual commented that 

more and more bottom is being taken 

away from commercial pot/trap 

fishermen. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. While 

other actions may have prohibited 

commercial pots/traps, the analysis in 

the IRFA indicates that this action will 

require a total of 45 vessels to relocate 

the portion of their pots/traps and that 

catch from traps on these reefs are 

responsible for less than 5 percent of 

these vessels’ annual gross revenue. The 

majority of these vessels (36) will have 

to relocate effort that was responsible 

for less than 0.5 percent of their annual 

gross revenue. Unless traps result in 

zero catch after being relocated, vessel 

owners will recoup at least some of the 

revenue they expect to lose by not 

fishing pots/traps on the reefs. 

Therefore, NMFS believes this action 

will have a slight negative to negligible 

impact on the commercial pot/trap fleet 

and a slight positive impact on the rod 

and reel fleet. 

Comment 14: One individual 

commented that the majority of the trap 

fishery are small vessels that need to 

fish near shore. 

Response: Although many of these 

vessels may be fishing inshore, they can 

still relocate their pots/traps to other 

inshore areas. Further, most of the rod 

and reel fleet consists of smaller vessels 

as well, particularly private recreational 

anglers. If the gear conflicts are 

deterring vessels from utilizing the reefs 

they may forgo fishing activity as 

opposed to traveling further offshore. 

Comment 15: One individual 

commented that no part of the ocean 

should be set aside for one group of 

stakeholders and that this action favors 

one group over another. 

Response: NMFS disagrees; The 

regulations at § 648.148 grants the 

Council the authority to designate 

artificial reefs as SMZs if the Regional 

Administrator determines that the 

establishment of the SMZ is supported 

by the substantial weight of evidence in 

the record and consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable law. These SMZs may 

prohibit or restrain the use of specific 

types of fishing gear that are not 

compatible with the intent of the 

artificial reef. 

Comment 16: One individual and 

LaMonica Fine Foods commented that 

the recreational fleet will still lose gear 

on the reef sites because the reef itself 

can cause hang ups. 

Response: NMFS agrees that rod and 

reel anglers will continue to lose gear on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31690 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the reefs themselves, but removing the 

pots/traps from the reef sites will reduce 

the total amount of gear lost and 

eliminate gear lost on pots/traps. 

Comment 17: One individual and 

GSSA commented that pots/traps have 

biodegradable vents and become part of 

the reef habitat if lost, while recreational 

gear (monofilament) does not 

disintegrate and can do more damage to 

the marine environment. 

Response: NMFS agrees that all 

Federal pots/traps are required to have 

a ghost panel with biodegradable 

fasteners as described in § 697.21(d). 

However, if a pot/trap is lost, that pot/ 

trap will continue to fish for a period of 

time before the fasteners degrade. NMFS 

is not designating these reefs as SMZs 

to reduce ghost fishing of pots/traps, but 

to address gear conflicts as 

recommended by NJDEP and the 

Council. NMFS agrees that 

monofilament line can damage marine 

environments, but this action did not 

propose to prohibit the use of 

monofilament gear on the reefs. 

However, if reinstated, NJDEP could use 

SRP funding to maintain reefs and 

which would help remove any lost 

recreational gear on the reef sites. 

Further, less monofilament gear will be 

lost if the pot/trap gear is removed, 

reducing gear conflicts. 

Comment 18: GSSA commented that 

since 2007 all of the lines for the pots/ 

traps have been sinking lines and this 

should limit conflicts. 

Response: While this may reduce gear 

conflicts on these reefs, most of the rod 

and reel fishing is occurring on or near 

the bottom, so rod and reel anglers can 

still get hung up on trap/pot lines. In 

addition, regardless of the sinking line 

requirements, the gear conflicts have 

remained after 2007 to the extent that 

FWS has not fully reinstated their SRP 

funding of the reef sites. 

Comment 19: GSSA commented that 

any gear conflicts can be addressed by 

NJDEP or the United States Coast Guard. 

Response: This action represents an 

attempt by NJDEP to address the gear 

conflicts on these reefs. They brought 

this proposal to the Council that 

recommended that NMFS designate the 

13 reefs as SMZs. The United States 

Coast Guard may not be able to prevent 

these gear conflicts if everyone is fishing 

legally under the existing rules. 

Comment 20: One individual 

commented that NMFS should not 

consider NJDEP’s funding source to 

manage its reef program because this is 

no different than selling Federal waters 

to the funders because they will have 

control of the site. One individual, 

LaMonica Fine Foods, and GSSA 

commented that the commercial fishing 

industry made financial investment in 

the New Jersey reef program through the 

preparation and donation of vessels to 

be used as reefs. In addition, GSSA 

commented that the Oyster Creek power 

plant provided $400,000 to NJDEP to 

offset fish kills associated with the 

facility. The commercial fleet allowed 

its portion ($200,000) to be used in the 

artificial reef program. Finally, GSSA 

commented that NJDEP erroneously 

states that SRP was the primary funding 

source for the artificial reef program, 

because the primary funding source is 

actually state general funds to cover 

salaries and benefits. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, we contacted NJDEP. They 

informed us that the New Jersey 

Artificial Reef Program is funded 

through the SRP. The commercial 

industry has indeed donated vessels in 

the past. Typically, these vessels are far 

past their useful lifespan and have two 

possible destinies: 1. Scuttled at the 

owner’s expense; or 2. deployed as 

artificial reefs at the expense of 

recreational fishing clubs. When a 

vessel is donated, it is usually because 

the scrap value is less than the expense 

of preparing the vessel for scrap. The 

State of New Jersey does not spend state 

funds on vessels for deployment. 

NMFS is designating these artificial 

reefs as SMZs at the recommendation of 

the Council and NJDEP. While those 

entities may have considered the 

original source of the funding for the 

reefs and recommended this action to 

NMFS to restore SRP funding, NMFS is 

abiding by the regulations at § 648.148, 

which grant the Council the authority to 

designate artificial reefs as SMZs if the 

Regional Administrator of the Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

determines that the establishment of the 

SMZ is supported by the substantial 

weight of evidence in the record and 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable law. The 

Regional Administrator has determined 

that establishing these SMZs is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable law. The 

source of the funding for these sites and 

the opportunity for NJDEP to regain its 

SRP funding is not relevant to NMFS’ 

decision to designate the reef sites as 

SMZs. 

Comment 21: We received several 

alternative proposals for SMZ 

designation on these reefs through 

comments on the proposed rule. One 

commenter suggested that NMFS 

prohibit all fishing on these artificial 

reefs and keep them in place for fish 

habitat. One individual suggested a 

sharing agreement that would divide 

each reef in half from April through 

December of each year and designate 

one side for the recreational fleet and 

one side for the commercial fleet. Each 

year the sides would switch for equity. 

GSSA recommended that NMFS 

consider dividing the reefs equally 

among the four primary users groups 

(three dive reefs, three for-hire charter, 

three recreational, and three 

commercial) and set the one remaining 

reef for conservation as a scientific notake zone. Finally, one commenter 

suggested that NMFS make these SMZs 

for rod and reel gear only from April 1 

through Labor Day of each year to allow 

the commercial trap fishing for lobster, 

conch, and tautogs in the fall. 

Response: The Council heard several 

of these alternative proposals 

throughout the development of this 

action at public hearings and Council 

meetings. The Council recommended 

that all 13 artificial reef sites be 

designated as SMZs. Generally, NMFS 

implements measures recommended by 

the Council based on whether the 

measures are consistent with the fishery 

management plan, the MagnusonStevens Act and its National Standards, 

and other applicable law. We defer to 

the Council’s policy choices unless 

there is a clear inconsistency with the 

law or the FMP. Because we find these 

measures to be consistent with these 

laws, we are designating the 13 artificial 

reefs as recommended by the Council. 

Further, the SMZ regulations at 

§ 648.148 only allow the Regional 

Administrator to accept or reject, but 

not revise the Council’s 

recommendation. If in the future the 

Council recommends a different 

management alternative, NMFS will 

evaluate that alternative using the same 

criteria and make a determination 

regarding its implementation. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this final rule is consistent with the 

FMP, other provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, and other applicable law. 

OMB has determined that this rule is 

not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866. 

This final rule does not contain 

policies with federalism or ‘‘takings’’ 

implications, as those terms are defined 

in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, 

respectively. 

This action does not contain any 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). 

Pursuant to section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS 

has completed a final regulatory 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31691 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) in support of 

this action. The FRFA incorporates the 

IRFA, a summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, NMFS’ responses 

to those comments, a summary of the 

analyses completed in the EA for this 

action, and the preamble to this final 

rule. A summary of the IRFA was 

published in the proposed rule for this 

action and is not repeated here. A 

description of why this action was 

considered, the objectives of, and the 

legal basis for, this rule is contained in 

the EA and in the preambles to the 

proposed rule and this final rule, and is 

not repeated here. All of the documents 

that constitute the FRFA are available 

from NMFS and/or the Council, and a 

copy of the IRFA, the Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), and the EA are available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

A Summary of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public in Response to the 

IRFA, a Summary of the Agency’s 

Assessment of Such Issues, and a 

Statement of Any Changes Made in the 

Final Rule as a Result of Such 

Comments 

One individual commented that 

NMFS should include estimates of 

profits from vessels fishing 

commercially on the reef sites so the 

public could better gauge the impact of 

the rule. In addition, GSSA commented 

that they believe that the economic 

impacts are inconsistent with the degree 

of pot/trap fishing on the reef sites. 

They assert that if there is a minimal 

economic impact then the gear conflicts 

must not be substantial. 

In our response to comments, we 

referenced a table (Table 14) from the 

EA that included commercial pot/trap 

revenue from the reef sites to help 

characterize the amount of revenue 

affected by this action. 

Though NMFS predicts that removing 

pot/trap gear from the reefs will have a 

slight negative economic impact on the 

commercial pot/trap fleet, this does not 

translate to only a minimal benefit to 

the rod and reel fleet. A single pot or 

trap and the affiliated lines may be 

associated with multiple gear conflicts. 

Therefore, although there will likely be 

a minimal economic impact to the pot/ 

trap fleet, this will likely relieve the 

majority of the gear conflicts on the 

reefs. 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Would 

Apply 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small commercial 

finfishing or shellfishing business as a 

firm with annual receipts (gross 

revenue) of up to $11.0 million. A small 

for-hire recreational fishing business is 

defined as a firm with receipts of up to 

$7.5 million. 

This rule applies to all Federal permit 

holders except recreational for-hire 

permit holders and commercial permit 

holders using hand gear or dive gear. 

While virtually all commercial fishing 

permit holders employing gear other 

than pot/trap gear will technically be 

regulated if the artificial reefs are 

granted SMZ status, the vast majority of 

the commercial fishing effort on these 

artificial reefs comes from the pot/trap 

gear sector. Therefore, only pot/trap gear 

vessel trips are considered in this 

analysis. Hand gear and dive gear 

activities will continue to be allowed 

under SMZ designation, and vessels 

using other mobile gears and fixed gears 

stay clear of the reef site areas to avoid 

bottom hang-ups with reef materials. 

Additionally, not all business entities 

that hold Federal fishing permits fish in 

the areas identified as potential SMZs. 

Those who actively participate (i.e., 

catch and land fish in and from at least 

one of the areas) in the areas identified 

as potential SMZs will be the group of 

business entities that are directly 

impacted by the regulations. 

During 2013, 2014, and 2015: 24 

vessels reported landings of fish caught 

at the reef sites in all 3 of those years; 

10 vessels reported landings of fish 

caught at the reef sites in 2 of the 3 

years; and 18 vessels reported landings 

of fish caught at the reef sites in only 1 

of the 3 years. A total of 52 unique 

commercial vessels reported landings of 

catch estimated to be from within the 

coordinates of the 13 reef sites from 

2013–2015. 

Based on the ownership data 

classification process described above, 

the 52 directly affected participating 

commercial fishing vessels were owned 

by 45 unique fishing business entities. 

All revenue earned by these businesses 

was derived from finfishing or 

shellfishing, and no revenue was earned 

from for-hire recreational fishing. Thus, 

all 45 of the potentially affected 

businesses are classified as commercial 

fishing business entities. 

Average annual gross revenue 

estimates calculated from 2013–2015 

Greater Atlantic region dealer data 

indicate that only one of the potentially 

affected business entities under the 

preferred alternative will be considered 

large according to the SBA size 

standards. In other words, one business, 

classified as a commercial fishing 

business, averaged more than $11 

million annually in gross revenues from 

all of its fishing activities during 2013– 

2015. Therefore, 44 of the 45 potentially 

affected business entities are considered 

small and one business entity is 

considered large. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Final Rule 

This action contains no new 

collection-of-information, reporting, or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Description of the Steps the Agency Has 

Taken to Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes 

During the development of this action 

the SMZ Monitoring Team, the Council, 

and NMFS considered ways to reduce 

the regulatory burden on, and provide 

flexibility for, the regulated entities in 

this action. For instance, the SMZ 

Monitoring Team considered 

implementing buffer zones around each 

of the SMZs, but ultimately decided that 

including buffer zones would 

substantially increase the footprint of 

the SMZs and further increase the areas 

where pot/trap fishermen could deploy 

their gear. The Council and NMFS each 

took public comment from the 

commercial and recreational fleets on 

this action, but ultimately determined 

that the benefits of this action will 

outweigh the negligible to slight 

negative impacts. NMFS considered a 

slightly less restrictive alternative after 

receiving the Council’s recommendation 

(Alternative 3). Under the No Action 

alternative, vessels would still have 

been able to fish with pot/trap gear on 

the 13 artificial reef sites. Alternative 3 

would have designated 11 of the 13 

artificial reefs as SMZs (excludes Shark 

River and Wildwood); 41 unique fishing 

business entities were estimated to have 

landings within the coordinates of the 

11 reef sites from 2013–2015. The Shark 

River and Wildwood reef site were 

excluded under this alternative because 

these sites had higher percentage of 

commercial effort when compared to the 

percentage of recreational effort. 

Alternative 2 was ultimately selected 

as the preferred alternative because it 

reduces gear conflicts on all 13 of the 

artificial reefs. For Alternatives 1 and 3, 

gear conflicts would remain on all reefs 

not designated as SMZs. Alternative 2 

results in slight positive economic 

impacts to the recreational fleet and is 

likely to have slight negative to 

negligible economic effects on the 

commercial fishery compared to the No 

Action alternative. Further, under 

Alternative 2, the program to maintain 

the artificial reefs will not be in 

jeopardy of losing its FWS funding. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31692 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

will publish one or more guides to assist 

small entities in complying with the 

rule, and will designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency will 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. As part of this 

rulemaking process, a letter to permit 

holders that also serves as a small entity 

compliance guide was prepared. Copies 

of this final rule are available from the 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office, and the guide (i.e., permit holder 

letter) will be sent to all holders of 

permits for the black sea bass and 

lobster fisheries. The guide and this 

final rule will be available upon request. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 

Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: July 3, 2018. 

Patricia A. Montanio, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE 

NORTHEAST UNITED STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 648 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 648.148, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 648.148 Special management zones. 

(a) General. The recipient of a U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers permit for an 

artificial reef, fish attraction device, or 

other modification of habitat for 

purposes of fishing may request that an 

area surrounding and including the site 

be designated by the MAFMC as a 

special management zone (SMZ). The 

MAFMC may prohibit or restrain the 

use of specific types of fishing gear that 

are not compatible with the purpose of 

the artificial reef or fish attraction 

device or other habitat modification 

within the SMZ. The establishment of 

an SMZ will be effected by a regulatory 

amendment, pursuant to the following 

procedure: An SMZ monitoring team 

comprised of members of staff from the 

MAFMC, NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, and NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center will 

evaluate the request in the form of a 

written report. 

* * * * * 

(b) Approved/Established SMZs—(1) 

Delaware Special Management Zone 

Areas. Special management zones are 

established for Delaware artificial reef 

permit areas #9, 10, 11, and 13, in the 

area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone. From January 1 through December 

31 of each year, no person may fish in 

the Delaware Special Management 

Zones except by handline, rod and reel, 

or spear fishing (including the taking of 

fish by hand). The Delaware Special 

Management Zones are defined by 

rhumb lines connecting the following 

coordinates in the order stated: 

(i) Delaware artificial reef #9. 

Point Corner N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ........ 9SE 38°39.972′ 74°59.298′ 

2 ........ 9SW 38°40.05′ 75°0.702′ 

3 ........ 9NW 38°40.848′ 75°0.402′ 

4 ........ 9NE 38°40.8′ 74°58.902′ 

5 ........ 9SE 38°39.972′ 74°59.298′ 

(ii) Delaware artificial reef #10. 

Point Corner N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ........ 10SE 38°36.198′ 74°55.674′ 

2 ........ 10SW 38°36.294′ 74°57.15′ 

3 ........ 10NW 38°37.098′ 74°56.802′ 

4 ........ 10NE 38°37.002′ 74°55.374′ 

5 ........ 10SE 38°36.198′ 74°55.674′ 

(iii) Delaware artificial reef #11. 

Point Corner N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ........ 11SE 38°39.882′ 74°43.05′ 

2 ........ 11SW 38°40.002′ 74°44.802′ 

3 ........ 11NW 38°40.848′ 74°44.502′ 

4 ........ 11NE 38°40.752′ 74°42.75′ 

5 ........ 11SE 38°39.882′ 74°43.05′ 

(iv) Delaware artificial reef #13. 

Point Corner N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ........ 13SE 38°30.138′ 74°30.582′ 

2 ........ 13SW 38°30.222′ 74°31.5′ 

3 ........ 13NW 38°31.614′ 74°30.864′ 

4 ........ 13NE 38°31.734′ 74°30.018′ 

5 ........ 13SE 38°30.138′ 74°30.582′ 

(2) New Jersey Special Management 

Zone Areas. Special management zones 

are established for New Jersey artificial 

reef permit areas, in the area of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone. From January 

1 through December 31 of each year, no 

person may fish in the New Jersey 

Special Management Zones except by 

handline, rod and reel, or spear fishing 

(including the taking of fish by hand). 

The New Jersey Special Management 

Zones are defined by rhumb lines 

connecting the following coordinates in 

the order stated: 

(i) Sea Girt Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 40°08.22′ 73°55.52′ 

ME Corner 40°07.30′ 73°56.67′ 

SE Corner 40°06.13′ 73°57.12′ 

SW Corner 40°06.17′ 73°57.57′ 

MW Corner 40°07.48′ 73°57.15′ 

NW Corner 40°08.63′ 73°55.73′ 

NE Corner 40°08.22′ 73°55.52′ 

(ii) Garden State North Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°38.05′ 74°00.70 

SE Corner 39°37.05′ 74°01.00′ 

SW Corner 39°37.00′ 74°02.50′ 

NW Corner 39°37.98′ 74°02.20′ 

NE Corner 39°38.05′ 74°00.70′ 

(iii) Garden State South Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°33.82′ 74°05.75′ 

SE Corner 39°33.33′ 74°05.85′ 

SW Corner 39°33.33′ 74°07.35′ 

NW Corner 39°33.80′ 74°07.20′ 

NE Corner 39°33.82′ 74°05.75′ 

(iv) Little Egg Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°29.00′ 74°10.00′ 

SE Corner 39°28.00′ 74°10.00′ 

SW Corner 39°28.00′ 74°12.00′ 

NW Corner 39°29.00′ 74°12.00′ 

NE Corner 39°29.00′ 74°10.00′ 

(v) Atlantic City Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°16.90′ 74°15.28′ 

SE Corner 39°13.93′ 74°11.80′ 

SW Corner 39°13.30′ 74°12.70′ 

NW Corner 39°16.22′ 74°16.18′ 

NE Corner 39°16.90′ 74°15.28′ 

(vi) Great Egg Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°15.00′ 74°21.00′ 

SE Corner 39°14.00′ 74°21.00′ 

SW Corner 39°14.00′ 74°22.00′ 

NW Corner 39°15.00′ 74°22.00′ 

NE Corner 39°15.00′ 74°21.00′ 

(vii) Ocean City Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°10.75′ 74°32.45′ 

SE Corner 39°09.40′ 74°34.62′ 

SW Corner 39°09.82′ 74°34.97′ 

NW Corner 39°11.10′ 74°32.85′ 

NE Corner 39°10.75′ 74°32.45′ 

(viii) Shark River Reef Site. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31693 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.08′ 

SE Corner 40°06.20′ 73°41.08′ 

SW Corner 40°06.20′ 73°41.80′ 

NW Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.80′ 

NE Corner 40°07.33′ 73°41.08′ 

(ix) Barnegat Light Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.10′ 

SE Corner 39°44.62′ 74°01.10′ 

SW Corner 39°44.62′ 74°01.95′ 

NW Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.95′ 

NE Corner 39°45.87′ 74°01.10′ 

(x) Wildwood Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°57.85′ 74°39.70′ 

SE Corner 38°56.58′ 74°41.40′ 

SW Corner 38°57.55′ 74°42.60′ 

NW Corner 38°58.80′ 74°40.90′ 

NE Corner 38°57.85′ 74°39.70′ 

(xi) Deepwater Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°59.00′ 74°10.50′ 

SE Corner 38°58.00′ 74°10.50′ 

SW Corner 38°58.00′ 74°11.50′ 

NW Corner 38°59.00′ 74°11.50′ 

NE Corner 38°59.00′ 74°10.50′ 

(xii) Cape May Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 38°53.45′ 74°39.43′ 

SE Corner 38°50.07′ 74°42.25′ 

SW Corner 38°50.67′ 74°43.25′ 

NW Corner 38°53.97′ 74°40.62′ 

NE Corner 38°53.45′ 74°39.43′ 

(xiii) Townsend Inlet Reef Site. 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

NE Corner 39°06.70′ 74°36.00′ 

SE Corner 39°06.25′ 74°36.00′ 

SW Corner 39°06.25′ 74°37.50′ 

NW Corner 39°06.70′ 74°37.50′ 

NE Corner 39°06.70′ 74°36.00′ 

[FR Doc. 2018–14661 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES