Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31677 

discontinuance. You may file your 

comments electronically through the 

FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing 

System using the docket number 

established in the Commission’s public 

notice for this proceeding, or you may 

address them to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, 

and include in your comments a 

reference to the § 63.71 Application of 

(carrier’s name). Comments should 

include specific information about the 

impact of this proposed discontinuance 

(or reduction or impairment) upon you 

or your company, including any 

inability to acquire reasonable substitute 

service. 

(2) For applications to discontinue, 

reduce, or impair such data service that 

has been grandfathered for a period of 

no less than 180 days, in order to be 

eligible for automatic grant under 

paragraph (l)(4) of this section, an 

applicant must include in its 

application a statement confirming that 

it received Commission authority to 

grandfather the service at issue at least 

180 days prior to filing the current 

application. 

(3) An application seeking to 

grandfather such a data service shall be 

automatically granted on the 25th day 

after its filing with the Commission 

without any Commission notification to 

the applicant unless the Commission 

has notified the applicant that the grant 

will not be automatically effective. 

(4) An application seeking to 

discontinue, reduce, or impair such a 

data service that has been grandfathered 

under this section for 180 days or more 

preceding the filing of the application, 

shall be automatically granted on the 

31st day after its filing with the 

Commission without any Commission 

notification to the applicant, unless the 

Commission has notified the applicant 

that the grant will not be automatically 

effective. 

PART 68—CONNECTION OF 

TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE 

TELEPHONE NETWORK 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 68 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 610. 

■ 7. Amend § 68.105 by revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 68.105 Minimum point of entry (MPOE) 

and demarcation point. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) The provider of wireline 

telecommunications services shall make 

available information on the location of 

the demarcation point within ten 

business days of a request from the 

premises owner. If the provider of 

wireline telecommunications services 

does not provide the information within 

that time, the premises owner may 

presume the demarcation point to be at 

the MPOE. Notwithstanding the 

provisions of § 68.110(b), provider of 

wireline telecommunications services 

must make this information freely 

available to the requesting premises 

owner. 

* * * * * 

§ 68.110 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 68.110 by removing 

paragraph (b) and redesignating 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2018–14570 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 170703617–8097–01] 

RIN 0648–BG97 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Final Rule To Revise Atlantic Shark 

Fishery Closure Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

current closure regulations for 

commercial shark fisheries. These 

changes affect commercial shark 

fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, 

including the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean. Revisions include changes to 

the landings threshold that prompts a 

closure and the minimum time between 

filing of the closure with the Federal 

Register and the closure becoming 

effective. This action is necessary to 

allow more flexibility when closing 

shark fisheries and to facilitate the use 

of available quota while still preventing 

overharvests. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

8, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting 

documents, including the Final 

Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

and the 2006 Consolidated Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and 

amendments are available from the 

HMS website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species or by 

contacting Lauren Latchford at (301) 

427–8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Latchford, Guy ́ DuBeck, Chante ́

Davis, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone 

at (301) 427–8503 or Delisse Ortiz at 

(240) 681–9037. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

sharks are directly managed under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 59058, October 2, 2006) final 

regulations, effective November 1, 2006, 

implementing the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, which details management 

measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

The implementing regulations for the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments are at 50 CFR part 635. 

This final rule modifies the current 

regulations related to closures for 

commercial shark fisheries. 

Background 

A brief summary of the background of 

this action is provided below; more 

detailed information can be found in the 

proposed rule (83 FR 8037, February 23, 

2018) and is not repeated here. 

Additional information regarding 

Atlantic HMS management, specifically 

the commercial fisheries season 

structure, can be found in the Final EA 

for this action and the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments, found on the HMS 

website (see ADDRESSES). 

On February 23, 2018, NMFS 

published a proposed rule (83 FR 8037) 

that proposed (1) changing the 

regulations from requiring a shark 

fishery species and/or management 

group to close when landings have 

reached or are projected to reach 80 

percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota, and 

instead allowing the fishery to remain 

open in such circumstances if the 

species and/or management group’s 

landings are not projected to reach 100 

percent before the end of the 

commercial fishing season, and (2) 

changing the minimum notice time 

between filing and the closure going 

into effect from five days to three. A 30- 

day public comment period closed on 

March 26, 2018. The comments received 

on the Draft EA and proposed rule, and 

our responses to those comments, are 

summarized below in the section 

labeled ‘‘Response to Comments.’’ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

After reviewing the public comments 

and consulting with the HMS Advisory 

Panel, this final action allows a shark 

fishery to remain open after the fishery’s 

landings have reached or are projected 

to reach 80 percent of the available 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quota, if the fishery’s landings are not 

projected to reach 100 percent of the 

applicable quota before the end of the 

season. This final action also changes 

the minimum notice time between filing 

of the closure notice with the Office of 

the Federal Register and the closure 

going into effect from five days to four 

days, which is a change from the 

proposed rule based on public 

comment. 

Response to Comments 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS held one webinar and 

presented information about the 

proposed rule at the HMS Advisory 

Panel meeting. In addition to the nine 

verbal comments received at those 

meetings, NMFS also received 10 

written comments regarding the 

proposed action from fishermen, states, 

environmental groups, academia, and 

other interested parties. All written 

comments can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov/ by searching for 

RIN 0648–BG97. All of the comments 

received are summarized below. 

Section A: Comments on Closure 

Threshold and Closure Notice 

Alternatives 

Comment 1: NMFS received a number 

of comments regarding the closure 

threshold alternatives. Some 

commenters supported preferred 

Alternative 1f, while other commenters 

suggested combining Alternative 1e, 

which would establish criteria to use for 

evaluation of a closure, with the 

preferred Alternative 1f. Other 

commenters wanted to increase the 

federal fishery closure threshold for the 

shark management groups from 80 

percent to greater than 90 percent 

because they felt the current weekly 

electronic reporting requirements for 

dealers increased the timeliness and 

accuracy of dealer reporting (compared 

to reporting requirements that were in 

place when the 80-percent buffer was 

implemented) and would allow for a 

smaller buffer while still preventing 

overharvest of the quota. Lastly, one 

commenter preferred Alternative 1a, No 

Action. 

Response: After considering public 

comment and carefully reviewing the 

relevant data, NMFS is finalizing this 

action as proposed with preferred 

Alternative 1f, which would allow a 

shark fishery to remain open after the 

fishery’s landings have reached or are 

projected to reach 80 percent of the 

available overall, regional, and/or subregional quota, if the fishery’s landings 

are not projected to reach 100 percent of 

the applicable quota before the end of 

the season. With regard to comments 

preferring the combination of 

Alternatives 1e and 1f, Alternative 1e 

would have established criteria such as 

examining stock status or patterns of 

over- and underharvest that NMFS 

would evaluate before determining if a 

closure notice is needed when any shark 

fishery species and/or management 

group landings reach or are projected to 

reach 80 percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota. If 

the evaluation of the specified criteria 

were to indicate that the fishery does 

not need to close at 80 percent, the 

fishery could remain open until 

landings reach, or are projected to reach, 

90 percent. Alternative 1f, however, 

maintains the 80-percent threshold, and 

at that threshold, NMFS would review 

landings projections indicating whether 

a closure is needed to avoid exceedance 

of the available overall, regional, and/or 

sub-regional quota by the end of the 

season. If the species and/or 

management group’s landings are not 

projected to reach 100 percent of the 

applicable quota before the end of the 

season, the fishery will remain open. 

Because Alternative 1e would require 

closing the fishery at 90 percent of the 

quota, regardless of whether the 

projections indicate the fishery would 

not exceed 100 percent of the quota 

before the end of the fishing season 

(which is what Alternative 1f would 

allow), NMFS is assuming that 

commenters who suggested combining 

these two alternatives actually were 

suggesting adding the criteria listed in 

Alternative 1e to Alternative 1f. NMFS 

does not prefer adding criteria to 

Alternative 1f because doing so would 

unnecessarily complicate the closure 

procedures, possibly confuse the 

regulated community, and would not 

necessarily enhance the accuracy of any 

closure notice. Requiring NMFS to step 

through specific criteria such as stock 

status that do not influence catch rates 

would add complexity to the process 

and would not improve accuracy of the 

projections and in fact may delay 

needed closures in some circumstances. 

Some commenters supported a higher 

closure threshold than was analyzed in 

the proposed alternatives, such as 

closure when quota use reaches 100 

percent, because they felt the 

combination of weekly electronic dealer 

reporting with advanced projection 

methodologies should allow for full 

quota utilization before closing the 

fishery. Most states in the Gulf of 

Mexico require all state-only dealers to 

report electronically, but some states 

still allow for paper reports, and/or 

require reporting once a month rather 

than weekly. That, in combination with 

late dealer reports prevent NMFS from 

setting the threshold at full utilization 

because of the risk of exceeding the 

quota. The 80-percent fishery-closure 

threshold for the shark management 

groups was implemented in 

Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008; 

73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008). At that 

time, NMFS relied on hard copy dealer 

reports that were mailed to the Agency 

and were often several weeks, or even 

months, out of date. Since then, NMFS 

has established weekly electronic 

reporting with weekly compliance 

monitoring. While dealer reporting now 

is electronic, except for some state-only 

dealers, particularly in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and thus generally more timely, 

NMFS must still account for late 

reporting by shark dealers and provide 

a buffer to include landings received 

after the reporting deadline to avoid 

overharvests. A review of closures since 

NMFS began electronic reporting has 

showed that the current 80-percent 

threshold is not always effective at 

closing in time to prevent overharvest of 

small quotas, such as porbeagle sharks. 

Additionally, the review shows that on 

average, across all of the shark fisheries, 

16 percent of the quota is landed after 

a closure is announced. Therefore, a 90- 

percent or greater closure threshold 

would likely result in overharvests of 

the quotas. For stocks with small quotas, 

we can anticipate that this higher 

closure threshold would result in 

consistent overharvests, with little 

opportunity to account for the 

overharvests in the next year (because 

overharvests would occur again) and 

this could be expected to have moderate 

adverse direct ecological effects on such 

shark species and result in the need to 

close the fisheries in future years. 

Regarding the commenter who 

preferred no action, that alternative 

would require NMFS to continue 

closing the relevant management group 

when 80 percent of its shark quota had 

been landed. However, in recent years 

as a result of monitoring the fishery and 

changing the trip limits throughout the 

year, several management groups (e.g., 

aggregated large coastal sharks (LCS) 

and hammerhead sharks) are remaining 

open for the entire year and may not 

reach 80 percent of that quota until late 

in the year. Under no action, NMFS 

would close these fisheries once 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31679 

landings reach 80 percent of the quota 

even if it would be unlikely that the 

quota would be fully harvested. Instead, 

this final action would allow NMFS to 

keep those fisheries open for the entire 

year as long as projections indicate the 

quotas would not be exceeded by 

December 31 of each year. 

Comment 2: Some commenters 

supported the proposed Alternative 2b, 

which would close sharks fisheries 

three days after the notice was filed 

with the Office of the Federal Register. 

Other commenters, including the States 

of North Carolina and Louisiana, 

supported the no action alternative and 

did not support proposed Alternative 2b 

because, they argued, three days would 

not allow time for states to implement 

complementary measures by closing 

state water shark fisheries. Additionally, 

some commenters stated that some 

commercial pelagic longline 

participants take multi-day trips that 

could be interrupted by such an earlier 

closure notice. Finally, commenters 

were worried that a three-day notice 

would have safety issues if, after getting 

notice of a closure, fishermen decide to 

fish one or more trips before a closure 

occurs and without regard to any 

weather conditions. 

Response: After considering public 

comment and reviewing the data, NMFS 

has decided to change from its 

originally preferred alternative 

providing three days’ notice (Alternative 

2b) to a new alternative that provides 

four days’ notice (Alternative 2d) 

between filing of the closure notice with 

the Office of the Federal Register and 

the closure going into effect. This 

change is in response to comments that 

States need more than three days’ notice 

in order to close state water shark 

fisheries at the same time as federal 

water shark fisheries. Closing with four 

days’ notice adequately addresses our 

concerns about closing shark fisheries in 

a timely manner, while ensuring state 

and federal waters close at the same 

time to prevent confusion among 

fisherman, dealers, and enforcement. 

Additionally, the four-day preferred 

alternative increases flexibility to close 

the fishery as needed while still 

preventing overharvest and allowing 

sufficient time for fishermen to 

complete ongoing trips at the time of the 

closure. The allotted time before the 

closure becomes effective is also well 

within the range of the current directed 

shark trip lengths (i.e., one to two days). 

Because the EA examined alternatives 

ranging from immediate closure to 

closure with five days’ notice, this new 

alternative is within the range of 

originally proposed actions. 

Regarding Alternative 1a, no action, 

NMFS does not prefer to keep the 

closure notice at five days because this 

alternative would not increase 

flexibility in NMFS’ ability to manage 

the shark fisheries in a timely manner. 

As stated in the response to Comment 

1, after NMFS announces a closure, 

approximately 16 percent of the quota is 

harvested before the fishery actually 

closes five days later. Under a no action 

alternative, continued landings during a 

five-day notice period would likely 

contribute to overharvests. When such 

overharvests occur on a frequent basis 

over the long-term, it can lead to 

overfishing, delayed rebuilding of 

overfished stocks, and overall negative 

impacts on fishermen and dealers. 

However, NMFS also recognizes that 

complementary state water closures are 

needed in order to prevent quotas from 

being overharvested. As such, in this 

final action, NMFS is finalizing a 

different alternative, Alternative 2d that 

changes the closure notification from 

five days to four days. This alternative 

is an appropriate compromise between 

needing to provide appropriate notice 

for states to implement complementary 

measures and for the closure to take 

effect quickly and prevent overharvests. 

Regarding the concerns about the 

potential for fishermen to be out on long 

trips, and then having to discard their 

catch if they missed the closure date, 

historically (pre-2008), directed shark 

fishing trips, primarily targeting LCS, 

averaged between one and four days in 

length, but could be longer. However, 

because of reduced trip-based retention 

limits implemented in Amendment 2 in 

2008, there has been a reduction in trip 

length, and the typical shark fishing trip 

is now only one or two days. Trips 

using pelagic longline gear, and 

interacting with pelagic sharks, can be 

longer, with the typical trip lasting nine 

days. Pelagic longline trips usually do 

not land many sharks, and the sharks 

they do land tend to be sharks in the 

pelagic shark management groups, 

which have never closed. Therefore, the 

four-day closure notice should not affect 

pelagic longline trips. NMFS has 

determined that a four-day closure 

notice should allow fishermen enough 

time to finish their trips, while still 

providing NMFS the flexibility to close 

the fishery as needed while still 

preventing overharvest. Similarly, a 

four-day closure notice would also 

allow fishermen to safely fish one or 

two more trips, depending on weather 

and other factors, once the closure 

notice is announced. 

Section B: General Comments 

Comment 3: NMFS should stop all 

shark fishing. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. The 

purpose of this rulemaking is to revise 

existing HMS regulations that require 

closure of shark fisheries with no fewer 

than five days’ notice when landings or 

projections of landings reach 80 percent 

of the commercial quota. Management 

of the Atlantic shark fisheries is based 

on the best available science to achieve 

optimum yield while rebuilding 

overfished shark stocks and preventing 

overfishing. The final rule does not 

reanalyze the overall management 

measures for sharks, which have been 

analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP and its amendments. 

Comment 4: NMFS should provide 

more information about catch across all 

sectors including catch versus total 

allowable catch (TAC), catch and release 

mortality, and bycatch associated with 

other fisheries. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. This 

rulemaking updates and revises existing 

HMS regulations that require NMFS to 

close shark fisheries with no fewer than 

five days’ notice, when landings or 

projections of landings reach 80 percent 

of the commercial quota. NMFS 

provides similar data in its annual Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) reports (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/bulletin/2017- 

stock-assessment-and-fisheryevaluation-report-atlantic-highlymigratory-species). 

Comment 5: NMFS should provide 

the date and location of landings by 

region. 

Response: NMFS currently provides 

shark landings by region and 

management group on a monthly basis 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

atlantic-highly-migratory-species/ 

atlantic-highly-migratory-specieslandings-updates), and uses the 

landings in our decision process to 

determine fishery closures and annual 

fishery quotas. Additionally, NMFS 

provides aggregated information in its 

annual SAFE reports. Due to the 

confidentiality requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 

aggregates such data. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule (83 

FR 8037; February 23, 2018) 

NMFS made one change to the 

proposed rule. Specifically, in 

§ 635.28(b)(2) and (b)(3), NMFS is 

changing from the proposed action of a 

three-day minimum notice time 

between filing of the closure notice with 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31680 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the Office of the Federal Register and 

the closure going into effect to four 

days. This change is being made in 

response to comments from States that 

they need more than three days’ notice 

in order to implement complementary 

state water shark fishery closures. This 

change to a four-day notice should 

provide NMFS the flexibility to close 

the fishery as needed while still 

preventing overharvests and allowing 

sufficient time for fishermen to 

complete ongoing trips at the time of the 

closure. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that the final rule is 

consistent with the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule is expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 

action. 

A Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this 

rule. The FRFA incorporates the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

and a summary of the analyses 

completed to support the action. The 

full FRFA and analysis of economic and 

ecological impacts are available from 

NMFS. A summary of the analysis 

follows. A copy of this analysis is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires 

a succinct statement of the need for and 

objectives of the rule. The purpose of 

this final action is to allow shark 

fishermen to harvest available quota 

without exceeding it, consistent with 

conservation and management measures 

adopted in accordance with MagnusonStevens Act requirements to end 

overfishing and rebuild stocks. The final 

action is also intended to maximize 

economic benefits to stakeholders by 

allowing them to harvest available quota 

while achieving conservation goals, 

including preventing overfishing. To 

achieve this goal, this action considers 

modifications to the percent landings 

threshold that results in a closure, and 

modifications to the minimum amount 

of time before a closure is effective. 

Section 604(a)(2) requires a summary 

of significant issues raised by the public 

comment in response to the IRFA and 

a summary of the assessment of the 

Agency of such issues, and a statement 

of any changes made in the rule as a 

result of such comments. NMFS did not 

receive comments specific to the IRFA 

or any comments relating to economic 

impacts of the proposed action. 

Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires 

Agencies to provide an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule would apply. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has established 

size criteria for all major industry 

sectors in the United States, including 

fish harvesters. This provision is made 

under the SBA’s regulations for an 

agency to develop its own industryspecific size standards after consultation 

with and an opportunity for public 

comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). 

Under this provision, NMFS may 

establish size standards that differ from 

those established by the SBA Office of 

Size Standards, but only for use by 

NMFS and only for the purpose of 

conducting an analysis of economic 

effects in fulfillment of the agency’s 

obligations under the RFA. To utilize 

this provision, NMFS must publish such 

size standards in the Federal Register, 

which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 

(80 FR 81194). In this final rule effective 

on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a 

small business size standard of $11 

million in annual gross receipts for all 

businesses in the commercial fishing 

industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA 

compliance purposes. NMFS considers 

all HMS permit holders to be small 

entities because they all had average 

annual receipts of less than $11 million 

for commercial fishing. 

The final rule would apply to the 

approximately 113 commercial shark 

dealers, 490 commercial limited access 

permit holders in the Atlantic shark 

fishery (221 directed and 269 incidental 

permits), and 154 open access 

smoothhound shark permit holders, 

based on an analysis of permit holders 

as of October 2017. Not all permit 

holders are active in the shark fishery in 

any given year. Active directed permit 

holders are defined as those with valid 

permits that landed one shark, based on 

HMS electronic dealer reports. Of those 

221 commercial directed limited access 

permit holders, 32 (14 percent of permit 

holders) landed LCS, 30 (14 percent of 

permit holders) landed non-blacknose 

SCS, and 14 (6 percent of permit 

holders) landed blacknose sharks in the 

Atlantic. In the Gulf of Mexico region, 

10 (5 percent of permit holders) landed 

LCS in the western sub-region, 6 (3 

percent of permit holders) landed LCS 

in the eastern sub-region, and 8 (4 

percent of permit holders) landed nonblacknose SCS throughout the region. Of 

directed limited access permit holders, 

47 (21 percent of permit holders) landed 

pelagic sharks. Of the 154 open access 

smoothhound shark permit holders, 75 

(49 percent of permit holders) landed 

sharks in the Atlantic region. NMFS has 

determined that the final rule would not 

likely affect any small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Section 603(a)(5) of the RFA requires 

agencies to describe any new reporting, 

record-keeping and other compliance 

requirements. The action does not 

contain any new collection of 

information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The alternatives 

considered modify the percentage 

landings threshold that prompts a shark 

fishery closure and the length of time 

between public notice and the effective 

date of a given fishery closure with the 

goal of avoiding under- and 

overharvests in these fisheries. 

Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires 

agencies is to describe the steps taken to 

minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities consistent with 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes, including a statement of the 

factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the alternative adopted in the 

final rule and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. These impacts are summarized 

below and discussed in the 

accompanying Final EA. 

Alternative 1a, the No Action 

alternative, would maintain the existing 

80-percent threshold to close the shark 

fishery and maintain current shark 

quotas. Based on the 2017 ex-vessel 

prices, the potential average annual 

gross revenue for the 10 active directed 

permit holders from blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $312,411, and average annual 

gross revenue from shark fins would be 

$187,631. Thus, potential average 

annual gross revenue by each active 

directed permit holder for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark 

landings in the western Gulf of Mexico 

sub-region would be $50,004 ((312,411 

+ 187,631)/10 active vessels). The 

potential total average annual gross 

revenue for the six active directed 

permit holders from blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $113,327, and average annual 

gross revenue from shark fins would be 

$70,954. Thus, potential total average 

annual gross revenue by each active 

directed permit holder for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark 

landings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico 

region would be $30,713 ((113,327 + 

30,713)/6 active vessels). The potential 

total average annual gross revenue for 

the eight active directed permit holders 

for non-blacknose SCS and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31681 

smoothhound shark meat in the Gulf of 

Mexico would be $54,614, while 

revenue from shark fins would be 

$33,682. Thus, potential total average 

annual gross revenue by each active 

directed permit holder for nonblacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico 

would be $11,036 ((54,614 + 33,682)/8 

active vessels). Since there have been no 

landings of smoothhound sharks in the 

Gulf of Mexico, the annual gross 

revenue for the active directed permit 

holders would be zero. The potential 

annual gross revenues for the 32 active 

directed permit holders from aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the 

Atlantic would be $283,630, while 

revenue from shark fins would be 

$97,566. Thus, potential total average 

annual gross revenues by each active 

directed permit holder for aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead shark in the 

Atlantic would be $11,912 ((283,630 + 

97,566)/32 active vessels). The potential 

annual gross revenues for the 30 active 

directed permit holders from nonblacknose SCS shark meat in the 

Atlantic would be $266,150, while 

revenue from shark fins would be 

$54,869. Thus, potential total average 

annual gross revenue by each active 

directed permit holder for nonblacknose SCS in the Atlantic would be 

$10,700 ((266,150 + 54,869)/30 active 

vessels). The potential annual gross 

revenues for the 14 active directed 

permit holders from blacknose shark 

meat in the Atlantic would be $18,103, 

while revenue from shark fins would be 

$3,412. Thus, potential total average 

annual gross revenue by each active 

directed permit holder for blacknose in 

the Atlantic would be $1,537 ((18,103 + 

3,412)/14 active vessels). The potential 

annual gross revenues for the 75 active 

directed permit holders from 

smoothhound shark meat in the Atlantic 

would be $582,233, while revenue from 

shark fins would be $48,808. Thus, 

potential total average annual gross 

revenues by each active directed permit 

holder for smoothhound shark in the 

Atlantic would be $8,414 ((582,233 + 

48,808)/75 active vessels). The potential 

annual gross revenues for the 47 active 

directed permit holders from pelagic 

sharks (blue, porbeagle, shortfin mako, 

and thresher sharks) meat would be 

$381,580, while revenue from shark fins 

would be $20,134. Thus, potential total 

average annual gross revenues by each 

active directed permit holder for pelagic 

sharks would be $8,547 ((381,580 + 

20,134)/47 active vessels). Alternative 

1a would likely result in neutral direct 

short- and long-term socioeconomic 

impacts because shark fishermen would 

continue to operate under current 

conditions, with shark fishermen 

continuing to fish at similar rates. The 

No Action alternative could also have 

neutral indirect impacts to those 

supporting the commercial shark 

fisheries, since the retention limits, and 

thus current fishing efforts, would not 

change under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 1b, NMFS would 

change the shark fishery closure 

threshold to 90 percent of the available 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quota. This alternative would be likely 

to have neutral direct and indirect shortand long-term socioeconomic impacts 

because the base quotas would not 

change for any of the management 

groups and fishermen would still be 

limited in the total amount of sharks 

that could be harvested. This alternative 

could potentially lead to minor 

beneficial direct economic impacts if 

fishermen can land available quota that 

may have remained unharvested under 

the current 80-percent threshold. For 

example, in 2017, the quota for the 

blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead management groups from 

the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

was underutilized by 310,546 lb dw or 

25 percent of the adjusted annual base 

quota, valued at $247,518 in potential 

ex-vessel revenue. Assuming all of this 

unharvested quota were caught, based 

on the 10 vessels that landed LCS in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, the 

individual vessel impact would be an 

approximate gain of $31,055 per year. 

This does not include incidental permit 

holders, who would receive a smaller 

amount per year. For example, in the 

Atlantic, the blacknose shark 

management group was underutilized 

by 21,238 lb dw or 35 percent of the 

quota, valued at $25,807 in potential exvessel revenue. Based on the 14 vessels 

that landed blacknose in the Atlantic 

region, the individual vessel impact 

would be an approximate gain of $1,843 

per year. This does not include 

incidental permit holders, who would 

receive a smaller amount per year. 

Alternative 1b could also lead to minor 

adverse socioeconomic impacts in the 

short-term if the quotas are 

overharvested, which would lead to 

lower quotas the following year. In 

addition, this alternative could 

potentially lead to minor adverse 

socioeconomic impacts if there is a large 

increase of landings combined with late 

dealer reporting, after the fishery is 

closed, that resulted in overharvest. For 

instance, the current 80 percent 

threshold has not been effective at 

closing in time to prevent overharvest of 

shark species that have small quotas, 

such as porbeagle sharks. As such, 

changing the percent closure threshold 

to 90 percent might be detrimental to 

the porbeagle shark fishery, as it may 

not provide a sufficient buffer to prevent 

overharvest and season closures that 

occurred in 2013 and 2015. However, 

this negative impact would be only in 

the short-term, as NMFS has the ability 

to monitor quotas on a weekly basis and 

promptly close the shark fishery. 

Under Alternative 1c, NMFS would 

change the shark fishery closure 

threshold to 70 percent of the available 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quota. This change would potentially 

leave a larger buffer for fishermen to 

complete trips and receive delayed 

dealer reports. It is likely the change in 

threshold to 70 percent would have 

neutral direct and indirect short- and 

long-term socioeconomic impacts since 

none of the commercial quotas are being 

changed and NMFS is not expecting an 

increase in effort or fishing. This 

alternative could potentially have minor 

adverse direct socioeconomic impacts if 

there is a large amount of underharvest 

remaining every year, after accounting 

for late dealer reports, that fishermen 

would no longer be able to harvest as 

compared to the No Action alternative. 

For instance, a 10 percent decrease in 

realized revenue for the western Gulf of 

Mexico blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead shark fisheries would 

equate to approximately $50,004 (10 

percent of $500,042) loss in ex-vessel 

revenue. Based on the 10 vessels that 

landed LCS in the western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region, the individual vessel 

impact would be an approximate loss of 

$5,000 per year. This does not include 

incidental permit holders, who would 

receive a smaller amount per year. 

However, these would be only be in the 

short-term because the fisheries have 

achieved close to full quota utilization 

in recent years for some shark quotas. 

Under Alternative 1d, NMFS would 

change the shark fishery closure 

threshold to 90 percent in the Atlantic 

Region, while maintaining the Gulf of 

Mexico closure threshold or overall 

non-regional threshold at 80 percent. 

Alternative 1d provides some flexibility 

in assigning different closure thresholds 

between the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico. In the Atlantic region, this 

alternative could potentially lead to 

minor beneficial direct economic 

impacts if fishermen can land available 

quota that may have remained 

unharvested under the current 80- 

percent threshold. For instance, a 10 

percent increase in realized revenue for 

the Atlantic aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark fisheries would 

equate to an approximate $38,119 (10 

percent of $381,196) gain in ex-vessel 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31682 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

revenue. Based on the 32 vessels that 

landed LCS in the Atlantic region, the 

individual vessel impact would be an 

approximate increase of $1,191 per year. 

This does not include incidental permit 

holders, who would receive a smaller 

amount per year. In the Gulf of Mexico 

region and for fisheries with no region, 

this alternative could likely result in 

neutral direct and indirect, short- and 

long-term socioeconomic impacts 

because shark fishermen would 

continue to operate under current 

conditions, with shark fishermen 

continuing to fish at similar rates. 

Impacts in the Gulf of Mexico would 

therefore be the same as those described 

in Alternative 1a. 

Under Alternative 1e, when any shark 

fishery species and/or management 

group landings reach or are projected to 

reach 80 percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota, 

NMFS would evaluate the following 

criteriato determine if a closure is 

needed at the 80-percent threshold: 

A. The stock status of the relevant 

species or management group and any 

linked species and/or management 

groups; 

B. The patterns of over- and 

underharvest in the fishery over the 

previous five years; 

C. The likelihood of continued 

landings after the federal closure of the 

fishery; 

D. The effects of the closure on 

accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments; 

E. The likelihood of landings 

exceeding the quota by December 31 of 

each year; and 

F. The impacts of the closure on the 

catch rates of other shark management 

groups, including likelihood of an 

increase in dead discards. 

(See discussion in Chapter 2 of the Final 

EA.) This alternative would add 

flexibility to close a fishery depending 

on a set of criteria, helping to maximize 

management efficacy while preventing 

overharvest. If this increased flexibility 

in determining when to close a fishery 

leads to full quota utilization of 

management groups, while still 

preventing overharvest of shark 

fisheries, then fishermen could 

potentially see additional revenue from 

being able to land sharks that would 

otherwise have remained unharvested 

under the existing 80-percent threshold. 

For instance, a 20-percent increase in 

realized revenue for the Atlantic 

aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark 

fisheries would equate to an 

approximate $76,239 (20 percent of 

$381,196) gain in ex-vessel revenue. 

Based on the 32 vessels that landed LCS 

in the Atlantic region, the individual 

vessel impact would be an approximate 

increase of $2,382 per year. This does 

not include incidental permit holders, 

who would receive a smaller amount 

per year. Based upon these criteria, the 

fishery could still operate similarly to 

the status quo 80-percent closure 

threshold, which would result in 

neutral socioeconomic impacts as 

described for Alternative 1a, the status 

quo alternative. As examples, if a shark 

species and/or management group quota 

reaches 80 percent by September 1, then 

NMFS would evaluate the criteria in 

Alternative 1e before determining if a 

closure is needed at the 80-percent 

threshold in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic regions. Based on criteria A 

(stock status of the relevant species or 

management group and any linked 

species and/or management groups) and 

C (continued landings after the federal 

closure), NMFS would likely close the 

shark species and/or management group 

quota in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 

Atlantic region, NMFS would likely also 

close the shark species and/or 

management group quota based on 

criteria A since all of the shark species 

and/or management groups in the region 

have an overfished or unknown stock 

status. This would lead to neutral 

socioeconomic impacts in both regions 

since there would be no change from 

current regulations. If a shark species 

and/or management group quota reaches 

80 percent by December 1, then NMFS 

would need to evaluate all of the criteria 

closely before implementing a closure in 

either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic 

region. A key criterion to evaluate is the 

likelihood of landings exceeding the 

quota by December 31 of each year 

(Criteria E). In the Gulf of Mexico 

region, NMFS would also consider 

Criteria C (continued landings after the 

federal closure) and how this would 

impact the fishery. In the Atlantic 

region, NMFS would likely keep the 

fishery open as long as landings are not 

projected to exceed the quota by the end 

of the year. 

Alternative 1f, the preferred 

alternative, will allow a shark fishery to 

remain open after the fishery’s landings 

have reached or are projected to reach 

80 percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota, if 

the fishery’s landings are not projected 

to reach 100 percent of the applicable 

quota before the end of the season. If the 

80 percent threshold is reached but a 

closure is not necessary, NMFS will 

notify the public of this determination 

in the first monthly shark landings 

update listserv notice following 

achievement of the 80 percent level. If 

a closure is needed, NMFS will file a 

Notice in the Federal Register reflecting 

that determination and closing the 

fishery with the appropriate notice. This 

alternative, similar to Alternatives 1d 

and 1e, will provide the flexibility of 

achieving full quota utilization while 

still preventing overharvest. This 

alternative could therefore lead to 

neutral socioeconomic impacts, similar 

to Alternative 1a, the status quo 

alternative, if the landings are projected 

to reach 100 percent before the end of 

the fishing year. As examples, if 

landings of a shark species and/or 

management group reach 80 percent by 

September 1, then NMFS would likely 

have to close the fishery if it was in 

either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic 

regions since the landings would likely 

reach 100 percent before the end of the 

fishing year. This would cause neutral 

socioeconomic impacts since it would 

be the status quo for the fishery. If 

landings of a shark species and/or 

management group reach 80 percent by 

December 1, then NMFS would project 

whether the landings in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic regions would 

reach 100 percent before the end of the 

fishing year. If NMFS makes a 

determination that the landings would 

exceed 100 percent of the available 

quota before the end of the fishing year 

(December 31) absent a closure, then 

NMFS would keep the fishery open. 

Thus, this could lead to minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts since 

the quota could be fully utilized. A 

fishery reaching the 80-percent 

threshold without being projected to 

exceed its quota before the end of the 

season is most likely to occur late in the 

year. 

Under Alternative 2a, NMFS would 

maintain the status quo and would not 

change the notice period of five days for 

the closure of a management group. This 

alternative would have no impact on the 

allowable level of fishing pressure, 

catch rates, or distribution of fishing 

effort. As such, it is likely that the No 

Action Alternative as well as this 

alternative in combination with any of 

the Alternatives 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, or 1f 

would have both neutral direct and 

indirect, short- and long-term 

socioeconomic impacts. If there is a 

large amount of landings made during 

the five-day notice and a later closure 

under Alternatives 1b, 1c, or 1d, then 

there could be the potential for minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts for 

those fisheries who have underutilized 

the quota in recent years. The majority 

of fishing trips for sharks are currently 

one day in length, so a five-day closure 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31683 

notice should not result in regulatory 

discards for these trips. However, this 

alternative could potentially result in 

interrupted fishing activities, potentially 

resulting in regulatory discards if trips 

were underway at the time of the notice 

of the closure. For instance, pelagic 

longline fishing vessels, which can take 

trips that last several weeks, may need 

to discard any dead sharks onboard and 

in their hold if the vessel is unable to 

land the sharks before the closure is 

effective. However, NMFS expects few 

dead discards as a result of closure 

notices given that NMFS has 

implemented several management 

measures that prohibit retention of some 

sharks (i.e., silky, oceanic whitetip, 

hammerhead sharks) on vessels with 

pelagic longline gear onboard. In 

combination with all other alternatives 

(i.e., 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f), except 

Alternative 1b, this alternative would 

allow fishermen to complete their 

fishing trips while still preventing 

overharvest. In combination with 

Alternative 1b (e.g., 90-percent closure 

threshold), there is a risk of overharvest 

if the landings rate was high before the 

closure date is effective and potential 

reduced quotas the following season. 

Under Alternative 2b, NMFS would 

change the minimum notice period to 

three days instead of the current fiveday notice once the fisheries reached a 

landings threshold necessitating a 

closure. This change would allow more 

timely action in closing shark fisheries, 

helping to prevent overharvest. In 

combination with all other Alternatives 

(1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f), except 

Alternative 1c, this alternative would 

reduce the risk of exceeding the quota, 

especially if the landings rate was high 

before the closure date is effective. In 

combination with Alternative 1c (e.g., 

70-percent closure threshold), this 

alternative would increase the risk of a 

significant underharvest and would 

cause minor adverse socioeconomic 

impacts. This alternative would have no 

impact on the allowable level of fishing 

pressure, catch rates, or distribution of 

fishing effort, as the commercial quotas 

would remain the same. Therefore, it is 

likely that this alternative would have 

both neutral direct and indirect, shortand long-term socioeconomic impacts. 

This alternative could potentially result 

in interrupted fishing activities for 

pelagic longline vessels, which 

generally take trips up to nine days in 

length, potentially resulting in 

regulatory discards if shark trips were 

underway at the time of the closure and 

the closure was immediate upon filing 

of the closure notice. However, NMFS 

expects few dead discards as a result of 

the closure notice timing as most 

pelagic longline fishermen do not target 

sharks and are unlikely to land many 

sharks given recent management 

measures to reduce shark mortality on 

pelagic longline vessels. In addition, the 

preferred time before the closure is 

effective is well within the range of the 

current directed shark trip lengths (i.e., 

one to two days). This alternative was 

preferred in the draft EA primarily 

because it would increase flexibility to 

close the fishery as needed while still 

preventing overharvest and allowing 

sufficient time for most fishermen to 

complete trips underway at the time of 

the notice of the closure. Based on 

public comment, this alternative is no 

longer preferred. A new preferred 

alternative (2d) better addresses 

concerns from the States that they need 

more than three days’ notice in order to 

close state waters in conjunction with 

federal waters while also addressing 

NMFS’ need to increase flexibility to 

close the fishery as needed while still 

preventing overharvest. 

Under Alternative 2c, NMFS would 

change the timing of shark fishery 

species and/or management group 

closures to allow immediate closure 

upon filing of the closure notice with 

the Office of the Federal Register. This 

alternative would allow timely action in 

closing shark fisheries, helping to 

prevent overharvest. In combination 

with all other alternatives, this 

alternative would either reduce the risk 

of exceeding the quota (i.e., Alternatives 

1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f) or increase the 

risk of a significant underharvest (i.e., 

Alternative 1c). Therefore, it is likely 

that this alternative would have both 

neutral direct and indirect, short- and 

long-term economic impacts. However, 

as described in above, this alternative 

could potentially result in interrupted 

fishing activities with little or no 

warning to the regulated community, 

potentially resulting in regulatory 

discards, if shark trips were underway 

at the time of the notice of the closure, 

with associated loss of revenue. 

Additionally, HMS AP members from 

several states indicated that some states 

would have difficulty closing state 

water fisheries immediately. 

Under Alternative 2d, the new 

preferred alternative, NMFS will change 

the minimum notice period to four days 

instead of the current five-day notice 

once the landings reach a threshold 

necessitating a closure. This alternative 

is preferred because it addresses the 

concerns from the States that they need 

more than three days’ notice in order to 

close state waters in conjunction with 

federal waters while addressing NMFS’ 

need to increase flexibility to close the 

fishery as needed while still preventing 

overharvest. In combination with all 

other alternatives (i.e., 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 

and 1f), except Alternative 1b, 

Alternative 2d will allow most 

fishermen, particularly those fishing for 

sharks, to complete their fishing trips 

while still reducing the risk of 

exceeding the quota, especially if 

landings rate increases substantially 

between the filing of the closure notice 

and the effective date of the closure. In 

combination with Alternative 1b (e.g., 

90-percent closure threshold), there is a 

risk of overharvest if the landings rate 

was high before the closure date is 

effective under Alternative 2d. This 

alternative would likely have both 

neutral direct and indirect short- and 

long-term socioeconomic impacts to 

shark fishery participants because the 

allowable level of fishing pressure, 

catch rates, distribution of fishing effort, 

and the commercial quotas would 

remain the same. This alternative is 

within the range of originally proposed 

actions, which covered potential closure 

notice between immediate closure and 

five days. 

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 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

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 listserv notice 

and a statement published online that 

also serves as small entity compliance 

guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies 

of this final rule and the guide are 

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: July 3, 2018. 

Patricia A. Montanio, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY 

MIGRATORY SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 635 

continues to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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