Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 980630163-9010-02; I.D. 011598A]

RIN 0648-AJ68

Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to prohibit the use of driftnet

gear in the North Atlantic swordfish fishery. The purpose of this

action is to improve the conservation and management of the North

Atlantic swordfish resource and other marine resources; specifically,

to reduce bycatch of protected resources in a manner that maximizes the

benefit to the Nation.

DATES: All provisions of this final rule are effective February 25,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact

Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) supporting

this action may be obtained from Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory

Species Management Division, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Stevenson or Chris Rogers, 301-

713-2347 or FAX 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed

under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention

Act (ATCA). The Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) has

been issued pursuant to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The

FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 630. This fishery is

also subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Introduction

This rule prohibits the use of driftnet gear in the north Atlantic

swordfish fishery. The intent of the rule is to reduce marine mammal

bycatch in the swordfish driftnet fishery while increasing the net

benefits to the nation. Background information about the need to

address bycatch and management concerns in the Atlantic swordfish

driftnet fishery was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (63

FR 55998, October 20, 1998) and is not repeated here.

NMFS wishes to address fishery management issues in an efficient

manner that increases economic benefits to the nation. Further, NMFS

seeks to reduce marine mammal takes consistent with the MMPA and the

ESA. To do this, NMFS considered implementing take reduction measures

and evaluated the effects of those measures on finfish, protected

species, and administrative costs. Prohibiting the use of driftnets in

the North Atlantic swordfish fishery serves to reduce potential marine

mammal takes in an efficient manner.

Measures necessary for reducing marine mammal takes and for

monitoring this fishery, specifically, monitoring the limited quota and

observer coverage, are costly. For some alternatives considered to

reduce marine mammal takes, the costs of implementation would exceed

the net revenues from the landed swordfish. The swordfish driftnets are

used by a limited number of participants to harvest a very small

proportion of the swordfish quota within a short season. Further, there

is currently no mechanism to limit access to this gear in place.

Some of the fishermen affected by this prohibition may choose to

continue fishing with driftnets for other species in the same area as

long as they discard any swordfish incidentally taken. Some fishermen

that have participated in the swordfish driftnet fishery have stated

that they would use driftnet gear to ``target'' (to the extent possible

with relatively non-selective gear) tunas or pelagic sharks. NMFS has

proposed to prohibit the use of driftnets in the Atlantic tunas fishery

in the draft HMS FMP. Driftnet fishermen have not used this gear to

target pelagic sharks in the past, however, high expected rates of

marine mammal bycatch are not consistent with the objectives of this

rule or the draft HMS FMP. Therefore, NMFS seeks comments on

prohibiting the use of this gear in all highly migratory species

fisheries in order to reduce marine mammal takes and bycatch of other

protected species.

Under the authority of the MMPA, the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean

Take Reduction Team (AOCTRT) was convened in 1996 to recommend measures

that would reduce takes of marine mammals in the longline and driftnet

fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). That team

submitted a draft plan to NMFS that outlined its recommended measures

for both fisheries. NMFS published a draft EA in 1997 and comments were

received, some indicating preferred alternatives by constituents. After

consideration of those comments, the AOCTRT recommendations, and HMS

Advisory Panel comments, NMFS proposed those take reduction measures

applicable to the pelagic longline fishery in the Fishery Management

Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). For driftnet

gear, the AOCTRT recommended measures, which included a set allocation

scheme, limited access, time/area closure, and 100 percent observer

coverage, would require excessive administrative costs and were not

considered effective at reducing marine mammal interactions or

addressing fishery management concerns. NMFS has instead decided to

prohibit the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery in

order to reduce marine mammal and sea turtle takes and to resolve

fishery management issues.

Comments and Responses

NMFS considered comments received on the 1997 draft EA in

formulation of the proposed rule. In addition, over 300 written

comments (mostly postcards) were submitted to NMFS and two public

hearings were held during the 60-day comment period on the proposed

[[Page 4056]]

rule to prohibit driftnets. Three members of the AOCTRT and five

driftnet fishermen submitted comments to NMFS concerning this issue

during the public comment period. NMFS considered all comments received

when drafting the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and the proposed rule.

Management Alternatives

Comment 1: Driftnet fishermen and an AOCTRT member continue to

support the recommended measures of the AOCTRT, as submitted to NMFS in

November 1996. One commenter indicated support for implementation of

these measures on a trial basis of 1 year as suggested in the AOCTRP.

Response: For the driftnets, NMFS has determined that a set

allocation scheme, time/area closure, limited entry, and other measures

would be cumbersome and costly to implement and would not guarantee

reductions in marine mammal or sea turtle interactions. Conversely,

NMFS has determined that the AOCTRT longline measures could be

effective and NMFS has proposed many of the those recommended measures

in the draft HMS FMP. One measure (reduction in the length of longline)

has been proposed to be implemented for a 1-year trial period.

Comment 2: Two members of the AOCTRT believe that the set

allocation scheme proposed by that team would not achieve the necessary

take reductions. One commenter indicated that alternative would be too

costly and cumbersome to implement, would cause the swordfish quota to

be exceeded, and would not achieve the goals of the MMPA.

Response: NMFS agrees. While the set allocation scheme might reduce

the derby nature of this fishery, fishermen may not be able to avoid

marine mammals, and this strategy would leave NMFS with no mechanism to

close the fishery mid-season if authorized take levels are exceeded.

Further, it is possible that the swordfish driftnet quota could be

exceeded under this alternative. It is likely that administrative costs

of implementing the recommended driftnet measures in the AOCTRP would

exceed the estimated value of the swordfish driftnet fishery. However,

it is unlikely that the overall swordfish quota would be exceeded as

this commenter suggested, given the magnitude of the longline/harpoon

quota relative to the driftnet quota.

Comment 3: Over 300 commenters (postcard campaign and others)

expressed their support for the prohibition of driftnets in U.S.

waters.

Response: This final rule prohibits driftnets only in the Atlantic

swordfish fishery. In the draft HMS FMP, NMFS is proposing to prohibit

the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic tunas fishery. Driftnets are

authorized in the Southeast Atlantic shark fishery but are subject to

the implementing regulations of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction

Plan (ALWTRP). The ALWTRP regulations would not apply to a shark

driftnet fishery in the Mid-Atlantic Bight or Southern New England

areas, should fishermen choose to re-direct their fishing effort to

sharks. This shift in effort is unlikely given the limited large

coastal shark quota and season and the low ex-vessel prices for pelagic

and small coastal sharks relative to large coastal sharks.

Comment 4: Some commenters supported the marine mammal bycatch

limit. One commenter felt that it should be a comprehensive mammal

limit, not an individual species limit. This alternative would allow

the fishery to operate and would keep takes below the Potential

Biological Removal (PBR) level for each species.

Response: NMFS concluded that the marine mammal bycatch limit

alternative would be costly and burdensome to implement, regardless if

it was by species or for all species combined. This alternative would

not guarantee that marine mammal takes would be below the PBR level for

each strategic stock or that the fishery would be able to take the

swordfish driftnet quota prior to closure based on marine mammal take.

Further, the marine mammal bycatch limit on a by-vessel limit would not

reduce the derby nature of the fishery that results from a limited

swordfish quota.

Comment 5: Commenters indicated that NMFS had implemented the

Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (PCTRP) for the west

coast driftnet fishery and that it was inconsistent not to implement

the AOCTRP.

Response: In 1997, NMFS published regulations that implemented the

majority of the recommendations of the PCTRP. Current data indicate

that the bycatch reduction measures required by the new regulations

appear to be successful in reducing incidental takes of cetaceans to

biologically sustainable levels in the California/Oregon drift gillnet

fishery for thresher shark and swordfish. However, the Atlantic and

Pacific driftnet fisheries present very different challenges, both in

bycatch reduction and fishery management. Atlantic driftnet fishermen

indicated that the derby nature of the fishery results in high marine

mammal takes in the Atlantic Ocean, whereas there is no quota system

for Pacific swordfish that might create a similar accelerated derby

fishery.

Further, many of the measures considered by NMFS and the AOCTRT

were rejected by the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team

(PCTRT) as too restrictive, too costly, or too difficult to enforce

(e.g., marine mammal bycatch limit, 100 percent observer coverage,

time/area closures, set allocation scheme.) That team concluded, and

NMFS agrees, that set allocations would be complicated to calculate and

difficult to enforce. In addition, the PCTRT concluded that placing a

quota on the number of sets does not reward fishermen that have low

marine mammal entanglement rates.

The PCTRT also rejected the alternative of time/area closures. They

felt that this strategy might encourage fishermen to fish during poor

weather and place fishermen at a greater safety risk. In addition,

time/area closures might increase takes of other species of marine

mammals due to seasonal concentrations of those animals in the fishing

grounds. Analysis of observer data did not indicate significant

relationships between areas fished and cetacean entanglement. Time/area

closures were also rejected by the PCTRT, because they would be

difficult and costly to enforce.

Comment 6: Some commenters opposed the transfer of driftnet quota

to the longline category and supported ``retiring'' that quota. One

commenter indicated that marine mammal mortalities or injuries would

not be reduced to levels below PBR (except for harbor porpoise) if the

quota was transferred to the longline fishery. Concern was expressed

that mortality reductions were overstated given that NMFS has not

estimated the level of serious injuries to marine mammals as a result

of longline interactions.

Response: NMFS is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide

U.S. fishermen with a ``reasonable opportunity'' to catch the entire

U.S. swordfish quota that is adopted by ICCAT. Similarly, ATCA provides

that no regulation may have the effect of increasing or decreasing an

ICCAT quota. Thus, NMFS cannot simply ``retire'' the driftnet quota.

Mortalities in the pelagic longline fishery have exceeded PBR for

the short-finned pilot whale. The annual marine mammal bycatch rate in

this fishery is based only on incidental mortalities and does not

include those animals that are incidentally injured. NMFS is currently

developing biological criteria for determining what constitutes a

serious

[[Page 4057]]

injury to a marine mammal that is injured incidental to commercial

fishing operations. NMFS' consideration of marine mammal injuries that

occur incidental to the pelagic longline fishery will likely result in

a combined mortality and serious injury rate which is higher than the

current level. The proposed take reduction measures in the HMS FMP

should offset this increase.

Comment 7: One commenter stated that NMFS needs to take similar

restrictive measures to reduce protected species takes in the longline

fishery.

Response: NMFS agrees that protected species bycatch in the

longline fishery needs to be reduced and has proposed take reduction

measures for the longline fishery in the draft HMS FMP. These measures

include gear restrictions, educational workshops, and time/area

closures.

Comment 8: One commenter supported the alternative that includes

closure of right whale critical habitat to pelagic driftnet fishing,

100-percent observer coverage, limited entry for the driftnet fishery

under the authority of the MMPA, and mandatory educational workshops.

Response: NMFS agrees that closing the winter driftnet fishery in

the Mid-Atlantic Bight would be beneficial and would likely reduce

bycatch of common dolphins. However, the August 1998 driftnet fishery

exceeded the PBR level for common dolphins by capturing 254 common

dolphins in the Northeast Coastal fishing grounds. Further, NMFS

realizes that 100-percent observer coverage would be necessary for

swordfish driftnets where potential take rates are quite high and

extremely variable. It is difficult to project catch rates of target or

non-target species in this fishery. NMFS agrees that educational

workshops could be very useful in reducing bycatch or bycatch mortality

of protected species and has proposed mandatory educational workshops

for pelagic longline fishermen in the draft HMS FMP. However, given

other considerations such as the derby nature of the fishery and the

nature of the driftnet gear, workshops alone would not sufficiently

reduce marine mammal takes. Further, the combination of some of these

measures would costs more to administer than the net revenue of

swordfish caught in driftnets.

Comment 9: One commenter did not support the alternative that the

fishery bear part of the administrative costs by purchasing a vessel

monitoring system unit and paying for observer coverage.

Response: The costs to implement a set allocation scheme are so

large and the implementation strategy so cumbersome, that NMFS sought

to develop additional alternatives that might facilitate implementation

of the AOCTRP, given limited NMFS funding. If industry participants did

not pay for these programs, costs of implementation would have been

even higher.

Comment 10: One commenter stated that NMFS' proposed plan does not

eliminate risk to marine mammals due to transfer of the quota and that

mortality in vulnerable fish species may be increased.

Response: Large coastal sharks are caught at higher rates by

driftnets; however, other finfish species are caught more frequently by

pelagic longlines. NMFS has proposed bycatch reduction measures for

pelagic longlines in the draft HMS FMP that may counteract some of the

increased mortality as a result of increased longline fishing pressure.

However, the amount of transferred driftnet swordfish quota is so

small, relative to the existing longline swordfish quota, that impacts

to finfish, turtles, and marine mammals from increased longline fishing

effort would be minimal. Further, NMFS has proposed marine mammal take

reduction measures in the HMP FMP to reduce takes of strategic stocks

of marine mammals by pelagic longlines.

Procedural Issues

Comment 11: NMFS was encouraged to transfer driftnet observer

funding to the longline observer program.

Response: NMFS will consider this when making programmatic

decisions. Observer coverage is assessed on an annual basis considering

both finfish and protected species bycatch issues.

Comment 12: A commenter questioned the validity of closing a

fishery based on administrative costs exceeding fishery revenues. NMFS

was questioned as to how decisions would be made in other fisheries

where this might be the case.

Response: NMFS has based this decision not only on the

administrative costs of the alternatives but also on the effectiveness

of the measures in reducing bycatch and fishery management objectives.

Fisheries are managed on a case-by-case basis depending on the

circumstances of the fishery and the objectives of the relevant laws

and fishery management plans.

Comment 13: Commenters expressed frustration with the preferred

alternative of banning driftnets, given the participation of team

members in the take reduction plan process. Commenters indicated that

the take reduction plan process should allow fisheries to continue

while take reduction measures are implemented. A commenter also

indicated that at no time during the course of the negotiations, did

NMFS indicate that closing the fishery was an option.

Response: NMFS participated in the take reduction process in good

faith. However, upon consideration of the AOCTRP, and the subsequent

amendment to the Biological Opinion that considered new data, NMFS

responded with an additional alternative of the marine mammal bycatch

limit. NMFS considered broader fishery management issues in conjunction

with the take reduction alternatives, and analyzed the alternatives,

including prohibiting the use of driftnets in the swordfish fishery,

and illustrated reasons for doing so, in the draft EA published in

1997.

Comment 14: Commenters indicated a preference that take reduction

plans be implemented under the authority of the MMPA, not the Magnuson-

Stevens Act or ATCA.

Response: NMFS disagrees and supports implementing this rule under

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Implementing rules under

multiple authorities results in a more comprehensive analysis of all

impacts and highlights the consistent objectives found in all

applicable laws. NMFS examined fishery management issues regarding take

reduction alternatives in the swordfish fishery in part, because the

AOCTRT felt that the derby fishing conditions contributed to escalating

marine mammal bycatch. In this fishery, measures to address

international and domestic management objectives can affect marine

mammal takes and, therefore, NMFS is implementing this rule under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Comment 15: One commenter believed that allowing the continuation

of either the longline fishery or the driftnet fishery without a take

reduction plan in place is a clear violation of the mandates of the

MMPA.

Response: NMFS has proposed take reduction measures for pelagic

longlines in the draft HMS FMP. It is the intention of NMFS that take

reduction measures for pelagic longlines be finalized in 1999. This

rule prohibits the use of driftnets in the Atlantic swordfish fishery.

Additionally, the draft HMS FMP has a proposal to prohibit driftnets in

the Atlantic tunas fishery.

Environmental Assessment

Comment 16: One commenter believed that NMFS overestimated the

costs to implement the options.

Response: NMFS analyzed the costs to the Government associated with

managing driftnets in the swordfish

[[Page 4058]]

fishery in recent years. These costs are estimates based on existing

programs throughout NMFS and serve as an indicator of the relative

costs associated with each alternative.

Comment 17: One commenter believed that increased takes of

protected species, especially sea turtles, in the 1998 driftnet season

may be a result of increased stock sizes of protected species.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that future stock assessments of

protected species could reflect increased stock size, and hence, may

result in increased PBR levels. However, at this time, NMFS must

protect marine mammals and sea turtles under the MMPA and ESA and must

adhere to current PBR estimates. In the future, take reduction measures

and PBR estimates may be adjusted if warranted.

Comment 18: One commenter indicated that NMFS' conclusory

statements about finfish impacts resulting from transferral of quota

into the pelagic longline category were understated.

Response: NMFS analyzed existing data and concluded that increasing

longline quota may incrementally increase catch rates of undersized

swordfish, bluefin tuna, marlins, and pelagic sharks. Catches of large

coastal sharks are likely to decrease as a result of the quota

transfer. NMFS has proposed bycatch reduction measures for pelagic

longlines in the HMS FMP, including a time/area closure to protect

juvenile swordfish.

Comment 19: One commenter thought that it was acceptable to place

an observer in an enforcement role under the marine mammal bycatch

limit. This person stated that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna

Commission has not encountered such problems.

Response: NMFS places observers on Atlantic fishing vessels to

collect data, not to track interactions of protected species in real

time. Observers are currently overwhelmed with a heavy workload, and

are expected to work in difficult conditions. Further, NMFS does not

desire to place an observer in an enforcement role because the driftnet

observers are not NMFS employees; they are contract employees. U.S.

Coast Guard funding is limited and is not controlled by NMFS.

Therefore, it can not ignore the comments concerning at-sea enforcement

costs submitted by the U.S. Coast Guard during development of this rule

and the HMS FMP.

Comment 20: A commenter disagreed with NMFS' concern that under an

overall marine mammal bycatch limit, the PBR level could be exceeded

for some species if a large number of vessels captured that species

exclusively. The commenter stated that such a phenomenon is unlikely.

Response: NMFS disagrees. In August 1998, one driftnet set captured

42 common dolphins. Admittedly, this appears to be an anomaly, but such

a set could be repeated, considering the concentration of marine life

and food sources on the fishing grounds during that time of the year.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

NMFS changes the proposed semi-annual directed fishery quota to

remove the driftnet allocation in Sec. 630.24(b)(2). The proposed rule

inadvertently omitted this change. Further, Sec. 630.24(b)(1) should

have been left unchanged from the existing regulations because

swordfish driftnets were legally used in the North Atlantic during the

1998 fishing year. Editorial changes have been made and typographical

errors have been corrected in the final rule.

Classification

This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-

Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.

NMFS prepared a FRFA. NMFS has concluded that this action to

prohibit the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery

will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. As a result of temporary closures of the driftnet

fishery, fishermen who have used this gear have: (1) transferred

fishing effort into the longline/harpoon category in order to take

advantage of the transferred swordfish quota from the driftnet

category, (2) fished for other species with other fishing gears, (3)

used driftnets for other highly migratory species, including Pacific

species or (4) exited commercial fishing. Therefore, the FRFA assumes

that fishermen, during the time they would normally fish for swordfish

with a driftnet, would fall into one of these four categories.

Seventeen driftnet vessels were considered to be the universe of

affected small entities in this analysis. Under the preferred

alternative, each of these scenarios results in greater than a 5-

percent decrease in gross revenues for more than 20 percent of the

affected entities, or would cause greater than 2 percent of the

affected entities to be forced to cease operations. Therefore,

regardless of which activity any individual driftnet fisherman pursues

should the proposed action be implemented, the RFA thresholds for

significant impact are expected to be exceeded.

The other alternatives considered include the status quo, a set

allocation scheme to reduce the derby nature of the fishery (with

associated measures), and a marine mammal bycatch limit (with

associated measures). These alternatives may have lesser economic

impacts on the driftnet participants; however, none of those

alternatives guarantee reduced takes of marine mammals and, further, do

not eliminate such fishery management concerns as the increasing costs

to manage this limited fishery. Further, the management costs of the

preferred alternative relating to the value of the swordfish gear quota

compares favorably with the costs of managing the pelagic longline

fishery. The RIR provides further discussion of the economic effects of

all the alternatives considered. Given that the alternative selected by

NMFS is to permanently close the driftnet fishery for swordfish, there

are no measures which would minimize the economic impact on small

entities. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see

ADDRESSES).

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of

E.O. 12866.

This action will not impose any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial

fisheries on September 25, 1996, and again on August 12, 1997, under

section 7 of the ESA. In Biological Opinions issued on May 29, 1997,

and August 29, 1997, NMFS concluded that operation of the harpoon

fishery is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence of

any endangered or threatened species under NMFS' jurisdiction and that

operation of the longline fishery may adversely affect, but may not

jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened

species under NMFS jurisdiction. Conversely, it was concluded that

driftnet fishing for swordfish in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic

and for sharks in the Southeast will jeopardize the continued existence

of the northern right whale. A temporary rule under the authority of

the ESA implemented time/area closures for driftnet gear in the

northeast as an interim measure. Another rulemaking implemented a take

reduction plan for Atlantic large whales in the southeast United States

under the MMPA. This final rule will further reduce the likelihood of

interactions between driftnet gear and northern right whales.

[[Page 4059]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 630

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Treaties.

Dated: January 21, 1999.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assitant Adminsitrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 630, is

amended as follows:

PART 630--ATLANTIC SWORDFISH FISHERY

1. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.

2. In Sec. 630.3, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words

``or gillnet''.

3. In Sec. 630.7, paragraphs (p), (s), and (t) are revised, and

paragraphs (bb) and (cc) are redesignated as paragraphs (aa) and (bb)

respectively, to read as follows:

Sec. 630.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(p) Fish for Atlantic swordfish with a driftnet or possess an

Atlantic swordfish on board a vessel with a driftnet on board, as

specified in Sec. 630.22.

* * * * *

(s) During a closure of the directed fishery under

Sec. 630.25(a)(1) or (b), on board a vessel using or having on board

the specified gear, fish for swordfish, or possess or land swordfish in

excess of the bycatch limits, as specified in Sec. 630.25(c).

(t) On board a vessel using or having on board gear other than

longline or harpoon, fish for swordfish, or possessing or landing

swordfish in excess of the bycatch limit, as specified in

Sec. 630.25(d).

* * * * *

4. Section 630.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 630.22 Gear restrictions.

No driftnet may be used to fish for swordfish from the North or

South Atlantic swordfish stocks. An Atlantic swordfish may not be

possessed on board or harvested by a vessel using or having on board a

driftnet.

5. In Sec. 630.24, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), and (e)(1) are

revised, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and (f) is removed and reserved to

read as follows:

Sec. 630.24 Quotas.

(a) Applicability. (1) A swordfish harvested from the North

Atlantic swordfish stock by a vessel of the United States other than

one participating in the recreational fishery is counted against the

directed-fishery quota or the bycatch quota. A swordfish harvested by

longline or harpoon and landed before the effective date of a closure

for that gear, pursuant to Sec. 630.25(a)(1), is counted against the

directed-fishery quota. After a closure, a swordfish landed by a vessel

using or possessing gear for which bycatch is allowed under

Sec. 630.25(c) is counted against the bycatch allocation specified in

paragraph (c) of this section. Notwithstanding these provisions, a

swordfish harvested by a vessel using or possessing gear other than

longline, harpoon, or rod and reel is counted against the bycatch quota

specified in paragraph (c) of this section at all times.

* * * * *

(b) Directed-fishery quotas. * * *

(2) The annual directed fishery quota for the North Atlantic

swordfish stock for the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000, is

2,033.2 mt dw. The quota is divided into two equal semiannual quotas of

1016.6 mt dw, one for the period June 1 through November 30, 1999, and

the other for the period December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000.

* * * * *

(e) Inseason adjustments. (1) NMFS may adjust the December 1

through May 31 semiannual directed fishery quota to reflect actual

catches during the June 1 through November 30 semiannual period,

provided that the 12-month directed-fishery quota is not exceeded.

* * * * *

6. In Sec. 630.25, the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and

(c), and the introductory text to paragraph (d) are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 630.25 Closures and incidental catch limits.

(a) Notification of a closure. (1) When the directed-fishery annual

or semiannual quota specified in Sec. 630.24 is reached, or is

projected to be reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal

Register closing the directed-fishery for fish from the North Atlantic

swordfish stock or from the South Atlantic swordfish stock, as

appropriate. The effective date of such notification will be at least

14 days after the date such notification is filed at the Office of the

Federal Register. The closure will remain in effect until additional

directed-fishery quota becomes available.

* * * * *

(c) Bycatch limits during a directed-fishery closure. (1) During a

closure of the directed fishery, aboard a vessel using or having aboard

a longline and not having aboard harpoon gear--

(i) A person may not fish for swordfish from the North Atlantic

swordfish stock; and

(ii) No more than 15 swordfish per trip may be possessed in the

North Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea,

north of 5 degrees N. lat., or landed in an Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,

or Caribbean coastal state. The Assistant Administrator may modify or

change the bycatch limits upon publication of notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to the notification requirements and procedures in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Changes in the bycatch limits will be

based upon the length of the directed fishery closure as well as the

estimated catch per vessel in the non-directed fishery.

(2) During a closure of the directed fishery, aboard a vessel using

or having aboard harpoon gear--

(i) A person may not fish for swordfish from the North Atlantic

swordfish stock; and

(ii) No swordfish may be possessed in the North Atlantic Ocean,

including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, north of 5 deg. N.

latitude, or landed in an Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean

coastal state.

(d) Bycatch limits in the non-directed fishery. On board a vessel

using or having on board gear other than harpoon or longline, other

than a vessel in the recreational fishery--

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-1872 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F