Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 980630163-8163-01; 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: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to prohibit the use of driftnets in

the Atlantic swordfish fishery and to eliminate any incidental catch

allowance for swordfish in any other driftnet fishery. The intent of

the proposed action is to reduce interactions of driftnets in the

Atlantic swordfish fishery with certain protected marine species.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 1998.

Public hearings on this proposed rule will be held on Friday, November

13, 1998, in Silver Spring, MD, at 9:00-11:00 a.m. and on Tuesday,

November 17, 1998, in Fairhaven, MA, at 7:00-10:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to Rebecca

Lent, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.

For copies of the draft Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact

Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), contact

Jill Stevenson at (301) 713-2347 or write to Rebecca Lent. The

locations of the public hearings on this proposed rule are: (1) The

Seaport Inn/Starboard Room, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; and

es, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD.

For copies of the draft Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact

Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA), contact

Jill Stevenson at (301) 713-2347 or write to Rebecca Lent. The

locations of the public hearings on this proposed rule are: (1) The

Seaport Inn/Starboard Room, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; and

(2) NOAA Building, SSMC III, Room 4527 (4th floor), 1315

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

713-2347; 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 fishery management plan (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) due to incidental take of protected species by

driftnet gear used in this fishery.

Introduction

This proposed rule is intended to reduce the take of marine mammals

in the Atlantic swordfish fishery. Observer data and vessel logbooks

indicate that, in the Atlantic swordfish fishery, driftnet gear results

in a significantly higher rate of take of protected marine mammals

relative to other gear (i.e., pelagic longline and harpoon).

Additionally, the driftnet fishery has had takes of protected sea

turtles (e.g., loggerhead, leatherback). The high take rates of

protected species for the fishery necessitates 100-percent observer

coverage. Coupled with the limited driftnet swordfish quota and a

corresponding need for real-time quota monitoring, this fishery is

difficult and costly to manage.

In addition to protected species concerns, NMFS has identified

other concerns related to the management of the driftnet fishery for

Atlantic swordfish

rates of

protected species for the fishery necessitates 100-percent observer

coverage. Coupled with the limited driftnet swordfish quota and a

corresponding need for real-time quota monitoring, this fishery is

difficult and costly to manage.

In addition to protected species concerns, NMFS has identified

other concerns related to the management of the driftnet fishery for

Atlantic swordfish. First, on September 30, 1997, NMFS identified

Atlantic bluefin tuna, swordfish, large coastal sharks, Atlantic blue

marlin, and Atlantic white marlin (all species captured by driftnet

gear), as being overfished. Second, the cost of quota monitoring in the

driftnet fishery is relatively high and is likely to become higher in

light of Atlantic swordfish rebuilding. Finally, NMFS has concerns

about the potential for expanded use of driftnet gear in the tuna and

shark fisheries with continued bycatch of swordfish and protected

species.

NMFS has analyzed two alternatives regarding the bycatch and

fishery management concerns as part of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA

accompanying this proposed rule: (1) prohibiting the use of driftnet

gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery and (2) allowing the use of the

gear but with various management measures designed to reduce protected

species takes. Under Alternative 2, NMFS considered current management

measures (No Action), new measures that would include the Atlantic

Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (AOCTRP) set allocation scheme,

and new measures that would include a marine mammal bycatch limit. As

discussed in further detail in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, the status quo

would not address bycatch and cost of management concerns, and the set

allocation scheme and protected species limit would result in a

disproportionately high cost of management to NMFS relative to the

management of other gear used in the swordfish fishery

and new measures that would include a marine mammal bycatch limit. As

discussed in further detail in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, the status quo

would not address bycatch and cost of management concerns, and the set

allocation scheme and protected species limit would result in a

disproportionately high cost of management to NMFS relative to the

management of other gear used in the swordfish fishery.

Given the high costs to NMFS of 100-percent observer coverage, of

bycatch reduction measures (see discussion below), and of real-time

quota monitoring for the driftnet fishery, NMFS proposes to prohibit

the use of driftnets in the Atlantic swordfish fishery and the

possession of Atlantic swordfish on board any vessel possessing a

driftnet. If the rule is issues as proposed, the swordfish quota

previously allocated to the driftnet gear category (62 FR 55357,

October 24, 1997) would be made available to other directed fishery

participants (longline and harpoon vessels).

Background

In 1985, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC)

prepared and submitted an FMP for Atlantic swordfish to NMFS. At that

time, there were six driftnet vessels fishing for swordfish in the

Atlantic Ocean along the Northeast coast. These vessels tended to use

driftnets as a supplement to harpoons or pelagic longlines. The SAFMC

considered banning driftnets due to concerns over undesirable bycatch;

however, the final FMP (50 FR 33952, August 22, 1985) did not contain a

measure prohibiting driftnets because insufficient information was

available to warrant it. The 1985 FMP included provisions for data

collection for all fishing gears and procedures for restricting fishing

practices that result in an undesirable bycatch level.

The size of the swordfish driftnet fleet has expanded to about

twice its 1985 size. Since 1985, NMFS has implemented a comprehensive

data collection program in the swordfish fishery

nt information was

available to warrant it. The 1985 FMP included provisions for data

collection for all fishing gears and procedures for restricting fishing

practices that result in an undesirable bycatch level.

The size of the swordfish driftnet fleet has expanded to about

twice its 1985 size. Since 1985, NMFS has implemented a comprehensive

data collection program in the swordfish fishery. Driftnet vessel

owners are subject to a 100-percent observer coverage requirement and

vessel permitting and reporting. As a result of this program, NMFS has

collected a significant amount of information, including fishing

effort, catch and size composition, and rates of finfish and protected

species bycatch.

The current management program, including real-time quota

monitoring and associated catch and closure projections, imposes a

significant cost to NMFS. If the driftnet quota is exceeded, which is

possible due to highly variable daily catch rates, NMFS must account

for the excess harvest by transferring swordfish quota from the

incidental catch category. If the quota is not reached in the projected

timeframe (as in 1996 and again in 1998), NMFS must evaluate the amount

of remaining quota and consider the feasibility of reopening

the driftnet fishery. This involves another round of effort and catch

rate projections and the continued risk of overharvest. There is also a

safety risk due to the nature of a brief derby fishery.

Since the swordfish FMP was submitted in 1985, NMFS with the full

cooperation of the fishermen has employed various management strategies

to monitor swordfish landings in ``real time'' and avoid underharvest

or overharvest of the assigned quota. These strategies included placing

NMFS staff on vessels to observe the fishery and working with the fleet

via a fax system in which one vessel reported the catch of several

vessels. Despite the efforts of NMFS and participating fishermen, it

remains difficult and costly for NMFS to estimate real-time catch rates

in this fishery.

'' and avoid underharvest

or overharvest of the assigned quota. These strategies included placing

NMFS staff on vessels to observe the fishery and working with the fleet

via a fax system in which one vessel reported the catch of several

vessels. Despite the efforts of NMFS and participating fishermen, it

remains difficult and costly for NMFS to estimate real-time catch rates

in this fishery.

MMPA

Under MMPA procedures, the Atlantic pelagic driftnet fishery has

been listed as a Category I fishery since 1991 due to the frequency of

incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals. Based on

1991 through 1995 observer data (the most recent data considered for

this listing), an estimated 282 marine mammals were killed annually,

including: 187 common dolphins, 25 pilot whales, 19 offshore bottlenose

dolphins, 14 spotted dolphins, 13 Risso's dolphins, 11 striped

dolphins, and 10 beaked whales. Data from 1996 and 1998 (the fishery

was not permitted to operate in 1997) indicate that the magnitude of

bycatch has not decreased in recent years. Indeed, during the 1998

driftnet fishery, mortality rates for some marine mammal species were

twice those of prior years.

In 1994, the MMPA was re-authorized, establishing the Take

Reduction Team framework. The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction

Team (AOCTRT) was formed in May 1996 to address protected species

bycatch by the Category I Atlantic pelagic fisheries (i.e., driftnet,

longline, and pair trawl fisheries that target highly migratory

species). Observer data collected since 1991 considered by the AOCTRT

indicate that marine mammal interaction rates are high in the driftnet

fishery and that effort has expanded since 1985.

The AOCTRP was submitted to NMFS in November, 1996. In accordance

with section 118(f) of the MMPA, the AOCTRP contained measures to

address the bycatch of strategic stocks of marine mammals

et vessels also took endangered green turtles during the 1998

swordfish fishery. In fact, the green turtle take in 1998 met the level

authorized by an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) developed for the

highly migratory species driftnet and pelagic longline fisheries before

the swordfish quota was reached. Continued fishing would have risked

green turtle takes above levels authorized by the ITS.

NMFS has responded to this ongoing concern through a series of

management activities. On September 25, 1996, NMFS reinitiated

consultation under section 7(a) of the ESA on the Atlantic tuna,

swordfish, and shark fisheries. While this consultation was under way,

an emergency fishery closure was implemented covering the semiannual

subquota period of December 1, 1996, through May 29, 1997 (61 FR 64486,

December 5, 1996) to ensure that no irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources was made.

On May 29, 1997, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) that

concluded that the operation of the driftnet segment of the Atlantic

swordfish, tunas, and shark fisheries is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the northern right whale. The BO identified two

possible alternatives for avoiding jeopardy: (1) implementing the

driftnet measures of the AOCTRP (recommendations to eliminate the derby

fishery through set allocation, time/area closures, 100-percent

observer coverage) and Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

(recommendations for time/area closures, 100 percent observer coverage)

and (2) prohibiting the use of driftnet gear in the swordfish, tunas,

and shark fisheries, in all areas and at all times. The emergency

closure was extended from May 29 through November 26, 1997 (62 FR

30775, June 5, 1997), or until a preferred option to avoid the

likelihood of jeopardy could be identified and implemented

(recommendations for time/area closures, 100 percent observer coverage)

and (2) prohibiting the use of driftnet gear in the swordfish, tunas,

and shark fisheries, in all areas and at all times. The emergency

closure was extended from May 29 through November 26, 1997 (62 FR

30775, June 5, 1997), or until a preferred option to avoid the

likelihood of jeopardy could be identified and implemented.

On August 12, 1997, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the Atlantic

pelagic fishery due to new information regarding the implementation of

conservation measures to protect northern right whales and due to

recent information on mortality and recruitment of the right whale

population and on common dolphin abundance. An amended BO, issued on

August 29, 1997, concluded that the potential exists for further

entanglements of endangered species in driftnet gear during the winter

fishery and part of the traditional summer fishery. The geographic

distribution of right whales is close to, or overlaps with, the area of

operation of the Atlantic driftnet fishery during that part of the

year. The BO identified an additional alternative for avoiding jeopardy

to right whales, which included expanded time/area closures and 100

percent observer coverage for driftnet vessels targeting swordfish and

tunas only. Concerns about bycatch of right whales in the Atlantic

shark driftnet fishery were addressed under separate regulations

implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (62 FR 39157,

July 22, 1997.)

Due to the time required to evaluate the reasonable and prudent

alternatives, NMFS issued a rule under the authority of the ESA (62 FR

63467, December 1, 1997) to implement the time/area closure identified

in the BO (for the period November 27, 1997, to July 31, 1998) in order

to reduce the likelihood of interactions with right whales

e Whale Take Reduction Plan (62 FR 39157,

July 22, 1997.)

Due to the time required to evaluate the reasonable and prudent

alternatives, NMFS issued a rule under the authority of the ESA (62 FR

63467, December 1, 1997) to implement the time/area closure identified

in the BO (for the period November 27, 1997, to July 31, 1998) in order

to reduce the likelihood of interactions with right whales. However,

the time/area closure implemented under the ESA rule was not deemed

sufficient to protect all marine mammal stocks that interact with

driftnet gear and was issued as a temporary rule which expired on July

31, 1998.

Further observer data from the 1998 fishing season indicate that

driftnet vessels took the limit of green turtles authorized by the ITS

before the swordfish quota was reached. Although 1998 swordfish

driftnet quota remains, NMFS subsequently decided not to

reopen the fishery due to concerns about bycatch of protected species,

particularly endangered sea turtles.

Management Issues

Information collected since the implementation of the Atlantic

Swordfish FMP has allowed NMFS to assess the costs of alternatives for

managing the driftnet segment of the swordfish fishery.

The driftnet sector of this fishery requires relatively high

management costs because of necessary bycatch reduction measures,

observer coverage requirements, and the demands of real-time quota

monitoring. The driftnet sector of the swordfish fishery was allocated

2 percent of the annual North Atlantic swordfish in 1998. Approximately

10 to 12 vessels participate each year in this fishery, and it

typically lasts 7 to 14 days depending on the number of vessels and

catch rates.

Management costs for decreasing the high rate of protected species

takes in this relatively small driftnet fishery were estimated under

each alternative. These estimates indicate the relative cost of

implementing and enforcing each alternative

ately

10 to 12 vessels participate each year in this fishery, and it

typically lasts 7 to 14 days depending on the number of vessels and

catch rates.

Management costs for decreasing the high rate of protected species

takes in this relatively small driftnet fishery were estimated under

each alternative. These estimates indicate the relative cost of

implementing and enforcing each alternative. The analysis also includes

additional management measures (e.g., vessel monitoring systems,

industry-funded observers) in the set allocation scheme and marine

mammal bycatch limit alternatives, with the intent of reducing NMFS'

management costs as much as possible.

Annual management cost estimates for implementing the alternatives

ranged from $133,500 per year (prohibiting driftnets) to more than $1

million (set allocation) for initial year implementation costs.

Significant recurring costs, ranging from $60,000 to $904,600, were

also estimated for all alternatives. Recurring costs of gear

prohibition are minimal. While initial and recurring costs to NMFS

could be significantly reduced by having vessel operators fund both a

vessel monitoring system and an observer program, these would still be

costs borne by the economy in harvesting swordfish with driftnets, and

therefore, would reduce the net economic benefit of this fishery. A

more detailed presentation of management costs is available in the

Draft EA/RIR/IRFA (See ADDRESSES).

The preferred alternative of prohibiting driftnet gear is estimated

to have the lowest management cost of any of the alternatives

considered and would be the most easily enforced, requiring minor at-

sea and dockside monitoring. It would also be the most effective at

reducing marine mammal takes. The only costs of implementing this

alternative after the first year would be the enforcement of the no-

retention measure for swordfish on driftnet vessels

estimated

to have the lowest management cost of any of the alternatives

considered and would be the most easily enforced, requiring minor at-

sea and dockside monitoring. It would also be the most effective at

reducing marine mammal takes. The only costs of implementing this

alternative after the first year would be the enforcement of the no-

retention measure for swordfish on driftnet vessels.

Costs of managing the driftnet fishery under each alternative

relative to the gross ex-vessel revenues of the swordfish quota were

examined and compared to the costs of managing the pelagic longline

fishery under status quo. The cost of managing the driftnet fishery

under the preferred alternative is 49 percent of the gross ex-vessel

revenues of the swordfish driftnet quota in the first year. Costs are

minimal in subsequent years. Costs under other alternatives range from

73 percent to over 2.5 times the ex-vessel value of the swordfish

quota.

In contrast, the costs to manage the pelagic longline fishery

amount to 47 percent of the gross ex-vessel revenue of the swordfish

longline/harpoon quota under status quo management measures. The

proposed action would greatly reduce the cost of management relative to

harvesting the allocated swordfish quota.

Conclusion

Currently, driftnets are not commonly used to target Atlantic tunas

although a few driftnet trips targeted tunas in 1997 and 1998. NMFS

does not have sufficient information about the tuna driftnet fishery

(with either large or small mesh nets) to evaluate the level of impact

from vessels that may convert to tuna driftnetting as a result of this

prohibition in the swordfish fishery. However, based on trips taken in

1997 and 1998 that targeted tunas, NMFS believes it is unlikely that

many swordfish driftnet boats will convert to tuna fishing in response

to a prohibition in the swordfish fishery

(with either large or small mesh nets) to evaluate the level of impact

from vessels that may convert to tuna driftnetting as a result of this

prohibition in the swordfish fishery. However, based on trips taken in

1997 and 1998 that targeted tunas, NMFS believes it is unlikely that

many swordfish driftnet boats will convert to tuna fishing in response

to a prohibition in the swordfish fishery.

NMFS is currently developing a fishery management plan for tunas,

sharks, and swordfish to replace existing fishery management plans for

Atlantic sharks and swordfish. Management measures to address expansion

of driftnet activities in the shark and tuna fisheries are being

considered in the development of that fishery management plan. In the

short term, this proposed action should further reduce the potential of

using driftnet gear to target tunas by eliminating the swordfish

incidental catch allowance for any driftnet vessel, regardless of

target species.

In sum, NMFS selected the prohibition of driftnets for Atlantic

swordfish as the preferred alternative because it appropriately meets

the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and has the greatest

likelihood of reducing bycatch of marine mammals and of reducing the

costs of management incurred by NMFS of this fishery.

Classification

This proposed 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 has concluded that this proposed rule to prohibit the use of

driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery would have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been

prepared

ule 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 has concluded that this proposed rule to prohibit the use of

driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery would have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been

prepared.

The initial regulatory flexibility analysis assumes that fishermen,

during the time they would normally fish for swordfish with a driftnet,

would: (1) transfer fishing effort into the longline/harpoon category

in order to take advantage of the transferred swordfish quota from the

driftnet category, (2) fish for other species with other fishing gears,

(3) use driftnets for other highly migratory species, or (4) exit

commercial fishing. 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

rby 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.

The proposed action would not impose any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements.

NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all Highly Migratory

Species commercial fisheries on September 25, 1996, and again on August

12, 1997, under section 7 of the ESA. In BOs 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 Mid-Atlantic and

for sharks in the Southeast jeopardized 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 proposed rule, if implemented, would further reduce the

likelihood of interactions between driftnet gear and northern right

whales

mporary 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 proposed rule, if implemented, would further reduce the

likelihood of interactions between driftnet gear and northern right

whales.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866. Comments on this proposed rule are invited and

will be accepted if received by December 14, 1998.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 630

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Treaties.

Dated: October 15, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

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

proposed to be 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.

Sec. 630.3 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 630.3, parapgraph (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).

wordfish 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 from a vessel using or having on board

a driftnet.

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

are revised, and paragraphs (a)(3) and (f) are removed 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 a bycatch is allowed under

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

paragraph (c) of this section. Notwithstanding the above, 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.

* * * * *

ng or possessing gear for which a bycatch is allowed under

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

paragraph (c) of this section. Notwithstanding the above, 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. (1) The annual directed fishery quota

for the North Atlantic swordfish stock for the period June 1, 1998,

through May 31, 1999, is 2,098.6 mt dw. The allocation is divided into

two equal semiannual quotas of 1,028.5 mt dw, one for the period June 1

through November 30, 1998, and the other for the period December 1,

1998, through May 31, 1999.

(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

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

the other for the period December 1, 1998, 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.

ay 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 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--

pon publication of notice in the Federal

Register pursuant to the 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. 98-28057 Filed 10-15-98; 4:08 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F