# 63 FR 55998: Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-28057

## Section

- **Citation:** 63 FR 55998
- **Heading:** Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 63 / 63 FR 55998

## Text

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

## Nearby sections

- [63 FR 447 Rule and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-101.md)
- [63 FR 456 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-241.md)
- [63 FR 770 Competitive Bidding Proceeding](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-297.md)
- [63 FR 1072 Airworthiness Directives; Turbopropeller-Powered McDonnell Douglas Model DC-3 and DC-3C Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-476.md)
- [63 FR 1086 Abatement of Interest](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-19.md)
- [63 FR 1396 Arkansas Regulatory Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-530.md)
- [63 FR 1396 Notice of Meeting](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-588.md)
- [63 FR 1804 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; DelawareNew Source Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-673.md)
- [63 FR 2188 Maintenance of Minimum Financial Requirements by Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-665.md)
- [63 FR 2192 Utah Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-859.md)
- [63 FR 2353 General Regulations and Standards for Certain Agricultural Commodities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-920.md)
- [63 FR 2640 Municipal Securities Dealers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-815.md)
- [63 FR 2913 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Alice, TX](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1225.md)
- [63 FR 2916 Kansas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1216.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-28057. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.