[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 202 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55998-56002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28057]



[[Page 55998]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
(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. 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.
    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. 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

[[Page 55999]]

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.

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. The 
consensus plan recommended a broad range of regulatory and non-
regulatory bycatch reduction measures, including a set allocation 
scheme to reduce the derby nature of the driftnet fishery, time/area 
closures and educational workshops, among others. Other take reduction 
measures related to driftnet gear were discussed and rejected by the 
AOCTRT for various reasons.
    NMFS acknowledges the work of the AOCTRT and recognizes that all 
parties participated in the negotiated meetings in good faith. However, 
in light of information on the management costs of this fishery 
including AOCTRP measures, the October 1998 draft EA/RIR/IRFA 
accompanying this proposed action considers a broader range of options 
for managing this fishery.

ESA

    In the driftnet fishery for Atlantic swordfish, take of endangered 
species has been an ongoing concern. Endangered marine mammal takes in 
the driftnet fishery from 1991 through 1995 include one right whale, 
one humpback whale, and one sperm whale. In addition, an estimated 36 
endangered sea turtles were killed from 1991 through 1995 in the 
driftnet fishery, including 1 Kemp's ridley, 28 leatherback, and 7 
loggerhead sea turtles. Furthermore, observer data indicate that 
driftnet 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.
    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. 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

[[Page 56000]]

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. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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. 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.

[[Page 56001]]

    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.
    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).
    (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.
* * * * *
    (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.

    (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.

[[Page 56002]]

    (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