[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4055-4059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1872]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 980630163-9010-02; I.D. 011598A]
RIN 0648-AJ68


Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Management of Driftnet Gear

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to prohibit the use of driftnet 
gear in the North Atlantic swordfish fishery. The purpose of this 
action is to improve the conservation and management of the North 
Atlantic swordfish resource and other marine resources; specifically, 
to reduce bycatch of protected resources in a manner that maximizes the 
benefit to the Nation.

DATES: All provisions of this final rule are effective February 25, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) supporting 
this action may be obtained from Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Stevenson or Chris Rogers, 301-
713-2347 or FAX 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed 
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention 
Act (ATCA). The Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) has 
been issued pursuant to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 
FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 630. This fishery is 
also subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

Introduction

    This rule prohibits the use of driftnet gear in the north Atlantic 
swordfish fishery. The intent of the rule is to reduce marine mammal 
bycatch in the swordfish driftnet fishery while increasing the net 
benefits to the nation. Background information about the need to 
address bycatch and management concerns in the Atlantic swordfish 
driftnet fishery was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (63 
FR 55998, October 20, 1998) and is not repeated here.
    NMFS wishes to address fishery management issues in an efficient 
manner that increases economic benefits to the nation. Further, NMFS 
seeks to reduce marine mammal takes consistent with the MMPA and the 
ESA. To do this, NMFS considered implementing take reduction measures 
and evaluated the effects of those measures on finfish, protected 
species, and administrative costs. Prohibiting the use of driftnets in 
the North Atlantic swordfish fishery serves to reduce potential marine 
mammal takes in an efficient manner.
    Measures necessary for reducing marine mammal takes and for 
monitoring this fishery, specifically, monitoring the limited quota and 
observer coverage, are costly. For some alternatives considered to 
reduce marine mammal takes, the costs of implementation would exceed 
the net revenues from the landed swordfish. The swordfish driftnets are 
used by a limited number of participants to harvest a very small 
proportion of the swordfish quota within a short season. Further, there 
is currently no mechanism to limit access to this gear in place.
    Some of the fishermen affected by this prohibition may choose to 
continue fishing with driftnets for other species in the same area as 
long as they discard any swordfish incidentally taken. Some fishermen 
that have participated in the swordfish driftnet fishery have stated 
that they would use driftnet gear to ``target'' (to the extent possible 
with relatively non-selective gear) tunas or pelagic sharks. NMFS has 
proposed to prohibit the use of driftnets in the Atlantic tunas fishery 
in the draft HMS FMP. Driftnet fishermen have not used this gear to 
target pelagic sharks in the past, however, high expected rates of 
marine mammal bycatch are not consistent with the objectives of this 
rule or the draft HMS FMP. Therefore, NMFS seeks comments on 
prohibiting the use of this gear in all highly migratory species 
fisheries in order to reduce marine mammal takes and bycatch of other 
protected species.
    Under the authority of the MMPA, the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean 
Take Reduction Team (AOCTRT) was convened in 1996 to recommend measures 
that would reduce takes of marine mammals in the longline and driftnet 
fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). That team 
submitted a draft plan to NMFS that outlined its recommended measures 
for both fisheries. NMFS published a draft EA in 1997 and comments were 
received, some indicating preferred alternatives by constituents. After 
consideration of those comments, the AOCTRT recommendations, and HMS 
Advisory Panel comments, NMFS proposed those take reduction measures 
applicable to the pelagic longline fishery in the Fishery Management 
Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). For driftnet 
gear, the AOCTRT recommended measures, which included a set allocation 
scheme, limited access, time/area closure, and 100 percent observer 
coverage, would require excessive administrative costs and were not 
considered effective at reducing marine mammal interactions or 
addressing fishery management concerns. NMFS has instead decided to 
prohibit the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery in 
order to reduce marine mammal and sea turtle takes and to resolve 
fishery management issues.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS considered comments received on the 1997 draft EA in 
formulation of the proposed rule. In addition, over 300 written 
comments (mostly postcards) were submitted to NMFS and two public 
hearings were held during the 60-day comment period on the proposed

[[Page 4056]]

rule to prohibit driftnets. Three members of the AOCTRT and five 
driftnet fishermen submitted comments to NMFS concerning this issue 
during the public comment period. NMFS considered all comments received 
when drafting the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and the proposed rule.

Management Alternatives

     Comment 1: Driftnet fishermen and an AOCTRT member continue to 
support the recommended measures of the AOCTRT, as submitted to NMFS in 
November 1996. One commenter indicated support for implementation of 
these measures on a trial basis of 1 year as suggested in the AOCTRP.
    Response: For the driftnets, NMFS has determined that a set 
allocation scheme, time/area closure, limited entry, and other measures 
would be cumbersome and costly to implement and would not guarantee 
reductions in marine mammal or sea turtle interactions. Conversely, 
NMFS has determined that the AOCTRT longline measures could be 
effective and NMFS has proposed many of the those recommended measures 
in the draft HMS FMP. One measure (reduction in the length of longline) 
has been proposed to be implemented for a 1-year trial period.
    Comment 2: Two members of the AOCTRT believe that the set 
allocation scheme proposed by that team would not achieve the necessary 
take reductions. One commenter indicated that alternative would be too 
costly and cumbersome to implement, would cause the swordfish quota to 
be exceeded, and would not achieve the goals of the MMPA.
    Response: NMFS agrees. While the set allocation scheme might reduce 
the derby nature of this fishery, fishermen may not be able to avoid 
marine mammals, and this strategy would leave NMFS with no mechanism to 
close the fishery mid-season if authorized take levels are exceeded. 
Further, it is possible that the swordfish driftnet quota could be 
exceeded under this alternative. It is likely that administrative costs 
of implementing the recommended driftnet measures in the AOCTRP would 
exceed the estimated value of the swordfish driftnet fishery. However, 
it is unlikely that the overall swordfish quota would be exceeded as 
this commenter suggested, given the magnitude of the longline/harpoon 
quota relative to the driftnet quota.
    Comment 3: Over 300 commenters (postcard campaign and others) 
expressed their support for the prohibition of driftnets in U.S. 
waters.
    Response: This final rule prohibits driftnets only in the Atlantic 
swordfish fishery. In the draft HMS FMP, NMFS is proposing to prohibit 
the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic tunas fishery. Driftnets are 
authorized in the Southeast Atlantic shark fishery but are subject to 
the implementing regulations of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 
Plan (ALWTRP). The ALWTRP regulations would not apply to a shark 
driftnet fishery in the Mid-Atlantic Bight or Southern New England 
areas, should fishermen choose to re-direct their fishing effort to 
sharks. This shift in effort is unlikely given the limited large 
coastal shark quota and season and the low ex-vessel prices for pelagic 
and small coastal sharks relative to large coastal sharks.
    Comment 4: Some commenters supported the marine mammal bycatch 
limit. One commenter felt that it should be a comprehensive mammal 
limit, not an individual species limit. This alternative would allow 
the fishery to operate and would keep takes below the Potential 
Biological Removal (PBR) level for each species.
    Response: NMFS concluded that the marine mammal bycatch limit 
alternative would be costly and burdensome to implement, regardless if 
it was by species or for all species combined. This alternative would 
not guarantee that marine mammal takes would be below the PBR level for 
each strategic stock or that the fishery would be able to take the 
swordfish driftnet quota prior to closure based on marine mammal take. 
Further, the marine mammal bycatch limit on a by-vessel limit would not 
reduce the derby nature of the fishery that results from a limited 
swordfish quota.
    Comment 5: Commenters indicated that NMFS had implemented the 
Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (PCTRP) for the west 
coast driftnet fishery and that it was inconsistent not to implement 
the AOCTRP.
     Response: In 1997, NMFS published regulations that implemented the 
majority of the recommendations of the PCTRP. Current data indicate 
that the bycatch reduction measures required by the new regulations 
appear to be successful in reducing incidental takes of cetaceans to 
biologically sustainable levels in the California/Oregon drift gillnet 
fishery for thresher shark and swordfish. However, the Atlantic and 
Pacific driftnet fisheries present very different challenges, both in 
bycatch reduction and fishery management. Atlantic driftnet fishermen 
indicated that the derby nature of the fishery results in high marine 
mammal takes in the Atlantic Ocean, whereas there is no quota system 
for Pacific swordfish that might create a similar accelerated derby 
fishery.
    Further, many of the measures considered by NMFS and the AOCTRT 
were rejected by the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team 
(PCTRT) as too restrictive, too costly, or too difficult to enforce 
(e.g., marine mammal bycatch limit, 100 percent observer coverage, 
time/area closures, set allocation scheme.) That team concluded, and 
NMFS agrees, that set allocations would be complicated to calculate and 
difficult to enforce. In addition, the PCTRT concluded that placing a 
quota on the number of sets does not reward fishermen that have low 
marine mammal entanglement rates.
    The PCTRT also rejected the alternative of time/area closures. They 
felt that this strategy might encourage fishermen to fish during poor 
weather and place fishermen at a greater safety risk. In addition, 
time/area closures might increase takes of other species of marine 
mammals due to seasonal concentrations of those animals in the fishing 
grounds. Analysis of observer data did not indicate significant 
relationships between areas fished and cetacean entanglement. Time/area 
closures were also rejected by the PCTRT, because they would be 
difficult and costly to enforce.
    Comment 6: Some commenters opposed the transfer of driftnet quota 
to the longline category and supported ``retiring'' that quota. One 
commenter indicated that marine mammal mortalities or injuries would 
not be reduced to levels below PBR (except for harbor porpoise) if the 
quota was transferred to the longline fishery. Concern was expressed 
that mortality reductions were overstated given that NMFS has not 
estimated the level of serious injuries to marine mammals as a result 
of longline interactions.
    Response: NMFS is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide 
U.S. fishermen with a ``reasonable opportunity'' to catch the entire 
U.S. swordfish quota that is adopted by ICCAT. Similarly, ATCA provides 
that no regulation may have the effect of increasing or decreasing an 
ICCAT quota. Thus, NMFS cannot simply ``retire'' the driftnet quota.
    Mortalities in the pelagic longline fishery have exceeded PBR for 
the short-finned pilot whale. The annual marine mammal bycatch rate in 
this fishery is based only on incidental mortalities and does not 
include those animals that are incidentally injured. NMFS is currently 
developing biological criteria for determining what constitutes a 
serious

[[Page 4057]]

injury to a marine mammal that is injured incidental to commercial 
fishing operations. NMFS' consideration of marine mammal injuries that 
occur incidental to the pelagic longline fishery will likely result in 
a combined mortality and serious injury rate which is higher than the 
current level. The proposed take reduction measures in the HMS FMP 
should offset this increase.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that NMFS needs to take similar 
restrictive measures to reduce protected species takes in the longline 
fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees that protected species bycatch in the 
longline fishery needs to be reduced and has proposed take reduction 
measures for the longline fishery in the draft HMS FMP. These measures 
include gear restrictions, educational workshops, and time/area 
closures.
    Comment 8: One commenter supported the alternative that includes 
closure of right whale critical habitat to pelagic driftnet fishing, 
100-percent observer coverage, limited entry for the driftnet fishery 
under the authority of the MMPA, and mandatory educational workshops.
    Response: NMFS agrees that closing the winter driftnet fishery in 
the Mid-Atlantic Bight would be beneficial and would likely reduce 
bycatch of common dolphins. However, the August 1998 driftnet fishery 
exceeded the PBR level for common dolphins by capturing 254 common 
dolphins in the Northeast Coastal fishing grounds. Further, NMFS 
realizes that 100-percent observer coverage would be necessary for 
swordfish driftnets where potential take rates are quite high and 
extremely variable. It is difficult to project catch rates of target or 
non-target species in this fishery. NMFS agrees that educational 
workshops could be very useful in reducing bycatch or bycatch mortality 
of protected species and has proposed mandatory educational workshops 
for pelagic longline fishermen in the draft HMS FMP. However, given 
other considerations such as the derby nature of the fishery and the 
nature of the driftnet gear, workshops alone would not sufficiently 
reduce marine mammal takes. Further, the combination of some of these 
measures would costs more to administer than the net revenue of 
swordfish caught in driftnets.
    Comment 9: One commenter did not support the alternative that the 
fishery bear part of the administrative costs by purchasing a vessel 
monitoring system unit and paying for observer coverage.
    Response: The costs to implement a set allocation scheme are so 
large and the implementation strategy so cumbersome, that NMFS sought 
to develop additional alternatives that might facilitate implementation 
of the AOCTRP, given limited NMFS funding. If industry participants did 
not pay for these programs, costs of implementation would have been 
even higher.
    Comment 10: One commenter stated that NMFS' proposed plan does not 
eliminate risk to marine mammals due to transfer of the quota and that 
mortality in vulnerable fish species may be increased.
    Response: Large coastal sharks are caught at higher rates by 
driftnets; however, other finfish species are caught more frequently by 
pelagic longlines. NMFS has proposed bycatch reduction measures for 
pelagic longlines in the draft HMS FMP that may counteract some of the 
increased mortality as a result of increased longline fishing pressure. 
However, the amount of transferred driftnet swordfish quota is so 
small, relative to the existing longline swordfish quota, that impacts 
to finfish, turtles, and marine mammals from increased longline fishing 
effort would be minimal. Further, NMFS has proposed marine mammal take 
reduction measures in the HMP FMP to reduce takes of strategic stocks 
of marine mammals by pelagic longlines.

Procedural Issues

    Comment 11: NMFS was encouraged to transfer driftnet observer 
funding to the longline observer program.
    Response: NMFS will consider this when making programmatic 
decisions. Observer coverage is assessed on an annual basis considering 
both finfish and protected species bycatch issues.
    Comment 12: A commenter questioned the validity of closing a 
fishery based on administrative costs exceeding fishery revenues. NMFS 
was questioned as to how decisions would be made in other fisheries 
where this might be the case.
    Response: NMFS has based this decision not only on the 
administrative costs of the alternatives but also on the effectiveness 
of the measures in reducing bycatch and fishery management objectives. 
Fisheries are managed on a case-by-case basis depending on the 
circumstances of the fishery and the objectives of the relevant laws 
and fishery management plans.
    Comment 13: Commenters expressed frustration with the preferred 
alternative of banning driftnets, given the participation of team 
members in the take reduction plan process. Commenters indicated that 
the take reduction plan process should allow fisheries to continue 
while take reduction measures are implemented. A commenter also 
indicated that at no time during the course of the negotiations, did 
NMFS indicate that closing the fishery was an option.
    Response: NMFS participated in the take reduction process in good 
faith. However, upon consideration of the AOCTRP, and the subsequent 
amendment to the Biological Opinion that considered new data, NMFS 
responded with an additional alternative of the marine mammal bycatch 
limit. NMFS considered broader fishery management issues in conjunction 
with the take reduction alternatives, and analyzed the alternatives, 
including prohibiting the use of driftnets in the swordfish fishery, 
and illustrated reasons for doing so, in the draft EA published in 
1997.
    Comment 14: Commenters indicated a preference that take reduction 
plans be implemented under the authority of the MMPA, not the Magnuson-
Stevens Act or ATCA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees and supports implementing this rule under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Implementing rules under 
multiple authorities results in a more comprehensive analysis of all 
impacts and highlights the consistent objectives found in all 
applicable laws. NMFS examined fishery management issues regarding take 
reduction alternatives in the swordfish fishery in part, because the 
AOCTRT felt that the derby fishing conditions contributed to escalating 
marine mammal bycatch. In this fishery, measures to address 
international and domestic management objectives can affect marine 
mammal takes and, therefore, NMFS is implementing this rule under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Comment 15: One commenter believed that allowing the continuation 
of either the longline fishery or the driftnet fishery without a take 
reduction plan in place is a clear violation of the mandates of the 
MMPA.
    Response: NMFS has proposed take reduction measures for pelagic 
longlines in the draft HMS FMP. It is the intention of NMFS that take 
reduction measures for pelagic longlines be finalized in 1999. This 
rule prohibits the use of driftnets in the Atlantic swordfish fishery. 
Additionally, the draft HMS FMP has a proposal to prohibit driftnets in 
the Atlantic tunas fishery.

Environmental Assessment

    Comment 16: One commenter believed that NMFS overestimated the 
costs to implement the options.
    Response: NMFS analyzed the costs to the Government associated with 
managing driftnets in the swordfish

[[Page 4058]]

fishery in recent years. These costs are estimates based on existing 
programs throughout NMFS and serve as an indicator of the relative 
costs associated with each alternative.
    Comment 17: One commenter believed that increased takes of 
protected species, especially sea turtles, in the 1998 driftnet season 
may be a result of increased stock sizes of protected species.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that future stock assessments of 
protected species could reflect increased stock size, and hence, may 
result in increased PBR levels. However, at this time, NMFS must 
protect marine mammals and sea turtles under the MMPA and ESA and must 
adhere to current PBR estimates. In the future, take reduction measures 
and PBR estimates may be adjusted if warranted.
    Comment 18: One commenter indicated that NMFS' conclusory 
statements about finfish impacts resulting from transferral of quota 
into the pelagic longline category were understated.
    Response: NMFS analyzed existing data and concluded that increasing 
longline quota may incrementally increase catch rates of undersized 
swordfish, bluefin tuna, marlins, and pelagic sharks. Catches of large 
coastal sharks are likely to decrease as a result of the quota 
transfer. NMFS has proposed bycatch reduction measures for pelagic 
longlines in the HMS FMP, including a time/area closure to protect 
juvenile swordfish.
    Comment 19: One commenter thought that it was acceptable to place 
an observer in an enforcement role under the marine mammal bycatch 
limit. This person stated that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
Commission has not encountered such problems.
    Response: NMFS places observers on Atlantic fishing vessels to 
collect data, not to track interactions of protected species in real 
time. Observers are currently overwhelmed with a heavy workload, and 
are expected to work in difficult conditions. Further, NMFS does not 
desire to place an observer in an enforcement role because the driftnet 
observers are not NMFS employees; they are contract employees. U.S. 
Coast Guard funding is limited and is not controlled by NMFS. 
Therefore, it can not ignore the comments concerning at-sea enforcement 
costs submitted by the U.S. Coast Guard during development of this rule 
and the HMS FMP.
    Comment 20: A commenter disagreed with NMFS' concern that under an 
overall marine mammal bycatch limit, the PBR level could be exceeded 
for some species if a large number of vessels captured that species 
exclusively. The commenter stated that such a phenomenon is unlikely.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. In August 1998, one driftnet set captured 
42 common dolphins. Admittedly, this appears to be an anomaly, but such 
a set could be repeated, considering the concentration of marine life 
and food sources on the fishing grounds during that time of the year.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS changes the proposed semi-annual directed fishery quota to 
remove the driftnet allocation in Sec. 630.24(b)(2). The proposed rule 
inadvertently omitted this change. Further, Sec. 630.24(b)(1) should 
have been left unchanged from the existing regulations because 
swordfish driftnets were legally used in the North Atlantic during the 
1998 fishing year. Editorial changes have been made and typographical 
errors have been corrected in the final rule.

Classification

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
    NMFS prepared a FRFA. NMFS has concluded that this action to 
prohibit the use of driftnet gear in the Atlantic swordfish fishery 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. As a result of temporary closures of the driftnet 
fishery, fishermen who have used this gear have: (1) transferred 
fishing effort into the longline/harpoon category in order to take 
advantage of the transferred swordfish quota from the driftnet 
category, (2) fished for other species with other fishing gears, (3) 
used driftnets for other highly migratory species, including Pacific 
species or (4) exited commercial fishing. Therefore, the FRFA assumes 
that fishermen, during the time they would normally fish for swordfish 
with a driftnet, would fall into one of these four categories. 
Seventeen driftnet vessels were considered to be the universe of 
affected small entities in this analysis. Under the preferred 
alternative, each of these scenarios results in greater than a 5-
percent decrease in gross revenues for more than 20 percent of the 
affected entities, or would cause greater than 2 percent of the 
affected entities to be forced to cease operations. Therefore, 
regardless of which activity any individual driftnet fisherman pursues 
should the proposed action be implemented, the RFA thresholds for 
significant impact are expected to be exceeded.
    The other alternatives considered include the status quo, a set 
allocation scheme to reduce the derby nature of the fishery (with 
associated measures), and a marine mammal bycatch limit (with 
associated measures). These alternatives may have lesser economic 
impacts on the driftnet participants; however, none of those 
alternatives guarantee reduced takes of marine mammals and, further, do 
not eliminate such fishery management concerns as the increasing costs 
to manage this limited fishery. Further, the management costs of the 
preferred alternative relating to the value of the swordfish gear quota 
compares favorably with the costs of managing the pelagic longline 
fishery. The RIR provides further discussion of the economic effects of 
all the alternatives considered. Given that the alternative selected by 
NMFS is to permanently close the driftnet fishery for swordfish, there 
are no measures which would minimize the economic impact on small 
entities. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
E.O. 12866.
    This action will not impose any additional reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.
    NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial 
fisheries on September 25, 1996, and again on August 12, 1997, under 
section 7 of the ESA. In Biological Opinions issued on May 29, 1997, 
and August 29, 1997, NMFS concluded that operation of the harpoon 
fishery is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence of 
any endangered or threatened species under NMFS' jurisdiction and that 
operation of the longline fishery may adversely affect, but may not 
jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species under NMFS jurisdiction. Conversely, it was concluded that 
driftnet fishing for swordfish in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic 
and for sharks in the Southeast will jeopardize the continued existence 
of the northern right whale. A temporary rule under the authority of 
the ESA implemented time/area closures for driftnet gear in the 
northeast as an interim measure. Another rulemaking implemented a take 
reduction plan for Atlantic large whales in the southeast United States 
under the MMPA. This final rule will further reduce the likelihood of 
interactions between driftnet gear and northern right whales.

[[Page 4059]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 630

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Treaties.

    Dated: January 21, 1999.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assitant Adminsitrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 630, is 
amended as follows:

PART 630--ATLANTIC SWORDFISH FISHERY

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

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

    2. In Sec. 630.3, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words 
``or gillnet''.
    3. In Sec. 630.7, paragraphs (p), (s), and (t) are revised, and 
paragraphs (bb) and (cc) are redesignated as paragraphs (aa) and (bb) 
respectively, to read as follows:


Sec. 630.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (p) Fish for Atlantic swordfish with a driftnet or possess an 
Atlantic swordfish on board a vessel with a driftnet on board, as 
specified in Sec. 630.22.
* * * * *
    (s) During a closure of the directed fishery under 
Sec. 630.25(a)(1) or (b), on board a vessel using or having on board 
the specified gear, fish for swordfish, or possess or land swordfish in 
excess of the bycatch limits, as specified in Sec. 630.25(c).
    (t) On board a vessel using or having on board gear other than 
longline or harpoon, fish for swordfish, or possessing or landing 
swordfish in excess of the bycatch limit, as specified in 
Sec. 630.25(d).
* * * * *
    4. Section 630.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 630.22  Gear restrictions.

    No driftnet may be used to fish for swordfish from the North or 
South Atlantic swordfish stocks. An Atlantic swordfish may not be 
possessed on board or harvested by a vessel using or having on board a 
driftnet.
    5. In Sec. 630.24, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), and (e)(1) are 
revised, paragraph (a)(3) is removed and (f) is removed and reserved to 
read as follows:


Sec. 630.24  Quotas.

    (a) Applicability. (1) A swordfish harvested from the North 
Atlantic swordfish stock by a vessel of the United States other than 
one participating in the recreational fishery is counted against the 
directed-fishery quota or the bycatch quota. A swordfish harvested by 
longline or harpoon and landed before the effective date of a closure 
for that gear, pursuant to Sec. 630.25(a)(1), is counted against the 
directed-fishery quota. After a closure, a swordfish landed by a vessel 
using or possessing gear for which bycatch is allowed under 
Sec. 630.25(c) is counted against the bycatch allocation specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section. Notwithstanding these provisions, a 
swordfish harvested by a vessel using or possessing gear other than 
longline, harpoon, or rod and reel is counted against the bycatch quota 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section at all times.
* * * * *
    (b) Directed-fishery quotas. * * *
    (2) The annual directed fishery quota for the North Atlantic 
swordfish stock for the period June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000, is 
2,033.2 mt dw. The quota is divided into two equal semiannual quotas of 
1016.6 mt dw, one for the period June 1 through November 30, 1999, and 
the other for the period December 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000.
* * * * *
    (e) Inseason adjustments. (1) NMFS may adjust the December 1 
through May 31 semiannual directed fishery quota to reflect actual 
catches during the June 1 through November 30 semiannual period, 
provided that the 12-month directed-fishery quota is not exceeded.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 630.25, the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(c), and the introductory text to paragraph (d) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 630.25  Closures and incidental catch limits.

    (a) Notification of a closure. (1) When the directed-fishery annual 
or semiannual quota specified in Sec. 630.24 is reached, or is 
projected to be reached, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal 
Register closing the directed-fishery for fish from the North Atlantic 
swordfish stock or from the South Atlantic swordfish stock, as 
appropriate. The effective date of such notification will be at least 
14 days after the date such notification is filed at the Office of the 
Federal Register. The closure will remain in effect until additional 
directed-fishery quota becomes available.
* * * * *
    (c) Bycatch limits during a directed-fishery closure. (1) During a 
closure of the directed fishery, aboard a vessel using or having aboard 
a longline and not having aboard harpoon gear--
    (i) A person may not fish for swordfish from the North Atlantic 
swordfish stock; and
    (ii) No more than 15 swordfish per trip may be possessed in the 
North Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, 
north of 5 degrees N. lat., or landed in an Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, 
or Caribbean coastal state. The Assistant Administrator may modify or 
change the bycatch limits upon publication of notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the notification requirements and procedures in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Changes in the bycatch limits will be 
based upon the length of the directed fishery closure as well as the 
estimated catch per vessel in the non-directed fishery.
    (2) During a closure of the directed fishery, aboard a vessel using 
or having aboard harpoon gear--
    (i) A person may not fish for swordfish from the North Atlantic 
swordfish stock; and
    (ii) No swordfish may be possessed in the North Atlantic Ocean, 
including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, north of 5 deg. N. 
latitude, or landed in an Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean 
coastal state.
    (d) Bycatch limits in the non-directed fishery. On board a vessel 
using or having on board gear other than harpoon or longline, other 
than a vessel in the recreational fishery--
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1872 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F