24440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

If the rule would affect your small

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact Commander

(Aoax), Fifth Coast Guard District,

431Crawford Street, Portsmouth,

Virginia 23704–5004.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that this rule does not have implications

for federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C; this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

This rule will have no affect on the

environment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50

U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–

6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add temporary § 165.T05–004 to

read as follows:

§ 165.T05–004 Safety Zone; Transit of S/V

Amerigo Vespucci, Chesapeake Bay,

Baltimore, MD

(a) Definitions: Captain of the Port

means the Commander, Coast Guard

Activities Baltimore or any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer

who has been authorized by the Captain

of the Port to act on his behalf.

(b) Location. The following area is a

moving safety zone: All waters within

150 yards ahead of or 50 yards abeam

or astern of the sailing vessel Amerigo

Vespucci, while the vessel is operating

on the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries,

north of the Maryland-Virginia border

and south of latitude 39°35′00′′.

(c) Regulations.

(1) All persons are required to comply

with the general regulations governing

safety zones in § 165.23 of this part.

(2) No person or vessel may enter or

navigate within the regulated areas

unless authorized to do so by the

Captain of the Port. Any person or

vessel authorized to enter the regulated

areas must operate in strict conformance

with any directions given by the Captain

of the Port and leave the regulated area

immediately if the Captain of the Port so

orders.

(3) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing

this section can be contacted on VHF

Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.

The Captain of the Port can be contacted

at telephone number (410) 576–2521 or

2693.

(4) The Captain of the Port will notify

the public of any changes in the status

of this zone by a Marine Safety Radio

Broadcast on VHF–FM marine band

radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d) Effective dates: These regulations

are effective from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on

June 21, 2000 and June 24, 2000.

Dated: April 21, 2000.

C. L. Miller,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port of Baltimore.

[FR Doc. 00–10500 Filed 4–24–00; 1:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[I.D. 110499B]

RIN 0648–AM79

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;

Pelagic Longline Management

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1999, NMFS

proposed to prohibit pelagic longline

fishing at certain times and in certain

areas within the Exclusive Economic

Zone of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast

of the Southeastern United States and in

the Gulf of Mexico (64 FR 69982). The

intent of the proposed action is to

reduce bycatch and incidental catch by

pelagic longline fishermen who target

highly migratory species (HMS) and is

necessary to address bycatch and

incidental catch of overfished and

protected species. To address public

comment received concerning the

proposed closed areas and adjustments

to these areas that would help mitigate

the potential economic impacts, NMFS

requests further comment on an

alternative closed area in the Gulf of

Mexico (the DeSoto Canyon area), on

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) issued with the

proposed rule, and on the extent to

which delayed effectiveness of the final

rule, if implemented, could mitigate

short-term economic impacts.

DATES: Comments must be received at

the appropriate address or fax number

(see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m.,

eastern standard time, on May 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

alternative of closing the DeSoto Canyon

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24441

area, on the economic impacts of the

proposed closures and alternatives

identified in the IRFA, and on the issue

of delayed effectiveness for the final

rule should be submitted to Rebecca

Lent, Chief, HMS Division (SF/1), Office

of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Comments also may be sent via

facsimile (fax) to 301–713–1917.

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. For

copies of the Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement/

Regulatory Impact Review/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (DSEIS/

RIR/IRFA), contact Steve Meyers at 301–

713–2347 or visit our website at

www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Meyers at 301–713–2347, fax 301–

713–1917, e-mail

steve.meyers@noaa.gov; or Buck Sutter

at 727–570–5447, fax 727–570–5364, email buck.sutter@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries

are managed under the authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act and

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. The

Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS

FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan

for Atlantic Billfish are implemented by

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. The

Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is also

subject to the requirements of the

Endangered Species Act and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act because of

documented interactions with sea

turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds.

In developing a proposed rule to

reduce bycatch and incidental catch in

the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS

considered alternatives of no action,

time-area closures, gear modifications,

and effort limitations. NMFS identified

a preferred alternative of a year-round

time-area closure off the southeast U.S.

coast and a seasonal closure in the Gulf

of Mexico. Details of the alternatives

considered and the analyses conducted

are contained in the preamble to the

proposed rule and in the DSEIS/RIR/

IRFA and are not repeated here.

However, supplementary information is

available (see ADDRESSES) that was

prepared to describe and assess a new

closed area alternative for the DeSoto

Canyon area in the Gulf of Mexico.

DeSoto Canyon Closed Area

During the comment period for the

proposed HMS longline bycatch

reduction rule, NMFS received many

responses indicating that the DeSoto

Canyon area located in the eastern Gulf

of Mexico should be closed to pelagic

longline effort due to the historically

high occurrence of undersized

swordfish discards in that location.

NMFS had considered closure of a

larger area of the eastern Gulf of Mexico

that included the DeSoto Canyon based

on 1995–1997 data, but did not select

that closure as the preferred alternative.

In developing the proposed rule, the

western Gulf of Mexico closed area was

preferable, in part due to a focus on

reducing billfish bycatch rather than

swordfish.

However, in response to those

comments received on DeSoto Canyon

swordfish bycatch, NMFS examined

1993–1998 logbook data (1998 data

became available after the proposed rule

was prepared) for the area bounded by

84°W to 90°W longitude and 26°N to

30°N latitude, encompassing the DeSoto

Canyon. This 86,400 square mile area

was then subdivided into six 2° X 2°

(latitude X longitude) blocks, and NMFS

examined inter-annual and intra-annual

changes of target and discard catch-perunit-effort and, where appropriate,

ratios of target catch to discards (e.g.,

swordfish retained vs. swordfish

discarded).

Following this procedure, two of the

ocean area blocks have been identified

for potential year-round closure on the

basis of potentially reducing discards:

86°W to 88°W longitude and 28°N to

30°N latitude; and 84°W to 86°W

longitude and 26°N to 28°N latitude,

comprising a total of 32,860 square

nautical miles. The following table

summarizes expected changes in catch

and discards under the ‘‘no

redistribution’’ and ‘‘full redistribution’’

of effort models described in the DSEIS.

All values in the table are expressed as

a percentage change, by species, of the

total Atlantic-wide U.S. catch. Negative

percentage changes indicate reductions

in the level of catch or discards, while

a positive number predicts an increase

in the catch/discard of a particular

species.

Discards and target species

No effort

redistribution model

(percent)

Redistribution of

effort model

(percent)

White Marlin Discards .......................................................................................................................... –1.84 1.07

Sailfish Discards .................................................................................................................................. –5.20 –0.75

Large Coastal Shark Discards ............................................................................................................. –6.51 –5.42

Swordfish Kept ..................................................................................................................................... –2.45 –1.69

BAYS Tunas Kept ................................................................................................................................ –2.04 1.35

Dolphin (Mahi) Kept ............................................................................................................................. –3.69 –1.37

Pelagic Sharks Kept ............................................................................................................................ –2.38 –1.82

NMFS seeks comments on this new

alternative area that is being considered

for closure; particularly on the

ecological impacts on the environment

and the social and economic impacts on

fishermen and related businesses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)

In the interest of obtaining further

comment on delayed effectiveness of the

final rule as a means of mitigating shortterm economic impacts, NMFS provides

a summary of the IRFA for the original

alternatives considered in the proposed

rule and, separately below, for the new

DeSoto Canyon area alternative.

In the IRFA issued with the proposed

rule, NMFS described a range of fishery

management alternatives that could

reduce or enhance survival of bycatch

and incidental catch of small swordfish,

billfish, and other overfished HMS, as

well as endangered or threatened

species taken by U.S. pelagic longline

fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS

analyzed economic impacts on all

swordfish/tuna limited-access permit

holders who reported making pelagic

longline sets in 1997. NMFS estimated

that the proposed time-area closures

would result in a decrease in gross exvessel revenues of up to $14 million and

that approximately 20 percent of the

vessel operators would lose half of their

gross income.

Alternative Actions

The objectives of the proposed

regulatory action are to: (1) Maximize

the reduction in finfish bycatch; (2)

minimize the reduction in the target

24442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

catch of swordfish and other species;

(3) ensure that the incidental catch of

other species remains unchanged or is

also reduced; and (4) maximize the

survival rate of released animals. In

developing the proposed rule, NMFS

considered how several alternative

actions could attain these objectives,

including: No action; a prohibition on

longline gear; four combinations of Gulf

of Mexico and southeast U.S. coast timearea closures; four gear or fishing

method modifications that would

reduce bycatch; two gear or fishing

method modifications that would

increase survival of released animals;

and fishing capacity reduction for the

pelagic longline fleet.

Analysis of Alternatives

NMFS made a number of assumptions

in analyzing these alternatives. First,

NMFS identified and defined the likely

actions that pelagic longline fishermen

might take if each alternative was

implemented. These response actions

were identified to determine the

maximum impact each alternative could

have on pelagic longline fishermen.

Second, each action was analyzed as if

all participants would follow that

behavior. Although it is unlikely all

vessels would undertake the same

response to any final action, these

analyses can help identify the range of

possible impacts. Depending on actual

responses, additional impacts, either

negative or positive, might occur.

NMFS considers all pelagic longline

permit holders to be small entities

under the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. In May, 1999, NMFS

began the process of issuing limited

access permits to qualifying fishermen

for participation in the Atlantic

swordfish and shark fisheries, and the

pelagic longline sector of the Atlantic

tuna fishery. As of October 28, 1999,

443 fishermen had received either a

directed or incidental swordfish limited

access permit, a shark limited access

permit, and a tuna longline permit.

Additional applications and appeals

may increase the number of permit

holders to a small extent. Thus, the

number of small entities directly

affected by this regulation consists of at

least 443 vessel owners.

Other sectors of the industry would be

affected by this regulation, including

dealers, processors, bait houses, and

hook manufacturers. NMFS has limited

information on the number of small

businesses which might be indirectly

affected by the regulation. However,

using the weigh-out slips submitted by

fishermen reporting in the pelagic

longline logbook, NMFS estimates that

131 dealers received fish in 1997 from

the 443 fishermen who qualify for

limited access.

The evidence collected by NMFS and

used in these analyses indicates that the

majority of pelagic longline fishermen

possess fishing permits for several other

commercial fisheries, and participate

actively in these other commercial

fisheries. These observations are based

on information contained in several

NMFS databases and on comments

received during the prior rulemaking to

limit access to the shark and swordfish

fisheries. The data obtained for these

analyses also indicate that dealers tend

to operate in a number of commercial

fisheries. Thus, fishermen and dealers

who could be affected by this action

might be able to compensate to some

extent by redirecting fishing or

processing activities toward other fish

species.

Impacts on Vessel Operators

NMFS’ permitting and reporting

requirements for HMS and other

fisheries provide information about the

volume and species of fish caught and

landed by vessels, and the ex-vessel

price received for the species landed. To

calculate the impact of time-area

closures on vessel owners, NMFS

estimated gross revenues for all

permitted vessels using 1997 data.

NMFS then subtracted the gross revenue

received in the proposed closed area

from the total gross revenue calculated

for each vessel for 1997 to estimate the

revenue that might be lost to each vessel

if a particular area is closed for the

specified time period.

NMFS then counted the number of

vessels which were impacted by closing

certain areas and times. This analysis

estimates the maximum negative impact

of the closures on vessel owners for

three reasons: (1) It assumes that vessels

that normally fish inside the closed area

would not redistribute their fishing

effort outside the area; (2) it assumes

that the sets made in the closed timearea would not be made at other times

or in other areas; and (3) it assumes that

vessels that fish outside the closed area

would not land any additional fish even

though the quota could still be

available. However, this analysis does

not calculate the impact on captains or

crew members other than the change in

gross revenues which is related to the

captain and crew share.

In examining the gross revenue of the

443 vessels that qualified for an

incidental or directed swordfish limited

access permit, NMFS found that only

331 vessels reported landings of any

species in 1997. NMFS estimates that

1997 total gross revenues from all

fishing activities for each of these

vessels ranged from $82 to over $4

million per vessel and averaged

$113,173 per vessel. If the areas

proposed for closure were in fact closed,

25 vessels that have revenue before the

closure might have no revenue after the

closure. Under the several alternative

closed areas considered, the number of

businesses that could lose all revenues

ranged from 36 to 48 vessels.

NMFS considered 4 combinations of

Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S.

Atlantic coast closed areas with

variations in size and duration. Any of

the four closure alternatives could have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. For

all options, approximately 40 percent of

the vessels could experience no change

in gross revenues as a result of a timearea closure, and 21 to 39 percent could

experience a 50 percent reduction in

gross revenues. The estimated impact of

the preferred alternative (March–

September closure in the western Gulf

of Mexico and a year-round closure

from Key West, FL to Wilmington

Beach, NC) may be the smallest of the

four time-area options considered.

However, closing any of the areas might

force a large number of vessels to either

relocate their vessels to open areas or

sell their limited access permits to

vessels in the open areas and leave the

pelagic longline fishery.

Impacts on Dealers

In addition to calculating the change

in gross revenue for each vessel issued

an incidental or directed swordfish

limited access permit, NMFS attempted

to calculate the change in revenues for

dealers who bought fish from these

vessels. To do so, NMFS calculated the

total weight sold to each dealer, by

species, from each qualifying vessel

using the weigh-out slips reported to

NMFS, and multiplied this weight by

the average wholesale price to

determine the gross revenue for each

dealer both before and after the closure.

As with the vessel gross revenue

calculations, the analyses for dealers

provides an estimate of the maximum

impact this action might have because it

does not consider dealers changing the

proportion of the species they buy or

import, or possible increases in fishing

effort and harvest and sale to dealers

located near the open areas.

In the database used for this analysis,

there were 131 dealers identified by the

443 vessels on their weigh-out slips for

the pelagic logbook. A total of 117

dealers obtained revenues from selling

swordfish, with individual gross

revenues ranging from $175 to over $5

million and averaging $203,679 per

dealer. The gross revenues obtained

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24443

from selling yellowfin tuna ranged from

$170 to over $4 million on an individual

basis for 100 dealers and averaged

$279,006 per dealer. As with individual

vessels, some dealers might not handle

any fish if the areas are closed. Under

the closed area alternative proposed by

NMFS, 28 dealers of the 131 which were

identified might not handle any fish.

Under the alternative closed areas

considered, the number of businesses

that would lose all revenues ranged

from 34 to 45 dealers.

Any of the four closure options could

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of dealers who

operate primarily in coastal ports

adjacent to the potential closed areas.

Approximately 21 to 33 percent of the

dealers could experience no change in

total weight of fish handled, and 35 to

57 percent of the dealers could

experience a 50-percent reduction in the

amount of fish handled due to a timearea closure. Approximately 23 to 38

percent of the dealers could experience

no change in gross revenues from

swordfish and 34 to 46 percent of the

dealers could experience a 50-percent

reduction in gross revenue from

swordfish due to a time-area closure.

Approximately 26 to 40 percent of the

dealers could experience no change in

gross revenue from yellowfin tuna, and

23 to 52 percent of the dealers could

experience a 50-percent reduction in

gross revenues from yellowfin tuna due

to a time-area closure. However, dealers

outside the closed areas are likely to

obtain additional fish from pelagic

longline fishermen and therefore might

experience an increase in gross

revenues.

Gear Modification and Capacity

Reduction Impacts

The other bycatch reduction

alternatives considered also would have

impacts on gross revenues of vessels

and dealers. However, their impacts are

not likely to be as great as those from

the time-area closure alternatives. A

quantitative analysis of revenues is

difficult because it is unknown how

much the other alternatives could alter

the landings of pelagic longline

fishermen. It is possible that the use of

circle hooks, frozen bait, a change in

gear deployment, or the reduction in

soak time might reduce the target catch

per set, but it is equally likely the

fishermen could fish additional sets to

make up the difference. Thus, the

impacts of the other alternatives, except

for capacity reduction, on gross

revenues for individual fishermen is

unknown but most likely would not be

as significant as closures. Limiting the

capacity in the pelagic longline fleet

could have a significant impact on gross

revenues for individual fishermen if

fishermen who are dependent on the

fishery are forced out of business. The

impact of capacity reduction would

depend largely on the type of program

implemented.

Impacts on Fishing Costs

All of the alternatives examined,

except for no action, could have an

impact on the fishing costs of individual

vessels. A detailed analysis of costs for

each individual vessel cannot be

performed due to the lack of trip-level

economic data as well as the difficulty

in predicting the response strategy of

individual fishermen. However, some

generalizations can be made on

potential impacts based on examination

of the voluntary cost/earnings reports

submitted by some vessels.

The preferred closure alternative, or

any of the time-area closure options,

could have a large impact on fishing

costs. A number of fishermen could be

required to move their operations to

different areas either permanently or for

part of the year in order to continue

fishing. The open fishing areas might be

unfamiliar to displaced fishermen and

fishing might not be as productive until

they adapt to weather and

oceanographic conditions in the new

area. Moving operations could likely

increase the cost of fuel, bait, ice, food,

and crew wages, as the number of days

at sea traveling to and from fishing

grounds might increase. Likewise,

requiring gear modifications would

increase costs for fishermen who

currently use gear and/or fishing

methods that would be prohibited.

Increased costs might force some vessel

operators to exit the fishery.

Mitigating Impacts

NMFS considers all permit holders in

the pelagic longline fisheries to be small

entities. Thus, in order to meet the

objectives of the HMS FMP and address

bycatch concerns, NMFS cannot exempt

small entities or change the

requirements for small entities. The

preferred time-area closure alternative

does not involve any additional

reporting requirements, and NMFS has

determined that clarifying or changing

the reporting requirements for small

entities could not address the

management concerns at issue. The gear

modification and fishing methods

alternatives NMFS examined might

have less economic impact on small

entities but were considered to have less

certain effects relative to reduction of

bycatch and incidental catch by pelagic

longlines.

NMFS concludes that the proposed

time-area closures for the Gulf of

Mexico and the southeast U.S. Atlantic

coast could have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

In fact, a number of small entities, both

fishermen and businesses related to

fishing (e.g., dealers and bait houses),

might be forced out of business.

However, the bycatch mortality

reductions achieved by time-area

closures should contribute to rebuilding

overfished stocks of swordfish, billfish,

and other species. This could benefit

small businesses though increased

landings quotas for the commercial

fisheries and increased recreational

fishing opportunities. The IRFA

provides further discussion of the

economic impacts of all the alternatives

considered and is available from NMFS

(see ADDRESSES).

24444 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

IRFA: Supplementary Information for

DeSoto Canyon

The economic analyses for the DeSoto

Canyon closure alternative follow the

same methods as the analyses for the

other closure alternatives. However, the

1998 data have become available since

the IRFA was issued, and these data

were used instead of 1997 data. In

addition, NMFS used updated

information on vessels qualifying for

limited access permits. As of March 23,

2000, 450 vessels had qualified for a

swordfish directed or incidental limited

access permit and NMFS estimates that

in 1998, 125 dealers received fish from

these 450 vessels.

Of the 450 vessels that qualified for a

swordfish limited access permit, 242

did not report landings in the pelagic

logbook. Additionally, 413 did not

report landings of fish caught within the

DeSoto Canyon area. Total gross

revenues from all fishing activities in

the Atlantic of the 208 vessels that

reported in the pelagic logbook in 1998

totaled $28 million, ranged from $435 to

$667,576, and averaged $136,830 per

vessel. Total gross revenues from all

fishing activities in the DeSoto Canyon

of the 37 vessels that reported in the

pelagic logbook in 1998 totaled

$636,984, ranged from $681 to $84,959,

and averaged $17,216 per vessel. If the

DeSoto Canyon is closed, NMFS

estimates that the total gross revenue

from the fleet of 208 vessels would

decrease by 2.2 percent to $27.8 million

and the average gross revenue per vessel

would decrease by 1.8 percent to

$134,413. Absent redistribution of

fishing effort, approximately 14 percent

of the vessels that reported landings in

1998 would experience a five percent

decrease in gross revenues if the DeSoto

Canyon is closed and four percent of the

vessels would experience a 50 percent

decrease in gross revenues.

NMFS estimates that 125 dealers

received fish in 1998 from the 450

vessels that qualified for swordfish

limited access permits. Only 25 dealers

reported receiving swordfish that was

caught in the DeSoto Canyon by limited

access permit holders. These dealers

received a total of 286,994 pounds that

ranged from 397 to 61,470 pounds and

averaged 11,480 pounds per dealer.

Absent increased purchases of fish

captured in other areas, NMFS estimates

that if the DeSoto Canyon area is closed,

the total weight of fish handled by the

125 dealers who bought fish from

swordfish limited access qualifiers

would decrease by 2.8 percent to 10.0

million pounds, and the average weight

handled by each dealer would decrease

by 0.4 percent to 82,761 pounds. NMFS

estimates that 11 percent of the

swordfish dealers and 10 percent of the

yellowfin tuna dealers would have a

reduction of five percent or greater in

gross revenues from swordfish or

yellowfin tuna, respectively, if the

DeSoto Canyon area is closed.

Additionally, NMFS estimates that 6

percent of the swordfish dealers and 3

percent of the yellowfin tuna dealers

would have a reduction of 50 percent in

gross revenues from swordfish or

yellowfin tuna, respectively.

The potential impacts on fishing costs

of closing the DeSoto Canyon are similar

to those described for the other closure

alternatives. However, as this potential

closed area is smaller, is farther

offshore, and is not fished as heavily as

the western Gulf of Mexico closure

previously proposed, it is likely that the

impacts on fishing costs would be

smaller. Only 37 vessels reported

fishing in the DeSoto Canyon in 1998

and might incur costs to change current

fishing practices.

In conclusion, the economic impacts

of a DeSoto Canyon closure would not

be not as great as the western Gulf of

Mexico closed area which was the

preferred alternative in the proposed

rule. The DeSoto Canyon closure alone

would not have a significant impact on

the fishery as a whole, and total gross

revenues from the vessels fishing in that

area would decrease by only 2.2

percent. However, this closure could

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

including both fishermen and dealers.

Absent a shift to other fishing areas, 4

percent of the vessels now fishing in the

DeSoto Canyon could lose 50 percent or

more of their income. Likewise, without

alternative sources of swordfish or

yellowfin tuna, approximately 5 percent

of the permitted dealers could go out of

business as a result of this closure.

The same alternatives and mitigating

measures addressed in the IRFA for the

proposed rule and summarized above

also apply to an evaluation of the

impacts of the DeSoto Canyon closed

area.

Delayed Effectiveness

During the comment period on the

proposed rule, NMFS received written

comments and oral testimony at public

hearings that the pelagic longline fleet

would require time to adjust given the

large geographic scale and duration of

the proposed closed areas. NMFS

recognizes that relocation of vessels,

families, and shoreline support services

is not without cost and may require time

for adjustment, depending upon the

measures in the final rule. Industry

participants commented that the

economic impacts identified in the

IRFA could be mitigated to some extent

by allowing sufficient time for vessel

relocation and suggested that the

effective date of the final rule be

delayed to reflect this. While the

Administrative Procedures Act normally

requires a 30-day delay in effective date

for a final rule, some commenters

suggested that up to a one year delay

would be needed to mitigate the effects

of dislocation. NMFS, therefore,

requests further comment on specific

information related to industry

adjustment and on the potential for

delayed effectiveness to mitigate the

short-term economic impact of area

closures. In addition to descriptions of

adjustments that would be required,

specific comments are solicited on

whether a 30, 60, or 90-day delay in

effective date would be adequate to

achieve any mitigating effect. Comments

received prior to the close of the

comment period (see DATES) will be

considered in developing the final rule.

Dated: April 20, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–10310 Filed 4–20–00; 4:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F