48058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices

7. Miscellaneous

This section is intended to address

some of the questions/comments raised

in the review of the draft evaluation

criteria.

When evaluating algorithms, NIST

will make every effort to obtain public

input and will encourage review of the

candidate algorithms by outside

organizations; however, the final

decision as to which algorithms(s) will

be proposed to the Secretary of

Commerce for inclusion in the AES is

the responsibility of NIST.

NIST intends to develop a validation

program for AES conformance testing,

with the goal of having it operational

concurrently with the effective date of

the AES.

NIST does NOT have a fixed timeable

for completion of the AES.

NIST is not specifically seeking a

stream cipher algorithm, since any block

cipher algorithm can be operated in a

stream cipher mode.

NIST does not intend to select a

wholly distinct algorithm for each of the

minimum required key-block

combinations. It is strongly

recommended that no submission be so

constructed.

NIST does not wish to target a specific

application or platform for

implementing the AES, as the

evaluation of candidate algorithms takes

place. However, one factor that is being

taken into consideration for each

candidate algorithm is its flexibility—

the ability to implement the algorithm

securely and efficiently in a wide

variety of platforms and applications

(see ‘‘Algorithm and Implementation

Characteristics’’ under ‘‘Evaluation

Criteria’’ section).

NIST does not intend to select a

‘‘backup’’ AES algorithm. Rather,

should the circumstances arise (e.g.,

discovery of a significant security flaw)

which could not be satisfactorily

addressed by modifying the AES, NIST

would likely look to the other AES

candidate finalists. Additionally, if a

significant period of time has elapsed

since the AES selection, it would also

make sense to examine other algorithms

which may have been developed in the

intervening period.

Exportability decisions regarding

submissions and, eventually, products

implementing AES will be made by the

appropriate government regulatory

authorities. NIST is a non-regulatory

agency of the U.S. Department of

Commerce.

NIST does not intend to offer

financial incentives (e.g., contests) for

cryptanalysis of AES candidates.

Should no appropriate algorithms be

submitted in response to this call, NIST

expressly reserves the right to cease this

process and examine other possible

courses of action.

Submitters are strongly encouraged to

submit only one algorithm each

(presumably the one in which the

submitter has the greatest confidence).

Submission of similar, yet distinct,

algorithms may delay the public

evaluation process and may well raise

public questions as to the submitter’s

level of confidence in his/her

candidates.

For conference and resource

allocation planning purposes, it would

be appreciated if those planning to

submit candidates could notify the

individuals listed in the ‘‘For Further

Information’’ section as soon as

possible.

Appreciation

NIST extends its appreciation to all

submitters and those providing public

comments during the AES development

process.

Dated: September 8, 1997.

Elaine Bunten-Mines,

Director, Program Office.

[FR Doc. 97–24214 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–CN–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 080697D]

Request for Nomination of Individuals

for the Federal Investment Task Force

(Deadline Extension)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of request for

nominations deadline extension.

SUMMARY: The Sustainable Fisheries Act

(SFA) requires the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) to establish a task

force to study the role of the Federal

Government in subsidizing fleet

capacity and influencing capital

investment in fisheries. NMFS is

extending the deadline for nominations

of qualified individuals to serve on the

task force.

DATES: Nominations will now be

accepted through October 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent

to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission, 1444 Eye Street, NW, 6th

Floor, Washington, DC 20005, ATTN:

Federal Investment Task Force.

Nominations may be submitted by fax,

(202) 289–6051

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Beal, Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission, (202) 289–6400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Secretary is establishing a task force of

interested parties to study the role of the

Federal Government in (1) subsidizing

the expansion and contraction of fishing

capacity in fishing fleets the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, and (2) otherwise

influencing the aggregate capital

investment in fisheries. The original

request for nominations was published

in the Federal Register at Vol. 62, No.

167/Thursday August 28, 1997, page

45628. However, in order to allow

sufficient time for all interested parties

to submit nominations, the deadline for

submission has been extended through

October 1, 1997. The procedures and

guidelines for submitting nominations

can be found in the original Federal

Register notice.

Please note: The task force is now

tentatively scheduled to meet five times

between November 1997 and June 1997.

Dated: September 8, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24263 Filed 9–9–97; 3:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 090497A]

Spiny Dogfish in U.S. Waters in the

Western Atlantic Ocean; Scoping

Process

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

and request for scoping comments.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic and New

England Fishery Management Councils

(Councils) announce their intention to

jointly prepare, in cooperation with

NMFS, an EIS to assess potential effects

on the human environment of a

management regime for spiny dogfish

(Squalus acanthias) pursuant to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act of

1976, as amended (Magnuson-Stevens

Act). This would be accomplished

through the development of a Spiny

Dogfish Fishery Management Plan

(FMP). If such an FMP is approved by

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary),
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices 48059

implementation of such action is

expected no sooner than 1998. In

addition, the Councils announce a

public process for determining the

scope of issues to be addressed and for

identifying the significant issues

relating to management of spiny

dogfish. The intended effect of this

notice is to alert the interested public of

the commencement of a scoping process

and to provide for public participation.

This action is necessary to comply with

Federal environmental documentation

requirements.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until November 21, 1997.

Scoping meetings will be held as

follows:

1. 7 p.m., September 24, 1997,

Philadelphia, PA.

2. 4 p.m., October 1, 1997, Wakefield,

MA.

3. 7 p.m., October 29, 1997, Virginia

Beach, VA.

4. 4 p.m., November 5, 1997, Portland,

ME.

ADDRESSES: Send scoping comments to

Mr. David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, Room 2115, Federal Building,

300 South New Street, Dover, DE

19904–6790. The scoping meetings will

be held at the following locations:

1. Philadelphia—Radisson Hotel

Philadelphia Airport, 500 Stevens Drive,

Philadelphia, PA (610–521–5900).

2. Wakefield—Colonial Hilton, 427

Walnut Street, Wakefield, MA (781–

245–9300).

3. Virginia Beach—Holiday Inn

SunSpree, 39th Street and Atlantic

Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA (804–428–

1711).

4. Portland—Holiday Inn by the Bay,

88 Spring Street, Portland, ME (207–

775–2311).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Keifer, 302–674–2331 (fax

302–674–5399).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Fishery Management Unit

The management unit is all Atlantic

spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in

U.S. waters in the western Atlantic

Ocean.

Problems Discussed for this FMP

1. Development of an Overfishing

Definition

The spiny dogfish stock is currently at

or near full exploitation. A formal

definition of, in order to prevent,

overfishing needs to be developed. The

18th Northeast Regional Stock

Assessment Workshop (SAW–18)

suggested that the stock be considered

overfished when the level of fishing

mortality results in a value of less than

one female pup per recruit. Current

analyses suggest that replacement

recruitment would occur at values of F≤

0.25 at a minimum size of 33 in (84 cm).

Lower Fs would be required at lower

minimum landing sizes. Another option

would be to define overfishing as the

rate of fishing which exceeds that which

produces maximum sustainable yield

(FMSY). SAW–18 estimated FMSY = 0.18

and MSY = 30,000 mt. In addition, a

minimum spawning stock threshold can

be specified. The current analysis

suggests that a minimum spawning

stock biomass of 185,000 mt should be

maintained.

2. High Discard Rates in the NonDirected Fisheries

Virtually all of the spiny dogfish

taken as bycatch in the mixed- and

multi-species gillnet and otter trawl

fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic

Ocean are discarded. The primary

reason for discarding of dogfish taken in

these fisheries is small size or lack of

market. The result of this activity is to

reduce the mean size/age of selection.

Since these animals are discarded they

represent economic and biological

waste. Any harvest policy developed

must take into account the background

mortality that results from discarding of

dogfish from these fisheries.

3. Predation Mortality by Dogfish On

Other Stocks

Spiny dogfish are voracious predators

of a variety of species of commercial

and recreational importance. Several

studies reported that the diet of spiny

dogfish greater than 23.6 in (60 cm) was

predominantly fish including herring,

Atlantic mackerel, redfish, Atlantic cod,

haddock, silver, red, white and spotted

hake, and sand lance. Squid also is an

important component of the diet.

Preliminary calculations indicated that

the biomass of commercially important

species consumed by spiny dogfish was

comparable to that harvested by man.

As a result, the effect of spiny dogfish

consumption on the population levels of

other fish species in the Northwest

Atlantic ecosystem should be

considered when establishing a harvest

policy for the species.

4. Interjurisdictional Nature of the Stock

A significant portion of the Northwest

Atlantic population of spiny dogfish

resides in Canadian waters during the

summer months. Given the evidence

that this represents a single unit stock

in the Northwest Atlantic, joint

assessment and management of this

stock by the United States and Canada

should be considered.

5. Smooth Dogfish Fisheries

When the need for management of the

dogfish fisheries under the Magnuson

Act was first evaluated in the late 1970s,

the Councils considered including

smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) in the

management unit. Since then, the

fishery for spiny dogfish has expanded

dramatically while the fishery for

smooth dogfish has remained of minor

significance. For example, unpublished

NMFS weighout data indicate that while

greater than 34.8 million lb (15,785 mt)

of spiny dogfish were landed in 1993,

smooth dogfish landings amounted to

only about 0.5 million lb (226.8 mt).

Input is needed to determine if smooth

dogfish should be included in this

management plan.

6. Identification of Essential Habitat for

Spiny Dogfish

Pursuant to the new requirements of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils

will be identifying essential habitat for

spiny dogfish in the western Atlantic

Ocean. Therefore, the Councils are

soliciting comments from the public on

the identification of and threats to

essential habitat for spiny dogfish.

POSSIBLE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Possible management measures for the spiny

dogfish commercial fishery include:

Minimum and/or maximum fish size X

Minimum mesh size ........................ X

Selective harvest of males ............. X

Prohibition of ‘‘finning’’ .................... X

Closed seasons .............................. X

Closed areas ................................... X

Quotas ............................................ X

Moratorium on vessels ................... X

ITQs ................................................ X

Dealer and vessel permits .............. X

Dealer and vessel reports .............. X

Operator permits ............................. X

Trip limits ........................................ X

Permit limits .................................... X

Gear restrictions & limits ................ X

Possible management measures for the spiny

dogfish recreational fishery include:

Minimum and/or maximum fish size X

Selective harvest of males ............. X

Prohibition of ‘‘finning’’ .................... X

Maximum possession limit .............. X

Closed seasons .............................. X

Closed areas ................................... X

Gear restrictions & limits ................ X

Quotas ............................................ X

Restrictions on the ability to sell

recreational caught fish ............... X

Permitting and Reporting

It is anticipated that permits will be

required for vessels landing spiny
48060 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Notices

dogfish for sale, dealers purchasing this

species from permitted vessels, and

party and charter boats in the spiny

dogfish fishery. It is anticipated that

operators of commercial vessels (vessels

with permits to sell spiny dogfish) and

operators of party and charter boats will

be required to obtain permits.

It is anticipated that vessels landing

spiny dogfish for sale would need to

submit logbooks. It is anticipated that

dealers purchasing these species from

permitted commercial vessels would

need to submit reports. It is anticipated

that operators of charter and party boats

would need to submit logbooks.

In the Paperwork Reduction Act (SF–

83) forms prepared by NMFS for

Amendment 2 to the Summer Flounder

FMP, the Dealer Purchase Report was

estimated to involve 1,255 respondents

and 26+ responses per respondent per

year, for a total of 33,135 responses at

0.0448 hours per response, for a total of

1,485 hours. The Vessel Logbook was

estimated at 1,314 respondents, 12

responses per respondent, at 0.08 hours

per response, for a total of 1,261 burden

hours. The Vessel Permit was estimated

at 24,943 annual responses at 0.2878

hours per response, for a total of 7,179

burden hours.

Similar burden hours should be

experienced through spiny dogfish

management. These burden hours may

be reduced if vessels with summer

flounder permits qualify for the spiny

dogfish fishery. Currently, operating

permits are required in the Northeast

Multispecies, Atlantic Sea Scallop, and

Summer Flounder fisheries. It is

expected that the burden hours for the

operator permit for spiny dogfish would

be similar to those estimated for the

operator permit for the Summer

Flounder fishery.

Timetable for EIS Preparation and

Decision Making

The Councils have adopted a tentative

FMP preparation, review, and approval

schedule for spiny dogfish. Under this

schedule, the draft EIS is planned for

completion during 1998. If an

acceptable draft is completed, the

Councils could decide in 1998 whether

to submit the draft EIS for public

review. Oral comments to the Councils

on their decision could be made at the

respective Council meetings. If the

Councils’ decisions are affirmative,

public review of the draft EIS would

occur 45 days following these meetings.

During late 1998, the Councils would

decide on the final management

measures and proposed regulations for

spiny dogfish. Again, oral comments on

this decision could be made to the

Councils at those meetings. If the

Councils’ decisions are affirmative, the

EIS would be made final and submitted

with the FMP and other rulemaking

documents to the Secretary for review

and approval. The Councils reserve the

right to modify or abandon this

schedule if determined necessary.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,

Secretarial review and approval of a

proposed FMP is completed in no more

than 95 days and includes concurrent

public comment periods on the FMP

and proposed regulations. If approved

by the Secretary under this schedule,

the spiny dogfish management measures

would be effective in 1998 or 1999.

Special Accommodations

The meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to David R. Keifer

(see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to

the meeting date.

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

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24228 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 970828208–7208–01; I.D.

072997C]

RIN 0648–XX88

Scup and Black Sea Bass; Interstate

Fishery Management Plans

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination of

noncompliance; notice of

implementation of a moratorium.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act of 1993 (Act), 16

U.S.C. 5101 et seq., the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) has determined

that the State of Maryland and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts are

not in compliance with the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission’s

(Commission) Interstate Coastal Fishery

Management Plans (FMPs) for scup and

black sea bass and that the measures

Maryland and Massachusetts have failed

to implement are necessary for the

conservation of the fishery in question.

Pursuant to the Act, a Federal

moratorium on fishing for scup and

black sea bass within Maryland and

Massachusetts state waters effective

November 15, 1997, is hereby declared.

DATES: This declaration is made on

September 11, 1997. This moratorium

will become effective on November 15,

1997, unless, by November 1, 1997, the

State of Maryland and/or the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopt

and implement measures bringing

themselves into compliance with the

Commission’s FMPs. If the State of

Maryland and/or the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts adopt and implement the

measures required by the FMPs, the

Secretary will publish an appropriate

announcement in the Federal Register

rescinding the moratorium with respect

to State and/or Commonwealth.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard H. Schaefer, Chief, Staff Office

for Intergovernmental and Recreational

Fisheries, NMFS, 301–427–2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Act was enacted to support and

encourage the development,

implementation, and enforcement of the

Commission’s FMPs to conserve and

manage Atlantic coastal fishery

resources.

Section 807 of the Act specifies that,

after notification by the Commission

that an Atlantic coastal state is not in

compliance with a Commission’s FMP,

the Secretary shall make a finding, no

later than 30 days after receipt of the

Commission’s determination, on: (1)

Whether the state has failed to carry out

its responsibilities to implement and

enforce the Commission’s FMP; and (2)

whether the measures that the state has

failed to implement and enforce are

necessary for the conservation of the

fishery in question. If the Secretary

finds that the state is not in compliance

with the Commission’s FMP, and if the

measures the state has failed to

implement are necessary for the

conservation of the fishery, the

Secretary shall declare (i.e., impose) a

moratorium on fishing in that fishery

within the waters of the noncomplying

state. The Secretary shall specify the

moratorium’s effective date, which shall

be any date within 6 months after

declaration of the moratorium. In

making such a finding, the Secretary

shall carefully consider the comments of

the Commission, the coastal state found

out of compliance by the Commission,

and the appropriate Regional Fishery

Management Councils.