Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12983

rule making proceeding does not impose

any new or additional recordkeeping,

reporting or compliance requirement on

amateur service licensees.

V. Significant Alternatives To

Proposed Rule Which Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Accomplish Stated

Objectives: None. This proceeding will

affect only amateur stations that choose

to transmit a spread spectrum emission

using a spreading technique that is not

permitted under the currently effective

rules. Small businesses are not eligible

to be licensees in the amateur service,

and amateur radio operators are

prohibited from transmitting

communications for compensation, for

their pecuniary benefit, and on behalf of

their employers. See 47 CFR 97.113.

VI. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule: None.

II. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 Analysis

This NPRM does not contain either a

proposed or modified information

collection. As part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the

Commission invites the general public

and the OMB to take this opportunity to

comment on this conclusion, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due at the

same time as other comments on this

NPRM, OMB comments are due 60 days

after the date of publication of this

summary in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 97

Emission types, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Part 97 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 97

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or

apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609,

unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 97.3, paragraph (c)(8) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 97.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions

using bandwidth-expansion modulation

emissions having designators with A, C,

D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X

as the second symbol; X as the third

symbol.

* * * *

3. Section 97.305(b) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 97.305 Authorized emission types.

* * * * *

(b) A station may transmit a test

emission on any frequency authorized

to the control operator for brief periods

for experimental purposes, except that

no pulse or SS modulation emission

may be transmitted on any frequency

where pulse or SS emissions are not

specifically authorized.

* * * * *

4. Section 97.311 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (g), and

removing and reserving paragraphs (c)

and (d) to read as follows:

§ 97.311 SS emission types.

(a) SS emission transmissions by an

amateur station are authorized only for

communications between points within

areas where the amateur service is

regulated by the FCC and between an

area where the amateur service is

regulated by the FCC and an amateur

station in another country that permits

such communications. SS emission

transmissions must not be used for the

purpose of obscuring the meaning of

any communication.

(b) A station transmitting SS

emissions must not cause harmful

interference to stations employing other

authorized emissions, and must accept

all interference caused by stations

employing other authorized emissions.

* * * * *

(g) The transmitter power must not

exceed 100 W under any circumstances.

If more than 1 W is used, automatic

transmitter control shall limit output

power to that which is required for the

communication. This shall be

determined by the use of the ratio,

measured at the receiver, of the received

energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum

of the received power spectral densities

of noise (N0) and co-channel

interference (I0). Average transmitter

power over 1 W shall be automatically

adjusted to maintain an Eb/ (N0+I0) ratio

of no more than 23 dB at the intended

receiver.

[FR Doc. 97–6897 Filed 3–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 030797C]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Northeast Multispecies

Fishery; Scoping Process for Hake

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS) and notice of scoping

process; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council)

announces its intent to prepare an

amendment to the Northeast

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) to conserve silver hake (whiting,

Merluccius bilinearis) and offshore hake

(Merluccius albidus) stocks, and to

prepare a supplemental environmental

impact statement (SEIS) to analyze the

impacts of any proposed management

measures. The Council also formally

announces a public process to

determine the scope of issues to be

addressed in the environmental impact

analysis. The purpose of this document

is to alert the interested public of the

commencement of the scoping process

and to provide for public participation

in compliance with environmental

documentation requirements.

DATES: Written comments on the scope

of the SEIS may be submitted until

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests for copies of the SEIS should be

sent to Paul J. Howard, Executive

Director, New England Fishery

Management Council, 5 Broadway,

Saugus, MA 01906.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, (617) 231–0422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Whiting became a component of the

multispecies fishery management unit

in Amendment 4 to the FMP (56 FR

24724, May 31, 1991). At that time, a

proposed 2.5–inch (6.35–cm) minimum

mesh size was disapproved because

NMFS determined that it would do little

to prevent overfishing. Also, the

economic analysis failed to demonstrate

a net benefit over a 10-year period, and

fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic area

commented that the mesh size increase
12984 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

would result in a disproportionate

economic cost to them. Consequently,

besides the measures adopted for the

Cultivator Shoal whiting fishery, no

regulations controlled whiting fishing

following its incorporation into the

management unit.

Whiting fishing is currently allowed

without restriction in times and areas

where the regulated species bycatch has

been determined to be below 5 percent.

This exemption applies year-round in

Southern New England, and in two

seasonal areas in the Gulf of Maine.

Experimental fisheries have been

undertaken to demonstrate the efficacy

of gear modifications, such as a

separator grate or a raised-footrope

trawl, in reducing regulated species

bycatch to below the maximum

acceptable level.

In 1993, whiting fishermen brought

concerns to the Council about the

emergence of an export market for

juvenile whiting. The Council’s

Groundfish Committee (Committee)

formed a whiting subcommittee and

industry advisory panel that outlined

some measures and objectives for a

management plan. The Committee held

several scoping meetings, including two

scoping hearings in the Mid-Atlantic

area in early 1994 (March 7 in Wall, NJ,

and March 8 in Montauk, NY). The staff

prepared a draft public hearing

document, but the Council suspended

plan-development efforts while it

worked on Amendment 7 to the FMP.

The whiting subcommittee

reconvened in June 1996. In the period

between 1993 and 1996, according to

advisors, the juvenile whiting fishery

expanded significantly, raising concerns

for the health of the resource. On the

recommendation of the advisors and the

Committee, the Council established a

control date for whiting on September 9,

1996 (61 FR 47473), and announced that

it is considering limiting future access

to anyone not in possession of a

multispecies limited access permit as of

that date.

The advisors raised the issue of

offshore hake, which they reported was

often mixed with silver hake, but that

has not been separated in landings

statistics. They also asked about the

impact of proposed management

measures for silver hake on offshore

hake fishing. In response, the Council

obtained a scientific report from the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center in

October 1996. The report summarized

available information and noted that

very little is known about the species of

offshore hake.

In December 1996, the whiting

subcommittee and advisors outlined a

plan for whiting management. The

subcommittee agreed that, for

management purposes, the whiting

resource should be divided into two

stocks, a northern stock in the Georges

Bank/Gulf of Maine Regulated Mesh

Area, and a southern stock in the

Southern New England and MidAtlantic Regulated Mesh Areas. The

subcommittee recommended that, for

management purposes, offshore hake be

treated as a component of the southern

stock of silver hake and also that the

Cultivator Shoal whiting fishery be

managed separately.

Status of the Stocks

The last stock assessment for whiting

was presented to the Council in

February 1994. This assessment was

hampered by several problems,

particularly by uncertainty about stock

boundary definitions and discarding of

juveniles, and by insufficient biological

sampling to determine the length and

age composition of the catch. More

recently, recognition that a separate

species (offshore hake) has been mixed

with catches of silver hake compounds

the difficulty of establishing an agebased assessment.

Based on analysis of landings and

trawl survey data, the assessment

concluded that the Gulf of Maine/

Northern Georges Bank stock was fullyexploited and at a low level of

abundance, although abundance

appeared to be increasing. The

assessment also concluded that the

Southern Georges Bank/Middle Atlantic

stock is over-exploited and at a low

level of abundance and that abundance

continues to decline.

The impact of the juvenile (silver

hake) fishery over the past 5 years on

stock status has not yet been measured.

Given the truncated age-structure of the

population of both stocks, this fishery

may be detrimental to the resource. On

the other hand, discards of juvenile fish

have historically been substantial, and

increased landings of juvenile whiting

do not necessarily represent an increase

in exploitation rates.

Purpose

The purpose of the proposed

amendment is to provide basic

protection for whiting, pending the

development of scientific information

pertaining to potential overfishing and

biological characteristics, and to allow

for a balanced, sustainable fishery

maximizing economic benefit.

Management Options

A. Moratorium on Permits—Limited

Access

The Committee recommends that, to

land whiting, a vessel without a current

limited-access multispecies permit meet

the following qualification criteria: (1)

That it held an open-access, nonregulated multispecies permit as of the

control date (September 9, 1996), and

(2) that it had landed at least one pound

of whiting prior to the control date. All

vessels with a current limited-access

multispecies permit would retain access

to the whiting fishery.

B. Southern Stock

Management of the southern stock is

complicated by the diversity of fisheries

where whiting is caught; specifically,

the squid/whiting fishery uses a 1.75–

inch (4.44–cm) mesh, and other mixedtrawl fisheries use meshes of 2–2.5

inches (5–6.35 cm). The Council is

considering requiring a vessel retaining

whiting to use a codend of 2.5 inches

(6.35 cm) or larger, and to prohibit the

retention of whiting on vessels using

smaller mesh. During the spawning

season from May through August,

vessels would be limited to 500 lb

(0.227 mt) of whiting per registered

length overall per trip. For example, a

50–ft vessel could retain 25,000 lb

(11.340 mt) of whiting.

C. Northern Stock

Scientific information indicates that

the northern stock may be able to

sustain a fishery utilizing both small

and large whiting, provided the catch is

limited or controlled. The Committee

intends to consider results from

experimental fisheries that have

evaluated grate/mesh size management

strategy. The Committee recommends

requiring a vessel retaining whiting to

use a codend of 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) or

larger if the vessel is not in an approved

fishery requiring a separator grate. As in

the southern stock area during the

spawning season from May through

August, vessels would be limited to 500

lb (0.227 mt) of whiting per foot of

registered length overall per trip.

D. Other Measures Under Consideration

The Council is also considering, and

will take comments on other

management options, including: (1) A

minimum fish size of 11 inches (29.74

cm) with a 20–percent tolerance for

undersized fish, with or without a

minimum mesh size; (2) minimum mesh

sizes up to 3 inches (7.62 cm), with or

without a minimum fish size; (3) a

square-mesh panel in the net and other

gear modifications; and (4) a raisedfootrope trawl design.

Other Issues to be Addressed

The Council seeks comments on two

other issues identified by the

Committee: (1) Whiting permits for non-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12985

federally permitted shrimp boats, and

(2) the impact of eliminating the

possession-limit-only permit

(established by Amendment 7 to the

FMP) on vessels in the Southern New

England and Mid-Atlantic area.

Scoping Process

The Council discussed and took

scoping comments at its meeting on

March 12–13, 1997. Additional scoping

meetings may be scheduled later as

needed. All persons affected by or

otherwise interested in whiting fisheries

management are invited to participate in

determining the scope and significance

of issues to be analyzed by submitting

written comments (see ADDRESSES).

Scope consists of the range of actions,

alternatives and impacts to be

considered. Alternatives include not

developing a management plan,

developing amendments to existing

plans or other reasonable courses of

action. Impacts may be direct, indirect,

individual or cumulative. The scoping

process also will identify and eliminate

from detailed study issues that are not

significant. Once a draft FMP

amendment and an Environmental

Impact Statement or Environmental

Assessment is developed, the Council

will hold public hearings to receive

comments.

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

Dated: March 13, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–6821 Filed 3–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F