[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2182-2184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980107005-8055-01; I.D. 102997E]


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Final 1998 Fishing 
Quotas for Atlantic Surf Clams and Ocean Quahogs

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

ACTION: Final 1998 fishing quotas for surf clams and ocean quahogs.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues quotas for the Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog 
fisheries for 1998. These quotas were selected from a range defined as 
optimum yield (OY) for each fishery and in compliance with overfishing 
definitions for each species. The intent of this action is to establish 
allowable harvests of surf clams and ocean quahogs from the exclusive 
economic zone for 1998.

DATES: January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's 
analysis and recommendations, including the Environmental Assessment, 
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are available from David R. 
Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 
Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-
6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
508-281-9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic 
Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries (FMP) directs the Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council (Council), to specify quotas for surf clams 
and ocean quahogs on an annual basis from a range that represents the 
OY for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the level 
selected allow fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years 
for surf clams and 30 years for ocean quahogs. While staying within 
this constraint, the quota is to be set at a level that would meet the 
estimated market demand.
    The fishing quotas must be less than the level that would 
constitute overfishing as defined for each species. The overfishing 
definitions are fishing mortality rates of F20% (20 percent 
of maximum spawning potential (MSP)) for surf clams and F25% 
(25 percent of MSP) for ocean quahogs.
    This action establishes a surf clam quota of 2.565 million bushels 
(1.362 mil. hectoliters (hL)) and an ocean quahog quota of 4 million 
bushels (2.122 mil. hL). The 1998 surf clam quota is identical to the 
1997 quota, and the 1998 ocean quahog quota is a reduction of 0.317 
million bushels (0.168 mil. hL) from the 1997 quota. These levels are 
unchanged from the levels set forth in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, published in the Federal Register on November 24, 1997 (62 FR 
62543). That preamble presents background on the specification of these 
levels.

                Final 1998 Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Quotas                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1998 final   1998 final
                    Fishery                     quotas (bu)  quotas (hL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surf clam.....................................    2,565,000    1,362,000
Ocean quahog..................................    4,000,000    2,122,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Responses

    Two sets of comments were received on the proposed quotas. One 
commenter, a consulting firm, favors a reduction of the surf clam quota 
below the proposed level. The other commenter, an industry participant, 
opposed the proposed reduction of the 1998 ocean quahog quota. These 
commenters also offered several other comments on various aspects of 
the quota setting process.
    Comment 1: One commenter believes the action of the Council, in 
making a recommendation to keep the surf clam quota at the 1997 level, 
violated national standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which requires 
that fisheries be managed to provide OY based on the maximum 
sustainable yield as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or 
ecological factor. The commenter, in requesting a reduction of the 
quota, asserted that certain prevailing economic conditions were not 
properly considered by the Council as it contemplated a possible 
reduction to the surf clam fishing quota. The commenter suggested that 
an oversupply of surf clams exists which, when coupled with a decrease 
in demand, is having a detrimental effect on the industry in terms of 
depressed prices. Based upon recent landings and ex-vessel and 
wholesale prices, the commenter concluded that if the quota

[[Page 2183]]

were reduced this adverse market condition would improve.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the contention that the quota level 
violates national standard 1. At its August 1997 meeting, the Council's 
Science and Statistical Committee (S&S Committee) agreed with the 
Council staff recommendation of 2.565 mil. bushels (1.362 mil. hL) for 
the 1998 surf clam quota. The S&S Committee noted that there is no 
biological reason to reduce the quota. This recommendation was based on 
advice from the 22nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 
22) which recommended the quota remain at the 1996/1997 level of 2.565 
mil. bushels (1.362 mil. hL) until a new stock assessment, with 
abundance estimates based on fishery catch rate and research survey 
data, is available. In addition, the S&S Committee concluded that the 
economic rationale for reducing the quota, as presented at the August 
meeting and repeated in the text of this comment, does not rely upon an 
appropriate economic analysis but is, instead, based on a general 
discussion of economic theory using anecdotal information from only one 
segment of the industry.
    In the absence of verifiable information to the contrary, there is 
no justifiable basis to adjust the surf clam quota downward. NMFS notes 
it falls within the OY range of 1.850 million bushels (0.982 mil. hL) 
and 3.400 million bushels (1.805 mil. hL) specified in the FMP and 
represents a reasonable OY from this fishery.
    Comment 2: One commenter believes that the failure to reduce the 
surf clam quota will negatively impact communities dependent upon the 
surf clam fishery through reductions in crews' take-home pay and a 
decrease in boat owners' profits. The commenter claims that local 
fishing communities will undergo a major social upheaval which violates 
national standard 8(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which requires that 
management measures ``to the extent practicable, minimize adverse 
economic impacts on such communities.''
    Response: In regard to national standard 8, the commenter 
discusses, in very general terms, the major negative economic and 
social impacts that the commenter anticipates communities would bear in 
the absence of a surf clam quota reduction. However, the commenter 
fails to provide any specific information. In the absence of any 
socioeconomic data or analysis, the assertion of negative impact on 
communities is only conjecture and not a sound basis upon which to 
reduce the quota. Furthermore, in the absence of a biological 
rationale, basing a reduction solely on economic allocation, would be 
in violation of national standard 5 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which 
requires that no fishery management measure shall have economic 
allocation as its sole purpose.
    Comment 3: One commenter believes that the Council, in failing to 
recommend a lower surf clam quota, disregarded the purposes section of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act found at paragraphs (4) and (5) of Section 
2(b) which requires the preparation and implementation of fishery 
management plans that will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, 
the OY from each fishery; and take into account the social and economic 
needs of the States.
    Response: NMFS reiterates that there was not adequate information 
presented to the Council during the comment period to substantiate this 
comment.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the Council's failure to 
reduce the surf clam quota disregards FMP objectives 1, 3, and 4 which 
guide the Council to: stabilize harvest rates in a way that minimizes 
short-term economic dislocations, bring harvesting capacity in balance 
with processing and biological capacity allowing industry to achieve 
efficient utilization of capital resources, and provide a management 
regime that is flexible to unanticipated short-term events and 
consistent with long-term industry planning and investment needs.
    Response: The Council has recommended and NMFS has specified a surf 
clam quota of 2.565 million bushels (1.362 mil. hL) for each fishing 
year since 1995. In the absence of a biological rationale for 
decreasing the quota, the Council has chosen to accept the 
recommendations of its own S&S Committee and maintain the previous 
quota level for the 1998 fishing year. The Council found there was 
insufficient information to require a reduction under the FMP, and NMFS 
concurred.
    Comment 5: One commenter believes that if the surf clam quota is 
not reduced and an oversupply is allowed to continue into 1998, it will 
shift the current balance of power between the processors and the 
vessels to a position that will favor the processors.
    Response: The balance of power between the processors and fishing 
vessels under the FMP and the implementing regulations is not relevant 
to the specification process.
    Comment 6: One commenter argued that there has been no new science 
to support a reduction in the ocean quahog quota.
    Response: The results of SAW 22 were available in August, 1996, and 
represent the most recent available stock assessment for surf clams and 
ocean quahogs. New stock assessment information will be available from 
SAW 27 in 1998 for purposes of setting the 1999 quota. SAW 22 did not 
offer management advice on the 1998 ocean quahog fishing quotas, 
whereas, in the case of surf clams they advised no change until the 
next stock assessment. However, SAW 22 noted that a 30-year supply as 
dictated by Council policy is possible only if the estimated biomass on 
Georges Bank and in areas off Southern New England and Long Island 
generally too deep to be harvested with current technology are 
included. Furthermore, they cautioned that this strategy implies that 
sustainable fishing after 30 years will be limited to recruitment and 
very slow annual growth of fully recruited quahogs. Although the S&S 
committee voted to recommend no change for the 1998 ocean quota from 
the 1997 level of 4.317 mil. bus. (2.290 mil. hL), the Council, noting 
the SAW 22 statement regarding the availability of quahogs over the 
next 30-year period, voted to take a conservative position and 
recommended a reduction in the quota to 4.00 mil. bus. (2.122 mil. hL), 
the lowest OY specification allowed under the FMP.
    Comment 7: One commenter argued that it is inappropriate to presume 
that Georges Bank and deep water areas will not be available over the 
next 30 years for the harvest of quahogs. The commenter argued that the 
paralytic shellfish poisoning contamination may be addressed by testing 
or may disappear in the future. The commenter also argued that 
technology will be developed to allow deepwater harvesting.
    Response: The Council believes that a conservative approach is 
required for specifying the 1998 ocean quahog quota. The Council 
realizes that in the absence of formidable recruitment, it may be 
impossible to maintain a 30-year supply if the quahogs on Georges Bank 
and the deepwater areas continue to be unavailable. NMFS has accepted 
this as a valid concern, pending the new stock assessment.
    NMFS acknowledges that it is possible that both concerns could be 
addressed within the 30-year time period. However, that fact is not 
sufficient to override the Council's recommendation. There has been no 
recent progress in addressing the presence of paralytic shellfish 
poison (PSP) toxin on Georges Bank. NMFS notes that in 1994 it worked 
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to

[[Page 2184]]

develop a draft lot-testing protocol to allow harvesting of ocean 
quahogs on Georges Bank. Under the protocol, harvested animals would be 
tested for the presence of PSP to ensure that contaminated product was 
not marketed. NMFS hosted a meeting in October 1995 to review the 
proposed protocol with representatives from industry and the coastal 
states. At the meeting several technical issues were identified that 
must be addressed in any final testing protocol. The attendees also 
noted that there were major impediments to use of the protocol, notably 
the costs of testing and disposal associated with contaminated product. 
Meeting attendees expressed no immediate interest in proceeding further 
with PSP testing.
    The commenter also argued that a quota reduction was not necessary 
because PSP could disappear in the future and deepwater harvest 
technology could be developed in the future. In the absence of some 
indication that such events are likely to occur, this is not sufficient 
reason to overrule the judgement of the Council.
    Comment 8: One commenter argued that the recommended ocean quahog 
quota level represents an arbitrary value. The commenter argued there 
is no biological rationale for the 4.0 million bushel level and that it 
was selected because it was the lowest quota allowed under the FMP.
    Response: The Council's rationale for recommending a decrease in 
the ocean quahog quota involves only the conservation of the resource 
and preservation of the fishery. Council members and the S&S Committee 
expressed serious concern that given the biology of the species, its 
extreme longevity, its slow growth rate, and sporadic and poorly 
understood recruitment events, the current quota level may be very 
risky in the long term.

Classification

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648, complies with the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and is exempt from review under E.O. 
12866.
    The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as 
part of the regulatory impact review, which concluded that this action 
could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. This determination was described in the proposed rule 
(62 FR 62543) and forwarded to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.
    In sum, the FRFA finds that of the 56 vessels participating in the 
surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries in 1996, 20 fished exclusively for 
surf clams, 14 fished for both surf clams and ocean quahogs, and 22 
fished exclusively for ocean quahogs. The 36 vessels that harvest ocean 
quahogs are considered, by definition, to be small entities and are all 
impacted by the reduction in the ocean quahog quota. While the impact 
of a 7.3 percent reduction in ocean quahog quota will be diluted 
somewhat for those vessels augmenting their incomes with surf clam 
harvests, a full 7.3 percent reduction in gross revenues is likely for 
the vessels fishing exclusively for ocean quahogs. Therefore, this 
action is likely to decrease the gross revenues of 61 percent of the 
vessels that harvest ocean quahogs (22 out of 36 vessels) by more than 
5 percent. NMFS has established a threshold for ``significant economic 
impact'' on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act as a reduction of gross revenues greater than 5 percent 
for 20 percent or more of the small entities. This action is, 
therefore, found to be significant.
    NMFS is required to consider alternative actions that would 
minimize the negative economic impacts on small entities. Clearly, the 
economic impact would be minimized if the quota reduction was less than 
that enacted by this rule, however, NMFS has established the quota at 
the level recommended by the Council. The Council made its quota 
recommendation in response to several concerns, including its doubts 
that ocean quahogs on Georges Bank and in deepwater areas will become 
available for harvest. The Council and its S&S Committee also expressed 
concern that harvest must be reduced in light of the species' slow 
growth rate and poorly-understood recruitment. The Council's 
Environmental Assessment noted that it may take up to 20 years, 
depending upon environmental conditions, for ocean quahogs to reach a 
marketable size, and that there has been no recent recruitment event. 
NMFS has reviewed the concerns that led the Council to make its 
recommendation and NMFS concurs in that recommendation. NMFS finds that 
it is necessary to be very conservative in setting the 1998 quota to 
assure that overfishing does not occur.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA, finds for good cause that a delay in the effective 
date of the final fishing quotas for the 1998 fishing year for the 
Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahog fisheries is unnecessary because 
the quotas are not a requirement for which a regulated entity must come 
into compliance. The fishing quotas are year-long quotas and are used 
for the sole purpose of closing the fishery when the amounts specified 
have been taken.

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

    Dated: January 8, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-804 Filed 1-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P