0359 ss ren 062008final

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SOUTHEAST REGION GEAR IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0359

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance.
Requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to
link fishing gear to the vessel owner is crucial to enforcement of regulations issued under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The
marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil
proceedings. The requirements imposed in the Southeast Region are for coral aquacultured live
rock; golden crab traps; Spanish mackerel gillnet floats; spiny lobster traps; snapper-grouper pots
(traps); and stone crab traps.
Due to a recent program change codified in 50 CFR 622.31(c)(2) which banned fish traps from
the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery, there will be a decrease in the burden for this particular
information collection: “A fish trap may not be used or possessed in the Gulf EEZ west of 85°30'
W. long. and, after February 7, 2007, may not be used or possessed in the Gulf EEZ.”
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.6(b) and 640.6 require that each fish or spiny lobster trap or pot be
marked with a tag stating the vessel permit number or marked directly with the vessel permit number,
depending on the fishery, and have a buoy attached that meets specified identification requirements.
Gillnets for Spanish mackerel on the east coast of Florida must be marked with floats. The marking
of gear aids law enforcement, helps to ensure that vessels only harvest fish from their own gear, and
makes it easier for fishermen to report the use of gear in unauthorized locations.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.4 require that aquaculture site materials be distinguishable from the
natural occurring substrate, depending on the area either through marking or other method. The
marking of aquacultured site materials aids determination of the origin of those materials and
thereby helps ensure compliance with the regulations.
Law enforcement personnel rely on this information to assure compliance with fisheries
management regulations. Gear that is not properly identified is confiscated. The identifying
number on fishing gear is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United
States Coast Guard (USCG). Gear marking helps ensure that a vessel harvest fish only from its
own traps/pots/other gear and that traps/pots/other gear are not illegally placed. Gear violations
are more readily prosecuted, and this allows for more cost-effective enforcement. Cooperating
fishermen also use the numbers to report placement or occurrence of gear in unauthorized areas.

1

Regulation compliant fishermen ultimately benefit as unauthorized and illegal fishing is deterred
and more burdensome regulations are avoided.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
The requirement that fishing gear be marked with an identifying number does not lend itself to
technology.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
NMFS is aware of other fishery regulations, and there is no duplication.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Nearly all vessels in the respective fisheries are categorized as small businesses. The collection
will not have a significant impact on small businesses, and no special modifications of the
requirements were considered necessary to accommodate the needs of small businesses.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
NMFS and USCG could not enforce the fisheries management measures if the collection is not
conducted or is conducted less frequently.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines.
8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments on the
information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received
in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those
comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice published on January 22, 2008 solicited public comments (73 FR
3697). Four comments were received; one of which was outside the scope of this collection of
information; three were concerned with the marking of live rock, misunderstanding that it was a
new requirement. These comments were addressed directly with the concerned constituents,
explaining that the reference in the notice was to the current requirement, and the issue was
resolved.

2

9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are made.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
There is no assurance of confidentiality provided. This is public information.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
There are no sensitive questions.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The burden hours have changed from the previous OMB Control No. 0648-0359 submission.
Instead of the estimated 10,700 traps, there are now 7,380, each of which will require 7 minutes
to mark. It will take 10 seconds to mark each of 100,000 coral rocks and it will take 20 minutes
to mark each of the estimated 2,000 (200 lines with 10 floats each) Spanish mackerel gillnet
floats.
The number of respondents is estimated to equal 961 after the reduction in Gulf of Mexico reef
fish trap fishermen, and the total burden for this request is 1,806 hours.
Marking
7,380 traps
100,000 coral rocks
2,000 gillnet floats
Totals: 109,380

Time per Marking
7 minutes
10 seconds
20 minutes

Burden Hours
861
278
667
1,806

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
The estimated annual cost to the public is $13,094. This is based on 7,380 fish trap tags at $1.30
each ($9,594); $500 for coral rock tags; and $1.50 for each of the 2,000 Spanish mackerel gillnet
floats ($3,000).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
There is no cost to the government.

3

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
There are changes in Items 13 and 14 of the OMB 83-I due to the program change referred to in
Question 1, which banned fish traps from the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery; this resulted in a
decrease of 3,320 traps, the associated burden of 387 hours, and associated cost of $4,316.
In addition, there is an adjustment of one hour, as the previous hours for coral rock marking were
incorrectly rounded down to 277. There is no actual cost adjustment, but there appears to be one
for $410, as the previous total burden was migrated into ROCIS, rounded down to the nearest
thousand.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No results are published.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
N/A
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
There are no exceptions.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection does not employ statistical methods.

4