0345 ss ren 062508rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SOUTHEAST REGION BYCATCH REDUCTION DEVICE CERTIFICATION
FAMILY OF FORMS
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0345

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The legislative authority to collect data from the various sectors of the economy that harvest
marine resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended. Amendment
9 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and
Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic require the use of
certified bycatch reduction devices (BRD) in all penaeid shrimp trawls in the EEZ of both
regions. Both amendments also contain a framework procedure for establishing and modifying
the BRD testing protocol, for certifying BRD and their specifications. Regulations governing
this collection are at 50 CFR 622.41. Amendment 6 to the South Atlantic FMP turned this testing
authority over to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Trawling, in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries, results in large amounts of finfish being
discarded dead. Impacts of bycatch and discards are: significant biological waste, biological
overfishing of target and bycatch species, economic losses in finfish fisheries, modification of
biological community structure, and possible unacceptable mortality of threatened, or
endangered species. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is concerned about the
magnitude of bycatch of overfished species in shrimp trawls. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council prepared Amendment 9 to reduce the adverse impacts of shrimp trawls and
thereby assist in the recovery of these resources.
Shrimp fishermen in the affected EEZ areas are required to use BRD that have been approved by
NMFS. The development of BRD is a dynamic process. As fishermen and other people become
more knowledgeable about the behavior of fish in shrimp trawls, they will develop new ideas on
ways to reduce the incidental catch of different species of concern while minimizing the loss of
shrimp.
In 2008, NMFS implemented new regulations revising and consolidating the BRD Testing
Protocol Manuals of both regions, resulting in a single, unified procedure for the Gulf and South
Atlantic. The rule specifies that a person who proposes a BRD for certification must test such
BRD and submit the results to the Regional Administrator (RA) in accordance with the Bycatch
Reduction Device Testing Protocol Manual, which contains the testing protocol and the specific
reporting requirements for the test results. The South Atlantic protocol has the same wording as
the Gulf protocol, which identifies that, certified observers would be used. The protocol lists
qualifications that an observer must meet - not how they are trained and certified. The BRD
testing manual contains the protocol that researchers must use to test the effectiveness of any
new or modified BRD in reducing bycatch of finfish. It describes the experimental design and
basic data requirements. Standardized forms for describing the tests and reporting their results
are specified in the manual. Appendices to the manual contain data entry codes, illustrations of
1

fish measurements, statistical reporting zones, proper statistical analytical techniques,
illustrations of key species, and other information concerning the proper conduct of testing,
including data management instructions.
Any BRD that is eligible for NMFS certification must be shown to reduce the weight of finfish
caught by at least 30 percent. To get a BRD certified, an individual would submit the results of
BRD certification trials directly to NMFS. Such submissions would be evaluated by NMFS with
the RA making the final decision on BRD certification pursuant to the certification criterion,
testing protocol, and terms of the FMP.
The RA will advise the applicant, in writing, if a BRD is not certified. This notification will
explain why the BRD was not certified and what the applicant may do to modify the BRD or the
testing procedures to improve the chances of having the BRD certified in the future. If
certification was denied because of insufficient information, the applicant will have 60 days from
receipt of such notification to provide the additional information; afterwards, the applicant would
have to reapply. If the RA subsequently certifies the BRD, the RA would announce the
certification in the Federal Register, amending the list of certified BRD.
Upon certification, it is anticipated that the manufacturers of the BRD candidates may seek
patents or copyrights for the designs. Proceeds from the sale of the certified BRD should more
than offset any costs associated with the development of the device.
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.
Submission of an application to test BRD in the EEZ to the RA begins the formal process that
will either lead to the certification or rejection of the BRD candidate for use in the shrimp
fisheries. Any person wishing to evaluate a BRD candidate must provide the RA with an
application letter, explaining the basis for the test, as well as a completed Appendix A (vessel
information form). If the RA approves the request, the RA will issue a letter exempting the
applicant from the regulations requiring that certified BRD be installed in all nets. In addition to
the Vessel Information form, the Gear Specification form will be filled out at the beginning of
each test. During the test, the Station Sheet BRD Evaluation Form and Length Frequency Form
will be filled out during each test trawl effort. These forms are completed by a Southeast
Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) approved observer, and later signed by the vessel captain,
indicating he concurs that the data contained on the forms is an accurate representation of the
text.
A summary of the information required in the Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Protocol
Manual follows:
Appendix A. Application To Test A Bycatch Reduction Device. This form provides vessel
information, applicant information, owner/operator information, and lease information for any
applicant desiring to test a BRD.
Appendix B and C. Gear Specification Form. This form contains the detailed information on
2

the shrimp trawl, BRD and turtle excluder device (TED) for use in configuring the trawl and its
components. Trip number, vessel, tow number, data, net position and control/experimental net
provide the detailed information for identifying the specific tows in the test. Net type and
measurements provide the detailed information for the size of the trawl. Leg line data provides
information on the cables that connect to the doors. Twine, mesh and other gear measures
provide the technical information for key parts of the trawl and associated components including
the actual location of the BRD on the trawl. These data elements provide the technical
information that net makers will use to construct the approved gear and NMFS will use to
prepare the regulations.
Appendix D. Station Sheet BRD Evaluation Form. This form provides the key information
on whether the BRD candidate will meet or exceed the required reduction in juvenile red snapper
bycatch mortality and the associated loss in shrimp. For the control and test trawls, information
such as the tow number, observer, date, time in, latitude in, longitude in, depth, hours towed,
vessel speed, statistical zone, operational code, total nets, BRD net position, and control net
position are required to describe the test procedures to ensure that the testing protocol is being
followed correctly. Data from the control and test trawls such as the total weight of the catch,
total shrimp weight, total weight and number of red snapper, number of red snapper greater than
and less than 100 mm provide the necessary information for the determining the ability of the
BRD to exclude red snapper and the associated loss in shrimp. Information such as comments
provides additional data used to understand the results. The captain’s signature provides the
official results. This form is completed during the test.
Appendix E. Length Frequency Form. The focus of this activity is on red snapper, king
mackerel and Spanish mackerel. Red snapper is overfished and the subject of a rebuilding
schedule. King mackerel and Spanish mackerel are the subject of scientific investigation to
determine what role the incidental catch in shrimp trawls has on the status of these important
species. Data such as the trip number, vessel code, tow number, net position and control or test
net provide the key organization elements for recording the data on fish lengths. The length of a
fish is the most important element in determining the impact of the shrimp trawls (and, therefore,
shrimp fleets) on these species. This form is completed during the test.
Appendix F. Species Characterization Form. This form is used to record the information on
the species caught in the test and control trawls. Specific information on how to record the
information is in appendix E. The data will be used to assess the environmental impact of the
BRD on the species found in the Gulf of Mexico.
Appendix G. Condition and Fate. Information on the condition and fate of turtles observed
during testing.
Appendix H. Trip Report/Cover Sheet Form. This form is placed on the top of the completed
trip data forms and provides general information about the vessel, time at sea, tow time, gear,
and turtle data. This form provides background information on the vessel, its owner, and codes
(trip number, vessel, and tow number) for identifying the test. Data such as the date of the test,
name of the observer, vessel name, vessel identification number, owner name, and owner address
are used to identify the respondent and the legal entity controlling the testing practices of the
vessel. This latter requirement is essential in monitoring the compliance of the testing protocol.
Information such as the year built, vessel type, hull material, gross tonnage, engine horsepower,
3

and crew size, provide information used to calculate the ability of the vessel to catch shrimp.
NMFS will print most of this information on this form, the sponsor will review and add his/her
required information such as the Captain's or owner's signature. This information is completed at
the start of the test.
Observer Qualifications
An observer must have a Bachelor's degree in fisheries biology or closely related field from an
accredited college, have at least six months experience working with a university, college, state
fisheries agency, NMFS, or private research organization such as the Gulf and South Atlantic
Fisheries Foundation as an observer on a trawler (including research trawlers) in the Southeast
Region, or have successfully completed a training course conducted or approved by the Director
of the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Observers will be state or federal employees or
contracted observers working for another institution such as a university and assigned as needed.
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 Southeast Region's Web site allows the public to view the manual for BRD testing. The
Web site provides a suitable mechanism for dissemination of information via downloading of the
manual. However, due to the complex nature of the testing and application process, the forms
are not available on the Web site. Otherwise, no improved information technology has been
identified as a practical means for reducing the burden on the public. The SEFSC has been
involved in the testing process to assist and ensure the quality of the test. The information can be
viewed at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/Revisions%20to%20BRD%20and%20Testing%20Protocalls%
20FR.pdf
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act's operational guidelines require each FMP to evaluate existing state
and Federal laws that govern the fisheries in question, and the findings are made part of each
FMP. Each Fishery Management Councils membership is comprised of state and Federal
officials responsible for resource management in their area. These two circumstances identify
other collections that may be gathering the same or similar information. Data submitted to
NMFS for BRD certification in Federal waters will be provided upon request to states so that the
BRD can be certified in state waters. Similarly, data which are collected by or submitted to the
states for BRD certification in state waters may be used by NMFS for Federal certification.
Each state in the region has an independent BRD testing procedure. Data collected for or by the
state for their independent certification program is not part of the burden in this collection
although that data may be used for federal certification. Burden time for the state to reproduce
the data and forward it to NMFS is included in this submission. Burden time for a state to collect
data under federal grant specifically to be submitted to NMFS for federal certification is part of
this collection.

4

5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Because all applicants are considered small businesses, separate requirements based on size of
business have not been developed. Only the minimum data to meet the analytical needs of the
BRD testing protocols are requested from all applicants.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
Reporting is at the request of the respondent. If this collection is not approved, there will be no
procedure for approving new BRD developed by the shrimp industry or NMFS.
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 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 (73 FR 3696) solicited public
comments. No comments were received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
There are no payments or gifts to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
All data that are submitted are treated as confidential in accordance with National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-100. Assurance is given on the
forms.
Additional protections: Records are stored in computerized databases or compact discs (CD)s in
locked rooms; paper records are stored in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked
rooms. Records are stored in buildings with doors that are locked during and after business
hours. Visitors must register with security guards and must be accompanied by Federal
personnel at all times. Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification
5

number, name of entity, permit number, vessel name or vessel identification number, or plant
name. Electronic records are protected by a user identification/password. The user
identification/password is issued to individuals as authorized by authorized personnel.
All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix
III, Security of Automated Information Resources, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; an the Government Information Security Reform
Act and follows National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 800-18, Guide for
Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security SelfAssessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; NIST SP 800-53, Recommended
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.
A Privacy Act System of Records Notice for all NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Permits was
published on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20914) and became effective June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33065).
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.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The estimated number of applicants is 28 per year. As described in the response to Question 2,
the observers complete all documents other than the application letter and vessel information
form and the gear specification form. Forms completed by the observer require only a signature
from the respondent.
1. The reporting requirements for the BRD testing protocols consist of completing a vessel
information form, a gear specification form, a station sheet BRD evaluation form, a
length frequency form, a condition and fate form and conducting the test.
a. The estimated time to complete an application letter and vessel information form is 30
minutes; the gear specification form is 30 minutes, a total of 14 hours for each form (28 x
0.30).
b. The station sheets will require 2 hours per trip or a total of 14 hours (captain’s
signature is the only burden; at 1 minute per signature, the burden for 28 forms is 28 minutes; 30
tows with one form per tow = 30 x 28 x 1 minute/60 minutes = 14 hours).
c. The species characterization form, again counting captain’s signature only, adds 14
hours: at 1 minute per signature, the burden for 28 forms is 28 minutes; 30 tows with one form
per tow = 30 x 28 x 1 minute/60 minutes = 14 hours.
d. The length frequency form, again counting captain’s signature only, adds 14 hours: at
1 minute per signature, the burden for 28 forms is 28 minutes; 30 tows with one form per tow =
30 x 28 x 1 minute/60 minutes = 14 hours.

6

e. The condition and fate form, providing biological data, is completed upon sighting of
a sea turtle, which is estimated to occur on about 25 per cent of the tests – in this case, 7 trips
(7/28 = 0.25) – for a total of 7 minutes (1 minute each for captain’s signature).
.
2. The estimated time to complete one Trip Report/Cover Sheet for each trip = 1 minute for
the captain’s signature, or 28 minutes.
In addition, we expect four independent BRD tests to be performed under the state programs per
year, for an additional four respondents. The burden time associated with reproducing the test
information and results is estimated at 5 minutes per application, or 20 minutes.
The total time for all items above is (5 x 14 hours) + 7 minutes + 28 minutes + 20 minutes =
70 hours and 55 minutes, or 71 hours (rounded down to 70 hours in ROCIS).
Requirement
Application/Vessel
Information Form
Gear Specification Form
Station Sheet BRD
Evaluation Form
Species Characterization
Form
Length Frequency Form
Condition and Fate Form
Trip Report/Cover Sheet
Independent BRD tests
(duplication/mailing)
TOTALS

Respondents

Responses

28

Response Time Burden Time
(Hours)
(Hours)
28
0.5
14

28
28

28
840

0.5
0.017

14
14

28

840

0.017

14

28
28
28
4

840
7
28
4

0.017
0.017
0.017
0.083

14
7 minutes
28 minutes
20 minutes

32

2,615

71

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 cost of duplication and mailing reports is $20 per applicant: 32 x $20 = $640 (rounded down
to $639 in ROCIS).
A third party agent provides observers. Observers will be state or federal employees or
contracted observers working for another institution such as a university. No cost is thus
associated with the observer.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Tasks, e.g. review of forms submitted, are covered under normal duties of staff. Re cost of
observers: observers may be NMFS employees, state employees (including university
personnel), or employees/contractors of private organizations. The cost of the observer is paid by
the observer provider, either through normal employment (wage/salary), or more likely from a
research grant from either a state/federal/private source.
7

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
Adjustments: burden for tasks completed by observers had previously been included in error;
formerly counted costs for observers are not applicable, thus decreasing the responses by 1,451
and hours by 1,733 and the costs by $338,336 (in ROCIS, the adjustment appears to be
$338,361, as the total cost was rounded up to the nearest thousand when the ICR was migrated to
ROCIS). Overall costs per respondent for duplication and submission of forms have not changed.
Program change: the test requirements for the Gulf and South Atlantic areas are now the same
and thus no longer include pre-certification or species specification information for the Gulf; this
program change results in a decreases in responses of 1,224 and hours of 5,096 for the 24 precertification forms.
Total change including adjustment and program change: 2,675 responses and 6,829 hours.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
Results will not be published except for the list of BRD that have been certified.
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.
Not applicable.
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 use statistical methods.

8