Whiting ss new 061108rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
PACIFIC WHITING VESSEL LICENSE
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-xxxx

INTRODUCTION
This statement is a request from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Sustainable
Fisheries Division (SFD) and Northwest Regional Office (NWR) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection to determine vessel eligibility to participate
in the Pacific Coast Whiting Fishery off Washington, Oregon and California. In the future, the
NWR may merge this collection with the existing collection OMB Control Number 0648-0203.
The groundfish fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), offshore waters between 3 and
200 nautical miles (nm), off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (WOC) is
managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific
Coast Groundfish FMP was prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
under the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (subsequently
amended and renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
also amended in 2006). The FMP has been in effect since 1982.
Under current regulations, catcher vessels participating in the shore-based and Mothership
sectors, or vessels participating in the catcher/processor sectors, must be registered to a
groundfish limited entry permit. The limited entry permit program has been in place since 1994
and allows appropriately registered vessels to participate in groundfish fisheries targeting any of
the 90+ species in the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. The proposed regulations would require
vessels that wish to participate in the non-tribal Whiting fishery to qualify for an additional
Whiting entry limitation program within the overall groundfish limited entry program.
The American Fisheries Act (AFA) of 1998 was designed to strengthen United States (U.S.)
ownership standards that had been exploited under the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel
Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987 (Public Law No. 100-239), and to rationalize the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) walleye Pollock fishery (Pollock) while protecting non-AFA
participants in other fisheries. Management measures required by the AFA include:
(1) regulations that limit access into the fishing and processing sectors of the BSAI Pollock
fishery and that allocate Pollock to such sectors, (2) regulations governing catch measurement
and monitoring in the BSAI Pollock fishery, (3) governing the formation and operation of fishery
cooperatives in the BSAI Pollock fishery, and (4) regulations to protect other fisheries from
spillover effects from the AFA.
The AFA requires the Council to develop conservation and management measures to protect
fisheries under its jurisdiction and the participants in those fisheries from adverse impacts caused
by the AFA, or by any fishery cooperatives in the directed Pollock fishery. Protection measures
can be divided into two basic categories: (1) the protection of persons/companies that harvest
fish and are not part of the BSAI Pollock fleet as defined by the AFA; and (2) the protection of
non-AFA fish processors. To address the concern of AFA impacts on the Pacific coast
groundfish fishery, the Council voted to establish a control date of September 16, 1999. They
also voted to initiate the development of recommendations to restrict AFA-qualified vessels from
1

participating in the fishery if, during a qualifying period between January 1, 1994, and
September 16, 1999, the vessel: (1) did not harvest at least 50 metric tons (mt) of Pacific Whiting
in the Mothership sector; (2) did not land at least 50 mt of Pacific Whiting in the shorebased
sector; or (3) did not land groundfish shore-based in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery (not
including fish landed in the Pacific Whiting fishery) (64 FR 66158). The control date provided
notice to AFA-permitted vessels that might seek to participate in the Pacific Coast groundfish
fisheries that current requirements for accessing the fisheries may change.
In 2006, changes in the Pacific Whiting fishery occurred which led to Council concerns about
increased participation by both AFA-permitted and non-AFA permitted vessels in the Pacific
Whiting fishery. A significant increase in the Whiting ex-vessel price attracted several new
vessels to the fishery, including some AFA-permitted vessels. Since the Alaska Pollock fishery
was rationalized, some vessels found they could engage in fishing for Pacific Whiting off the
West Coast in the spring and early summer and then travel to Alaska to take their shares of
Pollock later in the summer when Alaskan fishing conditions were more favorable.
In September 2006, the Council recommended that NMFS take emergency action to prevent new
entry into the Pacific Whiting fishery in 2007. The basis for the Council’s recommendation was
conservation concerns that could arise from an accelerated race for fish due to new entry of
AFA-permitted vessels to the fishery. Members of the Council expressed concern that a race for
fish could result in excessive harvest of Whiting early in the season, greater bycatch of
overfished rockfish and higher levels of incidental catch of endangered and threatened salmon in
the early season. The Council also noted its concern that new entry of AFA-permitted vessels
could result in early achievement of the U.S. directed harvest Whiting quotas, leaving West
Coast-based vessels facing no fishing or very limited fishing while the AFA-permitted vessels
could return to the rationalized Alaska Pollock fisheries, in which they also had an interest. The
Council’s proposal would only have prohibited AFA-permitted vessels from entry into the
Pacific Whiting fishery in 2007, and only if they did not have a history of involvement in the
fishery prior to 2006. Other non-AFA vessels could still have entered the fishery.
In a letter dated January 11, 2007, the Northwest Regional Administrator denied the Council’s
request for an emergency rule. The letter noted that the Council action was intended to address
actual or potential harm to West Coast fisheries from the AFA; however, the earlier closure of
the Whiting shore-based fishery in 2006 (compared to 2005) was due to new participation by
both AFA-permitted vessels and non-AFA vessels.
The Regional Administrator noted that the guidelines for the use of emergency rules call for use
of notice-and-comment procedures when there are controversial actions with serious economic
effects, except under extraordinary circumstances.
At its March 2007 meeting, the Council voted to request that NMFS enact an emergency rule for
the 2007 non-tribal season to prohibit participation in the 2007 non-tribal Pacific Whiting fishery
by all vessels without sector specific history in the fishery prior to January 1, 2007 (72 FR
27759). New information was presented that supported the potential for a race for fish,
including: 1) the price for Whiting continued to increase to unprecedented levels; 2) U.S.
optimum yield (OY) of Whiting was reduced by 10% for the 2007 season compared to 2006;
3) higher than projected canary rockfish bycatch rates in the non-Whiting fishery, required that
the Council place more severe constraints on the limited entry non-Whiting trawl fishery which
2

provide incentive for these vessels to move to the Whiting sector; 4) Alaska Pollock quota was
reduced.
The NMFS implemented the Council’s request for emergency action on May 14, 2007,
prohibiting participation in the 2007 Whiting fishery by any vessel that had no history of
participation within a specific sector of the non-tribal Whiting fishery during the period between
December 31, 1996 and January 1, 2007 (72 FR 27759, May 17, 2007). This action remains in
effect until May 13, 2008. Emergency actions may be in place for as long as 180 days, and may
be extended for a subsequent 180 days, but not longer.
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
In September 2007, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) approved Amendment 15
to the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan which provided that only vessels with a
history of significant participation in the various sectors of the Whiting fishery would be eligible
to continue to participate in the fishery. Consistent with Council’s decision, NMFS will publish
proposed regulations, to be codified at 50 C.F.R. 660, which would establish the following
criteria to qualify vessels for future participation in the non-tribal Whiting fishery. NMFS
anticipates publishing the final rule in 2008 and vessel owners will be requested to submit an
application for a Pacific Whiting vessel license before January 1, 2009. The Pacific Whiting
vessel license will be effective in 2009.
Specifically, the regulations would limit participation in the non-tribal Pacific Whiting fishery to
those vessels that met the following qualification criteria: (A) for catcher/processor vessels, the
qualifying criteria for a Pacific Whiting vessel license is evidence of having caught and
processed any amount of Whiting during the primary catcher/processor season in any one
calendar year during the period January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007; (B) for Mothership atsea processing vessels, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific Whiting vessel license is evidence of
having received and processed any amount of Whiting during the primary Mothership season in
any one calendar year during the period January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007; (C) for catcher
vessels delivering Whiting to at-sea Mothership processing vessels, the qualifying criteria for a
Pacific Whiting vessel license is evidence of having delivered any amount of Whiting to a
Mothership processor during the primary Mothership season in any one calendar year during the
period January 1, 1997 through January 1, 2007; and (D) for catcher vessels delivering Whiting
to shore-based processing plants, the qualifying criteria for a Pacific Whiting vessel license is
evidence of having made at least one Whiting landing with midwater gear and that the weight of
Whiting exceeded 50 percent of the total weight of the landing during the primary shore-based
season in any one calendar year during the period January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2007.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information would 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.
NMFS would request owners of any vessel (catcher vessel, Mothership, catcher processor) that
has significantly participated in any of the sectors of the non-tribal Pacific Whiting during the
3

qualifying years to submit an application to qualify for a Pacific Whiting vessel license.
Application notices would be mailed to vessel owners after the final rule is approved. The
deadline for submitting an application would be December 31, 2008. The vessel license would
be required to participate in the 2009 Whiting fishery. A valid Pacific Coast groundfish limited
entry permit and Pacific Whiting vessel license would be required for any catcher vessel
delivering to a shoreside processor or Motherships and for catcher processor vessels to continue
to participate in the Whiting fishery. For Motherships, only the sector license would be required
to continue to participate in the Pacific Whiting fishery. The privilege would be permanently
assigned to the vessel and issued to the vessel owner(s). The license would not be transferable to
another vessel. There would be no requirement that the vessel owner renew the license on a
periodic basis. The Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) estimates about 120 vessels may apply
to participate in the various sectors of the Pacific Whiting fishery. The application for the
license would be a one-time collection.
In Section A of the application, the applicant would indicate which sector or sectors the vessel
may have met the qualifying criteria. NMFS will use this information to batch applications by
sectors. In Section B, the respondent would be required to provide the following information:
(1) vessel name and United States Coast Guard (USCG) documentation number; (2) Pacific
Coast Groundfish limited entry permit number; (3) vessel owner name, business address,
telephone number, fax number and email address; (4) the sector(s) that the vessel may qualify for
as having significant participation; (5) the year and number of pounds in which the vessel landed
or processed Whiting and met the minimum landing requirement and (6) documentation (i.e.,
state fish tickets) that substantiates the date and the amounts of Whiting
landed/received/processed by the applicant vessel.
In Section B, the vessel information indicates which vessel may be qualified for the license and,
if qualified, would appear on the license. The permit number identifies whether the vessel is
currently registered in the groundfish limited entry fishery and would assist NMFS in generating
permit histories. The vessel owner name, business address, telephone number, fax number and
email address would identify the individual or entity that is making the application and the entity
or individual that would be issued the license and incur the legal responsibilities given in
regulation. Further, the license holder information would provide current contact information for
NMFS if they must contact them about their application. The signature of the authorized
representative would certify that the application information is correct and true. An authorized
representative of the vessel owner must sign, date and obtain notarization of the application.
Notarization would verify the identity of the authorized representative signing the application.
The date of the signature is required because the regulations provide a deadline for submitting
the application.
In Section C, the applicant would be required to indicate one year among the qualifying years
specified for the various vessel sectors (1994-2006 and 1997-2006) in which the vessel met the
harvesting and/or processing qualification criteria (see Question 1, paragraph 2, above). The
applicant would provide the total amount of Whiting actually caught or processed by the vessel
for that year. This information is necessary to determine whether the vessel is qualified for the
license. Although NMFS has access to state fisheries landing data for vessels delivering to
shoreside facilities, other documentation will be needed to substantiate processing or deliveries
of Whiting for at-sea vessels. The landing data is required, as there may be errors in state
landing data and moreover, it is necessary that the applicant make a formal representation to
4

NMFS asserting that the vessel qualifies for this privilege. NMFS would need to determine
whether the Whiting were harvested or processed illegally or if the claimed landed or processed
Whiting was associated with an applicant vessel. Also, NMFS would require documentation to
verify the pounds landed or processed for the one year indicated for a sector given in their
application. The documentation may include state fish tickets or vessel processing records and
would be reviewed for: (1) authenticity; (2) a listing of the vessel either landing or processing
Whiting; (3) indication that Whiting was either landed or received on a date during the year
indicated in the application and (4) the cumulative amounts of Whiting caught or processed in a
given year.
NMFS would review the application and documentation to determine if the vessel meets the
minimum landing requirement for a particular sector in one of the qualifying years. In Section A
of the application form, the applicant is asked to check those vessel sectors it feels the vessel
may qualify for and if they qualify for a sector, the sector would be identified on the license.
NMFS would use this information to batch applications by sectors. If the application is approved,
NMFS would issue a vessel license including the name and documentation number of the vessel,
vessel owner name and address, an effective date of the privilege, and provide which sector(s)
the vessel is qualified for. The qualifying vessel is permanently registered to the license and
NMFS would not require periodic renewals of the license.
After a vessel license is issued, a registered vessel may be sold to other owners or the ownership
group may change over time (i.e., death of an owner). NMFS would require vessel owners to
provide notification in writing of such changes in ownership so it can maintain current license
records on vessels/vessel owners possessing this privilege and reissue an updated license. In
addition, NMFS must be able to accurately associate the legal responsibility for the privilege
with a particular individual and/or entity. Specifically, the changes to a license that must be
reported to NMFS are: change in owners of the registered vessel; the vessel owner business
address/phone information; or a change in the vessel name. As appropriate, NMFS would
require: the new vessel owner name, address, phone, and fax, or new vessel name. NMFS may
require the USCG vessel documentation or abstract of title or other documentation to verify the
change in ownership.
The frequency of requests to change of vessel owner and change in vessel name would be
dependent on the number of times these actions occur. We estimate that the number of requests
to change vessel name and/or owner name and address information would be about 4 per year.
We have not prepared a form for revisions to the license because of the anticipated numbers of
such changes are few. SFD would require the vessel owner to submit a letter to NMFS notifying
it of this change.
A list of vessels which are qualified to participate in the Pacific Whiting fishery would be
available to the public on the NWR web site: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
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 application to qualify for the license would be made available on the Northwest Region
permits website (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Permits/Index.cfm); however, the applicant would be
5

required to submit the original copy of the application with the authorized representative’s
signature and the signature and stamp of a notary. The vessel owner would be required to submit
a request for changes to the vessel license in a written letter.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
There are no alternate sources for this information or duplicative requirements. The Pacific
Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Permit program identifies trawl vessels which may participate
in the limited entry Whiting and/or groundfish fisheries. However, the groundfish limited entry
program does not currently collect information that specifically identifies which sector a Whiting
vessel is registered or is qualified to participate in.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Most of the respondents would be small businesses. Only the minimum amount of information
would be required to meet the objectives of identifying qualified Whiting vessels are requested
of the applicants. The overall number of individuals and/or business entities involved in this
collection is relatively small and therefore, separate methods have not been developed. The
request for information to support the qualification of a particular vessel is one-time in nature.
Subsequent modifications are dependent on changes in the vessel name, vessel owner, vessel
owner address/telephone number. These changes are anticipated to be relatively few in a given
year.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If the collection is not conducted, NMFS would not be able to determine which vessel owners
want this privilege and to effectively determine which vessels meet the qualification
requirements. If NMFS does not collect the information, it would be unable to limit the number
of vessels participating in various sectors of the Whiting fishery. Under the current management
regime, it is possible that other vessels which have not historically participated in the fishery
would seek to participate in the fishery which would accelerate the race for fish and increase
bycatch of overfished species and incidental catch of threatened and endangered salmon.
Because this is a one-time collection, the collection could not be collected less frequently.
If NMFS does not require owners of licensed vessels to update information including changes to
the name of the vessel, vessel owner name and address/phone, NMFS would be unable to
effectively track which vessel and vessel owner are currently assigned to the vessel license.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
There are no special circumstances that would require the collection to be conducted in a manner
inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

6

8. Provide information on 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 proposed rule, RIN 0648-AW08, will be published, soliciting public comments on the required
information collection.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
renumeration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
The applicants for a vessel license are expected to provide fish tickets or other records that
substantiate their participation in the Whiting fishery during qualifying years. These records are
considered confidential under National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Administrative Order 216-100, Confidentiality of Fishery Statistics, and are subject to
confidentiality protection of Section 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Further, SFD would handle such records as consistent with COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits
and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries, published in the Federal
Register on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20914), and effective on June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33065).
A Privacy Act Statement is included on the application form.
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 questions of a sensitive nature included in the information collection.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
An estimated annualized number of respondents (120 total/3 years = 40), will submit an initial
application each with a burden of one hour. An estimated four requests for revision of the
license, each with a burden of 30 minutes will be submitted: (40 x 1 hr.) + (4 x 0.5 hr.) = 42
hours (see Table 1).

7

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).
Each application and request for revision will cost $0.42 to mail: 44 x $0.42 = $18.48 ($19).
Each application will require the application to be notarized and will cost $10 per application: 40
x $10 = $400. Revisions will not require notarization. The processing fee per application is
estimated to be $650: 40 x $650 = $26,000. $26,000 + $400 + $19 = $26,419 (see Table 2).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The cost to NMFS, SFD is incurred through the planning, preparation of regulations and review,
data base programming, review, processing and issuance of the applications for the Whiting
vessel qualification license and to review, process and any subsequent request to revise/update
license information and the subsequent reissuance of the license.
The administrative costs incurred for the review, processing and license issuance for the initial
applications would be covered by a one time application fee. The fee for the issuance of vessel
license is estimated to be approximately $650 per license. Subsequent requests to change the
vessel name, vessel owner name and/or address are considered to be nominal.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
This is a new collection implemented by regulation. The regulations will require a new license
for Whiting vessels.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
The names of vessels that qualify on historical participation in the fishery may be published in a
Federal Register Notice and/or would be posted on the NMFS NWR website.
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.
Not applicable.
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection does not employ statistical methods.

8

Table 1- Annual
Burden Hours

No. of
Respondents
40

Frequency
of
Response
1

Total
Annual
Responses
40

Average
Time per
Response
1 hour

4

1

4

30 minutes

(Annualized over 3 yrs)

Pacific Whiting
Vessel License (one
time, annualized)
Request to Revise
Pacific Whiting
License (estimated
yearly)
Totals

44

Total
Hours
40

Labor Cost
@
$17.02/hr**
$681.00

2 hours

$34.00

44

42
$715.00
hours*
Note*: The above estimate is based on annualization over 3 years. The application for vessel qualification is a onetime application. It is estimated that 120 applicants would submit an application.
** Source: Estimate is from U.S. Census Bureau Non employer statistics, 2001, as a proxy for respondent annual
income).

Table 2 – Estimated Annual
Cost Burden to
Respondents

Cost Item

Mailing: $0.42 per application/revision x 44
Notary: $10 per application x 40
Initial Application Processing Fee: 40 x $650
Total

9

Cost

$ 19.00
$ 400.00
$26,000.00
$26,419.00