OPIT ss 071009rev PART A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
NMFS OBSERVER PROGRAMS’ INFORMATION THAT CAN BE GATHERED
ONLY THROUGH QUESTIONS
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-xxxx

INTRODUCTION
This request is for a new collection, including some information approved under current
collections (burdens to be adjusted after approval) and some information that had been collected
without PRA clearance. The process of developing this comprehensive collection has taken quite
some time. We had initially requested emergency review, and understand that it was not justified,
as there was no statutory or Congressional mandate and deadline. However, we are requesting
review soon after the 30 day comment period, as it is urgent that we operate with full OMB approval.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) deploys fishery observers on United States fishing vessels and to fish
processing plants in order to collect biological and economic data. NMFS has at least one
observer program in each of its six Regions. These observer programs provide the only reliable
and/or most effective method for obtaining information that is critical for the conservation and
management of living marine resources.
Observer programs primarily obtain facts or opinions through direct observations by employees
or agents of NMFS or through non-standardized oral communication in connection with such
direct observations; and such collections are not generally subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) (5 C.F.R. §§ 1320.3(h). However, observer programs also collect the following
information that requires clearance under the PRA: (1) standardized questions of fishing vessel
captains/crew or fish processing plant managers/staff (includes fish buyers/dealers), which
include gear and performance questions, safety questions, and trip costs, crew size and other
economic questions; (2) questions asked by observer program staff/contractors to plan observer
deployments; (3) forms that are completed by observers and that fishing vessel captains are
asked to review and sign; (4) questionnaires to evaluate observer performance; (5) information
used to ensure that the data for a specific trip are not provided to an individual (e.g., fisherman)
who does not have authority to obtain that data under the confidentiality requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and/or the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); and (6) information on reimbursement forms. Economic
information not available during the trip may be requested via a mail follow-up survey. NMFS
has received PRA clearances for the second and fourth types of collections for some observer
programs (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers 0648–0423, 0648–0202,
and 0648-0374 for deployment questions and 0648–0550 and 0648–0536 for observer
evaluations). The burden hours for the observer program questions in those collections are
included in this national, comprehensive PRA submission and will be removed from the current
collections once this request is approved.
The primary authorizations for NMFS to place observers on fishing vessels are included in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); and each observer program was
implemented by program or fishery specific regulations, at 50 C.F.R. 679 Subpart E (Alaska
1

Exclusive Economic Zone), 622 Subpart A (Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf and South Atlantic),
635 Subpart A (Atlantic Highly Migratory Species), 648 Subpart A (Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States), 660 Subpart G (West Coast Groundfish Fisheries), 660 Subpart I
(Coastal Pelagic Fisheries), 665 Subpart C (Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries), and 229 Subpart
A (MMPA Provisions). Sec. 303(b)(8) of the MSA states that any fishery management plan
which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), with respect to
any fishery, may require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United
States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting
data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery; Sec. 403(a) requires the
Secretary to promulgate regulations for fishing vessels that carry observers; and Sec. 403(b)(1)
requires the Secretary to establish programs to ensure that each observer receives adequate
training in collecting and analyzing the information necessary for the conservation and
management purposes. Similar authority to place observers on fishing vessels is provided by
Sec. 118 of the MMPA (codified in 50 C.F.R. Part 229, Authorization for Commercial Fisheries
under the MMPA) and the ESA (applicable sections codified in 50 C.F.R. Parts 222 (General
Endangered and Threatened Marine Species), and 223 (Threatened Marine and Anadromous
Species). Observers may also be required under ESA Section 7, Biological Opinions. However,
no observer programs are currently implemented under the ESA authority.
Sec. 402(a)(2) of the MSA states that if the Secretary determines that additional information is
necessary for developing, implementing, revising, or monitoring a fishery management plan, or
for determining whether a fishery is in need of management, the Secretary may, by regulation,
implement an information collection or observer program requiring submission of such
additional information for the fishery. Alternatively, a Council may initiate the implementation
of such an information collection or observer program [Sec. 402(a)(1)]. Sec. 303(a)(5) makes it
explicit that the information the Secretary is authorized to collect includes the “economic
information necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.”
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Biological and economic information collection programs implemented by NMFS address
statutory and regulatory mandates to conserve and manage living marine resources, which
includes collecting information that can be use to: (1) monitor catch and bycatch; (2)
understand the population status and trends of fish stocks and protected species, as well as
the interactions between them; (3) determine the quantity and distribution of net benefits
derived from living marine resources; and (4) predict the biological, ecological, and
economic impacts of existing management measures and alternative proposed
management measures. In particular, these biological and economic information
collection programs contribute to analyses required under the MSA, the ESA, the MMPA,
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
Executive Order 12866 (EO 12866), as well as a variety of state statutes including Florida
Statute 120.54, Hawaii Revised Statute 201M-2, New Jersey Permanent Statutes 52:14B19, and Oregon Revised Statutes 183.335 and 183.540. NMFS observer programs are
often the only reliable and/or most effective sources for some of the biological and
economic information required to meet the legislative and regulatory mandates that define
2

the NMFS stewardship responsibilities for the conservation and management of living
marine resources.
The lack of more complete economic information in the majority of Federally managed fisheries
has stymied NMFS’ ability to conduct these analyses and has led to lawsuits and regulatory
challenges of fisheries policies in the last several years, resulting in overturned rebuilding
objectives, biologically unsustainable total allowable catches, and eroded confidence in NMFS’
decision making process and social sciences capability. Maintaining and expanding the fishery
economic information collections will improve the scientific foundation of the Agency’s policies
and help decision makers weigh the economic impacts of their decisions.
It is important to note that a key feature of the Federal regulatory process is that NMFS cannot
simply implement a regulation to achieve a conservation goal but instead must consider a suite of
management alternatives. Economic analyses can identify the alternative that minimizes losses
to stakeholders while still achieving conservation goals, allowing NMFS to be proactive, rather
than reactive, in its resource management strategy.
For these reasons, the collection of economic information in fisheries has received a top priority
in the NMFS Social Science Plan, the NMFS Strategic Plan, and the NOAA Science Advisory
Board (SAB). 1 In addition, NMFS Regional Offices and Fishery Science Centers, as well as the
Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions
(Interstate Commissions) recognize the need for economic information, e.g., see the Pacific
Fisheries Management Council’s report “Research and Data Needs, 2008”, as well as the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center report “Data Needs For Economic Analysis of Fishery
Management Regulations.” The need for economic data has also been identified by external
sources, including the Kammer Report, Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and
National Research Council (NRC) reports. 2
Background
MSA
The MSA establishes eight Councils, each of which is charged with the preparation of a fishery
management plan and plan amendments with respect to each fishery requiring management
within its jurisdiction. Each fishery management plan (FMP) prepared by a Council, or by the
1

Performance metrics cited within the NOAA Strategic Plan include the number of FMPs with complete economic data (variable
cost, annual operating cost, and revenue) collected for commercial harvesters and the number of FMPs for which net benefits can
be calculated. The 2003 Report of the SAB’s Social Science Review Panel noted that “The lack of appropriate data limits the
contribution of social science to NOAA” and the 2008 draft Report of the SAB’s Social Science Working Group supports that
finding.

2

See "An Independent Assessment of the Resource Requirements for the National Marine Fisheries Service: A Report to the
Deputy Under Secretary, NOAA and the Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service," prepared by Ray Kammer,
June 2000. In addition, National Research Council publications that identify the need for commercial fisheries economic data
include “Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems” (2001); Improving the Collection, Management, and
Use of Marine Fisheries Data” (2000); and “Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas” (1999).
GAO publications recognizing the importance of commercial fisheries economic data include “Individual Fishing Quotas: Better
Information Could Improve Program Management” (2003); Commercial Fisheries: Entry of Fishermen Limits Benefits of
Buyback Programs (GAO/ Resources, Community and Economic Development (RCED)-00-120); and Fishery Management:
Problems Remain with National Marine Fisheries Service's Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (GAO/RCED-00-69).

3

Secretary, must contain conservation and management measures that are consistent with the
national standards, and any other applicable law [MSA Sec. 303(a)(1)(C)], and a description of
the fishery including actual and potential revenues from the fishery [MSA Sec. 303(a)(2)]. The
MSA authorizes FMPs developed by the Secretary or Council to require one or more observers
be carried on board a fishing vessel engaged in fishing for species subject to the plan, for the
purposes of collecting data necessary for conservation and management of the fishery [MSA Sec.
303 (b)(8)].
Plans and plan amendments must also include a fishery impact statement that analyzes the likely
effects, if any, including the cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the
conservation and management measures and possible mitigation measures [MSA Sec. 303(a)(9)].
Biological and economic information is needed to meet each of the national standards referenced
above. The ten national standards (in Italics) and requirements for biological and economic
information to meet them are presented below [MSA Sec. 301(a)].
(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.
Biological information is required to determine the fishing level and whether it results in
overfishing; and both types of information are necessary to determine the optimum yield because
it is defined in term of the amount of fish which, among other things, “will provide the greatest
overall benefit to the Nation.”
(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information
available.
Various sections of the MSA make it clear that scientific information includes both biological
and economic information.
(3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout
its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.
Principally biological information is required to identify the range of a stock of fish and the
interrelated stocks of fish. However, stocks of fish can be interrelated due to fishing vessels that
participate in multiple fisheries, in which case, economic information can be useful in identifying
interrelated stocks.
(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different
States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United
States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B)
reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no
particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.
Economic information, including cost and revenue data on participants in the fishery, is required
to identify some of the effects of such allocations and is therefore useful in determining whether
such allocations are “fair and equitable.” Economic information is also useful in determining
what constitutes “an excessive share of such privileges.”
4

(5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the
utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as
its sole purpose.
This standard requires appropriate descriptions of the fishery and assessments of the effects of
management actions, which are not possible without biological and economic information. For
example, cost and revenue information is necessary to evaluate the effects of proposed measures
on efficiency. Cost and revenue information is also necessary to anticipate the likely effects of
proposed measures on participants in the fishery.
(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations
among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
The “variations among and contingencies in fisheries” can be defined in terms of both biological
and economic variables. Therefore, both types of information are required.
(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication.
Economic information, specifically cost information, is required to determine if this national
standard is met.
(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation
requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing
economic and social data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide
for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize
adverse economic impacts on such communities.
There is an explicit requirement to use “economic and social data” to meet this national standard.
Specifically, economic information is required to predict the extent to which conservation and
management measures are expected to provide for the “sustained participation” and “minimize
adverse economic impacts.”
(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize
bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
Congress and NMFS have made it clear that the broadly defined benefits and costs of further
reductions in the levels of bycatch or the discard mortality rates should be considered in
determining if or what further reductions are practicable. Therefore, both types of information
are required to meet this national standard, where much of the critical biological information,
including bycatch estimates, is provided by NMFS observer programs. Observer programs are
considered the most reliable source of bycatch data.
(10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety
of human life at sea.
5

Economic information is required to determine what further improvements in safety are
practicable.
Acting under authorities provided in the MSA, the Councils and Secretary have implemented 47
FMPs, each of which addresses biological and socio-economic characteristics and issues
associated with the fishery. For example, the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP includes a
framework for the development and evaluation of management decisions having substantial
socio-economic implications (Section 6.2.3 of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan) (Attachment
A). Where management is necessary to address socio-economic issues, the Council must prepare
a report, which addresses the achievement of goals and objectives of the FMP, economic impacts
and how the proposed action will address at least one of 15 items including: maintaining stability
in the fishery, increasing economic yield, and increasing fishing efficiency. With respect to
allocation actions, the Council must consider such factors as present participation in and
dependence on the fishery, including alternative fisheries, historical fishing practices in and
historical dependence on the fishery, as well as consistency with MSA national standards. FMPs
prepared by other Councils address issues comparable to those addressed in the Pacific Coast
groundfish FMP.
An observer program provides a very efficient method of collecting high quality economic
information at the trip level. The specific advantages to collecting trip level economic
information through the observer programs include the following:
1. Reduced respondent burden #1: Most of the information will be collected directly by an
observer on the fishing vessel at a time that it is convenient for the captain/crew.
2. Reduced respondent burden #2: Because the economic information is being collected in
conjunction with other information on operations, only a relatively small number of
economic questions are asked. In comparison, annual economic surveys often ask both
economic and operational questions, information on landings, etc.
3. Reduced respondent burden #3: Respondents typically are asked to provide only
information that is readily available to them and maintained for their own purposes.
4. Higher response rates: The observers can explain to the captain/crew the purpose and
need of the data collection and how data will be kept confidential.
5. Cost-effective: We make use of an existing survey platform, as well as data entry and
data management programs.
6. "Cleaner" data #1: The observer receives training and knows what each question means.
Self-reported data collected via logbook and/or mail surveys require considerable
cleaning because so often the fisherman doesn't understand the question, reports
information in the wrong units, etc.
7. "Cleaner" data #2: Because the observer is onboard for the trip being reported on, he can
accurately record quantities; for the questions that are asked, recall bias is
reduced/eliminated because the fisherman just made the purchases and/or used his fishing
supplies, fuel, etc.
6

8. More accurate data #1: For those fishermen that operate out of multiple ports, tripspecific cost information helps to map expenditures to communities, which improves the
community economic impact analysis.
9. More accurate data #2: Most management measures usually just affect some aspect of a
vessel's operations, e.g., the regulation may restrict the use of a particular gear or
targeting strategy or it may shut down particular fishing grounds. To do cost-benefit
analysis, one needs to know the "economics" of the affected trips. Trip-specific cost and
quantity information allows one to provide more accurate cost-benefit analyses.
Each FMP also relies on stock assessments to aid in managing the fishery, set harvest levels,
prevent overfishing, and rebuild overfished stocks, as directed by MSA. Stock assessments
determine whether changes in the population are due to natural or human-related causes and
predict future trends in the population. The stock assessment process requires detailed
information for each species, including size, age, gender, and number caught. Fishery biologists
use the information provided by observer programs, along with other data sources such as
research cruises and fishermen-reported data, to complete a stock assessment.
MMPA
The MMPA seeks to maintain marine mammal stocks at optimum sustainable population levels,
principally by regulating the human-induced mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.
This includes fishing-related mortality and serious injury. Although the MMPA prohibits the
“take” of marine mammals, it provides exceptions for incidental mortality and serious injury
during the operation of commercial fishing, as well as a limited number of other activities.
“Take” is defined in the MMPA as, “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any marine mammal” (16 U.S.C. § 1362 (13)). In 1994, Congress amended the
MMPA to include Section 118, which established a regime to regulate the take of marine
mammals incidental to commercial fishing so that it does not occur at a level that jeopardizes a
marine mammal stock’s ability to reach its “optimum sustainable population”, defined as “the
number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the
species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element” (16 U.S.C. § 1362(9)). Marine mammal stock
assessments rely on observer data to develop estimates of fishing-related mortalities and serious
injuries. Observer data are also used in the fisheries classification process, under Section 118
(described in the next paragraph).
Section 118 of the MMPA requires that NMFS classify each United States (U.S.) commercial
fishery according to whether there is a frequent (Category I), occasional (Category II), or a
remote (Category III) likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.
It also requires the establishment of take reduction teams to develop take reduction plans (TRP)
for those fisheries with the greatest impact on marine mammal stocks (Category I and Category
II). Participants in Category I or II fisheries are required to register with NMFS, take on board
an observer if requested by NMFS [Sec. 118 3(B)], and comply with all applicable TRP
regulations.

7

The MMPA establishes both a short-term (six month) and a long-term (five year) goal for marine
mammal bycatch reduction. Take Reduction Plans are required to reduce, within six months of
implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken
in the course of commercial fishing operations to levels less than a stock’s potential biological
removal (PBR) level. Within five years of implementation, TRPs are required to reduce the
mortality or serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken in the course of commercial
fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate
(commonly referred to as the Zero Mortality Rate Goal or ZMRG), taking into account the
economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional
fishery management plans (16 U.S.C. § 1387(f)).
ESA
The ESA requires the Federal government to protect and conserve species and populations that
are endangered or threatened with extinction, and to conserve the ecosystems on which these
species depend. Some threatened and endangered species, including all sea turtle species and
certain species of salmon, seabirds, and marine mammals, are captured as bycatch in commercial
and recreational fisheries. The ESA requires development of a recovery plan that identifies
criteria and actions to recover each listed species. Recovery plans for marine species generally
include reducing incidental capture of protected species in fishing operations as a priority-one
action, which is necessary to prevent extinction or irreversible declines. In some cases, fisheries
can be restricted or terminated because they incidentally take protected species and impede
recovery of the listed population. Other provisions of the ESA ensure that sources of mortality
for protected species are identified and minimized or mitigated.
ESA Section 9 prohibits the take of endangered species within the United States or the territorial
sea of the United States, and on the high seas. “Take” is defined by the ESA as “to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct” (16 U.S.C. §1536(18)). ESA Sections 4, 6, 7, and 10 provide exceptions to the take
prohibition of ESA-listed species. Of particular relevance for fisheries bycatch is Section 7,
which provides that “Each Federal agency shall ... insure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat of such species ...” (16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2)).
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on activities that
may affect a listed species. For Federally managed fisheries, NMFS must formally consult with
itself on the effects fisheries management plans may have on listed species and their critical
habitat. These interagency, or Section 7, consultations are designed to assist Federal agencies in
fulfilling their duty to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a species
or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Should an action be determined by NMFS to
jeopardize a species or adversely modify critical habitat, NMFS will suggest Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives (RPA) that would not violate Section 7(a)(2). Biological Opinions
document NMFS' opinion as to whether the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Where appropriate, biological opinions provide an exemption for the "take" of listed species
while specifying the extent of take allowed, the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM)
8

necessary to minimize impacts from the Federal action, and the Terms and Conditions with
which the action agency must comply. These RPMs may include observer program coverage.
In 2007, the NMFS Office of Protected Resources developed a regulation requiring vessels
fishing in areas in state or Federal waters where sea turtles may be present and interactions likely
to occur to carry observers when requested to do so by NMFS [ESA Sec. 222 and 223]. Previous
ESA regulations only allowed for limited, temporary monitoring of vessels suspected of sea
turtle interactions, usually only after an emergency event, such as a mass sea turtle stranding, or
under a Biological Opinion. Consequently, NMFS has had to rely on MMPA and MSA
authorities to obtain observer coverage in some fisheries. This approach has not always allowed
the agency to monitor fisheries it needed to (e.g., non-Federal MMPA Category III fisheries) or
to design monitoring programs to optimize data collection of sea turtle bycatch data. The 2007
regulation will enable NMFS to learn more about interactions between fishing operations and sea
turtles, to evaluate existing measures to reduce sea turtle takes, and to determine whether
additional measures to address sea turtle bycatch may be necessary.
Requirements for economic analysis are also included in the ESA. For example, to designate
critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, the Secretary is to consider the economic impact [50
C.F.R. § 424.12(a)].
NEPA
NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments,
and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to governmental activities or policies. This
consideration is to be done through the use of "a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences .... in planning and in decisionmaking …." [NEPA Sec. 102(2)(A)] and, further, to “identify and develop methods and
procedures, ….., which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and
values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and
technical considerations” [NEPA Sec. 102(2)(B)]. In addition, NOAA’s NEPA implementation
guidelines require that the environmental impact statement (required under NEPA Sec.
102(2)(C)(i)) must include biological, ecological, economic, and social consequences. 3 The
observer programs provide some of the information that is required to meet these NEPA
requirements.
EO 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review”
EO 12866 requires an assessment of all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives.
Under EO 12866, when choosing among regulatory approaches, agencies should select those
approaches that maximize net benefits [EO 12866 Sec. 1(a)]. In addition, EO 12866 states that
"Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical,
economic and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended
regulation" [EO 12866 Sec. 1(b)(7)].
This executive order, combined with the MSA national standard on use of best scientific
information available, obligate NMFS to seek clearance for the collection of the information
3

For NOAA’s NEPA implementation guidelines see, NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, "Environmental Review
Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act," May 20, 1999.

9

necessary to meet decision standards set out in the national policies outlined above. Regardless
of what action the Councils and Secretary take with respect to management of Federal fisheries
for 2009 and beyond (including no action alternatives), biological and economic information is
needed to meet the requirements listed above; and, in many cases, the NMFS observer programs
are the only reliable and/or most effective sources for such information.
RFA
Whenever an agency is required to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any
proposed rule, it is required to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes: (1)
the impact of the proposed rule on small entities [Sec. 603(a)] and (2) any significant alternatives
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities [Sec. 603(c)].
Each final regulatory flexibility analysis is required to describe the steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives
of applicable statutes [Sec. 604(a)(5)]. In addition, several Sections of the RFA require Federal
agencies to analyze the effects of regulations to determine whether an action will have or has had
"a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities". For example, “Each
year, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register a list of the rules which have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” [Sec. 610(c)]. Cost and revenue
information for the specific activity in question (fish harvesting and processing), as well as some
level of general information on the full range of income producing activities in which firms are
engaged are necessary to effectively conduct these types of RFA analyses.
Other Information Collections from the Same Universe of Respondents
NMFS and state fishery management agencies collect information that will be used in
conjunction with the information that will be provided by this collection. For example, the
landed catch and effort data that are collected by the state agencies and the data obtained by
observer programs through direct observations or through non-standardized oral communication
in connection with such direct observations are used with the gear and performance information
provided by this collection to estimate bycatch and total catch. Similarly, the information on the
physical and operational characteristics of fishing vessels are used to test for, and as necessary
adjust for, any sampling bias for the observed vessels and trips. This is important, for example,
when logbook or landings data are used to extrapolate observed bycatch to unobserved portions
of the fishery. In addition, observer programs provide an independent data source that can be
used to verify the accuracy of information obtained by self reporting programs, such as logbook
and landings report programs.
Coordination among NMFS and state information collections for the fisheries is used to
consolidate requirements on the respondents to this collection. The Interstate Commissions were
created in part to facilitate such coordination.

10

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.
How the information will be used
The information collected will be used to: (1) monitor catch and bycatch in Federally managed
fisheries; (2) monitor interactions with protected species (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, and
endangered or threatened fish and seabirds) in Federally managed fisheries and in select state
managed fisheries; (3) understand the population status and trends of fish stocks and protected
species, as well as the interactions between them; (4) determine the quantity and distribution of
net benefits derived from living marine resources; (5) predict the biological, ecological, and
economic impacts of existing management measures and alternative proposed management
measures; and (6) ensure that the observer programs can safely and efficiently collect the
information required for the previous five uses.
Comprehensive catch and bycatch information is an essential component of all stock assessments
and is necessary for the development of effective fisheries and protected resource management
strategies. At-sea observer programs are the most reliable method of collecting bycatch
information. The MSA requires implementation of annual catch limits for all Federally managed
fisheries. Bycatch data collected by at-sea observer programs are an essential component in the
estimation of total catch because bycatch approaches or exceeds landed catch in some fisheries
and is a significant part of the total catch in many other fisheries. Analysis of catch, bycatch, and
fishing effort information collected by observers also supports development of and
recommendations within Take Reduction Plans, Biological Opinions, and Fishery Management
Plans. Observer data are also used to assess the impact of experimental fisheries, monitor the
effectiveness of bycatch reduction technologies, and enforce fisheries regulations.
In general, analysis of cost, revenue, and employment information for fishing vessels will assist
analysts in estimating:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Net economic value to the nation
Economic health of the fishery
Effects on business efficiency
Community economic impacts
Firms’ economic dependence on the fishery
Economic impacts of proposed regulations, including area closures, gear restrictions, and
catch or bycatch restrictions
7. Distribution of economic impacts from proposed regulations and, in particular, the
significance of impacts on small businesses
8. Likelihood of bankruptcies
9. Effects on international competitiveness.
The following is a summary of the need for each type of question in Attachment B. In addition
to listing the types of questions that may be asked, that Attachment indicates which questions are
mandatory and provides references to the statutes mandating responses to specific sets of
questions.
11

Safety Questions: Safety information is required to ensure that an observer can be safely
deployed on a specific fishing vessel or stationed at a specific processing plant and work safely
once assigned to a specific vessel or plant.
Other Pre-Deployment/Logistical Questions: Pre-deployment questionnaires are utilized by
observer program staff when a vessel is selected to be observed. The responses provide critical
information on vessel departure point, return point, and communications (to coordinate observer
deployment); planned fishing locations (in order to ensure that appropriate coverage levels are
achieved for all areas); and Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Decal number (Decals are
required for all vessels in an observed fishery).
Vessel Characteristics: Information on vessel characteristic (e.g., vessel name, permit or
license number, documentation number, length, year built, hull construction, tonnage,
horsepower) is necessary to help identify specific vessels. While much of the information on
physical descriptors such as hull type, tonnages, and length are available from other sources,
these data are often outdated, missing or conflicting. Such information can be used in stratifying
vessels; and, as noted above, vessel characteristics information is used in assessing and adjusting
for any bias in the selection of the vessels that are observed.
Ownership: The vessel owner’s name and address are collected for contact information.
Questions regarding ownership are useful in terms of social interest; however, evaluation of
owner participation also plays a role in predicting whether marginal vessels will stay in business.
For example, the owner of a vessel with zero or slightly negative net profits may decide to
remain in the fishery if the owner is deriving a wage from personally operating a vessel. On the
other hand, an owner who hires a skipper may be more likely to choose to exit the fishery under
a similar circumstance.
Effort/Gear Descriptors: These questions are useful in helping the analyst describe and
quantify effort on the fishing grounds in terms of the types and amounts of gear deployed. This
information could be used in developing models of efficient fleet size to support such activities
as fleet reduction programs, as well as provide information on the level of capitalization within
the various sectors of a fishery. Effort information often is collected through direct observations,
which includes obtaining the information from the fishing vessel’s logbook. However, if a
vessel is not required to maintain a logbook that the observer can access (e.g., in state fisheries
with MMPA observers), the observer asks questions to obtain that information from the
captain/crew. Effort information and gear descriptors are used to estimate and extrapolate catch
and bycatch for unobserved hauls and unobserved portions of the fleet, where coverage levels are
less than 100%. Even where coverage levels are 100%, this information is still necessary, as
some vessels may be considered un-observable due to safety concerns.
Trip Level Operating Costs: This information is necessary to estimate the net value of
participation in the fishery; calculate producer surplus and short-run economic and financial
profit measures; assess the change in net benefits caused by proposed management actions; and

12

is used in the Fishery Economic Assessment Model and IMPLAN 4 Model to estimate economic
impacts.
Catch/Revenue: As noted above, the MSA requires FMPs to contain a description of the fishery
including actual and potential revenues from the fishery. Revenue information, in conjunction
with cost information, is necessary to derive net economic value. Additionally, revenue
information from all activities can be used to allocate fixed costs between different activities and
as part of the assessment of relative dependence on the fishery.
For vessels delivering to motherships, these questions are particularly important because in some
fisheries there are no fish ticket records for at-sea landings. Information on revenue from other
fisheries is needed because of similar deficiencies in fish ticket records, and the lack of access to
confidential information for fisheries in some states.
In addition, if the respondents calculate their net income based on their other answers and the
result is out-of-line with their experience, they may stop to consider whether they have answered
the preceding questions on costs and revenue correctly and entirely. Further, if respondents
provide previously calculated net income without checking for consistency, or analysts compare
the reported values with fish ticket revenue information where available, analysts may derive a
result different from the survey responses alerting them to some degree of incompleteness in
either the survey or the responses to the questions.
Regional Impact: One assumption generally made in assessing impacts on coastal communities
is that all employees live in the coastal area of the vessel’s homeport and, consequently, crew
share is spent in the vessel’s homeport. Similarly, current models assume all impacts occur in
the port of landing or in a homeport (for vessels delivering to motherships). This information is
particularly important in assigning community impacts for vessels delivering to motherships but
is also useful when the vessel is active in multiple ports. While this simplifying assumption was
useful in the early development of the models used in fisheries income impact assessments, more
recent versions of these models allow analysts to relax this assumption. The information
solicited by these questions is necessary to make use of this ability to more accurately estimate
the distribution of effects. These questions are intended to address the issue with better quality
information that is more evenly distributed across sectors.
Crew Size: This information is of interest in terms of effect on the fishing community and
general community employment. Income-related questions will allow a systematic assessment
of the degree to which individuals are engaged and dependent on fishing-related activities.
Information users and purpose and frequency of use
The information will be used by NMFS staff, as well as by others who are authorized to access
this confidential information. It will be used for the purposes of developing, implementing,
revising, and monitoring fishery management plans and actions that are taken in support of the
MSA, MMPA, and ESA. The information will be used on a frequent and ongoing basis in

4

The Fishery Economic Assessment Model and IMPLAN® (IMpact analysis for PLANning) are economic impact assessment
modeling systems, which allows the user to build economic models to estimate the impacts of economic changes in their states,
counties, or communities.

13

meeting NMFS stewardship responsibilities identified in the MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, other
applicable law, and treaties.
Complies with all applicable information quality guidelines
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NMFS will retain
control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and
destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic
information. See response to Question 10 of this Supporting Statement for more information on
confidentiality and privacy. The information collection is designed to yield data that meet all
applicable information quality guidelines. Although the information collected will not be
disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management, technical or
general informational publications. All such uses of this information will be subject to: (1) the
quality control measures and pre-dissemination review pursuant to Sec. 515 of Public Law 106554 (Data Quality Act) and (2) NOAA Information Quality Guidelines for ensuring and
maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information which it disseminates.
Among other things, the NOAA guidelines establish an administrative mechanism allowing
affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information that does not comply with OMB or
NOAA applicable guidelines.
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.
Typically, the information is collected during brief conversations between the observer and the
captain/crew of the fishing vessel; and the form or list of questions is not given to the
captain/crew; instead, it is used by the observer to ensure that the appropriate questions are
asked. Therefore, in this case, the electronic submission of responses is not possible. In most
cases, the forms or lists of questions are included in the observer manuals. Manuals can be
found on the National Observer Program webpage:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html.
The major exceptions are the questions observer program staff/contractors ask fishing vessel
permit holders/captain in order to plan observer deployments, the questions that are asked to
evaluate observer performance, and the reimbursement forms (e.g., for the purpose of
reimbursing the captain/owner for observer meals). The first can include questions concerning
the logistics of planned fishing trips, vessel safety, vessel call #s, and means of reaching the
vessel at sea in case of emergencies. Often, the potential respondents are mailed a form and
asked to complete it and return it by fax. The observer evaluation questions and the
reimbursement forms typically are mailed or handed to the vessel captain and returned by mail.
NMFS is exploring options for the electronic submission of these two types of information. In
addition, when economic information is not available during the trip, the captain/owner may be
asked to provide that information via a mail follow-up survey. The use of electronic submission
of this type of information will be explored.
Observers typically use paper forms because the technology for electronic data entry at sea is
very expensive and not available in all cases. However, NMFS has plans to expand the use of
electronic data entry by observers. For example, by 2010 the Northeast Fisheries Observer
14

Program (NEFOP) expects the majority of the data to be recorded electronically on rugged
laptops. Similarly, the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) will begin testing
rugged laptops or handheld devices in 2010 for use in automatic, electronic data collection.
Laptops/handhelds will be phased in over a two to three year period for all WCGOP at-sea data
collection.
Non-confidential summaries of the information or of information generated using this
information will often be made available to the public over the Internet.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Federal and State collection programs were reviewed to ensure that the questions covered in this
collection request do not duplicate information provided by other collection programs. The
economic, gear, safety, and other questions asked by observers were designed to provide types of
information that are not available from or similar to the information provided by other collection
programs. An extensive consultative process is used by each NMFS observer program to
determine if the information is available from another collection program. In most cases, this
determination is made through an open public process that includes input from a NMFS Regional
Office, a NMFS Fisheries Science Center, a Council (including its Scientific and Statistical
Committee and other advisory panels), an Interstate Commission, one or more State fishery
management agencies, the fishing industry, environmental organizations, and others interested in
or affected by the conservation and management of living marine resources.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Since most of the respondents are considered small businesses, separate requirements based on
size of business have not been developed. The methods used to minimize the burden include:
(1) limiting the questions that are asked; (2) asking questions that can be answered readily and
that do not require additional recordkeeping costs; (3) having the observer ask the questions at
times that are convenient for the captain/crew of the fishing vessel; and (4) using plain, coherent,
and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
Fisheries observers are trained professionals who monitor and record catch and bycatch data and
collect other biological and economic data from U.S. fishing vessels and processing facilities.
Data from observers are used to understand the population status and trends of fish stocks and
protected species, as well as the interactions between them. Observer data are necessary for
determining levels of bycatch of protected species and non-target fish stocks, which can be a
major factor affecting mortality rates and, thus, population status and recovery of protected
species. Information on target species, gear types used, fishing vessel locations, etc. are
necessary to calculate fishing effort, an important component of bycatch estimation. When these
data cannot be collected through direct observation (such as when an observer is off-duty), or
when the information is known only to the captain and crew (e.g., target species), questions must
occasionally be asked of the captain/crew. This includes questions that are asked in order to: (1)
ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the observer programs and (2) maintain the safety of
15

fisheries observers aboard fishing vessels and at processing plants. To effectively and efficiently
meet the NMFS stewardship responsibilities, including those identified in the MSA, MMPA,
ESA, and NEPA, NMFS observer programs must continue to collect these data.
Trip level economic data, including cost, revenue, and employment data, are among the data
required to monitor and predict the economic effects of specific conservation and management
actions. Therefore, the ability of NMFS to design and implement actions that will assist in
meeting its stewardship responsibilities for living marine resources and their habitat would be
limited severely if observer programs do not continue to collect this information.
The gear, safety, and other non-economic questions asked by observers are critical for the safety
of the observers or are used to make the information gathered by observers through direct
observation more useful. Therefore, these questions are required for safe and effective observer
programs, without which, some of the key biological and economic information used in meeting
the Agency’s stewardship responsibilities would not be available.
Most of the requested information is trip specific, can vary by trip, and is used with directly
observable or reported trip level data to monitor the biological and economic characteristic of
observed fishing trips and to estimate the characteristics of unobserved trips. In some cases,
haul-specific target, gear, catch, and effort questions are asked to expand the information for
observed hauls to all hauls during a trip. Therefore, if the collection is conducted less frequently,
the Agency’s ability to effectively monitor the full trip characteristics of observed trips and to
estimate the characteristics for unobserved trips would be decreased substantially.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection will be conducted in a manner consistent with OMB Guidelines.
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 Federal Register Notice published on March 4, 2009 (73 FR 9387) solicited public comments.
Public comments were received from two individuals, Mr. Chris Oliver, Executive Director,
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and Ms. Stephanie Madsen, Executive
Director, At-sea Processors Association (APA). The comments focused on their opposition to
using fishery observers, specifically North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP)
observers, to collect trip level economic data. Other than stating his opposition to that use of
NPGOP observers, Mr. Oliver principally addresses the importance of using the NPFMC process
to make decision concerning how to collect economic data for the NPFMC’s fisheries and
questions whether the economic information included in this information collection request is
needed for fishery management purpose. Ms. Madsen’s comments are similar to Mr. Oliver’s
16

(strongly opposed to that use of NPGOP observers, question the need for these economic data,
and supports the NPFMC process for developing economic data collection programs for the
NPFMC’s fisheries). However, Ms. Madsen also presents several reasons why she thinks that
using NPGOP observers to collect economic data would adversely affect the ability of NPGOP
observers to collect biological and ecological data that are “essential to successful management
of the groundfish resource in Alaska.” The following NMFS responses address the three issues
raised by both sets of comments, as well as Ms. Madsen’s stated reasons for her concern.
1. Several observer programs outside of Alaska have demonstrated over a number of years
and for a broad range of fisheries that observers can effectively and efficiently collect trip
level economic data without adversely affecting their ability to collect biological and
ecological data. Although, some trip level economic data are observable and are not
subject to the PRA, most of that data is collected by having the observers ask captains for
specific information that is subject to the PRA.
2. Because the ability of observers to do that can vary by fishery, a variety of factors will be
considered in determining if and how observers should be used to collect a range of
economic data for a specific fishery.
3. NMFS agrees that the NPFMC, with substantial assistance from NMFS, has developed
effective economic data collection programs for some of its fisheries and NMFS is
working with the NPFMC to expand such programs to more of the NPFMC’s fisheries.
4. NMFS believes that the use of observers should be considered in developing/expanding
some aspects of the economic data collection programs for NPFMC fisheries.
5. The NPFMC, including its Comprehensive Data Collection Committee on which the
APA is represented, the Alaska Regional Office, and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center
will continue to be involved in assessing the necessary economic data elements and the
best mechanisms to collect them for specific fisheries under the NPFMC’s jurisdiction.
6. The information collection request that has been developed for the NMFS observer
programs is intended to facilitate having observers collect economic data in all fisheries
for which such a use of observers is determined to be appropriate.
7. Economic data are required to meet the agency’s and the Councils’ stewardship
responsibilities for the conservation and management of living marine resources under
the MSA, MMPA, ESA, NEPA, RFA, EO 12866, and other applicable law. The
NPFMC’s successful efforts to develop economic data collection programs for some of
its fisheries and its ongoing efforts to develop “a comprehensive economic data collection
program”, which will include most to all of its other fisheries, demonstrate the NPFMC is
aware of and taking action to address the need for economic data.
8. NMFS agrees that the NPGOP is widely recognized as one of the best and most
comprehensive fishery observer programs in the world and encourages the consideration
of additional uses of this large and effective observer program.
9. NMFS agrees that the success of the NPGOP turns on the professional and co-operative
relationship that is maintained between the observers and the vessels on which they serve
and that the recognition by skippers and crews that the biological data collected by
observers is essential to successful management of the groundfish resource in Alaska; and
NMFS believes that skippers and crews can be made more aware that economic data is
also essential for that purpose.
10. NPGOP observers currently collect some data which is useful in economic analyses. For
example, they collect effort and crew size data. Recently, the NPGOP also took steps to
refine trip level effort information at the request of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center
17

(AFSC) economists. NMFS believes that the NPFMC should consider using observers to
collect more complete economic data.
11. NMFS agrees that observers may need additional training if they are to collect more
economic data and do it effectively and efficiently; but that would depend on the scope of
the data collection activity. As noted, NPGOP observers collect information as part of
their regular duties which is useful in economic analyses and collecting this data has not
impacted existing data collection or required additional training time. However, the
training time necessary is dependent on the scope of the collections so we acknowledge
that additional training could be necessary should data collections expand. In other
observer programs, the time required to collect basic trip level economic data has not
prevented the observers from collecting the required biological and ecological data, in
part because the economic data collection can occur during a part of the trip in which the
observer is not involved in collecting other types of information. The observers are
trained to protect the confidentiality of the data they collect and currently collect
“competitively sensitive and otherwise confidential data”, such as tow-specific catch
data; and this has been done without “undermining the professional relationship and trust
that has developed between the fishermen and the NPGOP observers”. Similarly, the
more complete collection of economic data in other fisheries has not had such an effect.
However, NMFS agrees that these are among the potential effects that should be
considered in determining if and how observers should collect more complete economic
data.
The public comments do not identify deficiencies in the information collection planned by
NMFS or its intent to use the proposed information collection to, among other things, facilitate
the extended use of fishery observers to collect basic trip level economic data when such a use of
observers is determined to be appropriate. However, the comments do assist NMFS in
emphasizing the importance of considering a broad range of factors for determining how and
whether to use observers to collect more complete economic data in specific fisheries.
A number of people, both within agencies and the industry were consulted on the types of data
elements necessary and available, recordkeeping disclosures, confidentiality of the data and
timing of data collection exercises.
Each observer program included an extensive consultative process to determine: (1) whether the
information is available from another collection program; (2) whether an observer program is the
appropriate data collection mechanism; (3) the appropriate frequency of collection; (4) whether
the instructions and recordkeeping requirements were clear: (5) the appropriate disclosure rules
and or reporting format; and (6) what data elements should be included in this collection. In
most cases, these determinations were made through an open public process that included input
from a NMFS Regional Office, a NMFS Fisheries Science Center, a Council (including its
Scientific and Statistical Committee and other advisory panels), an Interstate Commission, one or
more State fishery management agencies, the fishing industry, environmental organizations, and
others interested in or affected by the conservation and management of living marine resources.
That consultative process typically is also used to review each collection program and suggest
improvements to it.

18

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.
Information obtained through this collection for fisheries conservation and management will be
kept confidential as required under Section 402(b) of the MSA (18 U.S.C. 1881a(b)) and
regulations at 50 C.F.R. Part 600, Subpart E. Information provided through this collection for
monitoring incidental takes of marine mammals will be kept confidential as required under
Section 118(d)(8) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(d)(8)) and regulations at 50 C.F.R. Part 229,
Subpart A.
Observers are trained to provide this assurance of confidentiality as part of their trip protocol and
it will also be included in the PRA statements (see Attachment C).
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.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
The estimates are of the average annual burden hours that would occur during the next three
years (approximately October 2009 - September 2012) under the current and planned collection
of each NMFS observer program for the following six types of information collections:
(1) standardized questions of fishing vessel captains/crew or fish processing plant
managers/staff; (2) questions asked by observer program staff/contractors to plan observer
deployments; (3) forms that are completed by observers and that fishing vessel captains are
asked to review and sign; (4) questionnaires to evaluate observer performance; (5) information
used to ensure that the data for a specific trip are not provided to an individual (e.g., fisherman)
who does not have authority to obtain that data under the confidentiality requirements of the
MSA and/or the MMPA; and (6) information on reimbursement forms. NMFS has received
PRA clearances for the second and fourth types of collections for some observer programs
(OMB Control Numbers 0648–0423, 0648–0202, and 0648–0374 for deployment questions, and
0648–0550 and 0648–0536 for observer evaluations). The burden hours for the observer
program questions in those collections are included in this national, comprehensive PRA
submission and will be deleted from those currently approved programs once this submission is
approved.
The questions asked to collect these types of information are presented in Attachment B. Some
questions (e.g., target species for a set and catch for unobserved sets) are set-specific and asked
several times during a trip. Some questions are asked once per trip or deployment. Other
questions are asked only on trips in which the observer cannot collect the information through
direct observations or through non-standardized oral communication in connection with such
19

direct observations. The estimate of total burden hours (17,455 hours) is based on: (1) the
projected number of 4,323 respondents (4,122 observed vessels + 21 observed fish processing
plants + 180 processing plants briefly contacted); (2) the projected number of 14,082 responses
(13,927 trips (brief contacts to plants are treated as part of trips, not counted as separate
responses) + 155 deployments to processing plants); (3) an estimate of the average burden
minutes per trip if all the questions that were asked on or associated with a specific trip were
answered (about 81 minutes), including the questions asked at fish processing plants and (4) the
expected response rates (93% overall);. See Table 1 below, with totals on the continuing page.
Table 1. Average annual estimates for all six types of current and planned collections by
NMFS Observer Program, 2009-2012. (Updated May 26, 2009)
Alaska

Active vessels in
fisheries with a NMFS
observer program
Observed vessels
Observed trips
Fish processing plants
in fisheries with a
NMFS observer
program
Observed fish
processing plants
Deployments to fish
processing plants
Other fish processing
plants contacted
Burden minutes/trip
Estimated burden hours
with 100% response
Response rate
Response rate adjusted
estimated burden hours

Northeast

NPGOP AMMOP
1,350
80

296
4,483
62

Northwest

NEFOP ASHOP
15,000
15

Pacific
Islands
WCGOP PIRIOP
1,400
190

80
250

2,038
6,171

15
110

1,000
1,500

186
386

60
4,483

15
63

105
10,799

30
55

60
1,500

80
515

99%
4,438

95%
59

90%
9,719

99%
54

99%
1,485

90%
463

21
155
0

NPGOP: North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program
AMMOP: Alaska Marine Mammal Observer program
NEFOP: Northeast Fisheries Observer Program
ASHOP: At-Sea Hake Observer Program (Northwest)
WCGOP: West Coast Groundfish Observer Program
PIROP: Pacific Islands Region Observer Program
20

Table 1. Continued.

SFOP
Active vessels in
fisheries with a NMFS
observer program

175

Observed vessels
Observed trips
Fish processing plants in
fisheries with a NMFS
observer program

85
180

Observed fish processing
plants
Deployments to fish
processing plants
Other fish processing
plants contacted
Burden minutes/trip
Estimated burden hours
with 100% response
Response rate
Response rate adjusted
estimated burden hours

Southeast
POP
GOM
RFSOP
90
3,577

62
150

164
244

Southwest
Funded
Unfunded
Programs
Programs
51
1,200

36
48

160
405

All NMFS
Observer
Programs
23,128

4,122
13,927
900

21
155
180
75
225

80
200

105
427

60
48

60
405

81
18,719

100%
225

100%
200

100%
427

85%
41

85%
344

93%
17,455

SE SFOP: Southeast Shark Fishery Observer Program
SE POP: Southeast Pelagic Observer Program
GOM RFSOP: Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish and Shrimp Observer Program
SWROP: Southwest Region Observer Program
The burden hour estimates are for all the NMFS observer program information collections that
require a PRA clearance, including the collections that currently have such a clearance.
The estimated burden minutes per trip equal the average time per trip actually taken up by
gathering information through questions, including pre-trip notifications and follow-up forms.
The burden hours for processing plants are included in the burden per trip estimates. Alaska is
the only Region in which observers are deployed at processing plants. However, in that and
other
Regions, an observer who has been deployed on a fishing vessel may request minimal
information from a processing plant, such as the fish ticket number for a fish ticket (landings
report) for the trip that was just observed. Therefore, the total number of fish processing plants
in the NPGOP fisheries (62) is provided to put the number of plants with observers (21) in
perspective (i.e., about 1/3 of those plants are observed). There is a 0 in the other plants
contacted for the NPGOP because NPGOP observers typically do not contact other plants.
21

Similar information is not provided for the other programs because they don't have observers
deployed at plants.
The estimate of the total number of plants in observed fisheries (900) is based on the total
number of plants for all fisheries in the US. For the other observer programs, estimates are not
available by program for either the number of fish processing plants in observed fisheries or the
number of plants asked an occasional question by an observer deployed on a fishing vessel
principally because they are not relevant for the other programs. However, an estimate of the
number of plants that observers may occasionally ask a single question (180) is provided. For
the purpose of this collection, the term “fish processing plant” includes fish buyers/dealers.
The 160 vessels and 405 trips for the “Unfunded” SW Observer Programs are additional vessels
and trips the Southwest Region would like to observe and will observe if it can get funding to do
so. They are included because obtaining the funds for these programs is a high priority for the
Southwest Region and could well happen.
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 Question
12 above).
Capital and Start-Up Costs
There are no start-up, capital, or maintenance costs associated with this collection. No new or
specialized equipment is needed to respond to this collection.
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Most of the information is collected by observers directly from fishing vessel captains/crews
through one or more brief conversation during a fishing trip when it is convenient for the
captain/crew. Gathering and maintaining the information in this collection is part of the
customary and usual business practices of fishing vessel captains/crews. This is also true for the
limited information obtained from processing plant managers/staff, as well as the predeployment information obtained from fishing vessel operators or permit holders.
Excluding labor costs, the total operations and maintenance costs will be limited to
approximately $1,000, which is the cost of faxing the pre-deployment information for about 600
fishing trips and mailing observer evaluation surveys and reimbursement forms to NMFS.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
This collection imposes no additional costs beyond staff time.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
This is a new request for a collection clearance.

22

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
The information collected is not expected to be disseminated directly to the public; however,
results may be used in scientific, management, technical, or general informational publications.
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.
NA.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the OMB
83-I.
NA.

23