0648-0013 Supporting Statement Part A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT A

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Southeast Region Dealer and Interview Family of Forms

OMB Control No. 0648-0013

Introduction

This request is for a revision and extension of the existing reporting requirements that are currently approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0013, Southeast Region Dealer Family of Forms, which addresses eight fishery management plans (FMPs) in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic regions, and the U.S. Caribbean. This family of forms includes the various reporting instruments and procedures that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) uses to collect landings statistics and quota monitoring data from commercial seafood dealers and interviews with fishermen for effort and fishing locations data. It was discovered that the USVI trip interviews were being double counted with the Vessel trip interviews. We have made the changes to remove the USVI interviews for accuracy.

Fishery statistics are collected by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for a variety of reasons under several Federal statutes. The overall purposes for the data collection activities under this family of forms have not changed significantly since the first approval of this family of forms in 1995. In general industry effort has been relatively consistent from year to year and is expected to remain so even though there are some minor localized disruptions. Locations where there were brief closures/ disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic are similar to impact noticed during natural disasters (i.e., Hurricanes and flooding) and procedures are in place to statistically account for strata with missing data. This family of forms includes the same three methodologies that were included in the previous submissions. These methods include: (1) landings statistics, (2) mandatory dealer reporting for monitoring Federal fishery annual catch limits (ACLs), and (3) bio-profile data from the Trip Interview Program (TIP). The SEFSC employs several methods to collect the variety of data included in the information collection. The following is a brief description of these procedures.

For the landing statistics referred to as general canvass statistics, the SEFSC does not collect these data directly from the seafood dealers. The state fishery agencies in each of the states in the southeast region collect landings statistics under their individual state authority. The state agencies share these data with the SEFSC as part of formal cooperative agreements between the SEFSC and the states. These cooperative arrangements serve to both reduce the overall cost of data collection and avoid the possibility of duplicate effort.

To collect the data required to monitor the federal fisheries ACLs for the coastal fisheries, the SEFSC has entered formal cooperative agreements with the states which has reduced the public burden. Starting in 2012, 7 of the 8 states changed state regulations to allow dealers to use an electronic trip ticket system. Minimum burden will be required of dealers in these 7 states to transmit federal data through the states to the SEFSC every week. In South Carolina, dealers are still permitted to use a paper trip ticket system for state reporting obligations. Burden will be required of SC dealers to use the electronic system and transmit federal ACL data every week.

Mackerel gillnet dealers on the Florida gulf coast report summarized landing statistics to the SEFSC for ACL monitoring by using a simple, easy to use form developed by the SEFSC.

The bio-profile data (also referred to as the trip interview data) is collected by federal and State personnel referred to as port agents who are distributed throughout the region and use local knowledge and relationships with industry to make arrangements to sample catch from the trip.

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

The data collected under the various programs included in OMB Control No.0648-0013 support a wide variety of analytical and management functions performed by the NMFS. These data are collected to support the stewardship role delegated to the NMFS under various Federal regulations.

The collection of this information is authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act (FWA), modified by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, and enhanced by the Magnuson-Stevens Act , originally passed as the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The U.S. Congress later passed two major sets of amendments to the law, first with the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and then 10 years later with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has undertaken a set of objectives for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures in fishery management plans (FMP) must prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. Such management measures must be based on the best available scientific information. The use of dealer reporting of landings purchased throughout the various regiments of the fishery is an essential ingredient in the management of fishery resources. Section 303 (a)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically identifies the kinds of data to be collected in support of FMPs.

Specific regulations that authorize the collection of data in this family of forms: 50 CFR Part 622, Fisheries of the Caribbean, 622.2, Definitions, 622.5, Recordkeeping and reporting-general, and the fishery specific recordkeeping and reporting regulations in 622.26 (Gulf reef fish), 622.271 (Atlantic dolphin and wahoo), and 622.374 (Gulf and South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic fish.

The mandatory dealer reporting is necessary to provide the NMFS with timely information to monitor the fishery annual catch limits (ACLs) established in the respective fishery management plans. The science and research director at the SEFSC selects every federally permitted dealer for mandatory ACL reporting. Without the direct reporting by the dealers, NMFS managers would not be able to determine when the ACLs are reached and the fisheries need to be closed.

The bio-profile data (also referred to as the trip interview data) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic are necessary to collect length composition information and age and reproductive samples which are essential to understanding the age composition and reproductive status (mature, immature, etc.) of the fish caught to develop length-to-age conversion tables (age-length keys). These size, age, and reproductive data are used to estimate the reproductive potential of each species. The relationships between the amount of fish removed from a population and the recruitment potential (possible amount of offspring produced for each size class) are essential parts of the scientific stock assessments prepared by NMFS scientists. In the U.S. Caribbean, trip interviews are necessary to count the number of fish caught and sold by fisherman because in that region fish are sold directly to consumers at markets and do not go through wholesale dealers.

2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be used.

The information provided by the data collection activities in OMB Control No. 0648-0013 is used by several offices of NMFS, Fishery Management Council staffs, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Army Corps of Engineers, and state fishery agencies to develop, implement, and monitor fishery management regimes. NMFS, Fishery Management Councils, the Departments of State and Commerce, OMB, the fishing industry, congressional staff, and the public use summarizations and analyses of dealer data to answer questions about the nature of fisheries resources.

The primary use of these data, however, is to support the management of the fisheries resources under Federal jurisdiction. The landings data are used to determine the overall magnitude and trends in the fisheries. The trip interview programs provide important data for stock assessments that directly support NMFS’ stewardship responsibilities. There are two parts to bio profile data collection activities. Port agents select fishing trips and interview the captain or crew to collect information on the fishing trip, (i.e., specific locations where the fishing occurred, the type and quantities of gear, and the amount of time that the various types of gear were fished). The second part of the bio profile data collection activity does not involve any interaction with the fishermen. For this part, port agents are granted permission from the fishermen to measure and weigh individual fish and collect hard-part and tissue samples either directly from the boats when the catch is being unloaded or from storage vats after the unloading has been completed. This size frequency and age data are used directly by stock assessment biologists to perform virtual population analyses for stock assessments. To assure that fishermen cooperate, Federal regulation require that fishermen make their fish available to authorized Federal port agents and provide the gear, area, and effort information needed in conjunction with the size and weight data.

The SEFSC routinely performs six to ten stock assessments per year (note, an assessment is not necessarily needed for each species every year; consequently, some assessments are performed every 3 to 5 years).

Another major data collection activity in OMB Control No. 0648-0013 is mandatory dealer reporting that is used for in-season monitoring of the ACL’s that are promulgated under various Federal fishery management plans and amendments to those plans. The frequency of reporting is established in accordance with the nature of the respective fishery. The Generic Dealer Reporting Amendment and rulemaking (RIN 0648-BC12) requires weekly reporting for all species, except for Gulf king mackerel harvested by gillnet which will require daily reporting.

Summaries of the ACL monitoring data is made available to the general public through NMFS web page located at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/southeast-region-annual-catch-limit-acl-monitoring to inform them of the ongoing status of the ACL so fishermen can make the appropriate business decisions regarding future fishing activities.

Coastal Fisheries Dealers Reporting:

The coastal fisheries ACL monitoring system includes fisheries managed under the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management plan and the fisheries managed under the South Atlantic Fishery Management plan. Data sufficient to monitor all the coastal fishery quotas are collected electronically by the states using the state-run electronic trip ticket systems. Dealers with federal permits are required to transmit data to their state every week. The following information is required in the electronic reporting system form:

1. Dealer identification information (including dealer name, dealer contact information, and dealer permit numbers);

2. Report information (including date and time information is submitted);

3. Trip specific Info (including state landed, and date landed);

4. Species specific Info (species purchased, quantity purchased, gear types used, and areas fished);

5. Negative reports (including the date and time submitted).

Mackerel Dealers Reporting (gillnet):

Because of the efficiency of gillnets to catch fish, the quota for this fishery can be reached very quickly. The dealers who participate in this fishery are selected to submit paper forms and will be required to do so daily during the open fishing season. Normally, the quota for this fishery is reached within a few days.

NMFS/SEFSC 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 the response to Question 10 for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The information collection is designed to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Prior to dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures and a pre-dissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.

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.

Currently dealers in all states except South Carolina in the southeast region are reporting electronically using state-approved electronic trip ticket reporting systems and the data are provided to the SEFSC by the states through formal cooperative agreements. The weights from the electronically submitted trip tickets are summarized for the dealers for each of the ACL monitored species by the state-run systems so dealers no longer need to tally weights from monitored species; hence, the dealers are no longer required to submit separate paper ACL monitoring reports to the science center as they were in the past. By transmitting electronic trip ticket data to the states, they are submitting ACL data to the science center.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.

A requirement of the Magnuson Act Operational Guidelines is for each Fishery Management Council to evaluate existing state and federal laws governing the fisheries in question, and such findings are included in each Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Membership on each Fishery Management Council is composed of state and federal officials responsible for resource management in their respective states. These two circumstances identify other data collection activities that may be gathering the same or similar information. In addition, each FMP undergoes an extensive public comment period where potential applicants review the proposed rulemaking.

The NMFS has established cooperative statistics programs with the 8 coastal states in the southeast region of the United States (U.S). The State/Federal Cooperative Statistics Program is comprehensive both geographically within the southeast region and with respect to the data that are collected. The federal and state reporting requirements are coordinated through the Cooperative Agreement. In addition, the location and responsibilities of the port agents are coordinated to avoid any duplication of effort and contact with fishermen at the docks. As a result of both the Fishery Management Council process and the Cooperative Statistics Agreements, the NMFS/SEFSC is confident that it is aware of all similar data collection activities and that all duplications that can be avoided are avoided.

5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.

Because almost all dealers and fishermen are considered small businesses, separate requirements based on the size of the business have not been developed. Only the minimum data to meet reporting objectives are required from the respondents. The dealers are not required, nor asked, to maintain any records other than the sales receipts that records the transactions between the dealer (purchaser) and the fisherman (seller) which is accomplished through the state-run electronic trip ticket systems. Most of the data provided under OMB Control No. 0648-0013 are summaries compiled from existing accounting information maintained by seafood dealers and processors in the normal course of their business operations. Thus, there is no additional recordkeeping burden on dealers due to the reporting requirements covered in this PRA request.

6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently.

It is essential that these collection activities are continued. They provide the data necessary for future stock assessments and the means of monitoring the fishery ACLs that are currently promulgated to control fishing effort. Thus, if these collection activities were not available, the NMFS could not perform the stock assessments for the conservation and management of our fishery resources. Furthermore, without the mandatory dealer reporting, the SEFSC could not effectively monitor the ACLs implemented by existing fishery management plans and therefore, reduce fishing mortality. With respect to frequency, the collection of fish size frequency data must be an ongoing process. The dynamics of fishery biology, such as semi-annual spawning, seasonal migratory changes, and growth and mortality rates, require a collection frequency that can detect these changes over time. In addition, weekly or daily reporting frequencies, rather than monthly or bi-monthly submissions, must be used to monitor in-season ACL management.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

Reporting more frequently than quarterly/responding to requests for information in less than 30 days is necessary. In addition, weekly or daily reporting frequencies, rather than monthly or bi-monthly submissions, must be used to monitor in-season ACL management.

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.

In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), on January 24, 2024 (89 FR 4592) a 60-day notice for public comment was published in the Federal Register. No comments were received.

In addition to the Federal Register notice, NMFS contacted stakeholders 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, and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. No comments were received.

NMFS is part of a cooperative program to collect fishery statistics. SEFSC personnel meet with state, territorial, and regional coordinators of fisheries statistics collection programs at least once each year to discuss, coordinate and improve data collections. Statistical data collection and biological sampling targets along the Atlantic Coast (Florida through North Carolina) are coordinated through the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP). Statistical data collection and biological sampling targets along the Gulf of Mexico coast are coordinated through the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). The SEFSC is working closely with the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources to develop a long-term plan to improve the quantity of samples collected and the representativeness of collection activities in the Caribbean. An ongoing compilation of public comments and research recommendations from these public meetings can be found at http://sedarweb.org/research-recomendations.

9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

Neither payments nor gifts will be provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

As stated on the forms, all data collected under this family of forms are handled in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Confidential Fisheries Statistics. Dealer reports are also considered confidential under the Trade Secrets Act.

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.

This information collection does not involve information of a sensitive nature

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.

Vessel Trip Interviews to collect landing statistics and bio-profile date:

The total burden on fishers is estimated to be 546 hours; a total of 3,277 responses from 1,425 fishers is estimated.

3,277 responses total (2,876 from TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC) + (401 from PR, USVI)

546 burden hours total (479.3 from TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC) + (66.7 from PR, USVI)

Coastal Fisheries Dealer Reporting:

The total burden on coastal fisheries dealers is estimated to be 1,278 hours; a total of 69,346 responses from 399 dealers is estimated.

7 states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina) have electronic dealer trip ticket systems and accept electronic reports of fish purchases from dealers buying fish with in their state. We estimate it takes only one additional minute for the dealers to also transmit this data on federal species to NMFS. An estimated 68,530 reports will be collected from the 373 dealers that have federal permits in these 7 states. It takes less than 1 minute to conduct data transmissions. Thus, the total estimated burden is 68,530 x 1 minutes/60 minutes/schedule = 1,142 hrs.

In South Carolina an estimated 816 reports will be collected from the 26 dealers that have federal permits. South Carolina does not currently have an electronic dealer trip ticket system. To comply with federal regulations dealers in South Carolina need to turn on their computers to transmit data on federal species to NMFS. It takes less than 10 minutes to log on the system and enter sales receipts. Thus, the total estimated burden is 816 x 10 minutes/60 minutes/schedule = 136 hrs.

69,346 responses total (68,530 from TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, NC) + (816 from SC)

1,278 burden hours total (1,142 from TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, NC) + (136 from SC)

Information Collection	Type of Respondent (e.g., Profession)	# of Respondents/year (a)	Annual # of Responses / Respondent (b)	Total # of Annual Responses (c) = (a) x (b)	Burden Hrs / Response (d)	Total Annual Burden Hrs (e) = (c) x (d)	Hourly Wage Rate (for Type of Respondent) (f)	Total Annual Wage Burden Costs (g) = (e) x (f)
Vessel Trip Interviews	Fisherman and Dockside Samplers	1,425	2.3	3,277	10min	546	22.76	12,382
Coastal Fisheries Dealer Reporting	Data Entry and Information Processing Workers	399	173.8	69,346	816 x 10 min 68,530 x 1 min	1,278	22.76	29.087
King Mackerel Gillnet Dealer Reporting Form	Data Entry and Information Processing Workers	5	2.8	14	10min	2	22.76	45.52
Totals		1,829		72,637		1,826		$41,515

The wage rate, $22.26, was calculated using the Bureau of Labor statistics occupation title “All Occupations”, occupation code “00-0000”, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection.

There is no cost to respondents for this collection. Federal dealer reports are submitted electronically, In South Carolina, the paper copies of the federal species dealer trip tickets are returned to the state in postage paid envelopes. Dock side sampling information is collected in person.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	9/1 – 11/10	5 @ $64.064 average	100		$320,320
IT Contractor Cost		(3) @ $100,000 average	50		$150,000
State electronic trip ticket programs (processing)	7/1 – 9/10	8 @ $52,671 average	50		$210,684
SC paper ticket program (supplies, stamps, processing)		1053 @ $5.50			S5,792
Dockside Samplers	7/1 – 12/10	20 @ $66,731 average	100		$1,133,620
Dockside Samplers (annual training)	7/1 – 12/10	20 @ 16 hrs $35 per hour			$11,200
Dockside Samplers (annual Supplies Cost)		20 @ $1,500			$ 30,000
Dockside Samplers (annual vehicle Cost)		16 @ $7,500			$120,000
Dockside Samplers (annual field office lease Cost)		7 @ $13,000			$91,000
Travel
Other Costs					$3,000
TOTAL					$2,075,616

**The Salary in the table above is cited from: Office of Personnel Management https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/24Tables/html/GS.aspx

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported.

The number of annual burden hours is mainly driven by the number of fishing trips made by the fishermen each year.  Seasonal differences are always noticed because many factors such as weather, duration of fishing trips, fuel cost, dock side fish prices, fish migration patterns, the number of fishermen with active permits, and seasonal closures can influence how many fishing trips take place annually.  These annual differences also affect the number of permitted dealers because some fisherman can decide to acquire a dealer permit and sell their catch on their own while others fisherman will continue to sell their catch through dedicated wholesale dealers.  A five-year average has been used to determine annual estimates.

Information Collection	Respondents		Responses		Burden Hours		Reason for change or adjustment
	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision
Vessel Trip Interviews	1,425	2,000	3,277	5,209	546	868	See above paragraph.
USVI Trip Interviews	0	1,000	0	11,180	0	1863	Collection removed as it is included in the vessel trip interviews and was being double counted.
Coastal Fisheries Dealer Reporting	399	463	69,346	70,291	1,278	1,329
King Mackerel Gillnet Dealer Reporting Form	5	5	14	14	2	2
Total for Collection	1,829	3,468	72,637	86,694	1,826	4,062
Difference	-1,639 (adjustment)		-14,057 (adjustment)		-2,236 (adjustment)

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication.

Results from the data collection using the forms in this information collection are not planned for publication.

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.

All forms will contain the OMB Control Number and expiration date.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

The agency certifies compliance with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).