0498 ss ren 081707rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST REGION LOGBOOK FAMILY OF FORMS
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0498

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act),
amended in 2006, established regional fishery management councils, including the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council), to develop fishery management plans for
fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These plans, if approved by the Secretary
of Commerce, are implemented by Federal regulations, which are enforced by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) with the cooperation of
state agencies to the extent possible. The Pacific Council submitted for approval the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS),
which was then partially approved by the Secretary of Commerce on February 4, 2004. On April
7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement the approved portions of the FMP HMS (69
FR 18444). The FMP is intended to ensure conservation and promote the achievement of
optimum yield of FMP HMS throughout their ranges, both within and beyond the U.S. EEZ, to
the extent practicable. The NMFS establishes basic conservation and management measures
applicable to U.S. vessels fishing for managed species. Among the conservation and
management measures are permit and reporting requirements for commercial and charter
fisheries for HMS as described in this proposal. The final rule became effective May 7, 2004,
except for various record keeping and reporting elements (e.g., permits and logbooks). These
elements became effective on February 10, 2005, upon notice in Federal Register of the approval
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of collection-of-information requirements for
this action.
The following species are included as management unit species under the FMP HMS:
Billfish/Swordfish:
striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)
swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Sharks:
common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)
pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus)
bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus)
shortfin mako or bonito shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)
blue shark (Prionace glauca)
Tunas:
north Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga)
yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)
1

skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)
northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis)
Other:
dorado or dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus)
These species are highly migratory and are harvested in U.S. waters and on the high seas by U.S.
fishermen and fishermen of other nations. In the U.S., the migratory patterns of many of the
species potentially bring them in varying degree under the jurisdiction of three councils: the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Western Pacific Council has implemented a
Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP
Pelagics) governing management of many of the same species in the EEZ of Hawaii, American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and other U.S. possessions
in the western Pacific region. Jurisdiction in the western Pacific extends only to the various
EEZs in the western Pacific and to those vessels that may fish on the high seas with permits
issued under the authority of the FMP Pelagics. The Pacific Council’s FMP HMS will
complement the western FMP Pacific but will not establish duplicate requirements, even for
vessels that sometimes fish in waters under both jurisdictions.
The regulations implementing the FMP HMS essentially require that operators of any
commercial fishing vessels and recreational charter vessels engaged in fishing for HMS maintain
and submit logbooks to NMFS or state authorities recording catch and effort for that fishing.
These requirements are met for some vessels by reporting in accordance with existing laws and
regulations. In several fisheries, vessel operators are already required under state law to
maintain and submit logbooks to state agencies. The regulations will require that state reporting
requirements be met in the manner and on the forms required by the states. Currently, the State
logbook requirements for drift gillnet, harpoon and recreational charter vessels are used to satisfy
Federal information needs under the FMP HMS. Thus, there is no Federal burden associated
with the reporting requirements for these fisheries.
In addition, logbooks recording daily catch and effort statistics are required for fishing activity
by vessels fishing on the high seas under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act
(HSFCA), including longline, high seas troll/baitboat, and high seas purse seine fishing. Those
requirements would continue, although submitting forms provided by the Southwest Region can
meet them, NMFS, for reporting under the FMP HMS. A Federal Pacific Albacore Logbook has
been developed and distributed to FMP HMS troll and baitboat permit holders, including
HSFCA eligible participants. The fleet is being instructed to use this logbook as the primary
means for meeting the FMP HMS and HSFCA reporting requirements.
An electronic vessel monitoring system utilizing global positioning by satellite is required
equipment on all longline vessels managed under the authority of the FMP. The system is being
implemented as a way to monitor vessels to ensure that fishing occurs only in times and areas
open to longline fishing, without the need for vessel operators to report positions or for the Coast
Guard to commit substantial resources to verifying the effectiveness of the closed areas through
sea patrols or aerial surveillance. The system will ensure the ability to track these very mobile
and distant water fishing vessels as they shift across high seas fishing areas. Most of the longline
2

vessels now fish out of Hawaii due to the re-opening of the shallow-set longline fishery in April,
2004. Shallow-set longline fishing was prohibited west of 150 degrees west longitude under the
FMP HMS regulations and east of 150 degrees west longitude under an Endangered Species Act
regulation. The Hawaii-based vessels are authorized to land fish on the West Coast and
provision to continue fishing under the Pelagics Limited Entry longline permit. These vessels
must have Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) units on board. If any of these vessels call to the
west coast, vessel operators would have to allow NMFS agents to verify the operational status of
the units. The Pacific Council has instructed its HMS Management Team and Advisory Subpanel to develop some alternatives in regards to re-establishing a West Coast-based shallow-set
longline fishery. The use of VMS will be a part of the Council deliberation and decision making
process.
NMFS also has included in the final rule a requirement for operators of longline fishing vessels
notify NMFS prior to departing on a fishing trip so that NMFS can determine whether an
observer should be placed on the vessel. The final rule (along with the previously mentioned
rule published under the authority of the ESA) essentially prohibits longline fishing for
swordfish because of concern for excessive takes of sea turtles. However, longline fishing for
tuna and other species would be permitted. It is not known if targeting tuna would have
comparable rates of take of sea turtles (or seabirds or other bycatch). NMFS needs to take
advantage of the potential to place observers on all trips in which tuna would be targeted so that
prospective impacts on sea turtles, seabirds, and other bycatch can be determined.
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.
The logbooks and VMS requirements meet two purposes. The first is basic monitoring of the
fishery to obtain information needed by NMFS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Council to
monitor the activities of the participating vessels and the performance of the fisheries. Knowing
the number of vessels, the size of the vessels, and the type of gear employed enables effective
monitoring of vessel activity for enforcement and assessment purposes. Logbooks provide
critical information on catch and effort to support stock assessments and evaluation of the effects
and effectiveness of the management program. VMS units provide confirmation of reported
vessel fishing activity locations and can help in validation of logbook records accuracy.
The requirements would also generate information for evaluating the magnitude and distribution
of impacts from any changes in regulations that might occur in the future. The information
collected is basic data on catch and effort by species over time. When added to landings data
and sales information, this provides a basis for evaluating the monetary and economic values of
the fisheries over time and measuring the impacts of changes in regulations. This in turn can
provide a basis for determining that changes in conservation and management measures may
improve the economic performance of the fishery or for determining the potential adverse effects
of more restrictive management measures. Without this information, the likelihood is great that
management decisions will be inappropriate and possibly have unintended adverse
consequences.
3

The requirement for longline vessels fishing from west coast ports to carry VMS enables
enforcement personnel to determine whether or not vessels are fishing in closed areas. The FMP
proposes to close the EEZ on the west coast to longline vessels but fishing may be conducted on
the high seas. A longline fishery closed area under the Pelagics FMP is incorporated into the
Pacific Council=s FMP. VMS reports provide a basis for targeted air and surface patrols by the
U.S. Coast Guard that result in more cost effective and efficient enforcement.
The requirement for longline vessel operators to contact NMFS prior to a trip departure enables
NMFS to plan on placement of an observer when it is necessary and appropriate. It is not known
if targeting tuna would have comparable rates of take of sea turtles (or seabirds, or other bycatch
for that matter), so NMFS needs to maximize the potential to place observers on any trips in
which tuna would be targeted.
The information collected is anticipated to support publicly disseminated information. 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See response #10 of this
Supporting Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The information
collection is designed to yield data that meets all applicable information quality guidelines. Prior
to dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures and a predissemination 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.
The Southwest Region (SWR) web site at http://nmfs.swr.noaa.gov will be used to inform the
public about logbook and other management program requirements. A Small Entity Compliance
Guide has been prepared and posted on the NMFS website to assist permit holders in
understanding the requirements that must be met, including reporting requirements. Required
Federal forms and instructions are available online along with an explanation of the process for
returning them to NMFS. The SWR will also work with state agencies and the Pacific Council
to use their web sites and license issuing offices to increase the distribution of information about
logbook and other requirements. The SWR conducts annual FMP HMS Informational Port
Meetings to instruct the public on the regulations and conservation measures outlined in the
FMP HMS.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
There are collections underway in the form of logbooks required by NMFS and the States of
California, Oregon, and Washington that meet some of the needs of NMFS and the Pacific
Council for carrying out the FMP. As noted above, these collections will be used in those cases
to minimize duplication, and fishery participants will be required to file reports in the manner
and form required by State laws and regulations. When new Federal collections are required,
existing logbook formats that fishery participants are familiar with will be used to the extent
practicable to minimize confusion and incorrect reporting. Through the Pacific Fishery
4

Information Network and other cooperative arrangements and the Pacific Council, NMFS
already works closely with states to minimize collective burdens on the fisheries. This approach
was adopted after consulting with the California Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife during
the planning process.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
All fishing operations involving vessels in the highly migratory fisheries, except the large scale
tuna purse seine vessels, can be categorized as small businesses. However, the reporting burden
for filling out a logbook is slight relative to the overall cost of fishing. The requirement of VMS
equipment is the most costly provision. Fishermen may also connect other communications
equipment to the VMS unit to improve their own ability to communicate. No special measures
are needed to offset any disproportionate effect on small businesses.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
An effective logbook system requires that the daily catch during each fishing trip be recorded.
The data will not support assessments of the status of stocks if aggregated over time and area of
fishing. Further, determinations of the economic status of the fishery are likely to be improved
because daily records of catch and effort provide better information for determining fishing costs
and cost differentials between days fishing and days searching. However, logbooks that have to
be submitted to NMFS will not be due until 30 days following the end of each trip, regardless of
the length of the trip.
Daily VMS reports (and more frequent if a vessel is near a closed area) are necessary to ensure
adequate monitoring of vessel movements to determine compliance with time and area controls
and to facilitate cost effective use of enforcement patrols. Less frequent reports would likely
result in higher likelihood of non-compliance with low probability of detection of violations.
Reports made too far in advance of a vessel’s departure are likely to result in changes in vessel
plans as fishery conditions change rapidly; reports after a departure don’t allow NMFS to make a
decision to place an observer before the vessel leaves port. In both cases, there is likely to be a
resulting loss of data collection opportunity, which could result ultimately in inappropriate
management decisions because of poor data. This could adversely affect the fisheries.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
This collection is not consistent with the guidelines on frequency of reporting with respect to
VMS requirements. Only one copy of a logbook needs to be submitted. The regulations do not
require that any records be retained past the point of submitting a copy of the logbook to NMFS,
although fishers are expected to retain a copy for their own use. Reporting by VMS is automatic

5

and does not require individuals to make reports. Nevertheless, a reporting burden is noted,
consistent with the calculation for the VMS system for the longline fishery in the western
Pacific.
8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments on the
information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received
in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those
comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register notice for public comment was published on May 22, 2007. No comments
were received.
NMFS has consulted with the fishing industry, the public, the California Department of Fish and
Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The fishing industry includes members of the Pacific Council’s Highly Migratory
Species Advisory Subpanel, a group made up of members of the fishing industry and public
appointed to provide guidance during plan development. Meetings of the Advisory Subpanel
and of the plan development team assigned by the Pacific Council to write the FMP were public.
The consultations occurred during the planning process of developing the provisions of the FMP
and the associated draft regulations, which was from June 1999 to November 2002, and during
the implementation phase of the FMP HMS reporting and recordkeeping requirements which
became effective March, 2005, to the present.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
There are no payments or gifts to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Data submitted on logbook forms will be managed as confidential data, consistent with Section
402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which stipulates that data required to be submitted under
an FMP shall be confidential and shall not be released except to Federal employees and Council
staff responsible for FMP monitoring and development or when required under court order. Data
will also be handled consistent with the requirements of NOAA Administrative Order 216-100.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
No questions are asked of a sensitive nature.

6

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
As noted above, under other laws and regulations, a number of vessels engaged in fishing for
HMS out of West Coast ports are required to maintain and submit logbooks of catch and effort
data that will contribute to effective monitoring of the fisheries. Reporting under these
requirements (including using forms now in use) satisfies the reporting requirements under the
FMP HMS. These include:
Drift gillnet: Under the regulations of the states of California and Oregon, drift gillnet vessels
are currently required to submit logbook records for all their fishing, and that requirement has
continued with the implementation of the FMP. They are not required to report directly to
NMFS under any Federal regulations. NMFS has data sharing and cooperative agreements with
the States in question for acquisition of the necessary data for fisheries management purposes.
Therefore there is no Federal burden under the regulations.
Purse seine: Logbooks are already required by Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 300.22
implementing the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950. The regulations implementing the FMP HMS
require that logbook reports be submitted to the Southwest Regional Administrator and not to the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). However, no new burden is imposed as a
result of the FMP HMS.
Harpoon: Harpoon vessels are required to maintain and submit logbooks under State of
California law, and that requirement will continue when the FMP is implemented. Therefore,
there is no Federal reporting burden.
Charter: Recreational charter vessels are required to submit logbooks for each trip under state
laws, and those requirements will continue when the FMP is implemented. Therefore, there is
no Federal reporting burden.
Troll/Baitboat Fleet
At the present time, troll and baitboat albacore fishing vessels are required to report on their
fishing on the high seas under the HSFCA, but are not required to report on their fishing in the
EEZ. Under the regulations to implement the FMP, troll and baitboat albacore fishing vessels
will be required to maintain and submit logbooks for all fishing in the EEZ. The troll/baitboat
fleet is estimated to consist of 736 vessels, all of which are expected to fish some of the time in
the EEZ in an average year. The duration of a fishing trip varies, but for fishing in the EEZ, the
majority of vessels take several trips per year lasting only 1-3 days, and the vessels fish fairly
close to port. A smaller number of larger vessels (especially high seas vessels) take longer trips
(30-60 days) following the fish on their migration along the coast. For purposes of estimating
the burden of this collection, it is estimated that the average fishing trip is 11 days. At 5 minutes
per page, it takes just under one hour to complete a logbook for the average trip. Assuming that
all 736 vessels must report their local fishing, and an average of 3 trips per year, the following
annual reporting burden is estimated:

7

736 vessels x 3 trips per year = 2,208 responses.
2,208 responses x 1 hour per trip = 2,208 hours.
Vessel Monitoring System
Longline vessels fishing under longline-limited entry permits under the FMP Pelagics must have
VMS, which has been installed at the expense of NMFS. Many if not most of the 20 longline
vessels fishing from West Coast ports already have VMS because they originated in Hawaii,
where VMS units were required for vessels with western Pacific longline limited entry permits.
However, there may be as many as 5 vessels that do not have VMS because they were not
Hawaii vessels or they had the VMS units removed or disconnected when they shifted operations
to the west coast. At the least, some of these vessels will have to be boarded to have their VMS
units inspected and reactivated, possibly with some servicing required. While NMFS will pay
for the units and installation, vessel owners whose vessels are not equipped will have to contact
NMFS to arrange for installation and initiation of the VMS unit. Also, NMFS will have to check
and maintain all 20 units annually.
VMS reporting varies by the type of activity in which the vessel is engaged. When in port, a
single, daily position report is made with a burden of 24 seconds per report. When at sea, a daily
position report (24 seconds per report) is made once per hour, or 24 reports per day. It is
estimated that the 20 longline vessels in the fishery will make an average of 6 trips each year,
with an average of 15 days at sea for each trip. Thus, the average vessel will report as follows:
90 days at sea x 24 reports/day = 2,160 responses x 24 sec/report = 14.40 hours
275 days in port x 1 report/day = 275 responses x 24 sec/report = 1.83 hours
Total per vessel per year: 2,435 responses x 24/sec/report = 16.23 hours
The total VMS responses for the fleet: 20 x 2,435 = 48,700.
The total VMS response burden hours: 20 x 16.23 hours = 324.6 hours.
VMS installation will be required for the estimated 5 vessels that do not now have VMS units on
board. It is estimated that 4hrs/vessel (including time to contact NMFS and make vessel
available for installation of VMS unit) will be required for each installation, for a total burden of
20 hours. This is a one-time cost and, for purposes of deriving an annual burden, this is
annualized on the same time frame as the permits, or five years; thus the annualized responses
would be 0.2 per vessel or a total of 1 response, and the burden is 4 hours.
VMS maintenance will be required annually for all 20 vessels at an estimated burden of 2 hours
per vessel (including time to contact NMFS and make VMS unit on vessel available for
inspection annually), or a total of 20 responses and 40 hours.
Based on these figures, the estimated total burden associated with the VMS requirement is
(including the time to contact NMFS and arrange for installation) is 368.6 hours.

8

Pre-trip Reports
It is estimated that no more than 5 vessels will engage in fishing for tuna with longline gear in
any year, and the average vessel will make no more than 5 trips. The average pre-trip report will
take 5 minutes or less x 5 vessels x 5 trips = 25 reports = 125 minutes (2 hours) for this
collection.
Total
The total new information collection burden is:
Type of response
Logbooks
VMS
Pre-trip reports
Totals

Total responses
Total hours per response
2,208
2,208
48,721
368.6
25
2
50,954
2,578.6 (2,579)

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
A. Mailing Costs
An average trip of 11 days will generate 11 daily logsheets, and assuming that 5-6 logsheets
weigh one ounce, then each trip will generate a mailing cost of $0.64 ($.41 first ounce + $.23
each additional ounce). It is estimated that 736 vessels will make 3 trips per, generating a
mailing cost per vessel of $0.64 per trip. Thus, the total estimated mailing cost is 736 vessels x 3
trips per year x $0.64 per trip = $1,413.12 per year.
B. VMS
There are no monetary costs to respondents with regard to VMS.
C. Pre-trip Reports
The estimated notification cost is $1.00 per phone call, or $25.00 per year (assuming $1 per call
using toll calls to Long Beach from the Port of Los Angeles).
Total costs: $1,413.12 + $25.00 = $1,438.12.

9

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Maintain logbook data base system: 10hr./month x $36.36/hr. x 12 months = $4,363.20
Maintain VMS monitoring station: 1hr./day x 365 days x $36.36/hr. = $13,271.40
Pre-trip notices: No cost
Total: $17,634.60.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
The number of Troll/Baitboat vessels has decreased from 886 to 736 vessels, reducing responses
and hours by 454, and cost by $290. In addition, 10 longline vessels previously were estimated
not to have VMS, and to need installation, while currently, only 5 are estimated to need
installation, thus subtracting 1 response and 4 hours (annualized). These are the actual decreases
from the status at the time of the 2004 renewal.
The currently approved responses, while correctly reflected in the 2004 renewal, were not added
correctly, and should have been 51,409, not 5,096. Hours were not added correctly, and should
have been 3,037, not 3,034.
In summary, a reduction in responses resulted in a decrease of 458 hours, and a correction of a
calculation added three hours, resulting in a net decrease of 455 hours.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
There are no plans at this time for publications based on the collections.
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.
The expiration dates for the collection would be displayed.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
There are no exceptions to the certification statement in Item 19 of OMB 83-I, Paperwork
Reduction Act Submission form.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection does not employ statistical methods.
10