0492 SS 022511_rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
U.S.-CANADA ALBACORE TREATY REPORTING SYSTEM
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0492

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Enacted in early 2004, House Resolution (H.R.) 2584 amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to authorize the issuance of
regulations as needed to carry out the obligations of the United States (U.S.) under the 1981
Treaty Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada on Pacific
Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges (Treaty) (applicable documents included in this
submission). That Treaty had been amended in 2002 with the support of the U.S. albacore fishing
industry, which felt that the original Treaty was offering greater benefits for Canadian interests
than for U.S. interests. Regulations were promulgated (69 FR 31531) effective June 1, 2004, to
implement the provisions of the amended Treaty. An effort limitation regime expired at the
conclusion of the 2008 fishing season.
Consultations in December 2008 resulted in amendment to Treaty annexes but no regulatory
changes were necessary. Minor technical changes resulted in a change regarding to whom U.S.
vessels would make their hail reports for maritime border crossings to fish in Canadian waters.
U.S. vessel masters no longer hail to a third party contractor and instead are responsible for
making hails directly to the Canadian Coast Guard station at Tofino, British Columbia. The
regulations require vessel operators to: 1) report their desire to be on the list of vessels provided
to Canada each year, indicating eligibility to fish for albacore in waters under the fisheries
jurisdiction of Canada; 2) report in advance their intention to fish or transit before crossing the
border between the U.S. and Canada, or vice versa; 3) record fishing effort in Canadian waters in
a logbook; and 4) mark their fishing vessels to facilitate effective enforcement. Without such
reports, the U.S. will not be able to meet its obligations under the Treaty.
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 Southwest Region (SWR), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) will use reports taken during the year to carry out
Treaty obligations. The Treaty amendments include a program of limits on reciprocal fishing by
vessels of one Party in the waters of the other Party. In order to comply with these limits, the
SWR and DFO must be able to monitor the activity of U.S. and Canadian fishing vessels as they
move across the border and fish in the waters subject to the fisheries jurisdiction of the other
Party.

1

Treaty amendments in December 2008 simplified the reporting system for U.S. vessels to hail
directly to the Canadian Coast Guard station at Tofino, British Columbia via several possible
methods (satellite and cell phone, and VHF and sideband radio), 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. The communication costs are borne by the vessel owner or operator initiating the call. The
reports provide information that is available to both Parties on a periodic basis during the fishing
season so that each Party can determine whether the fishing by its fleet in waters of the other
Party is in compliance with obligations under the Treaty. NMFS implemented this reporting
system through regulations at 50 C.F.R. Section 300 Subpart L and 50 C.F.R. Parts 600.525 and
600.530. The regulations also formalized the current process for providing Canada with a list of
vessels that is eligible to fish in Canadian waters under the Treaty. This is an element of the
Treaty that had been handled informally in the past; there has been no regulatory mechanism to
require U.S. vessel operators to submit information or requests to be on the list provided by the
U.S. The SWR used coastwide records of albacore landings to identify vessels that have
participated in the fishery in the past year and provided a “universe” of potentially interested
participants. With the limits set by the Treaty, it is more important that there be a more structured
process to ensure that only eligible vessels engage in fishing, and that all interested vessel
operators or owners be known. Finally, vessel owners and operators also have to ensure that their
fishing vessels are marked in accordance with the Treaty to facilitate vessel identification by
enforcement platforms at sea and in the air.
The vessel marking is a simple addition of the letter “U” (for U.S.) to the marking required under
the new Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species
(HMS), Fishery Management Plan (FMP), recently approved and implemented by regulations
(50 CFR 660.704) issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Summaries of fishery information
(e.g., number of vessels participating, months of fishing by U.S. vessels and their catch in
Canadian waters, total U.S. catch) will be provided to the DFO and U.S. fishery interests and
will be released to the public consistent with confidentiality requirements and Information
Quality Guidelines.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NOAA 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. 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.
Logbooks are mailed out to respondents. For other information collections, fishery participants
will have multiple options for reporting vessel activity, including hails directly to the Canadian
Coast Guard station at Tofino, British Columbia via several possible methods (satellite and cell
phone, and VHF and sideband radio). The Canadian Coast Guard station at Tofino, British

2

Columbia in turn uses the same means to provide confirmation numbers to the persons making
reports of vessel border crossings. NMFS and DFO are able to use periodically provided
spreadsheet reports to monitor and assess the amount of fishing by the respective fleets in the
other Party’s waters so that the need for closure notices or other actions can be determined in a
timely manner. NMFS and DFO also use electronic means as well as phone and fax to distribute
information to the fishing fleets. The SWR Web site (http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov) is the primary
NMFS Web site used to inform the public about reporting and other management program
requirements. Instructions for making vessel reports are available online. The SWR and NWR
are also working with state agencies and the Pacific Council to use their web sites to increase the
distribution of information about permit and other requirements.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The SWR compiled information on U.S. vessels engaged in HMS fisheries for initiation of a
permit system under the HMS, FMP. That information includes a component for West Coast
vessels that have been active in the West Coast albacore fishery. In addition, during the season,
the NWR has for many years been compiling and updating the vessel list that is provided to
Canada under the Treaty prior to Treaty amendments in 2001. The SWR and NWR together have
made use of this information to minimize duplication. Similarly, the vessel-marking requirement
is a minor addition to, rather than duplication of, markings required under the HMS, FMP to
support enforcement. There is no other system in place for in-season reports by U.S. or Canadian
vessels prior to crossing the border to fish under the Treaty.
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 albacore fishery can be categorized as small
businesses. However, the reporting burdens of: 1) making sure the vessel is on the list provided
to Canada, 2) reporting prior to border crossings, and 3) marking vessels as required under the
proposed rule are slight relative to the overall cost of fishing. The use of the Canadian Coast
Guard station at Tofino, British Columbia to take reports 24 hours a day and 7 days a week by
multiple means allows vessel operators to select the most cost-effective way for each individual
operation to meet the requirement for vessel reports. 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.
If the collection is not conducted, there will be no way to implement the obligations of the Treaty
in a fair, equitable, and effective manner. Closures would have to be set based on past history of
fishing; there would be a high probability of either premature closure (which would deny fishing
opportunities that are to be provided under the Treaty) or a late closure, which would effectively
preclude achieving the fishery control the benefits of the amended Treaty. In the latter case, U.S.
interests could be seriously disadvantaged and pressure would rise to terminate the Treaty.

3

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Not Applicable.
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 notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2010 (75 FR 67948) solicited
comments from the public. No comments were received.
NMFS consulted with the U.S. troll albacore fishing industry in development and
implementation of the reporting system in place. The fishing industry includes individual
fishermen, associations of fishermen from the U.S. and Canada, and processors. The most recent
consultations took place during meetings to develop and evaluate reporting alternatives in late
2008.
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.
As stated on the logbook forms, NMFS will maintain data as confidential consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as well as the Trade Secrets Act.
Fishermen are aware that reports by side-scan radio are subject to interception at sea, so the
reporting options being provided include landline and cell telephone as well as fax and email.
Data such as personal addresses and phone numbers will remain confidential information. The
business contact information of holders of Federal permits is, however, public information.
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.

4

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Based on recent activity in 2009 and 2010, respondents are estimated to be 100 or less. There are
four elements to this collection.
1) Vessel owners who want to be eligible to fish in Canadian waters under the Treaty must
ensure that their vessels are on the list of vessels exchanged with Canada. This will
require a call, email or fax to NMFS that will take approximately 5 minutes. If 100 vessel
owners so request, the total annual responses will be 100 and the annual burden for
this element will be 8 hours, 20 minutes (8) hours (100 x 5 minutes/60 minutes).
2) Regulations require reporting border crossings directly to the Canadian Coast Guard
station at Tofino, British Columbia so that NMFS can track fishing against its limit.
Assuming one round trip (two border crossings, and thus, two calls per trip) for each of
an average of 100 active vessels each year, and with each call taking an average of 5
minutes, this imposes a burden of 200 responses and 16 hours, 40 minutes (17) hours
per year ( 100 x 2 x 5 minutes/60 minutes). Note that some vessels are expected to
engage in two or more crossings each year, while most vessels will not engage in any
crossings.
3) Regulations require logbook reporting for fishing under the Treaty in Canadian waters.
Assuming that all of the estimated 100 vessels fish every day for one month (i.e., up to 30
days per month) and complete 1 logbook page per day (at 5 minutes per page or 2 hours,
30 minutes per month)*, the responses will be 30 per vessel or 3,000 and the burden will
be a maximum average of 250 hours per year. It is estimated that 50 percent of these
vessels already respond to the mandatory logbook requirement under the West Coast
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, so the net maximum burden for
which approval is requested under OMB Control No. 0648-0492 is 125 hours (1,500
responses). In most years, there will be much less fishing (and thus less reporting) under
the Treaty than the level on which this estimate is based.
4) The vessel marking requirement under the revised regulations consists of adding the
letter “U” after the vessel marking number required under regulations at 50 CFR 660.704,
if the vessel enters Canadian waters. This is estimated to take 5 minutes per vessel. Given
the estimate of 100 vessels per year, an estimated annual 100 responses and burden of
8 hours, 20 minutes (8) hours is anticipated.
Thus, the total responses are estimated to be 1,900 and the burden, 158 hours per year for
the next 3-year period. NMFS is working with the albacore fishery to evaluate the potential of
electronic recordkeeping and reporting for this fishery. This could reduce the collection burden
in the future.
* The form states that for 30 days, response time is one hour beyond the time for normal business logkeeping. That
is, normal time for 30 days would be closer to one hour, 30 minutes, or 3 minutes per day.

5

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).
There are no significant capital or equipment costs associated with this reporting burden.
1) The estimated cost of making the initial call or fax to be placed on the authorized list is
approximately $2.00, or less (5 minutes x $0.40 per minute), totaling $200.00 for 100 vessels.
2) The estimated cost of reporting border crossings by phone or ship-to-shore radio is up to
$1,200, based on up to 200 reports at $6.00 per call. This includes connection fees and per
minute charges.
3) Logbooks:
a) Mailing costs for submitting logbooks are estimated to be up to $110 per year (30
pages per 50 vessels = 1,500 total logbook pages; at 6 pages to the ounce, this would require
mailing of 250 ounces at $ 0.44 per ounce or $110).
4). The estimated cost of the vessel-marking requirement is $0.50 per vessel for 100 vessels, or
up to $50.00 per year.
Thus, total annual costs are estimated at $1,560 ($200 + $1,200 + $110 + $50). Actual costs
are anticipated to be much less, as not all 100 vessels are expected to fish in a given year.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Due to Treaty amendments and technical changes to the reporting scheme, there are no longer
any additional costs to the Federal government.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
Estimated hours remain the same at 158 hours per year for the next 3-year period.
Program change: Due to the exclusion of the Shipcom (the contractor provider for the hail-in
monitoring system) vessel registration costs that are no longer in effect, costs have decreased by
$1,243.
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.

6

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not Applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
Not Applicable.

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

7