0330 SS 062212 rev_resub 101712

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

NMFS ALASKA REGION SCALE & CATCH WEIGHING REQUIREMENTS

OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0330

This action is a re-submission of a request for revision of an existing collection, and integration of OMB Control No. 0648-0610, with the Final Rule, RIN 0648-BB67. No changes were made based on comments on the information collection requirements, or for any other reason.

BACKGROUND

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to prepare and amend fishery management plans for any fishery in waters under its jurisdiction.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). NMFS manages the crab fisheries in the waters off the coast of Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab. The Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) were prepared under the authority of the.Magnuson-Stevens Act. On October 21, 1998, the President signed The American Fisheries Act (AFA), 16 U.S.C. 1851 that imposed major structural changes on the BSAI pollock fishery. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679 and part 680.

Participation in the BSAI Pacific cod longline catcher/processor sector is limited to holders of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. This sector receives a specific allocation of BSAI Pacific cod each year. A sector-specific allocation, in combination with a closed-class of license holders, created an opportunity for the owners of these LLP licenses to form a voluntary fishing cooperative. The Freezer Longline Conservation Cooperative (FLCC) was established in 2004. The cooperative represents owners of all 33 of the eligible LLP licenses and has created a de facto catch share program for this portion of the BSAI Pacific cod fishery.

The formation of a voluntary cooperative has resulted in a significant change in the duration of the Pacific cod fishery, has ended the race for fish, and has increased economic efficiency for the fleet. The benefits from this action include: allowing NMFS to enforce Pacific cod catch limits in the presence of a voluntary cooperative; giving freezer longline representatives greater confidence in the accuracy of NMFS Pacific cod catch estimates; and improving the efficacy of the cooperative’s catch share program. However, catch share programs create new demands for enhanced catch accounting, monitoring, and enforcement.

This action would modify equipment and operational requirements for freezer longliners (catcher/processors) named on LLPs licenses endorsed to fish with a catcher/processor for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), hereafter called “eligible catcher/processors. “

The proposed action would ensure that eligible catcher/processors maintain the same monitoring measures when operating either in the FLCC voluntary cooperative or the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. This is to ensure proper catch accounting, avoid confusion for observers, and reduce the risk of data processing or catch accounting errors that may occur if monitoring provisions change onboard a vessel while fishing. Because the CDQ Program and the voluntary cooperative establish exclusive catch privileges, both programs would have the same monitoring requirements. This would be consistent with section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that CDQ fisheries be managed no more restrictively than fisheries with “fishing cooperatives.”

A. JUSTIFICATION

This action would require vessel operators to select between two monitoring options: carry two observers so that all catch can be sampled, or carry one observer and use a motion-compensated scale to weigh Pacific cod before it is processed. The selected monitoring option must be used any time the vessel is operating in either the BSAI or Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries when directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI, or while the vessel is fishing for groundfish under the CDQ Program. Because these vessels frequently move between the GOA and the BSAI without stopping to offload catch, it would be difficult for vessel owners to comply with two sets of observer coverage regulations and catch accounting requirements. It would also be very difficult for NMFS enforcement to ensure that these vessels were complying with the correct observer coverage and catch monitoring requirements if those requirements differed for Pacific cod caught in the GOA versus the BSAI on the same trip.

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

NMFS manages the commercial groundfish harvest off Alaska using an annual total allowable catch for each species based on “round” weight, or the weight of the fish prior to processing. However, much of the fish harvested off Alaska is harvested by catcher/processors that process the catch at-sea. NMFS estimates the total weight of fish harvested by those trawl gear catcher/processors by requiring the vessel to weigh all or part of their catch on a motion-compensated scale. Trawl gear catcher/processors and motherships under the AFA and motherships under the CDQ Program are required to weigh all catch at-sea. The participants in the Crab Rationalization (CR) crab fisheries must weigh all crab prior to processing.

Non-trawl catcher/processors that harvest CDQ are not required to weigh all catch, but are required to weigh samples of catch. The non-AFA, trawl catcher/processors regulated under the annual Groundfish Retention Standard (GRS) are required to use NMFS-approved scales to determine the weight of total catch; then, calculate the percent of groundfish retained as a specified ratio of the round weight equivalent of total retained groundfish to total groundfish.

LLP licenses are issued to an individual and are not vessel specific. They can be transferred from vessel to vessel and can be “stacked” so that a single vessel may have more than one LLP license. Thirty-three LLP licenses meet the criteria for inclusion in the longline catcher/processor subsector.

NMFS would modify regulations at 50 CFR part 679 governing equipment and operational requirements for the eligible catcher/processors. These regulatory amendments would enhance catch accounting, monitoring, and enforcement created by the formation of a voluntary cooperative, and would improve the precision of system accuracy.

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.

NMFS identified the primary objectives of this information collection for catch weighing and monitoring:

♦ Monitoring must ensure independent verification of catch weight, species composition, and location data for every delivery by a catcher vessel or every pot by a catcher/processor.

♦ All catch must be weighed accurately using NMFS-approved scales to determine the weight of total catch.

♦ The system must provide a verifiable record of the weight of each delivery.

♦ The system must provide data that will provide reliable independent estimates of the total catch. Vessel operators must ensure that each haul is observed by a NMFS-approved observer for verification that all fish are weighed.

Thirty-three eligible catcher/processors are added to this information collection. This information collection includes motion-compensated scales, platform scales, video monitoring equipment, and observer sampling stations. All of these are subject to wear and tear and modification, which may affect their characteristics or operation. Because of this, regulations require annual inspection and certification by agency staff.

In catcher/processor trawl fisheries, scales are used to weigh the total catch, and observer sampling is used to determine what fraction of that weight is made up of each species. Because longline catcher/processors do not bring all bycatch onboard the vessel and crew are required to release halibut as quickly as possible, it would be impractical to require vessel operators to obtain a scale weight of the total catch. Therefore, NMFS proposes that only the Pacific cod brought onboard the vessel be weighed.

For the purpose of accounting for Pacific cod catch, NMFS would use the weight of all catch that passes over the scale. Observer data still would be used to estimate the weight of the catch of species other than Pacific cod and halibut PSC, and to estimate the weight of Pacific cod that was caught but did not enter the vessel.

The contents of this section are outlined below, with changes only to Section I:

I. Offshore Processors Catch-Weighing and Monitoring System – with new and revised ICs and ICs transferred from OMB Control No. 0648-0610)

a. Scale type evaluation (Revised to adjust capital costs, 75% expended)

1. Platform and hanging scales evaluation

2. Belt-conveyor (flow) scale evaluation

3. Automatic hopper scales evaluation

4. New, undefined scale evaluation

b. Notification of Pacific Cod Freezer Longline Monitoring Option (NEW)

c. Installation of a motion-compensated flow scale (NEW)

d. Inspection request, at-sea scales (Revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

e. Notification to observer of scale tests (Revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

f. Records of at-sea scale tests (Revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

g. Printed output of at-sea scales used to weigh catch at sea (Revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

h. Inspection request, observer sampling station (Revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

i. Electronic Monitoring System (Transferred from OMB Control No. 0648-0610 and revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

j. Inspection Request for Electronic Monitoring System Transferred from OMB Control No. 0648-0610 and revised to add 33 catcher/processors)

II. Crab Catch Monitoring Plan (CMP)

a. Proposed CMP

b. CMP addendum

c. Inspection request, CMP

III. Catch Monitoring and Control Plan (CMCP) for Shoreside Processors and Stationary Floating Processors (SFPs)

a. Proposed CMCP

b. CMCP Addendum

c. Inspection request, CMCP

d. Shoreside processor or SFP inseason scale tests

e. Printed record from the State scale

f. Notification to observer of BSAI pollock delivery

g. Notification to observer of CDQ delivery

h. Notification to observer of Rockfish Program delivery

IV. Bin Monitoring

a. Electronic Bin Monitoring System

b. Inspection Request, Bin Monitoring

I. OFFSHORE PROCESSORS CATCH-WEIGHGING AND MONITORING SYSTEM

a. Scale type evaluation (UNCHANGED except to adjust capital costs)

The owner of an offshore processor must select an at-sea scale from the list of scales approved by NMFS for weighing catch at-sea. This list is displayed on the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/scales/default.htm#approved

Type evaluation and testing must be conducted by a laboratory accredited by the government of the country in which the tests are conducted. Before NMFS can approve a model of scale for use, the manufacturer must submit the scale to a certified laboratory for evaluation and testing to insure that the scale meets international scale standards. Scales must meet the performance and technical requirements specified in Appendix A to 50 CFR part 679. The number of hours required to document a scale’s characteristics varies, depending on the type of scale and the similarity to models that have already been approved.

Evaluation information identifies and describes the scale, sets forth contact information regarding the manufacturer, and sets forth the results of required type evaluations and testing. This information is collected once for each scale type or model. It is used by NMFS scale-evaluation staff to determine if a model of scale meets the requirements for type approval.

1. Platform and hanging scales evaluation

A platform scale by the nature of its physical size, arrangement of parts, and relatively small capacity (generally 220 kg or less) is adapted for use on a bench or counter or on the floor. A platform scale can be self contained. That is, the indicator and load receiver and weighing elements are all comprised of a single unit, or the indicator can be connected by cable to a separate load receiver and weighing element. The technology used may be mechanical, electro-mechanical, or electronic. Loads are applied manually.

A platform scale could be used as an observer sampling scale and to verify the weight of fish used to test the belt or automatic hopper scales on trawl catcher/processors and motherships.

Or, a platform scale could be used to weigh total catch. A platform scale must be equipped with automatic means to compensate for the motion of a vessel at sea so that the weight values indicated are within the MPEs.

A platform scale must be rigidly installed in a level condition. When in use, a hanging scale must be freely suspended from a fixed support or a crane.

Platform and hanging scales evaluation

Block I. Information about the scale tested.

This block supplies basic background and contact information so that NMFS can maintain accurate contact records.

Name, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of scale manufacturer

Name, mailing address (if different from manufacturer), telephone and fax numbers of representative

Model and serial number of scale submitted for evaluation.

Block II. Information about all scales.

Frequently scale manufacturers produce the same basic scale with different sizes, capacities or model numbers. This block allows the manufacturer to describe a “family” of similar scales so that all can be approved at one time. It also sets out the basic meterological characteristics of the scales.

Provide information about the scale submitted for evaluation at #1.

Identify all other models of scales of the same type of scale that will be covered by laboratory evaluation.

Model designation

Maximum capacity

Value and number of scale divisions

Minimum load

Accuracy class

Block III. Information about the certifying laboratory.

This block gives NMFS information on the independent laboratory that evaluated the scale for future reference

Name of laboratory

Mailing address, telephone and fax numbers of laboratory

Name and Address of Government Agency accrediting laboratory

Block IV. Certification of compliance with NMFS at-sea scale requirements.

This block is to certify that the manufacturer’s representative believes the scale or scale component is in compliance with regulations at 50 CFR 679 as indicated in the checklist and test report forms.

Printed name and signature of representative

Date

Block V. List of Attachments.

This block is a checklist of attachments intended to help the manufacturer’s representative include the correct documentation needed for scale approval.

Block VI. General Requirements Checklist

This checklist helps the manufacturer’s representative to review the requirements for approval and to note any possible problems.

2. Belt-conveyor (flow) scale evaluation

Flow scales are used to weigh catch at sea. This scale or scale system employs a conveyor belt in contact with a weighing element to determine the weight of a bulk commodity being conveyed across the scale. A belt scale must be equipped with automatic means to compensate for the motion of a vessel at sea so that the weight values indicated are within the MPEs. An operator generally directs the flow of product onto the input conveyor.

Belt-conveyor (flow) scale evaluation

Block I. Information about the scale tested.

This block supplies basic background and contact information so that NMFS can maintain accurate contact records.

Name, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of scale manufacturer

Name, mailing address (if different from manufacturer), telephone and fax numbers of representative

Model and serial number of scale submitted for evaluation.

Block II. Information about all scales.

Frequently scale manufacturers produce the same basic scale with different sizes, capacities or model numbers. This block allows the manufacturer to describe a “family” of similar scales so that all can be approved at one time. It also sets out the basic meterological characteristics of the scales.

Provide information about the scale submitted for evaluation.

Identify all other models of scales of the same type of scale that will be covered by laboratory evaluation.

Model designation

Maximum capacity

Value of scale divisions

Maximum flow rate, minimum flow rate, minimum totalized load

Belt speed

Weigh length

Maximum capacity

Block III. Information about the certifying laboratory.

This block gives NMFS information on the independent laboratory that evaluated the scale for future reference.

Name of laboratory

Mailing address, telephone and fax numbers of laboratory

Name and Address of Government Agency accrediting laboratory

Block IV. Certification of compliance with NMFS at-sea scale requirements.

This block is to certify that the manufacturer’s representative believes the scale or scale component is in compliance with regulations at 50 CFR 679 as indicated in the checklist and test report forms.

Printed name and signature of manufacturer’s representative

Date

Block V. List of Attachments.

This block is a checklist of attachments intended to help the manufacturer’s representative include the correct documentation needed for scale approval.

Block VI. General Requirements Checklist – Belt scale.

This checklist helps the manufacturer’s representative to review the requirements for approval and to note any possible problems.

3. Automatic hopper scales evaluation

Automatic hopper scales are used to weigh catch at sea. An automatic hopper scale is adapted to the automatic weighing of a bulk commodity (fish) in predetermined amounts. Capacities vary from 20 kg to 50 mt. It is generally equipped with a control panel, with functions to be set by an operator, including the start of an automatic operation.

A scale manufacturer or their representative may request that NMFS approve a custom-built automatic hopper scale under the following conditions:

♦ The scale electronics are the same as those used in other scales on the Regional Administrator's list of scales eligible for approval;

♦ Load cells have received Certificates of Conformance from National Type Evaluation Program or International Organization of Legal Metrology;

♦ The scale compensates for motion in the same manner as other scales made by that manufacturer which have been listed on the Regional Administrator's list of scales eligible for approval;

♦ The scale, when installed, meets all of the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of Appendix A to § 679.28, except those requirements set forth in paragraph 3.2.1.1.

Automatic hopper scales evaluation

Block I. Information about the scale tested.

This block supplies basic background and contact information so that NMFS can maintain accurate contact records.

Name, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of scale manufacturer

Name, mailing address (if different from manufacturer), telephone and fax numbers of representative

Model and serial number of scale submitted for evaluation.

Block II. Information about all scales.

Frequently scale manufacturers produce the same basic scale with different sizes, capacities, or model numbers. This block allows the manufacturer to describe a “family” of similar scales so that all can be approved at one time. It also sets out the basic meterological characteristics of the scales.

Provide information about the scale submitted for evaluation at #1.

Identify all other models of scales of the same type of scale that will be covered by laboratory evaluation.

Model designation

Maximum capacity

Value and number of scale divisions

Minimum weighment

Minimum totalized load

Block III. Information about the certifying laboratory.

This block gives NMFS information on the independent laboratory that evaluated the scale for future reference.

Name of laboratory

Mailing address, telephone and fax numbers of laboratory

Name and Address of Government Agency accrediting laboratory

Block IV. Certification of compliance with NMFS at-sea scale requirements.

This block is to certify that the manufacturer’s representative believes the scale or scale component is in compliance with regulations at 50 CFR 679 as indicated in the checklist and test report forms.

Printed name and signature of manufacturer’s representative

Date

Block V. List of Attachments.

This block is a checklist of attachments intended to help the manufacturer’s representative include the correct documentation that NMFS needs to approve the scale.

Block VI. General Requirements Checklist – Automatic hopper scale.

This checklist helps the manufacturer’s representative to review the requirements for approval and to note any possible problems.

NMFS received no requests for scale evaluation in the past three years. A scale type evaluation is only triggered if someone wants a new type of scale approved for use at sea. Currently there is one manufacturer with approved scales (they bought the other two companies formerly reported) and one manufacturer that has discussed getting an undefined scale approved.

4. New, undefined scale type evaluation

Representatives from two scale manufacturers have expressed interest in having a new scale evaluated for use to weigh catch at sea. Because details are not available on this scale, an estimate of costs is given below.

Scale Type Evaluation, Respondent

Number of respondents Total annual responses Frequency of response = 1 Total burden hours Time per response = 50 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total capital and startup cost (remaining since 2011 Total miscellaneous costs Scale evaluation costs by an independent laboratory = 10,000 x 2 = 20,000 Miscellaneous supplies (binders, printer paper) = 15 x 2 = 30 Photocopying and fax = 10 x 2 = 20 Laboratory Testing costs of scale model with market life of 5 yr = $10,000 or annual cost of $2,000/yr x 2 = $4,000

2 2 100 hr $2500 $800 $24,050

Scale Type Evaluation, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours review submissions (80 hr) maintain list of approved scales (1 hr) Total Personnel cost Personnel cost = $25 Total miscellaneous cost	2 81 hr $2,025 0

b. Notification of Pacific Cod Freezer Longline Monitoring Option - NEW

The proposed action would require owners of eligible catcher/processors to annually opt out of the fisheries subject to the increased monitoring requirements or to select between two monitoring options: increased observer coverage or scales. Once a vessel owner made a selection, the vessel would be required to operate under that option for the entire year. NMFS proposes that the monitoring options apply for an entire year to reduce the risk for data processing or catch accounting errors that may occur if monitoring provisions change during the season.

If NMFS does not receive a notification of choice of monitoring options, NMFS will assign that vessel to the increased observer coverage option for the upcoming calendar year.

A notification form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region website (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/).

Notification of Pacific Cod Freezer Longline Monitoring Option

Vessel Information

Name of vessel

Federal Fishery Permit No.

Name of Vessel Owner or Operator (circle one)

Permanent Business Address

Business Telephone Number

Business Fax Number

Business E-mail Address

Pacific Cod Monitoring Option

Check one to indicate monitoring option

Opt-out of directed fishing for Pacific cod in the BSAI and groundfish CDQ fishing

Motion Compensated Scales

If this option is chosen complete :

Scale Inspection Request Form

Observer Sample Station Inspection Request Form

Electronic Monitoring Inspection Request Form

Increased Observer Coverage

If this option is chosen complete:

Observer Sample Station Inspection Request Form

Notification of Pacific cod Monitoring Option, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per year = 1 Total burden hours (16.50) Estimated time per response = 30 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost (3.30) Photocopy (0.05 x 33 = 1.65) Email submittal (0.05 x 33 = 1.65)	33 33 17 hr $425 $3

Notification of Pacific Cod Monitoring Option, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (5.50) Time per response = 10 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost	33 6 hr $150 0

c. Installation of a motion-compensated flow scale - NEW

NMFS requires that the owner of catcher/processor using longline gear install a motion-compensated flow scale and to weigh each haul individually on that scale. Flow scales are intended to provide accurate records of total catch. In order to be approved by NMFS, a scale used to weigh catch at sea must meet the type evaluation requirements set forth at § 679.28(b)(1) and the initial inspection and annual re-inspection requirements set forth in § 679.28(b)(2). A scale must be included on the Alaska Region Regional Administrator’s list of scales NMFS-approved for weighing catch at sea at http://209.112.168.2/scales/default.htm#approved.

Product Recovery Rate (PRR)

In the longline catcher/processor Pacific cod fishery, product quality is dependent on rapid bleeding of catch. On most vessels, Pacific cod are cut and bled almost immediately upon entering the vessel and then allowed to complete the bleeding process in a saltwater-filled tank. Because of the need to preserve product quality, NMFS has determined that it may not be feasible for all vessels to weigh Pacific cod prior to bleeding. NMFS uses a product recovery rate (PRR) for bled fish of 0.98 to estimate the original round weight of the catch. To determine the round weight equivalent of a fish NMFS divides the weight of the product by the PRR. In this case, the weight of bled fish is divided by 0.98. However, the bled fish PRR is based on catch that has fully completed the bleeding and soaking process and is not necessarily applicable to catch that has been cut but not fully bled.

NMFS proposes to use a PRR that is designated for each vessel for catch accounting depending on the location where catch is weighed in relation to the location that cutting and bleeding occurs. These PRRs would be specific to vessels using the scales monitoring option under

§ 679.100 and would not be added to Table 3 to part 679. The operator of each vessel would report the scale weights in the eLog and NMFS would apply the correct PRR to the reported scale weights in the database.

If Pacific cod are weighed prior to cutting	no PRR	100 percent of the scale weight would be used to account for Pacific cod catch.
If the scale was located upstream of the location where Pacific cod are bled	PRR = 1.00	Whole weight would be applied to all Pacific cod weighed on the scale
If Pacific cod are weighed after cutting but before any bleeding holding area	PRR = 0.99	101 percent of the scale weight would be used to account for Pacific cod catch.
If the Pacific cod were bled and then placed in a bleeding holding area prior to being weighed on the scale	PRR = 0.98	Use standard PRR for bled Pacific cod (0.98) as these fish are expected to bleed completely
If Pacific cod are weighed after a bleeding holding area	PRR = 0.98	102 percent of the scale weight would be used to account for Pacific cod catch

NMFS staff would determine the applicable PRR rate at the time of the annual scale inspection based on the location of the scale and bleeding holding area on a particular vessel. NMFS would notify each vessel operator in writing of the PRR that would be applied to the scale weights from that vessel. This PRR would be used for catch accounting for the duration of the approval period.

Normal flow scale maintenance includes a daily test, cleaning, three to four brief calibrations during a working day, greasing the scale, tightening belts, replacing belts two to three times a year, periodic replacement of sprockets, and annual vendor service at the time of certification.

The cost of the scale itself is currently estimated to range between $61,000 and $70,000 (medium $65,500). The range of potential initial installation costs are estimated to be between $115,300 and $458,800 for a vessel (medium $287,050). The installation services include wiring and training, but do not include costs of spare parts, or of the factory modifications that will be required to adapt the factory to allow use of the flow scale. Subsequent annual expenses will range between $7,600 and $8,100 per vessel (medium $7,850). Additional costs are estimated to include $200 to $700 for crew training time (medium $450). To simplify this analysis, all 33 respondents are considered to select the scale option. If, however, a respondent opted to have two observers instead, the cost would be less.

Installation of Scale, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost ($8,300 x 33) Annual maintenance costs – 7850 Crew training = 450 Initial capital costs ($11,634,150/3 yr) NMFS-approved flow scale @ $65,500 x 33 = $2,161,500 Equipment Installation @ $287,050 x 33 = $9,472,650	33 0 0 0 $273,900 $3,878,050

NMFS management is estimated to incur between $117,000 and $187,000 in costs (medium $152,000) the first year of the program, and about $26,000 per year, in subsequent years. NMFS Enforcement costs are also likely to rise, as enforcement personnel will be required to oversee new regulatory requirements for freezer longliners for longer periods than experienced in the past. Non-compliance with any of the regulations would result in additional enforcement actions that would increase enforcement costs.

Installation of Scale, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost Initial capital costs	33 0 0 0 $152,000

d. Inspection Request, At-sea Scales (ADDING 33 respondents)

Once a scale is installed on a vessel and approved by NMFS for use to weigh catch at sea, the scale must be inspected and approved annually by a NMFS-approved scale inspector to determine if the scale meets all of the applicable performance and technical requirements. An inspection is a visual assessment and test of a scale after it is installed on the vessel and while the vessel is tied up at a dock and not under power at sea. Each scale must be inspected and approved before the vessel may participate in any fishery requiring the weighing of catch at sea with an approved scale.

The owner or operator must submit an inspection request annually to NMFS for each vessel that is required to have approved scales. The request is used by NMFS-authorized scale inspectors to schedule and conduct a scale inspection on belt scales, automatic hopper scales, and platform scales. A motion-compensated flow scale for longline gear is added to this collection.

A request for a scale inspection must be submitted at least 10 working days in advance of the requested inspection. Scale inspections will be conducted in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, or the Puget Sound area of Washington State.

At the time of scale inspection,

♦ The scale must be installed in a rigid and level manner;

♦ The display and printer must be connected and operational;

♦ The belts leading to the scale must be connected and operational (not applicable to platform and hanging scales);

♦ Test weights and test weight certification documents must be available for inspection (platform scales only); and

♦ A crew member must be available to help the inspector transport test materials and conduct the testing

After installing a NMFS-approved scale and requesting a scale inspection, the vessel owner must make the vessel and scale available for inspection by the NMFS-authorized scale inspector. The owner must also:

♦ Provide a copy of the scale manual supplied by the scale manufacturer to the inspector at the beginning of the inspection.

♦ Transport test weights, test material, and equipment required to perform the test to and from the inspector's vehicle and the scale location on the vessel.

♦ Apply test weights to the scale or convey test materials across the scale, if requested by the scale inspector.

♦ Assist the scale inspector in performing the scale inspection and testing.

The inspector will check whether the scale is properly installed and that all components of the scale are functioning (printer, display, software). The performance test consists of weighing a known quantity of test material (sand in bags) to ensure that the scale being tested weighs the material accurately. In order to perform this test on a flow scale, NMFS passes the test material across the scale in the same manner that fish would pass across the scale, so in-feed belts must be operational before the test can be done.

In addition, the dockside inspection of each scale will determine whether the scale weighs accurately while in a nearly stationary position. This evaluation is necessary to identify scales that are not installed properly or do not meet other technical or performance requirements before the vessel starts fishing.

The at-sea scale tests are conducted daily to verify that the scale is weighing accurately at sea. This is the only test that will be performed while the scale is in motion. The maximum permissible errors (MPEs) are higher in the at-sea scale tests than in the dockside tests to allow a greater tolerance for scales tested in motion.

Scale Inspection Report.

The inspector will approve a scale if it meets all of the applicable performance and technical requirements. Upon scale approval, the scale inspector will complete and sign a Scale Inspection Report verifying that the scale meets all of the requirements specified in § 679.28(b)(2) and Appendix A. The vessel owner or operator must ensure that the Scale Inspection Report is available for authorized personnel (NMFS staff or observers, United States Coast Guard (USCG) personnel).

At-Sea Scale Approval Sticker.

The scale inspector will complete a sticker for each approved scale. The owner or operator must ensure that a “NMFS approved scale” sticker is on each approved scale and that the scale sticker remains legible. The sticker lists the month and year of the scale approval.

Inspection Request, At-sea Scales

General

Company name and vessel name

Mailing address

Vessel location

Contact person on board

Telephone and fax numbers for contact person

Requested inspection date

Today’s date

Telephone number on vessel where inspector may be contacted during inspection

Scales To Be Inspected

Manufacturer name and model

Indicate whether repair company will be onsite at time of inspection

Repair company name

Contact person name and telephone number

Inspection Request, At-sea Scales, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours (7.90) Time per response = 6 minutes Total personnel cost (8 x $25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost (12.85) Cost of photocopy (0.05 x 79 = 3.95) Cost of fax ($5 x 1 = 5) Cost of online (0.05 x 78 = 3.90)	79 79 8 hr $200 $13

Inspection Request, At-sea Scales, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (19.75) Time per response = 15 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost	79 20 hr $500 0

e. Notification to Observers of at-sea scale tests (ADDING 33 respondents)

Each vessel operator must notify the observer at least 15 minutes before the time that a scale test will be conducted and must conduct the test while the observer is present. No form exists for this notice. This notice consists of vessel personnel verbally informing the observer that a scale test is scheduled.

Notification to Observers of scale tests, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Frequency of response = 135 Total burden hours (355.50) Hours per response = 2 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost	79 10,665 356 hr $8,900 0

Notification to Observer of scale tests, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

f. Records of daily flow scale tests (ADDING 33 respondents)

Upon NMFS approval of a scale used to weigh catch at sea, the vessel operator must test each scale or scale system that is used to weigh total catch. Motion-compensated flow scales are specifically designed to be recalibrated regularly in order to weigh accurately. Because the operator must adjust the scale several times a day, NMFS requires that a daily test of the scale is necessary to monitor the performance of the scale. Vessel operators must test each scale or scale system in the presence of the observer one time during each 24-hour period when use of the scale is required. Each set must be weighed and recorded separately. For the purpose of accounting for Pacific cod catch, NMFS would use the weight of all catch that passes over the scale

The flow scale daily test information may be recorded as a pdf file at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/scales/dailytest_fillable.pdf or and as an excel file at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/scales/default.htm#inspections. Although not submitted to NMFS, the daily test forms must be available for inspection on board until the end of the fishing year during which the tests were conducted. The owner must retain the daily test records for three years after the test occurred.

Daily flow scale test records

Vessel name

Month, day, and year of test

Time test started to the nearest minute

I. Weigh fish on observer platform scale

Collect approximately 400 kg of fish in baskets and weigh it on the platform scale.

Record the weight of each basket of fish (basket plus fish)

II. Calculate percent error of flow scale

Record the total weight of all baskets plus fish in the first box

Record the weight of the baskets in the second box.

Subtract the weight of the baskets from the total weight of fish plus baskets to determine the weight of the fish only; record this weight in the third box. This is the platform scale weight of the fish (A).

Record the weight displayed on the flow scale before and after the test fish are weighed.

Weigh the fish from the baskets on the flow scale. Record the weight in the fourth box (B).

Calculate error of flow scale by subtracting the platform scale weight (A) from the flow scale weight (B).

Record the error (C) in the fifth box

Calculate percent error by dividing the error (C) by the known weight of the fish (A) and multiplying by 100.

Record this information in the last box of Section II. When tested, the total catch weighing scale and the

observer sampling station scale must agree within 3 percent. If the scale fails the daily test, it may be re-tested at any time. However, it may not be used to weigh fish until it passes the daily test. The scale is weighing within 3 percent error if the result is between -3.0% and +3.0%.

III. Sea Conditions (Beaufort Scale) at Time of Scale Test (Check One)

Record Beaufort Scale sea conditions at time of test

Signatures of vessel operator and observer

Records of daily flow scale tests, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Frequency of response = 135 Total burden hours (7998.75 ) Time per response = 45 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous costs Binders, printer paper = $35 x 79	79 10,665 7,999 hr $199,975 $2,765

Records of daily flow scale tests, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

g. Printed output of at-sea scales used to weigh catch (ADDING 33 respondents)

Each scale used to weigh catch must be equipped with a printer. A printout(s) showing the total weight of each haul, set, or delivery must be generated after each delivery has been weighed. Reports must be printed at least once every 24 hours when use of the scale is required. Reports must be printed before any information stored in the scale computer memory is replaced.

Although scales may be recalibrated or tested at any time during the day, the audit trail is designed to record information that will be used to determine whether a scale had been incorrectly adjusted and then readjusted just prior to the scale test. The printed output of scale weights is used by NMFS staff, observers, and NOAA Enforcement personnel to maintain accurate records of catch and to ensure compliance with quotas. The scale printout also forms the basis of an audit trail for each haul that can be used to resolve inconsistencies in catch reports submitted by the observer and the vessel or processor.

The scale software is programmed to print the required information, and printing is nearly automatic. These printouts are not submitted to NMFS. However, they must be available for inspection at any time upon request of the observer, the scale inspector, NMFS staff, or an authorized officer on board the vessel during the fishing year. In addition, they must be retained by the vessel owner for three years after the test occurred.

Printed output from the at-sea scale

Vessel name

Federal fisheries permit number

Haul or set number

Total weight of the haul or set

Total cumulative weight of all fish or other material weighed on the scale

Printed output, at-sea scale, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Frequency of response = 135 Total burden hours (177.75) Time per response = 1 min Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost Binders, paper = $35 x 79	79 10,665 178 hr $4,450 $2,765

Printed output, at-sea scale, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

h. Observer sampling station (ADDING 33 respondents)

The longline catcher/processors must provide an observer work station where an observer can work safely and effectively. Each vessel must provide a single collection point for observers (observer sampling station) to collect samples of unsorted catch. Observer sampling of each haul is necessary to determine the percentage of the total catch that is comprised of groundfish. To effectively manage fisheries, NMFS must have data that will provide reliable independent estimates of the total catch.

Each observer sampling station must be inspected and approved by NMFS prior to its use for the first time and then one time each year within 12 months of the date of the most recent inspection. In addition, if the observer sampling station is moved or if the space or equipment available to the observer is reduced or removed when use of the observer sampling station is required, the observer sampling station must be re-inspected and approved by NMFS.

Observer sampling stations must meet specifications for size and location and be equipped with an observer sampling station scale, a table, adequate lighting, floor grating, and running water. Details of the sampling station requirements are included in § 679.28.

The costs of constructing the observer sampling station are estimated to range between $0 (since some vessels already have observer sampling stations to comply with the rules governing CDQ groundfish fishing), and $30,300 (for a vessel that installs a station, purchases two platform scales - to have one for backup). Inspection costs and annual maintenance and repairs for the observer station and platform scale are estimated up to $500.

The observer sampling station (not including the platform scale) is checked for compliance with regulatory requirements and certified annually by the Alaska Fishery Science Center’s FMA Division’s Observer Program.

The motion-compensated platform scale that is a part of the observer sampling station is also checked and certified annually. This is the responsibility of the Sustainable Fisheries Division of the NMFS AKR.

Observer sampling station, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous costs Inspection & maintenance = $500 x 79 Total initial capital costs Observer sampling station equipment $18,000 ea x 33 = $594,000/ 3 yr	79 0 0 0 $39,500 $198,000

Observer sampling station, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

i. Inspection request, observer sampling station (ADDING 33 respondents)

Each observer sampling station must be inspected and approved by NMFS annually. An inspection request for an observer sampling station provides the basic information needed to schedule and conduct an inspection. Certification is good for one year.

Observer Platform Scale Inspection Report.

Upon approval of the scale after inspection, the inspector will issue an Observer Platform Scale Inspection Report to the operator. This report must be maintained on board the vessel when use of the observer sampling station is required and made available to authorized NMFS and USCG personnel.

Observer sampling station inspection request form

Vessel name

Federal fisheries permit number

Requested inspection date

Business mailing address

Name, telephone number, and fax number for contact person on vessel

Vessel location, including street address and city

Today’s date

Signature of requestor

If the vessel received and passed a scale inspection, indicate the date of the most recent inspection

Attachment

For catcher/processors using trawl gear and motherships, include a diagram drawn to scale showing the location(s) where all catch will be weighed, the location where observers will sample unsorted catch, and the location of the observer sampling station, including the observer sampling scale, and the name of the manufacturer and model of the observer sampling scale.

For all other vessels, include a diagram drawn to scale showing the location(s) where catch comes on board the vessel, the location where observers will sample unsorted catch, the location of the observer sampling station, including the observer sampling scale, and the name of the manufacturer and model of the observer sampling scale.

Inspection Request, observer sampling station, Respondent
Number of respondents Current = 46 New Lgl = 33 Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours Time per response = 2 hr Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost (12.85) Cost of photocopy (0.05 x 79 = 3.95) Cost of fax ($5 x 1 = 5) Cost of email (0.05 x 78 = 3.90)	79 79 158 hr $3,950 $13

Inspection Request, observer sampling station, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (19.75) Time per response = 15 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost	79 20 hr $500 0

j. Electronic monitoring system (transferring from OMB Control No. 0610 and ADDING 33 respondents)

A final rule for Amendment 91 to the FMP (RIN 0648-AX89) revised requirements for the American Fisheries Act (AFA) and CDQ Program trawl catcher/processors to include an electronic monitoring system for all areas where sorting of salmon of any species takes place and the location of the salmon storage container. This electronic monitoring system is in addition to the video monitoring of bins currently offered as an option for the AFA pollock fishery.

The description of the electronic monitoring system for the eligible longline catcher/processors in this action is the same as that required for the trawl catcher/processors in the AFA and CDQ Programs, and so this item is revised to include them.

Vessel operators that choose the monitoring option are required to provide and install, and maintain a NMFS-approved electronic monitoring system at all times when Pacific cod is open to directed fishing in the BSAI or the GOA and all times while groundfish CDQ fishing. In addition, these vessels are required to provide coverage of all areas where Pacific cod are sorted from the catch, all fish passing over the motion-compensated scale, and all crew actions in these areas.

The system must be operating when the catcher/processor is fishing (no matter the intended target species), and Pacific cod is open to directed fishing in either the BSAI or GOA.

The video monitoring system must have one or more color cameras, a digital video recorder (DVR) for storing the video, a monitor for reviewing the video, power sources, and cables to connect the different elements. These requirements are described in §679.28.

In order to be approved by NMFS, an electronic monitoring system including cameras, a monitor, and a digital video recorder must:

♦ Have sufficient data storage capacity to store all video data from an entire trip. Each frame of stored video data must record a time/date stamp in Alaska local time (A.l.t.).

♦ Include at least one external Universal Serial Bus (USB) (1.1 or 2.0) port or other removable storage device approved by NMFS. The USB is an industry standard that defines the cables, connectors and communications protocols used in a bus for connection, communication, and power supply between computers and electronic devices.

♦ Use commercially available software.

♦ Record at a speed of no less than 5 frames per second at all times when Pacific cod are being sorted or weighed.

Color cameras must have at a minimum 470 TV lines of resolution, auto-iris capabilities, and output color video to the recording device with the ability to revert to black and white video output when light levels become too low for color recognition. The system may require from one to five cameras, depending on the vessel layout and lines of sight.

The video data must be maintained and made available to NMFS staff, or any individual authorized by NMFS, upon request. These data must be retained onboard the vessel for 120 days after the date the video is recorded, unless NMFS has notified the vessel operator that the video data may be retained for less than this 120-day period. The system must use commercially available software.

In order to ensure that video can be monitored on board, a 16-bit or better color monitor, with the capacity to display all cameras simultaneously, must be provided. NMFS staff, or any individual authorized by NMFS, must be able to view any earlier footage from any point in the trip; the individual must be assisted by crew knowledgeable in the operation of the system if this is requested.

Specifications of The System

At a minimum, must include:

Length and width (in pixels) of each image

File type in which the data are recorded

Type and extent of compression

Frame rate at which the data will be recorded

Brand and model number of the cameras used

Brand, model, and specifications of the lenses used

Size and type of storage device

Type, speed, and operating system of any computer that is part of the system

Capital Costs

Costs for the Freezer Longline Fleet include cameras, a digital video recorder (DVR), associated software, storage of the data, installation of the equipment, and maintenance of the system. Because vessel configurations are variable, the costs for a vessel to implement video to ensure an observer can monitor all required locations could be quite variable, depending on the nature of the system chosen. In most cases, the system would be expected to consist of one DVR/computer system and between two and five cameras.

DVR systems range in price from $1,500 to $10,000, for an average of $5,750, and cameras cost between $75 and $300 each, for an average cost of $187.50. Storage costs will vary depending on the frame rate, color density, amount of compression, and image size. The system would be expected to record data at a rate of between 5 and 20 gigabits (GB) per day. Assuming that a catcher/processor fishes for an average of 10 days per trip, the amount of storage space would be between 50 and 200 GB per camera, or between 100 (for a two camera system producing highly compressed images, with 8 bit color density, and a fairly small frame size) and 1,000 GB (for a five camera system producing moderately compressed images, with 16 bit color density, and a fairly large screen size).

Installation costs will be a function of where the DVR/computer can be located in relation to an available power source, cameras, and the observer sampling station. In most cases, the DVR/computer would be located on the factory deck in an office/lab, if one is available, or in the wheel house if one is not. It is also possible that vessel owners will choose to build a weather resistant enclosure for the DVR/computer in or near the observer sampling station. NMFS estimates that a fairly simple installation will cost approximately $2,000, while a complex installation will cost approximately $10,000, for an average cost of $6,000.

Miscellaneous Costs

Assuming that vessels choose to purchase redundant storage capacity, and that Universal Serial Bus (USB) compatible hard drives cost approximately $1.00 per GB, NMFS estimates that storage will cost between $400 and $3,000, for an average cost of $1,700. Maintenance costs are difficult to estimate because much of this technology has not been extensively used at sea by the U.S. fleet. However, we estimate a hard disk failure rate of 20 percent per year, and a DVR/computer lifespan of three years, or between $680 and $4,100 per year.

An equipment failure that cannot be fixed at sea could lead to a significant loss of revenues if a vessel had to stop fishing and return to port. As insurance against this, vessels are likely to choose to carry spare parts. A spare parts package might run $3,500.

Electronic Monitoring System, Respondent

Number of respondents 17 AFA trawl catcher/processors 3 AFA motherships 1 non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 33 Pcod longline catcher/processors Total annual responses Data responses per year = 12 (1/month) Total burden hours Estimated time per response = 1 hr Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total capital cost for Lgl Pcod Program Digital video recorder (DVR)/computer system ($1,500 to $10,000 = av. $5,750) Video camera ($75 to $300 = av. $188) Installation ($2,000 to $10,000 = av. $6,000) $5,750 + $188 + $6,000 = $11,938/3 = $3,979 * 33 = $131,318 + Capital costs for previous 21 respondents $83,559 Total miscellaneous cost Data storage ($400 to $3,000 = av. $1,700) Annual system maintenance ($680 to $4,100= avg $2,390) $1,700 + $2,390 = 4,090 *54

54 648 648 $16,200 $214,877 $220,860

Electronic Monitoring System, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost On-site inspections = 18,348 Transportation = 3,800 Video monitoring = 3,400	0 0 0 $25,548

k. Inspection Request for an Electronic Monitoring System (transferring from 0648-0610 and ADDING 33 respondents)

The electronic monitoring system must be inspected and approved annually by NMFS to ensure that it continues to meet the regulatory requirements. The owner or operator of a catcher/processor or a mothership may arrange the time and place for an inspection of the electronic monitoring system by submitting to NMFS by fax (206) 526-4066 or

e-mail ([email protected]) an Inspection Request for an Electronic Monitoring System. This request form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

A diagram drawn to scale showing all sorting locations, the location of the motion-compensated scale, the location of each camera and its coverage area, and the location of any additional video equipment must be submitted with the request form.

NMFS will coordinate with the vessel owner to schedule the inspection no later than 10 working days after NMFS receives a complete request form. Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks at Dutch Harbor, Alaska; Kodiak, Alaska; and in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.

Any change to the electronic monitoring system that would affect the system's functionality must be submitted on an inspection request to, and approved by, the Regional Administrator in writing before that change is made.

Inspections are scheduled no later than ten (10) working days after NMFS receives a complete

application for an inspection. Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks in Alaska at

Dutch Harbor and Kodiak and in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.

Electronic Monitoring System Inspection Report.

After an inspection, NMFS will issue an electronic monitoring system inspection report to the vessel owner, if the electronic monitoring system meets the requirements. The electronic monitoring system report is valid for 12 months from the date it is issued by NMFS. The vessel owner must maintain a current EMS Inspection Report onboard the vessel at all times the vessel is required to provide an approved electronic monitoring system. The electronic monitoring system inspection report must be made available to the observer, NMFS personnel, or to an authorized officer upon request.

Request for Inspection, Electronic Monitoring System

Indicate Program --whether Chinook Salmon Bycatch or Freezer Longline Scales

Diagram attachment (drawn to scale)

Chinook Salmon Bycatch

All locations where salmon will be sorted

Location of the salmon storage container

Location of each camera and its coverage area

Location of any additional video equipment, including monitors and hard drives

Freezer Longline Scales Option

All locations where sorting occurs

Location of the motion-compensated scale

Location of each camera and its coverage area

Location of any additional video equipment, including monitors and hard drives

Vessel name and Federal fisheries permit number

Business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax number, and business e-mail address

Name of individual or company who will install and maintain the system

Name of person on vessel who will maintain system and aid observer

System specifications

Pixel length and width of image

File type to which data are recorded

Compression type

Frame rate at which data are recorded

Storage device type and size

Brand and model number of the cameras

Brand, model, and specifications of the lenses

Type, speed, and operating system of any computer that is part of the system

Inspection Request, Electronic Monitoring System, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per year = 1 Total burden hours Estimated time per response = 2 hr Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost (5.40) Photocopy (0.05 x 54 = 2.70) Email submittal (0.05 x 54 = 2.7)	54 54 108 hr $2,700 $5

Inspection request, Electronic Monitoring System, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (5.40) Time per response = 6 minutes Total personnel cost ($25/hr) Total miscellaneous cost	54 5 $125 0

II. CRAB CATCH MONITORING PLAN (CMP)

a. Proposed CMP

A CMP is a plan submitted by a Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) for each location or processing vessel where the RCR wishes to take deliveries of Crab Rationalization Program (CR) crab. The CMP must detail how the RCR will meet the catch monitoring standards detailed in §680.23(g)(5), except that an RCR that processes only CR crab harvested under a catcher/processor owner or catcher/processor crew Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) permit is not required to prepare a CMP. Catcher/processor owner IFQ means crab IFQ derived from quota share initially issued to persons who held LLP crab permits and had qualifying landings derived from landings processed at sea, to annually harvest and process CR crab. Catcher/processor crew IFQ means crab IFQ derived from quota share initially issued to persons who historically held Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission crab permits and signed fish tickets for qualifying landings based on landings processed at sea, to annually harvest and process CR crab.

There are 15 shore based crab processing plants. Three catcher/processors are required to have an RCR but are not required to have a CMP. The other RCRs use one of the 15 processing facilities to process their crab and follow that processor's approved CMP.

CMP

Crab Sorting and weighing

All crab, including crab parts and crab that are dead or otherwise unmarketable, delivered to the RCR must be

sorted and weighed by species. CMP must show how and where crab are sorted and weighed.

Scales used for weighing crab

The CMP must identify by serial number each scale used to weigh crab and describe the rationale for its use.

Scale testing plan

Scales identified in the CMP must be accurate. For each scale identified in the CMP a testing plan list:

Test weights and equipment required to test the scale

Where the test weights and equipment will be stored

Names of the personnel responsible for conducting the scale testing

Printed record

The scale must produce a complete and accurate printed record of the weight of each species in a landing.

All of the crab in a delivery must be weighed on a scale capable of producing a complete printed record.

A printed record of each landing must be printed before the RCR submits a CR crab landing report

(see OMB 0648-0515).

Observation area.

Each CMP must designate an observation area. The observation area is a location where an individual may monitor the offloading and weighing of crab. The observation area must meet the following standards:

Access to the observation area. must be freely accessible to NMFS staff or NMFS-authorized personnel at any time during the effective period of the CMP.

Monitoring the offloading and weighing of crab. From the observation area, must have an unobstructed view or otherwise be able to monitor the entire offload of crab between the first location where crab are removed from the boat and a location where all sorting has taken place and each species has been weighed.

Sheltered. must be sheltered from extreme weather and not exposed to unreasonable safety hazards

Plant liaison

Orienting new observers to the plant

Assisting in the resolution of observer concerns

Informing NMFS if changes must be made to the CMP

Drawing to scale of delivery location.

CMP must be accompanied by a drawing to scale of the delivery location or vessel showing:

Where and how crab are removed from the delivering vessel

The observation area

The location of each scale used to weigh crab

Each location where crab is sorted

All offload and weighing locations detailed in a CMP must be located on the same vessel or in the same

geographic location. If a CMP describes facilities for the offloading of vessels at more than one location,

it must be possible to see all locations simultaneously.

Crab CMP, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours (15 x 16) Hours per response = 16 Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost Photocopy 0.05 x 15 pp x 15 = $11.25	15 15 240 hr $6,000 $11

Crab CMP, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Hours per response = 16 Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	15 240 hr $6,000 0

b. CMP addendum

An RCR must notify NMFS in writing if changes are made in operations or layout during the approval year by submitting a CMP addendum. Depending on the nature and magnitude of the change requested, NMFS may require an additional CMP inspection.

CMP addendum

Name and signature of the submitter

Address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address (if available) of submitter

Complete description of the proposed CMP change

CMP Addendum, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours Time per response = 8 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost Photocopy 0.05 x 10 pp x 3 = 1.5	3 3 24 hr $600 $2

CMP Addendum, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Time per response = 1 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	3 3 $75 0

c. Inspection request, CMP

The location or vessel identified in the CMP must be inspected by NMFS prior to approval of the CMP to ensure that the location conforms to the elements addressed in the CMP. If NMFS disapproves a CMP, the plant owner or manager may resubmit a revised CMP.

An annual CMP inspection may be arranged by submitting a request for a CMP inspection. No form exists for the CMP inspection request; the request is made by telephone or e-mail. An inspection must be requested no less than 10 working days before the requested inspection date. NMFS staff will conduct CMP inspections in any port located in the United States that can be reached by regularly scheduled commercial air service. This inspection request is usually done by telephone or email.

Inspection request, CMP

Name and signature of the submitter and date of the request

Address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if available) of submitter

Proposed CMP

Inspection Request, CMP, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Frequency of response = 1 Total burden hours (1.20) Time per response (5min/60 min = 0.08) Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost (0.75) Photocopy 0.05 x 1 pp x 15	15 15 1 hr $25 $1

Inspection Request, CMP, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (7.5) Time per response (30 min/60 min = 0.5) Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	15 8 hr $200 0

III. CATCH MONITORING AND CONTROL PLAN (CMCP) FOR SHORESIDE PROCESSORS AND SFPs

Scale requirements in this section are in addition to those requirements set forth by the State of Alaska. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to reduce or supersede the authority of the State of Alaska to regulate, test, or approve scales within the State of Alaska or its territorial sea. Scales used to weigh groundfish catch that are also required to be approved by the State of Alaska under Alaska Statute 45.75 must meet the following requirements:

♦ The scale must display a valid State of Alaska sticker indicating that the scale was inspected and approved within the previous 12 months.

♦ The scale and scale display must be visible simultaneously to the observer. Observers, NMFS personnel, or an authorized officer must be allowed to observe the weighing of fish on the scale and be allowed to read the scale display at all times.

♦ Printouts of the scale weight of each haul, set, or delivery must be made available to observers, NMFS personnel, or an authorized officer at the time printouts are generated and thereafter upon request for the duration of the fishing year.

a. CMCP

A CMCP is a plan submitted by the owner or manager of each shoreside processor or SFP and approved by NMFS, detailing how the processing plant will meet the catch monitoring and control standards detailed in §679.28(g)(7). The owner or manager of a shoreside processor or SFP receiving fish harvested in the following fisheries must prepare, submit, and have approved a CMCP prior to the receipt of fish harvested in these fisheries:

♦ AFA pollock,

♦ Aleutian Islands directed pollock,

♦ Rockfish Program, unless those fish are harvested under the entry level rockfish fishery as described under § 679.83.

The CMCP must be maintained on the premises and made available to authorized officers or NMFS-authorized personnel upon request.

CMCP

Catch Sorting and weighing

All groundfish delivered to the plant must be sorted and weighed by species. The CMCP must detail

Amount and location of space for sorting catch

Number of staff assigned to catch sorting

Maximum rate that catch will flow through the sorting area

Scales used for weighing groundfish.

The CMCP must identify by serial number each scale used to weigh groundfish and describe the rational for its use

Scale testing procedure

Scales identified in the CMCP must be accurate within the specified limits.

For each scale identified in the CMCP a testing plan must

Describe the procedure the plant will use to test the scale

List the test weights and equipment required to test the scale

List where the test weights and equipment are stored

Lists the plant personnel responsible for conducting the scale testing

Printed record

Request for exemption

Identification of any scale that cannot produce a complete printed record

Explain how the processor will use the scale, and

Explain how the plant intends to produce a complete record of the total weight of each delivery

Delivery point

The delivery point is the first location where fish removed from a delivering catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one location.

If the catch is pumped from the hold of a catcher vessel or a codend, the delivery point is where the pump first

discharges the catch.

If catch is removed from a vessel by brailing, the delivery point normally is the bin or belt where the brailer

discharges the catch.

Observation area.

The observation area is a location designated on the CMCP where an individual may monitor the flow of fish during a delivery.

Must be freely accessible to NMFS staff or NMFS-authorized personnel at any time a valid

CMCP is required

Must have an unobstructed view or otherwise be able to monitor the entire flow of fish between the delivery point and a location where all sorting has taken place and each species has been weighed

Observer work station

Must identify an observer work station for the exclusive use of NMFS-certified observers.

The observer area must be located near the observer work station.

The plant liaison must be able to walk between the work station and the observation area in less than 20 seconds

without encountering safety hazards.

The work station must meet the following criteria

Be located in an area protected from the weather where the observer has access to unsorted catch

Provide a platform scale of at least 50 kg capacity

Include a workspace

at least 4.5 sq m

a table

a secure and lockable cabinet or locker of at least 0.5 cu m.

Communication with observer

Each CMCP must describe what communication equipment (such as radios, pagers or cellular telephones) is used to facilitate communications within the plant and provide the NMFS-certified observer with the same communications equipment used by plant staff.

Plant liaison

Each CMCP must designate a plant liaison responsible for

Orienting new observers to the plant

Assisting in the resolution of observer concerns

Informing NMFS if changes must be made to the CMCP

Scale drawing of inshore processor plant

Each CMCP must be accompanied by a scale drawing of the plant showing

Delivery point

Observation area

Observer work station

Location of each scale used to weigh catch

Each location where catch is sorted

CMCP, Respondent
Number of respondents 8 AFA 5 GOA Rockfish Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours Time per response = 40 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost ($9.75) Photocopy 0.05 x 15 pp x 13	13 13 520 hr $13,000 $10

CMCP, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Time per response = 5 hr Total personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	13 65 hr $1,625 0

b. CMCP Addendum

An owner or manager of a shoreside processor or SFP must notify NMFS in writing if changes are made in plant operations or layout that does not conform to the CMCP. An owner or manager may change an approved CMCP by submitting a CMCP addendum to NMFS. NMFS will approve the modified CMCP if it continues to meet the performance standards.

CMCP Addendum

Name and signature of the submitter

Address, telephone number, fax number and email address (if available) of submitter

Complete description of the proposed CMCP change

CMCP Addendum, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 1 Total burden hours Time per response = 8 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost Photocopy 0.05 x 10 pp x 4 = 2	4 4 32 hr $800 $2

CMCP Addendum, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Time per response = 1 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	4 4 $100 0

c. Inspection Request, CMCP

The owner or manager may arrange for a CMCP inspection by submitting to NMFS a request for a CMCP inspection. No form exists for the CMCP inspection request; the request is made by telephone or e-mail. NMFS will annually approve a CMCP if it meets all the performance standards and requirements. The processor must be inspected by NMFS prior to approval of the CMCP to ensure that the processor conforms to the elements addressed in the CMCP. NMFS will complete its review of the CMCP within 14 working days of receiving a complete CMCP and conducting a CMCP inspection. This inspection request is usually done by telephone or email.

Inspection Request, CMCP

Name and signature of the submitter

Date of the application

Address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if available) of submitter

Proposed CMCP

Inspection Request, CMCP, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Frequency of response = 1 Total burden hours (1.04) Time per response (5min/60 min = 0.08) Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost (0.65) Photocopy 0.05 x 1 pp x 13	13 13 1 hr $25 $1
Inspection Request, CMCP, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Time per response = 4 hr Total personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost		13 52 hr $1,300 0

d. Shoreside processor or SFP inseason scale tests

Scales in shoreside processors plants and SFPs are under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska Division of Measurement Standards. The State of Alaska requires that fish be weighed on a scale approved under Alaska statutes, because the buying and selling of fish is commerce. The State of Alaska determines what constitutes an approved scale, how often the scale has to be tested, what tests must be conducted, and what performance requirements shoreside processors and SFPs must meet. These performance requirements are significantly more restrictive -- maximum permissible errors -- and operate in a less hostile environment than those scales used at sea. The environment in which the weighing occurs is different from at-sea, and, therefore, the design of the land-based versus at-sea scales is different. Once calibrated and sealed, land-based scales are expected to hold their calibration over an extended period.

Scales identified in an approved CMCP must be tested in accordance with the CMCP when testing is requested by NMFS-staff or NMFS- authorized personnel. NMFS must provide plant personnel no less than 20 minutes notice that a scale is to be tested. No form exists for this notice. This notice consists of NMFS staff or NMFS-authorized personnel verbally informing the plant personnel that a scale test is scheduled.

NMFS or NMFS-authorized personnel will test the scales and will approve or pass an inseason test of a shoreside processor or SFP scale by verifying that:

♦ The scale display and printed information are clear and easily read under all conditions of normal operation.

♦ Weight values are visible on the display until the value is printed.

♦ Finally, the scale does not exceed the maximum permissible errors.

There is no respondent burden for these tests.

e. Printed record from the State of Alaska scale

A scale identified in a CMCP must produce a printed record for each delivery, or portion of a delivery, weighed on that scale. All of the groundfish in a delivery must be weighed on a scale capable of producing a complete printed record. Printouts must be retained and made available to NMFS-authorized personnel including observers.

If approved by NMFS as part of the CMCP, scales not designed for automatic bulk weighing may be exempted from part or all of the printed record requirements.

Printed output from the State of Alaska scale

Processor name

Weight of each load in the weighing cycle

Total weight of fish in each delivery, or portion of the delivery that was weighed on that scale

Total cumulative weight of all fish or other material weighed on the scale since the last annual inspection

Date and time the information is printed

Name and Alaska Department of Fish and Game number of the vessel making the delivery (This information may be written on the scale printout in pen by the scale operator at the time of delivery.)

Printed output, State scale, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Frequency of response = 135 Total burden hours (35.10) Time per response (1 min/60 min= 0.02) Total personnel cost (25 x 35) Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost (13 x 35) Binders, paper = $35	13 1,755 35 hr $875 $455

Printed output, State scale, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

NMFS may exempt scales not designed for automatic bulk weighing from some or all of the printed record requirements if the CMCP identifies any scale that cannot produce a complete printed record, states how the processor will use the scale, and states how the plant intends to produce a complete record of the total weight of each delivery.

f. Notification to observer of BSAI pollock delivery

The plant manager or plant liaison must notify the observer of the offloading schedule for each delivery of BSAI pollock by an AFA catcher vessel at least 1 hour prior to offloading. No form exists for this notice. This notice consists of plant personnel verbally informing the observer that a pollock delivery is scheduled. An observer must monitor each delivery of BSAI pollock from an AFA catcher vessel and be on site the entire time the delivery is being weighed or sorted.

There are eight shoreside processors and stationary floating processors that accept deliveries of BSAI pollock.

Observer notification of pollock delivery, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 135 Total burden hours (89.99) Time per response (5 min/60 min) Total personnel cost ($25 x 86) Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	8 1,080 90 hr $2,250 0

Observer notification of pollock delivery, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

g. Notification to observer of CDQ delivery.

The plant manager or plant liaison must notify the level 2 observer of the schedule for each CDQ delivery at least 1 hour prior to offloading. No form exists for this notice. This notice consists of plant personnel verbally informing the observer that a CDQ delivery is scheduled. The observer must monitor the sorting and weighing of the entire delivery.

Observer notification of CDQ delivery, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent =135 Total burden hours Time per response (5 min/60 min) Total personnel cost ($25 x 86) Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	8 1,080 90hr $2,250 0

Observer notification of CDQ delivery, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

f. Notification to observer of Rockfish Program delivery.

The plant manager or plant liaison must notify the observer of the offloading schedule for each delivery of groundfish harvested in a Rockfish Program fishery at least 1 hour prior to offloading. No form exists for this notice. This notice consists of plant personnel verbally informing the observer that a Rockfish Program delivery is scheduled.

The observer must be available to monitor each delivery of groundfish harvested in a Rockfish Program fishery and must be available the entire time the delivery is being weighed or sorted.

There are five processors eligible to accept deliveries of GOA Rockfish.

Observer notification of Rockfish delivery, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 135 Total burden hours (56.25) Time per response (5 min/60 min) Total personnel cost ($25 x 54) Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost	5 675 56hr $1400 0

Observer notification of Rockfish delivery, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

IV. BIN MONITORING (Cameras, Monitors, and Digital Video Recording System)

Each operator must facilitate observation and monitoring of crew activities within a bin or tank by one of three options:

♦ Prohibit crew members from entering bins unless the observer is able to monitor all crew activities within the bin

♦ Install viewing ports in the bins

♦ Install video monitoring system in the bins.

Prohibit crew members from entering bins unless the observer is able to monitor all crew activities within the bin.

Vessel operators that choose the first option must ensure that crew members do not enter a fish bin when fish are in it, unless the observer has been given a chance to observe the activities of the crew inside the bin. Based on conversations with vessel owners and operators in this sector, a crew member may be required to be inside the bin to facilitate the movement of fish from the bin. Crew members would be allowed inside bins if the flow of fish has been stopped between the tank and the location where the observer collects unsorted catch, all catch has been cleared from all locations between the tank and the location where the observer collects unsorted catch, and the observer has been given notice that the vessel crew must enter the tank.

When informed by an observer that all sampling has been completed for a given haul, crew would be able to enter a tank containing fish from that haul without stopping the flow of fish or clearing catch between the tank and the observer sampling station. Vessel operators may be able to use water to facilitate the movement of fish in some fisheries. However, industry has indicated that water may degrade the quality of some fish species (e.g., AI POP), which could decrease the value of these fish. Therefore, options were developed to allow an observer to see inside the bin while fish are exiting the bin, and ensure that presorting activities are not occurring.

Install viewing ports in the bins.

Vessel operators that choose the second option would be required to provide a viewing window into the bin. The observer must be able to see all actions of the crew member inside the bin from the same position they are conducting their normal sampling duties. For example, while the observer is sorting catch at the observer sample station table, crew member activities inside the bin must be viewable by the observer through the window from the sample station table. This option would be acceptable for vessels that may not need a crew member in the bin frequently or have uniformly shaped bins and an observer sampling station in close proximity to the bin area.

Install video monitoring system in the bins.

Vessel operators that choose the third option would be required to develop and install a digital video monitoring system. The system would include a sufficient number of cameras to view all activities of anyone inside the bin. Video cameras would be required to record images in color and in low light conditions. To ensure that an observer can monitor crew member activities in the bin while sampling, a color monitor would be required to be located in the observer sampling station. An observer would be given the opportunity to review any video data at any time during a trip. Each video system would be required to provide enough storage capacity to store all video data for an entire trip. Because NMFS may not be aware of potential presorting violations until after an observer disembarks the vessel and is debriefed, the vessel must retain all data for a minimum of 120 days from the beginning of each trip, unless notified by NMFS that the data may be removed. Specific requirements for cameras, resolution, recording formats, and other technical information is detailed in the regulatory text under § 679.28(i)(1)(iii).

If at any time during a trip, the viewing port or video options do not allow an observer to monitor crew activities within the fish bin or do not meet the required specifications, the vessel must revert to the first option and prohibit crew from entering the bin. The use of options two and three would be approved by NMFS during the vessel’s annual bin monitoring inspection as described at § 679.28(d).

If the video monitoring option is chosen, the processor would be required to provide and maintain cameras, a monitor, and a digital video recording system for all areas of the bin or tank where crew could be located preceding the point where the observer collects catch.

A number of electronic monitoring technologies are now being applied to fisheries monitoring. Video technology is proposed as a potential way to:

♦ Supplement existing observer coverage

♦ Enhance the value of the data NMFS receives

♦ Fill data gaps that have proven difficult to fill with human observers.

a. Electronic Bin Monitoring System (ADJUSTED to reflect lower remaining capital costs)

Software And Hardware

The vessel owner or operator must ensure that the electronic monitoring system

♦ Has sufficient data storage capacity to store all video data from an entire trip. Each frame of stored video data must record a time/date stamp in Alaska local time. At a minimum, all periods of time when fish are inside the bin must be recorded and stored.

♦ Includes at least one external Universal Serial Bus (USB) (1.1 or 2.0) port (hard drive) or other removable storage device approved by NMFS. An USB is a way of setting up communication between a computer and peripheral devices.

♦ Uses commercially available software.

♦ Color cameras must have at a minimum 420 TV lines of resolution, a lux rating of 0.1, and auto-iris capabilities.

♦ Video data must be maintained and made available to NMFS staff, or any individual authorized by NMFS, upon request. These data must be retained onboard the vessel for no less than 120 days after the beginning of a trip unless NMFS has notified the vessel operator that the video data may be retained for less than this 120-day period.

♦ Provides sufficient resolution and field of view to see and read a text sample written in 130 point type (corresponding to line two of a standard Snellen eye chart) from any location within the tank where crew could be located;

♦ Records at a speed of no less than 5 frames per second at all times when fish are inside the tank;

♦ Provides a 16-bit or better color monitor, for viewing activities within the tank in real time within the observer sampling station. The monitor must:

▪ Have the capacity to display all cameras simultaneously;

▪ Be operating at all times when fish are in the tank;

▪ Be securely mounted at or near eye level;

♦ Enables the observer to view any earlier footage from any point in the trip and be assisted by crew knowledgeable in the operation of the system.

Specifications of the System

At a minimum, must include:

Length and width (in pixels) of each image

File type in which the data are recorded

Type and extent of compression

Frame rate at which the data will be recorded

Brand and model number of the cameras used

Brand, model, and specifications of the lenses used

Size and type of storage device

Type, speed, and operating system of any computer that is part of the system

Miscellaneous Costs

Assuming that vessels choose to purchase redundant storage capacity, and that Universal Serial Bus (USB) compatible hard drives cost approximately $1.00 per GB, NMFS estimates that storage will cost between $400 and $3,000, for an average cost of $1,700. Maintenance costs are difficult to estimate because much of this technology has not been extensively used at sea by the U.S. fleet. However, a hard disk failure rate is estimated at 20 percent per year, and a DVR/computer lifespan of three years, or between $680 and $4,100 per year.

Electronic Bin Monitoring System, Respondent

Number of respondents 17 AFA trawl catcher/processors 3 AFA motherships 1 non-AFA trawl catcher/processor Total annual responses Responses per respondent = 12 (1/month) Total burden hours Time per response = 1 hr Total personnel cost Personnel cost = $25/hr Total miscellaneous cost Data storage ($400 to $3,000 = av. $1,700) Annual system maintenance ($680 to $4,100= avg $2,390) $1,700 + $2,390 = 4,090 *21

21 252 252 hr $6,300 $85,890

Electronic Bin Monitoring System, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous cost	0 0 0 0

b. Inspection Request, Bin Monitoring

The owner may arrange the time and place for an inspection of the electronic bin monitoring by submitting to NMFS by fax (206) 526-4066 or e-mail [email protected] an Inspection Request available. The electronic bin monitoring inspection request form is also found on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Inspections will be scheduled no later than 10 working days after NMFS receives a complete application for an inspection. Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks in Alaska at Dutch Harbor and Kodiak and in the Puget Sound area of Washington State.

Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) Inspection Report

An Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) Inspection Report, valid for 12 months from the date it is signed by NMFS, will be issued to the vessel owner if the electronic monitoring system meets the requirements. The EMS Inspection Report must be made available to the observer, NMFS personnel, or to any authorized officer upon request. The vessel owner must maintain a current EMS Inspection Report onboard the vessel at all times the vessel is required to provide an approved electronic monitoring system.

Scale Inspection Report and Scale Inspection Sticker

A Scale Inspection Report and a Scale Inspection Sticker, valid for 12 months, will be issued to the vessel owner or operator if the bin monitoring system meets the requirements under the line of sight option described in §679.28(i)(1)(ii) or the video option described in §679.28 (i)(1)(iii). The vessel owner must maintain a current Scale Inspection Report and a Scale Inspection Sticker onboard the vessel at all times the vessel is required to provide an approved bin monitoring inspection.

Request for Inspection, Bin Monitoring, Video Option

Vessel name and Federal fisheries permit number

Requested inspection date

Business mailing address

Printed name and signature of contact person on vessel

Today’s date

Telephone number and fax number for contact person

Location of vessel, including street address and city

If vessel previously received an electronic monitoring system inspection,

enter the date of the most recent inspection report

Indicate bin monitoring option

Attachment

Include a diagram drawn to scale showing the locations

where all catch will be weighed and sorted by the observer

Where unsorted catch will be collected

Where any video equipment or viewing panels or ports

Inspection Request, Electronic Bin Monitoring System, Respondent
Number of respondents Total annual responses Responses per year = 1 Total burden hours Estimated time per response = 2 hr Total personnel cost Cost per hour = $25 Total miscellaneous cost (2.10) Photocopy (0.05*21) Email submittal (0.05*21)	21 21 42 $1,050 $2

Inspection request, Electronic Bin Monitoring System, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (2.31) Time per response = 0.11 hr x 21 Total personnel cost Cost per hour = $25 Total miscellaneous cost	21 2 $50 0

It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to

support publicly disseminated information. NOAA Fisheries 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 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.

The scale type evaluation package is not available electronically. Because of the complexity of this process, we prefer that an applicant directly contact the program manager so that he can work with them personally on completing the package.

The notification form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region website (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/) as a fillable form. The inspection request for at-sea scales is available online and as a fillable form. The inspection request for the observer sampling station and the inspection request for electronic monitoring are available as fillable forms.

The required printed output format is programmed into each scale. Complying with NMFS’ requirements is either automatic when the scale operator changes memories or requires only invoking the “print” command on the scale display.

The daily flow scale test form is available as a Microsoft Excel template that can be installed on the vessel’s computer if the operator wishes to do so. The daily flow scale and daily hopper scale test forms also are available as “fillable” forms on the web page indicated above.

The CMCP and CMP are large documents with various sizes of pages which are not suitable for automated submittal. These documents would be mailed or delivered.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.

None of the information collected as part of this information collection duplicates other collections. This information collection is part of a specialized and technical program that is not like any other.

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

This action would directly regulate the activities of 33 vessels active in the longline catcher/processor subsector fishing for a smaller number of separate entities. Although up to 37 LLP licenses comprise the longline catcher/processor subsector, based on current trends of consolidation among vessel owners, NMFS anticipates that it is likely that 33 or fewer vessels will be active in the longline catcher/processor sector. NMFS does not currently have data to precisely track ownership patterns in North Pacific fisheries. NMFS has reviewed vessel ownership, as recorded on the website of the FLCC. On the basis of this information, NMFS estimates that the vessels are currently owned by no more than 13 separate for-profit entities.

For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS estimates that all of the directly regulated entities are large entities. In 2010, the most recent year for which the necessary gross revenues information is available, 17 of 36 active vessels had less than $4 million in gross revenues from fishing for Pacific cod. Although, the vessels target Pacific cod predominately and most of their revenues are from this source, some obtain revenues from other fisheries or fishery support activities, such as tendering or processing salmon in the summer.

Even though small numbers of directly regulated vessels and entities may be described as small with respect to their own gross revenues, when affiliations among entities are considered, as required under the RFA, there are no small entities in this fishery. The directly regulated vessels in this fleet have formed a fisheries cooperative that effectively allocates to each vessel a share of the Pacific cod TAC and of the available halibut PSC. These vessel-specific individual quotas are enforced under a private contract among the entities. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the directly regulated entities are all affiliated, with all the entities that would otherwise be characterized as small, having affiliations with larger entities. Thus, there are no directly regulated small entities under this action.

For the existing entities before this revision, there are also no small entities: 32 large AFA, 0 small; 7 large Rockfish, 0 small; 3 large CR crab, 0 small.

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

This collection-of-information describes performance, technical, operational, maintenance, and testing requirement for motion-compensated scales that are required by NMFS to weigh catch at sea.

Without the inspection request forms, NMFS would be unable to coordinate and schedule inspections expeditiously. The video option for crew monitoring in the tank or bin is one of three options to satisfy the regulatory requirement; it is the NMFS-preferred option. Without the requirements to monitor crew, the Program’s ability to control halibut PSC would be decreased.

Without the daily scale test results and the printed output from the scale, NMFS would be unable to effectively audit catch in fisheries requiring use of scales. Without the daily scale testing and printed output frequency, NMFS would not be as confident of the accuracy of the scales. Given that scales are used only in fisheries where there are expectations of highly accurate catch monitoring, this would not be acceptable.

The electronic monitoring system is necessary to satisfy the requirements. Without the requirements for electronic monitoring, the Program would be in jeopardy.

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

No special circumstances are associated with this information collection.

8. Provide information on the 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.

The Final Rule (RIN 0648-BB67) published on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59053). There were no comments on the proposed rule that affected the information collection requirements.

NMFS received 5 letters of comment containing 13 distinct comments on the proposed rule. A summary of the relevant comments and NMFS’ responses, follows. No changes were made to the proposed rule as a result of these comments.

Comments focused on different aspects of the complexity of the job when one observer with a scale is chosen and the availability of observers when the “two observer” option is chosen. NMFS explained the expected complexity is one reason for requiring lead level 2 observers. They also noted that a funding and availability component of the rule will allow for better planning for observer coverage, and that the restructured observer program will provide the most new opportunities for observers to acquire lead level 2 certification. In addition, through this action NMFS reduced the number of sampled sets required for lead level 2 certification by half (thus also addressing another comment that the original set estimate was flawed).

Complete comments and responses for this collection are on pages 7 through 20 in the attached published final rule.

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

No payment or gift will be provided under this program.

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, the information collected under Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended in 2006, is confidential under section 402(b). The information is also confidential under NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, which sets forth procedures to protect confidentiality of fishery statistics.

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.

Estimated total unique respondents: 94 (2 scale manufacturers, 46 at-sea processors, 13 inshore processors, 33 freezer longline processors) increased from 61. Estimated total responses: 38,221, increased from 23,650. Estimated total time burden: 11,259 hours, up from 6,548 hours. Estimated total personnel cost: $281,225, up from $163,450. Personnel labor costs are estimated to the average wage equivalent to a GS-7 employee in Alaska, including COLA,

at $25 per hour.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in Question 12 above).

Total operational and maintenance costs: $650,353, up from $113,664.

Total annualized capital costs: $4,290,927, plus $800 remaining from capital costs incurred in 2011, for a total of $4,291,727.

Total annualized costs: $4,942,080.

Capital costs are costs incurred by longline gear catcher/processors for a flow scale, observer sampling station, and video monitoring system to be used in the production of product -- in other words, the total cost needed to bring a project to a commercially operable status. Capital costs are fixed and are therefore independent of the level of output. Unlike operating costs, capital costs are one-time expenses, although payment may be spread out over several years for financial purposes and for three years for PRA purposes.

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

Estimated total responses: 362, up from 178. Estimated total time burden: 509 hr, up from 482. Estimated total personnel cost: $12,725, up from $12,050. Total annualized capital costs: $152,000. Total annualized costs: $.

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

We are adding a new program for catcher/processors using longline gear.

Program changes, resulting in an increase of 33 respondents, 14,571 responses, 4,711 hours, $536,692 in miscellaneous costs and $4,290,927 in capital costs:

NMFS-approved longline flow scales is added

an increase of 33 respondents, 33 instead of 0

an increase of $273,900 miscellaneous costs, $273,900 instead of $0

an increase of $3,878,050 capital costs, $3,878,050 instead of $0

Notification of Pacific cod monitoring option is added

an increase of 33 respondents and responses, 33 instead of 0

an increase of 17 hours burden, 17 instead of 0

an increase of $425 personnel costs, $425 instead of $0

an increase of $3 miscellaneous costs, $3 instead of $0

Inspection request for at-sea scales is revised

an increase of 33 respondents and responses, 79 instead of 46

an increase of 3 hour burden, 8 instead of 5 hours

an increase of $75 personnel costs, $200 instead of $125

an increase of $3 miscellaneous costs, $13 instead of $10

Observer notification of scale tests is revised

an increase of 33 respondents, 79 instead of 46

an increase of 4,455 responses, 10,665 instead of 6,210

an increase of 170 hour burden, 356 instead of 186 hours

an increase of $4,250 personnel costs, $8,900 instead of $4,650

Records of daily flow scale tests is revised

an increase of 33 respondents, 79 instead of 46

an increase of 4,860 responses, 10,665 instead of 5,805

an increase of 3,645 hr burden, 7,999 hr instead of 4,354 hr

an increase of $91,125 personnel costs, $199,975 instead of $108,850

a decrease of $1,260 miscellaneous costs, $2,765 instead of $1,505

Printed output from at-sea scale is revised

an increase of 33 respondents, 79 instead of 46

an increase of 4,455 responses, 10,665 instead of 6,210

an increase of 54 hr burden, 178 hr instead of 124 hr

an increase of $1,350 personnel costs, $4,450 instead of $3,100

an increase of $1,155 miscellaneous costs, $2,765 instead of $1,610

Observer sampling station is revised

an increase of 33 respondents, 79 instead of 46

an increase of $39,500 miscellaneous costs, $39,500 instead of $0

an increase of $198,000 capital costs, $198,000 instead of $0

Inspection request for observer sampling station is revised

an increase of 33 respondents and responses, 79 instead of 46

an increase of 66 hours burden, 158 instead of 92 hours

an increase of $1,650 personnel costs, $3,950 instead of $2,300

an increase of $3 miscellaneous costs, $13 instead of $10

Electronic monitoring system is transferred from OMB Control No. 0648-0610 with 33 respondents and revised to reflect 54 respondents. For this collection, however, there were previously NO respondents or burden:

an increase of 54 respondents, 54 instead of 0

an increase of 648 responses, 648 instead of 0

an increase of 648 hours burden, 648 instead of 0 hours

an increase of $16,200 personnel costs, $16,200 instead of $0

an increase of $220,860 miscellaneous costs, $220,860 instead of $0

an increase of $214,877 capital costs, $214,877 instead of $0

Inspection request for electronic monitoring system is transferred from OMB Control

No. 0648-0610 with 33 respondents and revised to reflect 54 respondents. For this collection, however, there were previously NO respondents or burden:

an increase of 54 respondents and responses, 54 instead of 0

an increase of 108 hours burden, 108 instead of 0 hours

an increase of $2,700 personnel costs, $2,700 instead of $0

an increase of $5 miscellaneous costs, $5 instead of $0

This action integrates temporary OMB Control No. 0648-0610 into this collection, OMB 0648-0330. Changes were made to this inspection request by removing some questions from the form that were no longer applicable. Removal of that information does not affect the numbers for this collection.

Adjustment: For scale type evaluation, there was a one-time capital cost of $2,500 incurred in 2011. This figure has been adjusted to show a remaining $800, based on a three-year amortization.

All other information collections remain unchanged, as noted where each is described.

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

The information collected will not be published.

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-of-information does not employ statistical methods.

53