0353 Supporting Statement (BF42) 032316

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ALASKA REGION GEAR IDENTIFICATION

OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0353

This action requests revision of this collection due to an associated rule [RIN 0648-BF42].

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Region manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of Alaska, under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMPs). These FMPs are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Regulations pertaining to vessel gear markings are set forth at 50 CFR part 679 and in the annual management measures at § 300.62.

NMFS and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through regulations established under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.

The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council), under the authority of the Halibut Act (with respect to Pacific halibut) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (with respect to sablefish), manages the fixed gear Pacific halibut and sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ Program) and provides a limited access system for Pacific halibut in Convention waters in and off Alaska and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska. Regulations implementing the IFQ Program are set forth at 50 CFR part 679. Sablefish

is managed as a groundfish species under the FMP, as well as under the IFQ Program. Pacific halibut is not a FMP species.

Fishermen have proposed using longline pot gear to protect captured sablefish from whale depredation. Depredation negatively impacts the sablefish IFQ fleet through reduced catch rates and increased operating costs. Depredation negatively impacts whales through increased risk of vessel strike, gear entanglement, and altered foraging strategies. Depredation also increases sablefish mortality and the uncertainty of sablefish abundance indices.

This analysis applies to the sablefish IFQ fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The measures would:

♦ redefine legal gear to include pot longline gear, subject to a pot limit enforced by pot-identification tags,

♦ require that pot longline gear be moved or tended within a certain amount of time after being set, or removed from the fishing grounds when making a sablefish delivery,

♦ require marking of pot longline gear, and

♦ require retention of Pacific halibut if sufficient IFQ is held by fishermen to cover the halibut IFQ caught using pot longline gear.

Potential benefits of pot longline gear for sablefish fishing include: mitigation of whale interaction with fishing gear, reduced mortality of seabirds, reduced bycatch of non-target fish species, reduced overall halibut mortality when targeting sablefish, and better accounting of total sablefish fishing mortality.

The potential economic and social costs of allowing pot longline gear in areas where hook-and-line gear is also used include: the capital cost of purchasing pot longline gear and/or retrofitting a vessel, increased preemption of fishing grounds, gear conflict potentially resulting in gear damage or loss, and competitive imbalance between users of different gear types.

Using longline pots versus single pots will maximize fishing efficiency and ex-vessel value of the fishery. Single pots are heavy and their deployment results in lost gear and resultant ghost fishing. Handling of lighter pot longline gear enhances crew safety, particularly on smaller vessels. Pot longline strings, reportedly worth $10,000 to $12,000 each, can be parted and rejoined if they become wrapped up with other gear. However, use of single pots creates more gear conflict from increased number of anchor lines and buoys, and could result in increased whale interactions with the gear, some of which are protected under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Fishermen who voluntarily adopt the use of pot longline gear will face some additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The owners of vessels on which pot longline gear is used must register to receive pot tags and must submit an affidavit in order to receive a replacement for lost tags. Skippers on pot longline vessels will be required to use logbooks (see OMB Control No. 0648-0213) and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) (see OMB Control No. 0648-0445), and must also submit a Prior Notice of Landing (PNOL) (see OMB Control No. 0648-0272).

JUSTIFICATION

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

Whales are able to strip hooked fish from hook-and-line gear, which reduces the amount of sablefish caught by fishermen. As such, whale depredation represents undocumented fishing mortality. The additional sablefish mortality could actually be higher than the specified quota, resulting in unrecorded harvests. Attempts to deter whales from preying on fish caught on hook-and-line gear by various non-lethal means have proven unsuccessful. This action will minimize potential IFQ sablefish fishery interactions with whales and seabirds in the GOA by allowing fishermen to choose to use longline pot gear.

Many seabird species are attracted to fishing vessels in order to forage on bait, offal, discards, and other prey made available by fishing operations. These interactions can result in direct mortality for seabirds if they become entangled in fishing gear or strike the vessel or fishing gear while flying. Interactions with hook-and-line fisheries are of particular concern, as seabirds are attracted to sinking baited hooks and can become hooked and drowned. Use of longline pot gear is expected to reduce gear interaction with seabirds and decrease the likelihood of incidental takes of seabirds.

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.

This action provides a voluntary opportunity for GOA sablefish IFQ fishermen to use a gear that physically protects caught sablefish from depredation by whales. That option, the use of pot longline gear, currently exists in sablefish IFQ fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management areas. The action does not require the use of pot longline gear; fishermen would be permitted to continue harvesting their sablefish IFQ with the hook-and-line gear that is currently used in the fishery.

This action will specify authorized use of longline pot gear in any or all GOA areas: western GOA (WGOA), Central GOA (CGOA), West Yakutat (WY), or Southeast Outside (SEO). In addition,

♦ a limit will be placed on the duration of time that longline pot gear could fish IFQ sablefish and IFQ halibut in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA before the gear must be retrieved and moved.

♦ a limit will be placed on the maximum number of pots a vessel could use in a longline pot gear configuration to fish IFQ sablefish and IFQ halibut in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA.

NMFS will add the following gear retrieval requirements

♦ In the CGOA IFQ regulatory area and WY district of the EGOA IFQ regulatory area, all longline pot gear that is registered to a vessel and deployed must be retrieved and moved within five days of when the vessel deployed the gear.

♦ In the WGOA IFQ regulatory area, all longline pot gear that is registered to a vessel and deployed must be retrieved and moved with seven days of when the vessel deployed the gear.

♦ In the SEO, gear cannot be left on the fishing grounds when the vessel to which the pots are registered leaves the grounds to make a delivery.

♦ All sablefish pots set in GOA must be removed prior to the end of the season and cannot be set before the beginning of the season.

Each vessel must use mandatory logbooks (see OMB Control No. 0648-0213) when participating in a longline pot fishery. The logbooks help to determine whether vessels move their gear every four or seven days. When the number of pots deployed by a vessel is self-reported through logbooks, the use of pot tags provides an additional enforcement tool to ensure that the pot limits are not exceeded. The use of pot tags requires a uniquely identified tag to be securely affixed to each pot, and a logbook on every vessel. This allows at-sea enforcement and post-trip verification of the number of pots fished.

Fishermen who voluntarily adopt the use of pot longline gear will face some additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. NMFS anticipates additional costs will be incurred for the GOA longline pot fishery to cover the purchase of pot tags. NMFS will levy their costs for the GOA longline pot fishery through IFQ cost recovery fees on all landings of IFQ sablefish and IFQ halibut (see OMB Control No. 0648-0711).

In order to benefit from the option to use pot longline gear and external benefits through the use of pot gear, individual vessel owners will have to make substantial capital investments in new gear and vessel reconfiguration.

The Council provided several anecdotal estimates of the cost for new pot longline gear. The Council did not provide a single consensus price, partly due to the fact that line configurations (spacing, length of groundline) vary by vessel. The estimated price for a mile of pot longline gear (shackles, skates of groundline with pots attached to ganglia at intervals, and other pieces of hardware that are set in the water) ranged from $6,000 per mile to $12,500 per mile. An individual might pay more or less per mile depending on how many pots are set on a given length of groundline, among other factors. These cost estimates do not include expenditures to upgrade hydraulics or line haulers, which are likely necessary for operations switching from light-weight hook-and-line gear to heavier pot gear.

Other additional gear could include an overhead hoist for lifting pots, buoys, flagpoles, heavier line anchors, and line reels (coiling pot groundline on deck might not be feasible on smaller vessel, given the line’s substantially greater diameter relative to hook-and-line groundline). Vessel modifications, such as a cut-out stern for pot launching, could cost upwards of $50,000. Vessels switching from hook-and-line gear may also incur costs in the removal and storage of hook-and-line gear. Noting the small amount of single pot gear currently deployed in some GOA areas, it is reasonable to assume that many participants would be in the market for new (unused) pot gear.

By comparison, the Council estimated that a string of hook-and-line longline gear (150 skates of auto-line gear with swivels, plus anchors, buoys, and flag poles) would cost around $100,000 new ($666.67/skate). While gear configuration varies, the Council provided one estimate of length per hook-and-line longline set at three miles, and 30 skates per set (10 skates/mile). Again noting the rough nature of the estimate, a new hook-and-line longline set-up would cost around $7,000 per mile. Participants anecdotally reported that hook-and-line set-ups for hand baited gear are likely to be shorter in length, which would affect the per-mile cost estimate.

The Council is seeking a method that would provide continued, equitable fishing opportunities for harvesters who do not choose to switch to pot longline gear, minimizing the likelihood and severity of excessive grounds preemption, gear conflict, and consolidation in the GOA sablefish IFQ fleet.

NMFS notes that recent revisions to the IFQ Program database for eLandings updates and implementation of the Guided Angler Fish Program in 2013 increased agency programmer and contractor costs by approximately $25,000 relative to 2012. NMFS anticipates it would incur the same level of costs, at a minimum, to implement a pot tag program that does not authorize in-season transfers. There are additional costs for creating and distributing pot tags. It is difficult to estimate these costs because there are costs that are fixed (i.e., costs simply to design and produce pot tags) and costs that are affected by the number of vessel owners requesting pot tags (e.g., producing 1,000 pot tags vs. 10,000 pot tags). The number of pot tags required could vary substantially based on interest in the use of pot longline gear. Implementation of a pot tag program that allows in-season transfers would result in higher costs to revise the database as well as increased Restricted Access Management staff costs to provide user support. A more precise estimate of the total potential costs of implementing a pot tag program is not available at this time, given these factors.

a. Request for IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags [NEW}

A vessel owner must apply to NMFS annually to purchase, register to a specified vessel, and be sent the number of pot tags requested by sablefish IFQ regulatory area or district within a regulatory area.

NMFS will require the owner of a vessel who wants to use longline pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA to request pot tags by completing this form. The form will require the vessel owner to assign the requested pot tags to a vessel licensed by the State of Alaska. The vessel’s length overall (LOA), as recorded on the vessel’s U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Certificate of Documentation, must be consistent with the length category specified on the IFQ permits used by persons harvesting IFQ on board the vessel.

NMFS will register the pot tags to the vessel owner including

♦ number of pot tags requested by IFQ regulatory area or district within a regulatory area

(up to the maximum number of pots specified)

♦ unique serial number imprinted on each pot tag

♦ pot tag color unique to the IFQ regulatory area

Reported acquisition costs range between 60 cents and $1.25 per tag. The cost to fishermen is typically $1.50 to $2.00 per tag (estimate 1.75). The margin covers shipping costs, some administration, and the cost of overstock tags that are not issued due to lower than expected fishery registration.

A valid pot tag will be inscribed with a legible serial number and color coded according to the IFQ regulatory area to which the tagged pot is registered and where the longline pot gear will be fished. A pot tag color coded to the regulatory area fished with the pot must be fastened to the pot bridge or cross member such that the entire tag is visible and not obstructed by the pot structure or another pot tag for a different regulatory area.

The vessel owner is required to have tags for each pot and may request a specific number of pot tags. The maximum number of annual pot tags issued to a vessel owner will be equal to the pot limit established for the use of pot longline gear in the GOA Sablefish IFQ fishery:

Limit of 120 pots per vessel in WY and SEO.

Limit of 300 pots per vessel in WGOA and CGOA.

A completed application may be submitted to NMFS:

By mail: NMFS, Alaska Region

Restricted Access Management (RAM)

PO BOX 21668

Juneau, AK 99802

By fax: (907)586-7354

By delivery: U.S. Federal Building

NOAA, NMFS Alaska Region (RAM)

709 W. 9th Street, Room 713

Juneau, AK 99801

NMFS will not authorize transfers of pot tags during the fishing year.

Request for IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags

Block A – Vessel Owner Information

Name

NMFS ID

Business Mailing Address Indicate if permanent or temporary

Business Telephone No., Business Fax No., Business E-Mail Address

Block B -- Vessel Identification

Identify the vessel to which tags will be assigned and the number of tags requested by area

Vessel Name:

USCG Official Number

ADF&G Registration Number

Number of Sablefish Pot Gear Tags Requested by Area:

Block C – Vessel Owner Signature

Enter printed name and signature of Vessel Owner Name and Date Signed

Request for Pot Tags, Respondent
Number of respondents Frequency of response = 1 Total annual responses Total burden hours (1) Time per response = 15 minutes Total personnel cost ($37 x 1 hr) Total miscellaneous costs $1.75/tag x 120 pots x 2 = 420 $1.75/tag x 300 pots x 2 = 1050	4 4 1 hr $37 $1,470

Request for Pot Tags, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (15 min x 4) Total personnel cost ($37 x 4) Total miscellaneous costs	4 1 hr $148 0

b. Request for Replacement of IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags or Lost Gear Affidavit [NEW]

Tags can be lost even if the gear is retrieved. Tags might be lost due to normal wear, tight gear stacking on small vessels, or the need to cut lines on tangled gear. Fishermen who realize a lost tag while at sea would radio the enforcement agency to notify them that they will be landing a pot without a tag, thus, avoiding a citation or the seizure of an untagged pot.

Replacement tags are issued at the normal cost after a permit holder submits a lost gear affidavit. Sometimes tender vessels are used to deliver replacement tags to vessels that are still on the fishing grounds. An affidavit will typically include information on the cause of the loss, and the last known latitude and longitude of the gear if the pot was lost as well. In addition to pot limit enforcement, this form provides an opportunity to enhance the tracking of lost fishing gear. Issuing replacement tags requires some level of trust that the tag was actually lost, but in the long run an individual who was using more tagged pots than the limit allows would be detected during a dockside inspection. ADF&G managers noted that some fishermen do not bother to seek a replacement tag, instead fishing with one less pot. Issuing pot tags on a multi-year basis would increase the disadvantage of fishing less gear, thus, increasing the incentive to seek replacements and also improving the department’s information about the location of lost gear

To replace a longline pot tag that is lost, stolen, or mutilated, the vessel owner to whom the pot tag was registered must submit this form.

A complete form must be signed by the vessel owner and is a sworn affidavit to the Regional Administrator indicating the reason for the request for a replacement pot tag or pot tags and the number of replacement pot tags requested by IFQ regulatory area. A request to replace a pot tag or tags will be reviewed by the Regional Administrator, and NMFS will issue the appropriate number of replacement pot tags, if any, based on

♦ maximum number of pot tags that can be issued for an IFQ regulatory area and

♦ number of pot tags issued to the vessel owner for the specified IFQ regulatory area that

have not been replaced.

Block A – Vessel Owner Information

Vessel Owner Name

NMFS ID

Business Mailing Address

Business Telephone No

Business Fax No

Business E-Mail Address

Block B -- Vessel Identification

Identify the vessel to which pot tags identified in Block C are registered.

Vessel Name

USCG Official Number

ADF&G Registration Number

Block C – Identification of Lost, Stolen, Mutilated Pot Tags

Identify pot tags to be replaced by area and serial number

Indicate the reason for the request for replacement

List serial numbers for pot tags to be replaced by area

Indicate reason for replacement pot tag

Number of replacement longline pot tags requested by area

Block D – Vessel Owner Signature

Vessel Owner printed name, signature, and Date Signed

Replacement of Pot Tags, Respondent
Number of respondents Frequency of response = when necessary = 1 Total annual responses Total burden hours (0.5) Time per response = 15 minutes Total personnel cost ($37.hr x 1) Total miscellaneous costs	2 2 1 hr $37 0

Replacement of Pot Tags, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours (15 x 2 = 0.5) Total personnel cost ($37/hr x 1) Total miscellaneous costs	2 1 hr $37 0

c. Marking of longline pot gear [NEW]

Regulations that marker buoys be marked with identification information are essential to facilitate fisheries enforcement and actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to enforcement of regulations.

Fishermen noted the use of “buoy clusters” and/or “trailing buoys” in other fisheries as a method to keep surface gear from being submerged during strong tides. Buoy clusters add buoyancy to surface gear by putting additional buoys on the main anchor line. Using additional buoys would have a direct monetary cost and would also require more deck space. The benefit of additional buoyancy is the reduced likelihood that important and expensive electronic equipment would be lost while unattended at sea. A trailing buoy is an additional buoy attached to the main anchor buoy by a separate line. If the anchor buoy is submerged, the trailing buoy could remain at the surface unless forces add tension to and submerge this additional length of line. For the purpose of this action, gear marking electronics could be attached to a trailing buoy.

NMFS will require both ends of a sablefish longline pot gear set deployed in the GOA to be marked (marking at both ends of a set and use of technology helps the fleet track the location of gear on the fishing grounds) with:

♦ an attached flagpole and radar reflector, and

♦ be marked by a 4-buoy cluster, including one hard buoy ball marked with “PL”

(pot longline) marking on one buoy

♦ include ADF&G number or Federal fisheries permit number on each buoy

Pot tags must be attached to the vessel’s pots before leaving port. A tagged pot registered to a vessel using longline pot gear must be returned to shore before the tag is removed from the pot.

Markings shall be in characters at least 4 inches (10.16 cm) in height and 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) in width in a contrasting color visible above the water line and shall be maintained so the markings are clearly visible. In addition, all buoys used at the beginning and end positions of a longline pot set in any or all of the regulatory areas of the GOA shall be marked with the initials “LP” before the vessel's Federal fisheries permit number or ADF&G vessel registration number.

Marking of hook-and-line, longline pot, and pot-and-line gear

Vessel FFP number or

Vessel’s ADF&G vessel registration number and

LP

Lgl Pot Marker buoys, Respondent
Number of respondents Frequency of response = 1 Total annual responses Total burden hours Time per response = 15 minutes Total personnel cost ($37 x 1) Total miscellaneous costs ($10 x 4) Miscellaneous supplies (paint and paintbrush)	4 4 1 hr $37 $40

Lgl Pot Marker buoys, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous costs	0 0 0 0

d. Groundfish Hook-and-line marker buoys [Formerly called hook-and-line marker identification; Corrected calculation of burden; UNCHANGED]

Most fishermen properly identify marker buoys and are not adversely affected by this requirement. In addition to Federal gear-marking requirements at 50 CFR § 679.24, ADF&G regulations (5 AAC 28.050) require fishermen to mark crab and groundfish pots with the ADF&G vessel registration number of the vessel operating the gear. Since many Pacific cod fishermen already participate in State groundfish and crab fisheries, they already are complying with this requirement. Marking of buoys reduces the costs to OLE and USCG enforcement efforts and allows for more effective enforcement of gear rules.

Markings must be in characters at least 4 inches (10.16 cm) in height and 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) in width in a contrasting color visible above the water line. The vessel must be maintained so the markings are clearly visible.

Fishermen incur the costs of marking their own marker buoys; the cost to fishermen is minimal. Materials needed are paint and paintbrush, or permanent ink applicator, and possibly a stencil. Assuming the buoy needs to be repainted every year, the operator of each vessel will need approximately 10 minutes to paint each buoy with either the FFP number or the ADF&G vessel registration number.

Marker buoys identification

Vessel FFP number, or

Vessel’s ADF&G vessel registration number

Marker buoys identification, Respondent
Number of respondents Frequency of response = 1 per year Total annual responses 735 vessels have 6 buoys = 4410 buoys 245 have 12 buoys = 2940 buoys Total burden hours (1837.50) Time per response = (15 min x 7350)/60) Total personnel cost (1838 x $15/hr) Total miscellaneous costs ($10 x 980) Miscellaneous supplies (paint and paintbrush)	980 7,350 1,838 hr $27,570 $9,800

Marker buoys identification, Federal Government
Total annual responses Total burden hours Total personnel cost Total miscellaneous costs	0 0 0 0

The information collected will not be disseminated to the public because the information is identification on a marker buoy and is not submitted to NMFS.

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 marking of fishing gear marker buoys does not use automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques.

The Request for IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags and the Request for Replacement of IFQ Sablefish Pot Gear Tags are available on the NMFS Alaska region website https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries-applications. The applications are fillable adobe forms. The forms may be completed on the computer screen by the participant, downloaded, printed, and faxed or submitted by e-mail. NMFS is pursuing an Internet method in the future whereby all of the information will be entered online and submitted directly and automatically into a database.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.

No other existing collection is duplicated.

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

In 2013, 316 vessels landed IFQ sablefish in the GOA. Of those, 311 are classified as small entities and five are not. Four of the five entities in this latter group are CPs that share a known business affiliation and had combined gross revenues of more than $20.5 million. The fifth entity is a catcher vessel that is a member of a Bering Sea crab cooperative whose members had combined gross revenues of more than $20.5 million.

All but one of the regulated small entities are catcher vessels, based on 2013 data. The average gross revenue for those directly regulated small entities in 2013 was around $800,000. The highest revenue was more than $3 million, and the lowest was less than $5,000. These entities are considered to be directly regulated by the considered action because, should they choose to use pot longline gear, they will be subject to pot limits, gear specifications, and gear retrieval requirements.

Small entities who voluntarily adopt the use of pot longline gear will face some additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Any adverse impact resulting from these additional requirements, in the result of extra time spent fulfilling requirements or additional expenditures on pot tags, is expected to be small relative to total gross fishing revenue. Any additional burden from meeting requirements and the implementing regulations will be outweighed by the positive impact of reducing whale depredation. Small entities that take on additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements may very well have experienced greater adverse impacts from depredated hook-and-line gear. Moreover, adverse recordkeeping and reporting impacts can be avoided by fishermen who judge the recordkeeping and reporting impact to be excessive by choosing not to switch to pot longline gear.

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

The principal objectives include the minimization of marine mammal and seabird interaction with fishing gear, improved operating efficiency for the GOA sablefish IFQ fleet, and improved reliability in stock assessment information. Minimization of gear interaction with marine mammals and seabirds is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Fishermen have proposed using longline pot gear to protect captured sablefish from whale depredation. Depredation negatively impacts the sablefish IFQ fleet through reduced catch rates and increased operating costs. Depredation negatively impacts whales through increased risk of vessel strike, gear entanglement, and altered foraging strategies.

If the collection were not conducted or were conducted less frequently, depredation could increase sablefish mortality and result in uncertainty of sablefish abundance indices.

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

Not Applicable.

8. Provide information on the PRA Federal Register Notice that solicited public comments on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

A proposed rule (RIN 0648-BF42) will be published in the Federal Register, coincident with this notice to solicit public comments.

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

NMFS will not provide any payment or gift to respondents.

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

The identification of gear tags assigned to each vessel is confidential under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended in 2006. They are also confidential under NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, which sets forth procedures to protect confidentiality of fishery statistics. All information collected is part of a Privacy Act system of records (SORN): NOAA #19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries, published on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20914); an amended SORN was published August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47457).

The marking of fishing gear is not confidential. There is no assurance of confidentiality provided, as marking of gear occurs on an individual basis.

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.

Total estimated respondents, 984, up from 980. Total estimated responses are 7,360, up from 7,350. Total estimated time burden is 1,841, up from 1,225 hours. Total estimated personnel cost is $27,681, up from $12,250. Personnel labor costs for marking buoys are estimated at $15 per hour. Personnel labor costs for submitting paperwork are estimated at $37/hr.

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 estimated miscellaneous costs are $11,310, up from $9,800.

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

Total estimated responses are 6, up from 0. Total estimated time burden is 2 hr, up from 0 hr. Total estimated personnel cost is $185, up from $50. Personnel labor costs for submitting paperwork are estimated at $37/hr, up from $0.

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

Program changes

Request for Pot Tags [new]

an increase of 4 respondents, 4 instead of 0

an increase of 4 responses, 4 instead of 0

an increase of 1 hour, 1 hr instead of 0 hr

an increase of $ 37 personnel cost, $37 instead of $ 0

an increase of $ 1,470 miscellaneous cost, $ 1,470 instead of $ 0

Replace Pot Tags [new]

an increase of 2 respondents and responses, 2 instead of 0

an increase of 1 hour, 1 hr instead of 0 hr

an increase of $37 personnel cost, $37 instead of $ 0

Longline Pot Marker Buoys [new]

an increase of 4 respondents and responses, 4 instead of 0

an increase of 1 hour, 1 hr instead of 0 hr

an increase of $ 37 personnel cost, $ 37 instead of $ 0

an increase of $ 40 miscellaneous cost, $ 40 instead of $ 0

Adjustment

Groundfish Marker Buoys

an increase of 613 hours, 1,838 hr instead of 1,225 hr

an increase of $ 15,320 personnel cost, $ 27,570 instead of $ 12,250

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

The information collected will not be disseminated to the public because the information is identification on a marker buoy and is not submitted to NMFS.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display will be inappropriate.

Not Applicable.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.

Not Applicable.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This collection does not employ statistical methods.

17